shop-talk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois

To: Randall <tr3driver@ca.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois
From: Karl Vacek <kvacek@ameritech.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:52:34 -0800 (PST)
I agree completely, Randall.  My point was just that the bullpoop that we've
all been taught about the origins and relationships of both systems is just
plain wrong.  The feet-yards-gallons-pounds system is actually incredibly
elegant, and in fact the original metric system came from the same roots - a
couple of thousand years before the current one.  The "stupid"
feet-yards-gallons-pounds system was NOT based upon a king's foot length or
weight or hat size or whatever drivel we were taught in grammar school, at
least not originally, although I'm sure that at some time in middle ages more
than one megalomaniac king re-defined the measures for their kingdoms by those
means.  Both systems have been bastardized to some extent by "experts" in more
recent centuries, too.

But the original Megalithic systems were based upon
the dimensions, weight, and rotational speed of the earth - using a 366-degree
circle, for the 366 sunrises in every trip around the sun.  They're easily
derived without anything more than a pendulum.  And they coincide within a
part or two in a thousand with the current systems, including English and
Metric measure.  And the Megalithic system accounts for the measurements
intrinsic in the construction of most of the great ancient structures, from
Stonehenge to the Egptian as well as the North and South American pyramids.
Interesting stuff.

I'll shut up now...

Karl




> Read "Civilization One" by
Christopher Knight and Allan 
> Butler and then 
> let's talk about the
foolishness of the US and Imperial 
> measurement systems. 
> And Jefferson's
involvement.  And the relationship to the 
> metric system too.

Couldn't we
not, and just say we did ?

To me, it's all just nonsense ... the universe is
NOT Euclidean and
therefore any system of measurement in a straight line can
only be an
approximation to the truth.  Measure distance in furlongs, microns
or
light-seconds, it just doesn't matter as long as you know the conversion
factors and uncertainty.  Then apply Finagle's constant as needed until you
get the answer you want.

Randall




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>