dynasty99
Senior Member
oh ya! eat it newb!
Posts: 1,461
|
Post by dynasty99 on Jan 31, 2006 18:46:37 GMT -5
Everything should be measured by its longest length.
so you could have a glass of 6 inches of water, a 1 foot of wood.
thus everyhing would be easier
|
|
|
Post by Dopefish on Jan 31, 2006 22:34:37 GMT -5
But glass A. varies to glass B. Glass A (round) may be shorter and squatter than Glass B, but glass B (tall, thin, and straight) still holds the exact same amount of liquid. Therefore, the "5 inches" of water in Glass A is still equivalent to the "7 inches" of water in Glass B.
And we already measure wood like that. Least, in this non-metric country. Though normally it comes in the yard, last I checked, which is three feet per unit.
Oh, then there's always volume. Which, hey, I know how it's determined already, but you can't say "This cube of depleted uranium's density is 10 inches!". That'd just be a disaster.
Now, I agree, maybe you could simplify things. Like, the metric system's pretty good at that, seeing as how there's not specific, almost non-related names for all the variables of a measure.
|
|
|
Post by Demoneyes14 on Feb 4, 2006 16:45:19 GMT -5
Stuff shouldn't be measured. You can see which is bigger, smaller, longer, shorter, etc with your eyes. ^^
|
|
|
Post by Dopefish on Feb 4, 2006 19:06:50 GMT -5
Actually, looks can be quite decieving. Look back to the fat glass/thin glass argument.
|
|