Quote:
Renegade 13 said:
Since we use a base-10 system, 0 and 100 are a little more logical...and easier to remember 
|
Logical? Are you kidding? Basing a number system on the (usual) number of digits on half the limbs of ONE primate on ONE lousy planet in the whole universe? What about primates with 20 prehensile digits? What about primates with a prehensile TAIL? What about who-knows-how-many inhabitants with who-knows-how-many extremities living on uncounted worlds in umpteen zillion galaxies?
No, far better to base a number system on a more universal standard, such as the number of leptons in a hydrogen molecule (2), carbon atom (6), or an oxygen molecule (16) (alternate suggestions welcome).
As for temperatures, again it seems rather silly to base a scale on phase shifts of an arbitrary chemical compound under conditions prevailing only at a particular distance from the center of a particular planet. Note that the somewhat more rational "Kelvin" or "Absolute" scale at least has a universal zero point, but that scale puts the boiling point of water (1 atm pressure) at 373.125 degrees, which is not exactly the kind of round number we're looking for.
If we must use water as a benchmark, I'd suggest setting the triple point of water (273.16 degrees Absolute and .006 kilopascals pressure) to a round number (e.g. 100 degrees Rational in base 10 or 16 notation) and working from there.
I understand how inconvenient it will be to switch to a truly rational system, but I just know we'll be the laughingstocks of the galaxy (if we're not already) should we be caught using our current provincial number and temperature scales when "they" make contact.
And for those who made it through the whole rant,
