Also being a scientist, I use metric all day. But metric is not more precise nor is it more accurate.
AND the concept that it is not more convenient because it works on a decimal system is false. It is very rare that one switches from mm to cm or anything of that nature. No basic constant , such as the gravitational constant, is a 10 or such; so you are never multiplying by ten. The metric system is based on just as arbitary of standards as the british system.
You may be interested in knowing that it was Nepolean the commisioned the developement of the metric system. Who needs something Nepolean commisioned? I refuse to call the British system the imperial system. Only a socialist would call it imperial system.
There is nothing wrong with the british system. You might also be interested in knowing that major companies still use the british system such as Boeing and Sikorsky.
Nope. The system was established in April, 1795. Napoleon was just another mid-rank army officer. He didn't come to power until 1799, becoming Emperor in 1804.
I grew up with the metric system and was taught in school about it. I have absolutely no idea about the British system.
Exactly. Ease of conversion (technically ease of switching between standard metric prefixes) says nothing about accuracy or precision or resolution.
Converting between different "metric" units is not always a factor of ten. If you measure pressure in kg/cm^2, one of those is equal to roughly 98.1 kilopascals. A standard atmosphere is 1.03 kg/cm^2 or 101.325 kilopascal.
If working on complex things, you still have to mind your units and conversion factors. The fact that there are exactly 1000 pascals in a kilopascal is trivial.
There is nothing wrong with the british system. You might also be interested in knowing that major companies still use the british system such as Boeing and Sikorsky.
Yes. Sometimes it is just more convenient. Sometimes a company's historical intellectual property is invested in systems and formulas based on standard units.