> > >That does _NOT_ explain why the base unit is called the kilogram (it's
> > >the name I am objecting to, and the way that multiples/submultiples are
> > >named [1]).
> > My understanding for using the Kg rather than g is that it cuts down on the
> > number of zeros needed. Most real world things we weigh are a more Kg like
> > than g. For example, a VAX-8800 might weigh 400Kg, which is 400,000g
> > (there's a good chance of losing one of those zeros).
> Haven't been paying too much attention to the thread, but I have to chime in
> that astronomers don't use the SI (aka MKS (meters, kilograms, seconds))
> standard units, but use CGS (centimeter, gram, seconds) based units.
> Of course, astronomers always have too many zeros. It doesn't really
> matter if a parsec is 3.09x10^18 cm or 3.09x10^16 m.
Excuse me ? cm/g/s is still the SI.
> Where is does get confusing is electric charge. In CGS, the charge of
> an electron is 4.8x10^-10 electrostatic units (e.s.u.). An e.s.u. is
> one g^(1/2) cm^(3/2) s^(-1).
Still the same, since we are talking derivated units.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
Received on Mon Apr 22 2002 - 04:36:53 BST