Never in my life have I ever considered every man, woman, and child in Wyoming plus every man, woman, and child in St. Paul as a particularly useful benchmark. I’m not completely convinced it gives the average person a better impression than 750,000 people. However from now on I will use the MWCiWPMWCiSP standard of measurement so that my points will become clearer.
The bridge in Cambridge, MA that leads from the MIT campus to Boston Proper (named the Harvard bridge, strangely) is measured in smoots. One smoot is 5.58333 feet, the height of an unfortunate fraternity pledge named Oliver Smoot who was used to measure the bridge in 1958.
The bridge’s length is 364.4 smoots, plus one ear.
I think measuring lengths in numbers of football fields is about equally meaningless in some cases. I can sort of comprehend “the length of 3 footballs” but not “850,000 times the length of a football field.” There’s also “long enough to reach from here to the moon and back almost 7 times” and the whole thing about laying things end to end from here to New York.
Once at my grangmother cottage near the shore we had to measure certain areas to see what furniturre would fit in what rooms/against which walls/though which doors, we were unfortunate enough to not have any yard sticks or tape measures, or even rulers. Thus we had to measure everything in Baseball Bat Units, where one Baseball Bat Unit was equal to the legth of a certain wooden baseball bat that we found in the closet. Truly a great moment in human history :rollseyes:
TJ you hit right on one of my pet peeves with the “football field” thing. Bugs the hell out of me. And I challenge anybody to find a reference to an aircraft carrier that doesn’t mention football fields. :rolleyes:
What strikes me as even more bizarre is the “man, woman, child” breakdown. Couldn’t they just say “the equivalent of arresting the populations of Places X and Y”? Or even “every person”?
Quick, how big was an Eohippus?
(I’ll bet every single person who reads this post first thought of a particular breed of dog. Gould wrote an interesting essay about that phenomenon. I think it applies to the “football field” as a unit of areal measurement, too.
This is eerily timely. I just last night told my roommate that when I finally buy a car, i want to redo the spedometer to measure speed in cubits per fortnight. That wouldn’t be particularly practical, since a cubit is something like 45 centimeters.
But it would be cool.
And a few weeks ago, I had to measure the width of my closet (wanted to see if I could find a curtain-rod long enough to put in front of it). No tape measurer, no ruler…so I grabbed a book and measured it in book-lengths, then just eyeballed the length of the book.
In case you’re wondering, my closet is approximately 11.5 King James Bibles long.
Farads, like, the unit of capacitance? According to Wikipedia, one farad equals 1 m[sup]-2[/sup]kg[sup]-1[/sup]s[sup]4[/sup]A[sup]2[/sup]. How is that a unit of length? It seems to me to be a unit of reciprocal area times a bunch of other stuff.
Well, a farad has the dimensions of length times the dimensionality of the electric permittivity (“epsilon”). If you think of the permittivity of the vacuum as just a conversion factor (like c, G, and h-bar are often dismissed among theoretical physicists) then capacitance can be converted into units of length. In the cgs system of units (now fallen out of favor until you read Jackson) the unit of charge is chosen so that the permittivity (epsilon) is dimensionless, and so the units of capacitance and length look the same.
The length corresponding to a given capacitance doesn’t have particularly great physical relevance, however.
However from now on I will use the MWCiWPMWCiSP standard of measurement so that my points will become clearer.