OSHA: definitely bent in the straight places

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > OSHA: definitely bent in the straight places

«‹›1456 »

itskage: Aug 26, 2003

Say Nothing posted:

Keep watching...

https://i.imgur.com/iOpUEh0.mp4

Okay yeah was not expecting that.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 07:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 00:55

Kith: Sep 17, 2009; You never learn anything
by doing it right.

Public bidets are getting out of hand.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 08:00

oohhboy: Jun 8, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

They redefined the kilogram so it is now tied to a fundamental element of physics, the speed of light of which they are also deriving other forms on measurements from. It means no matter where you are you can create the kilogram the same as anywhere else. Atomic clocks are the most stable way we can measure time. Internet time is derived from atomic clocks making your PC/phone way more accurate than you think. You can also derive really accurate time from any GPS signal which requires ground stations to correct for relativity. Consumer GPS is so accurate it can place you within a couple meters. Just don't use it in the vertical as it is pretty fuzzy in comparison.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 09:59

dis astranagant: Dec 14, 2006

oohhboy posted:

They redefined the kilogram so it is now tied to a fundamental element of physics, the speed of light of which they are also deriving other forms on measurements from. It means no matter where you are you can create the kilogram the same as anywhere else.

This hasn't quite happened yet. The committee votes in November and then it won't go into effect til May at the earliest.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 10:13

Facebook Aunt: Oct 4, 2008; wiggle wiggle

Sagebrush posted:

What is "water?" Is it the water from the ocean? From your tap? From the rain?

Okay, let's say fresh water with no other chemicals in it. It will be extremely difficult to purify water to the parts per trillion that we'd need to use it as a reference standard, but let's say that we can do it with a national lab's resources. We store it in an iridium flask under vacuum to prevent it from absorbing atmospheric gases or miscellaneous compounds from the container. What temperature are we talking about? Water expands and contracts with the temperature, and that will change its volume for a given mass.

okay, we'll develop a system to keep our test mass of water at exactly 293.150000K, somehow. What is the isotopic composition of our pure, temperature-controlled water? Hydrogen has three different isotopes, and oxygen has several more, all of which occur on Earth at different abundances. They all weigh different amounts. Now we have to develop a whole process for purifying the water isotopically, like we do with nuclear fuel.

Okay, we finally have our isotopically pure, temperature-controlled sample. How do we make it into a block that we can measure? Remember, we are trying to define the mass by the size of this volume of water, not the other way around. We can't put it in a jar, because then we're just measuring how well we can make a jar. Maybe we could levitate the water in a magnetic field and have it form a sphere? We'll have to keep it in the bottom of a salt mine or something in order to eliminate vibrations that would perturbed the surface of our sphere of water and ruin our measurements.

Maybe we could freeze it and mill it into a block? That seems pretty reasonable. So let's do that. But why are we doing it with water? Couldn't we do this with a single element, so we don't have to worry about purifying two of them? One that's solid at room temperature for easy handling? And maybe we can pick one that we already have the technology for purifying. the semiconductor industry has mature processes for growing isotopically pure, single-crystal chunks of silicon that they need to make computer chips. Why don't we just repurpose that technology?

And that's how we got to where we are.

Eh, just eyeball it, it'll be fine.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 10:22

Splicer: Oct 16, 2006; from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸

Facebook Aunt posted:

Eh, just eyeball it, it'll be fine.

I've been making kilograms for 20 years, I don't need no fancy speed of light.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 10:27

SniperWoreConverse: Mar 20, 2010; Gun Saliva

GotLag posted:

So? The second is already clearly defined (9,192,631,770 cycles of a Caesium atomic clock).

Waaaaaait a minute, how MUCH cesium is needed for the clock? It's kilograms all the way down! Science is an arbitrary sham!

# ? Sep 16, 2018 10:38

Jabor: Jul 16, 2010; #1 Loser at SpaceChem

SniperWoreConverse posted:

Waaaaaait a minute, how MUCH cesium is needed for the clock? It's kilograms all the way down! Science is an arbitrary sham!

As much as you want. It's not based on radioactive decay or anything like that.

In Cs-133, the outermost electron has two slightly different energy levels depending on whether it's spinning the same way, or the opposite way from the nucleus. When it transitions between those two energy levels, it emits or absorbs a very specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation, and that frequency is used to define what a "second" means.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 10:50

Carbon dioxide: Oct 9, 2012

The only bad base SI unit is the candela, which imo should be demoted to a derived unit.

The definition of the candela is based on the wavelength to which the average human eye is the most sensitive. That's such an incredibly random number from a pure physics standpoint.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 11:05

Memento: Aug 25, 2009; Bleak Gremlin

I don't have any context for this but here it is anyway.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 11:13

Wifi Toilet: Oct 1, 2004; Toilet Rascal

Memento posted:

I don't have any context for this but here it is anyway.

mmmm, cherry gummies

# ? Sep 16, 2018 11:17

DrPossum: May 15, 2004; i am not a surgeon

Carbon dioxide posted:

The only bad base SI unit is the candela, which imo should be demoted to a derived unit.

The definition of the candela is based on the wavelength to which the average human eye is the most sensitive. That's such an incredibly random number from a pure physics standpoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit

I'm happy to listen to why you think "1/299792458 of a second" or "the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" are well founded from a pure physics standpoint and not a standardized number derived from anachronistic human choices like "some division of Earth's rotation and size", neither of which are even constant, because when you define a unit you need to make some arbitrary choice of scale which, for every single SI base units taken at unit value somehow fantastically turn out to be about something observable by normal humans without extraordinary effort

# ? Sep 16, 2018 12:02

DrPossum: May 15, 2004; i am not a surgeon

I do like the idea of Alexandre Paquet, the SI standard person caged in Paris, being forced to look at candles all day and cite the intensity to 15 digits while his head is in a clockwork orangeeye vice to keep his pupils at constant solid angle

# ? Sep 16, 2018 12:05

uvar: Jul 25, 2011; Avoid breathing
radioactive dust.; College Slice

DrPossum posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit

I'm happy to listen to why you think "1/299792458 of a second" or "the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" are well founded from a pure physics standpoint and not a standardized number derived from anachronistic human choices like "some division of Earth's rotation and size", neither of which are even constant, because when you define a unit you need to make some arbitrary choice of scale which, for every single SI base units taken at unit value somehow fantastically turn out to be about something observable by normal humans without extraordinary effort

I feel like this isn't really OSHA, but the candela's garbageness is independent of scaling factors.

quote:

Alan's editorializing: I think the candela is a scam, and I am completely opposed to it. Some good-for-nothing lighting "engineers" or psychologists probably got this perceptually-rigged abomination into the whole otherwise scientific endeavor. What an unbelievably useless and stupid unit. Is light at 540.00000001 x 10^12 Hz (or any other frequency) zero candela? Is this expected to be an impulse function at this frequency? Oh, wait, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes this impossible. No mention for correction (ideally along the blackbody curve) for other wavelengths? drat you, 16th CGPM! drat you all to hell! ...The most-commonly used, CIE 1931, is long known to be off by a factor of 7 from average human perception at short wavelengths, (compare it to the 1978 definition at 400 nm) and is arbitrarily truncated before the limits of human perception. In addition, no one perceptually-weighted curve is possible because the human eye is differently sensitive for photopic (bright-light, cone cells) and scotopic (dark-adapted, rod cells), or if the illumination occurs over narrower or wider fields... In short, candela = EPIC FAIL.

https://frinklang.org/frinkdata/units.txt (he also has problems with the kilogram, ampere, moles, and using Hertz for frequency. It's a surprisingly interesting read for what is effectively a list of definitions of units.)

# ? Sep 16, 2018 12:22

Polikarpov: Jun 1, 2013; Keep it between the buoys

I only use cool units like cables and hogsheads

# ? Sep 16, 2018 12:25

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

Polikarpov posted:

I only use cool units like cables and hogsheads

But how many rods to the hogshead does it get?

# ? Sep 16, 2018 12:27

fins: May 31, 2011; Floss Finder

Listen motherfucka, if I say its a kilo, it's a goddamn kilo! Put the money on the table and get the hell outta here.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 13:16

DrPossum: May 15, 2004; i am not a surgeon

Ghost Leviathan posted:

But how many rods to the hogshead does it get?

i get about 29 cubic gurley links to the hogshead

# ? Sep 16, 2018 13:23

Pigsfeet on Rye: Oct 22, 2008; I'm meat on the hoof

Polikarpov posted:

I only use cool units like cables and hogsheads

Don't forget quintals!

# ? Sep 16, 2018 14:01

ncumbered_by_idgits: Sep 20, 2008

Ghost Leviathan posted:

But how many rods to the hogshead does it get?

Forty

# ? Sep 16, 2018 14:03

oohhboy: Jun 8, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Personal favourite unit is a Barn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_(unit)

quote:

The etymology of the unit barn is whimsical: during Manhattan Project research on the atomic bomb during World War II, American physicists at Purdue University needed a secretive unit to describe the approximate cross sectional area presented by the typical nucleus (10−28 m2) and decided on "barn". This was particularly applicable because they considered this a large target for particle accelerators that needed to have direct strikes on nuclei and the American idiom "couldn't hit the broad side of a barn" refers to someone whose aim is terrible. Initially they hoped the name would obscure any reference to the study of nuclear structure; eventually, the word became a standard unit in nuclear and particle physics.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 14:08

Testvan: Nov 10, 2003

Think about how easy the math gets if we define speed of light to be 1.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 14:49

aphid_licker: Jan 7, 2009

Derive all lengths and weights from the size of the current POTUS's dong, you're welcome

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:00

Cojawfee: May 31, 2006; I think the US is dumb for not using Celsius

aphid_licker posted:

Derive all lengths and weights from the size of the current POTUS's dong, you're welcome

Testvan already suggested we use 1.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:02

venus de lmao: Apr 30, 2007; Call me "pixeltits"

aphid_licker posted:

Derive all lengths and weights from the size of the current POTUS's dong, you're welcome

The Planck length has already been defined.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:03

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Testvan posted:

Think about how easy the math gets if we define speed of light to be 1.

Officer, I swear I wasn�t going faster than 9.69257e-8C.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:03

Mustached Demon: Nov 12, 2016

aphid_licker posted:

Derive all lengths and weights from the size of the current POTUS's dong, you're welcome

Planck lengths already a thing.

Bertrand Hustle posted:

The Planck length has already been defined.

Rude.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:03

Cojawfee: May 31, 2006; I think the US is dumb for not using Celsius

MrYenko posted:

Officer, I swear I wasn�t going faster than 9.69257e-8C.

You changed the outcome by measuring it!

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:03

Nth Doctor: Sep 7, 2010; Darkrai used Dream Eater!
It's super effective!

oohhboy posted:

Personal favourite unit is a Barn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_(unit)

The Barn-Megaparsec is a measure of volume that is roughly 3mL.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:06

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

DrPossum posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit

I'm happy to listen to why you think "1/299792458 of a second" or "the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" are well founded from a pure physics standpoint and not a standardized number derived from anachronistic human choices like "some division of Earth's rotation and size", neither of which are even constant, because when you define a unit you need to make some arbitrary choice of scale which, for every single SI base units taken at unit value somehow fantastically turn out to be about something observable by normal humans without extraordinary effort

It's not about the scale, it's about having a reference that is well-defined and can be reproduced precisely. The speed of light in a vacuum will always be the same and is known to a very high degree of precision in a way that the properties of some random dude's eyes are not

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:09

Dang It Bhabhi!: May 27, 2004; ASK ME ABOUT
BEING
ESCULA GRIND'S
#1 SIMP

uvar posted:

I feel like this isn't really OSHA, but the candela's garbageness is independent of scaling factors.

https://frinklang.org/frinkdata/units.txt (he also has problems with the kilogram, ampere, moles, and using Hertz for frequency. It's a surprisingly interesting read for what is effectively a list of definitions of units.)

His reasoning for the ampere and what it should be redefined as (electrons per second) makes so much sense it must be wrong.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:16

Snowglobe of Doom: Mar 30, 2012; sucks to be right

Testvan posted:

Think about how easy the math gets if we define speed of light to be 1.

Think about how easy math would be if we changed the value of pi to 3.2

So much easier. The government should pass a law to fix it or something.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:43

Blast of Confetti: Apr 21, 2008; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

i mean, to define the speed of light as 1 you have to redo every math system in the world around it so maybe just loving memorize the numbers like every other big boy scientist

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:46

DrPossum: May 15, 2004; i am not a surgeon

Irony Be My Shield posted:

It's not about the scale, it's about having a reference that is well-defined and can be reproduced precisely. The speed of light in a vacuum will always be the same and is known to a very high degree of precision in a way that the properties of some random dude's eyes are not

540 THz light 1/683 W/str is pretty precisely defined. I was just joking about the French guy in a cage above

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:47

Cocoa Crispies: Jul 20, 2001; Vehicular Manslaughter!; Pillbug

Blast of Confetti posted:

i mean, to define the speed of light as 1 you have to redo every math system in the world around it so maybe just loving memorize the numbers like every other big boy scientist

Yeah it�s this. I don�t want to use scientific notation when measuring coffee, I just want grams. Dialing in the kilogram a bit more doesn�t invalidate the vast majority of tools and processes that our civilization is built on.

# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:49

Day Man: Jul 30, 2007; Champion of the Sun!

Master of karate and friendship...
for everyone!

Blast of Confetti posted:

i mean, to define the speed of light as 1 you have to redo every math system in the world around it so maybe just loving memorize the numbers like every other big boy scientist

Actually, you can just arbitrarily define it as one to do some math with it if you want. You don't have to get everyone to agree to change it forever.

Edit: hint: all you need to do is keep track of what units make the value equal to 1. You guys are talking about derived units, not defined ones. You can work in whatever derived units make the math the easiest. Changing the definition of a defined unit, like a kilogram or second, is what would change everything else.

Day Man fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Sep 16, 2018

# ? Sep 16, 2018 16:02

Bad Munki: Nov 4, 2008; We're all mad here.

https://i.imgur.com/tgVjGfj.gifv

# ? Sep 16, 2018 16:15

ClamdestineBoyster: Aug 15, 2015; Can't post for 10 years!

Irony Be My Shield posted:

It's not about the scale, it's about having a reference that is well-defined and can be reproduced precisely. The speed of light in a vacuum will always be the same and is known to a very high degree of precision in a way that the properties of some random dude's eyes are not

I mean it�s almost as if there are 3 ground state dimensions and 3 arc state virtual dimensions that are constantly resolving to the same state through a 7D acidic time cypher, and that inertia is actually just the virtual electron state making a convergent azimuth to a point of resolution in the middle of the galaxy through empty vertical space and the resistance in the circuit that makes for the ground state proton to catch up with the virtual state, or the dreamed or imagined free will of movement making real information state changes in measurable inertial bodies. And that the speed of light (or gravitational mass) and the passage of time are relative. :thunk:

# ? Sep 16, 2018 16:17

Day Man: Jul 30, 2007; Champion of the Sun!

Master of karate and friendship...
for everyone!

Bad Munki posted:

https://i.imgur.com/tgVjGfj.gifv

Ha ha ha, what is he planning to do with that "air sample"? What could the thought process be? Is this just the older guys loving with him?

# ? Sep 16, 2018 16:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 00:55

Nth Doctor: Sep 7, 2010; Darkrai used Dream Eater!
It's super effective!

Day Man posted:

just the older guys loving with him

# ? Sep 16, 2018 16:21

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > OSHA: definitely bent in the straight places

«‹›1456 »