|
Say Nothing posted:Keep watching... Okay yeah was not expecting that.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 07:41 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 06:28 |
|
Public bidets are getting out of hand.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 08:00 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Sagebrush posted:What is "water?" Is it the water from the ocean? From your tap? From the rain? Eh, just eyeball it, it'll be fine.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 10:22 |
|
Facebook Aunt posted:Eh, just eyeball it, it'll be fine.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 10:27 |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
I don't have any context for this but here it is anyway.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 11:13 |
|
Memento posted:I don't have any context for this but here it is anyway. mmmm, cherry gummies
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 11:17 |
|
Carbon dioxide posted:The only bad base SI unit is the candela, which imo should be demoted to a derived unit. 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 |
|
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 |
|
DrPossum posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit 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 |
|
I only use cool units like cables and hogsheads
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 12:25 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Polikarpov posted:I only use cool units like cables and hogsheads Don't forget quintals!
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 14:01 |
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:But how many rods to the hogshead does it get? Forty
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 14:03 |
|
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 |
|
Think about how easy the math gets if we define speed of light to be 1.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 14:49 |
|
Derive all lengths and weights from the size of the current POTUS's dong, you're welcome
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:00 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
DrPossum posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 15:09 |
|
uvar posted:I feel like this isn't really OSHA, but the candela's garbageness is independent of scaling factors. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
https://i.imgur.com/tgVjGfj.gifv
|
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 16:15 |
|
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.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 16:17 |
|
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 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 06:28 |
|
Day Man posted:just the older guys loving with him
|
# ? Sep 16, 2018 16:21 |