[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 631 KB, 976x850, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15408989 No.15408989 [Reply] [Original]

we defined the meter, to be exactly 1 / 299792458 seconds per meter of light-travelling.

why?

>> No.15408990

>>15408989
because that was pretty close to a meter

>> No.15409001
File: 662 KB, 1000x562, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15409001

>>15408990
so the meter is possibly wrong? if yes is the spead of light possibly wrong?

what a paradox.

>> No.15409005
File: 328 KB, 1024x768, Mètre_étalon_(36,_rue_de_Vaugirard,_Paris).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15409005

>>15409001
>so the meter is possibly wrong?
yes. the real meter is picrel, today's /sci/entists are all off by a little.

>> No.15409006
File: 144 KB, 618x597, eyeroll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15409006

>>15409005
>shrinkflation

>> No.15409022

>>15409001
>so the meter is possibly wrong
All units are mathematical abstractions

>> No.15410244

>>15408989
We measured the speed of light so precisely that we decided to say it is an exact amount. No error in the measurement. Everything else is defined by light speed number (meter, kilogram, coulomb...). This is better than the object based system (kilogram in france, meter on the wall...). This is much more exact. Since the light speed isn't changing anytime soon

>> No.15410246

>>15408989
how long is a second?

>> No.15410252
File: 240 KB, 1280x864, download (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15410252

>>15408989
Well i don't know its unreasonable.
Unless you didn't tell me about the deep space experiments which make me wana kill you even more.

Its probably the pure pressure of the galactic onto the ether core which tact's every atom in our current location.

Its a reality anchor, you cant denies this, with out proofing experiments to me who are so deep in space that i need to kill you for the lie that we cant reach an other star.

>> No.15410264
File: 442 KB, 910x2720, TIMESAND___X_sticky_basement.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15410264

2997924-2992143=5781 which is the jewish calendar year that started in 2020.

>> No.15410272
File: 384 KB, 1180x418, TIMESAND___0BPOHW9q1fGJIfHtBBGdfGdTHLdadfp0t7yuEgYf0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15410272

>>15410264
What happened in September 2020, I guess. It was probably something.
>September 18, 2020 begins the Hebrew year 5781.

>> No.15410274

20/20 vision maybe. Hindsight is 20/20. Something like that.

>> No.15410293

>>15408989
why not just round it to 1/300,000,000

>> No.15410371

>>15410293
good question

>> No.15410444

>>15408989
it's just a standard of measure

>> No.15410580

>>15408989
Because the French metric dudes decided that the distance from the equator to either of the poles should be 10,000km. The real question is the length of the second, and why the speed of light in m/s divided by the length of the tropical year in seconds is 9.500. There should be no reason for that to work out so nicely.

>> No.15410596

Nowadays most things are related to time, because it's the easiest to measure accurately.

>> No.15410648

>>15410293
The americans should do that when they switch.

Just to piss off the rest of the world again.

>> No.15410678

>>15410648
too based

>> No.15410703

>>15408989
Because we defined the speed of light to be 299792458 m/s to be close to measurement previously so things don't change but it is an exact value

>> No.15410705

>>15410293
Because then the meter would be off by a measurable asking and everyone would have to apply 47N of force directly downward on the sideward for 6 strokes to shave off the start of their stick to make out correct again.

>> No.15410712

>>15410244
Every time I see a post stating something so confidently like this I'm reminded of how Jewish (((science))) actually is.

>> No.15410714

>>15408989
The meter was previously defined by a physical standard. 299792458 was presumably the closest whole number to the physical standard of the meter. Obviously, you want the new definition to be as close as possible to the old.

>> No.15410723

>>15408989
It’s to prevent confusion caused by length contraction as one approaches light speed

>> No.15411190

>>15410293
just make a second a little bit longer??

>> No.15411479

>>15411190
he implies it's an inconsequential difference for usual works dealing with meters.

it might be true for stuff like a building.

but not sure about astronomy.

>> No.15412031

I think we had an existing definition of the meter that was later formalized after we knew what the speed of light was. This has the benefit of avoiding the need for an actual, physical standard meter stick. Now anyone with an oscilloscope (and some other equipment) can determine exactly how long a meter is without making a trip to Paris.

>> No.15412064

>>15408989
Physical units gets redefined every once in a while, usually whenever a method becomes available that is more reproducible.

At some point in history the meter was the length of the second-pendulum. That’s all nice and easy to do, but eventually the meter in London will be different from the meter in New York. Well, both will be a meter by definition, but if you bring them together their length will noticeable differ.

At the current days we define the second by some nuclear physics measurement, and define the meter by this second and the speed of light.

It really is just a different agreed recipe of „how to produce exactly one meter“.