519
A metric tonne (1000 kg) should be called a megagram (1 Mg). (lemmy.ca)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
167 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

I know the metre has been defined by earth's size, or other various things, all rather arbitrary. Wouldn't it make sense to define it by the speed of light and a light year, divided into even portions? Start by dividing a light year (in a vacuum) by ten, and keep dividing by ten until we get a unit that is close to the useful size we are accustomed to?

That way we could scale up, and I suppose that's going to be useful in the future.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It's already defined that way - from Wikipedia "From 1983 until 2019, the metre was formally defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. After the 2019 redefinition of the SI base units, this definition was rephrased to include the definition of a second in terms of the caesium frequency ΔνCs. "

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Just because it's defined as some section of a light year does not mean it's using a light year as a reference. You could use a foot and find the fraction of a light year that represents it, but that doesn't mean that the foot is based on a light year.

    I'm saying the short measure that we use on a daily basis might be a BASE 10 portion of a light year. Not 1/299792458 of a light second.

    P.S. It's like being on Reddit, being download for conjecturing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I see what you mean. That is just as arbitrary as using the Earth's size or any other reference. There's nothing special about a year.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Touché

    My ignorance shows it's ugly face again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    it's a hard thing for me to wrap my head around, but it's cool when you think about it: there's actually no possible shared reference; even with atomic clocks, based solely on the bouncing of cesium atoms ticking away, the distance travelled is dependent on acceleration in your reference frame.

    relativity really is!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent