Jump to content
tkdguy

In other news...

Recommended Posts

It makes a whole lot more sense to me--and is just as unlikely as anything else--to just all get together, throw some sand on a bucket, and declare that to be the new thing. 

 

I mean, as long as we're going to continue on with an infinite upscaling, then _any_ stopping point is arbitrary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

"It was the meter that was the first to be pegged to a constant. In 1960, it was measured using the wavelength of light, and then, in 1983, at the BIPM’s 17th convention (this week’s will be its 26th), it was given its current definition as “the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

 

I understand completely.  I mean, why would anyone remain on the old "five-thousand, two-hundred and eighty feet in a mile; sixteen ounces in a pound, four quarts in a gallon nonsense" when the metric system breaks up into much more practical and useful numbers like this?

 

:rofl:

"needs to be keep it 3 layers of vacuum when not in use" is not my definition of practical.

Neither is the previous one for meter: " So, the kilogram was originally defined as the mass of a cubic decimeter of water (a decimeter being a tenth of a meter)[aka one liter], while the meter itself was calculated as a fraction of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator. A section of this imaginary line running through Europe was measured painstakingly by hand, inch by inch, in a seven-year journey across the continent. And, in 1798, the meter was officially redefined as 1/10,000,000th of half the Earth’s meridian. If any country needed to create their own meter standard, they could, theoretically measure it themselves. "

 

The countries reference weights is where "practicality" comes in.

 

2 hours ago, dmjalund said:

we don;t want to hange our distance measurement on the speed of light too tightly, just in case it turns out not to be a constant

The speed of light is pretty constant in a vacuum. The only question is if something can move faster then light.

And well, it beats calculating the pythagorean distance between equator and northpole. A measure that will change due to low level stuff like tectonic plates moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Christopher said:

 

The speed of light is pretty constant in a vacuum. The only question is if something can move faster then light.

And well, it beats calculating the pythagorean distance between equator and northpole. A measure that will change due to low level stuff like tectonic plates moving.

 

That was an issue early on, as Michaelson's initial working light path was between mountaintops in southern California, whose linear separation did in fact change over time, which made measures twenty years apart in time disagree with each other by many, many sigma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

"It was the meter that was the first to be pegged to a constant. In 1960, it was measured using the wavelength of light, and then, in 1983, at the BIPM’s 17th convention (this week’s will be its 26th), it was given its current definition as “the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

 

I understand completely.  I mean, why would anyone remain on the old "five-thousand, two-hundred and eighty feet in a mile; sixteen ounces in a pound, four quarts in a gallon nonsense" when the metric system breaks up into much more practical and useful numbers like this?

 

:rofl:

 

 

 

Well, gallon isn't too impractical, as it is consistently a doubling (cup to pint to quart to half-gallon to gallon)

 

SO, are they changing because light slowed down or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2018 at 3:50 AM, Bazza said:

 

Sounds like you want to join the metric system... :P 

Like Ternaugh said, they tried. I remember in the 70s when the UK was making the transition (IIRC) and early 80s every teacher there was telling us how we needed to learn this because, by gum, it was happening.  It did happen, but mostly on the corporate level because.. yknow, trade = money and that's what they're about.

For much of the public, a lot of us grunted, and like a first year language that wasn't used often enough, forgot the majority of it. 

 

This article is pretty interesting on the state of Metric in America (at least of 2014)

 

http://www.whatitmeanstobeamerican.org/ideas/why-wont-america-go-metric/

 

There's an interesting point/opinion in the last lines of the article

"That ours is a dual-measurement country is part of our great diversity. We are the only republic on earth that predates the metric system, and that’s a major reason why we never fully joined the party."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Starlord said:

When light slows down to zero, is that the speed of dark?

 

PS:  if you're driving at the speed of light and turn on your headlights, what happens?

 

You turn into a pumpkin, and the cosmic ghost rats drag you away and nibble you to nothingness as you scream out your agonies for the rest of eternity.

 

Don't mess with relativity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Starlord said:

When light slows down to zero, is that the speed of dark?

 

PS:  if you're driving at the speed of light and turn on your headlights, what happens?

 

It depends.  Probably nothing unusual, but if you're behind me and you turn on your high beams, then you're going to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hermit said:

There's an interesting point/opinion in the last lines of the article
"That ours is a dual-measurement country is part of our great diversity.  We are the only republic on earth that predates the metric system, and that’s a major reason why we never fully joined the party."

 

The Most Serene Republic of San Marino begs to differ.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cancer said:

 

You turn into a pumpkin, and the cosmic ghost rats drag you away and nibble you to nothingness as you scream out your agonies for the rest of eternity.

 

Don't mess with relativity.

 

Also: don't mess with eternity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Starlord said:

When light slows down to zero, is that the speed of dark?

 

PS:  if you're driving at the speed of light and turn on your headlights, what happens?

 

For the latter you'll see what you just passed, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

It depends.  Probably nothing unusual, but if you're behind me and you turn on your high beams, then you're going to die.

 

If you are behind me at night, apparently turning on the high beams is apparently a requirement.  

 

Either that or everyone has really bright-@$$ low beams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Starlord said:

PS:  if you're driving at the speed of light and turn on your headlights, what happens? 

 

10 hours ago, Cancer said:

 

You turn into a pumpkin, and the cosmic ghost rats drag you away and nibble you to nothingness as you scream out your agonies for the rest of eternity.

 

Don't mess with relativity.

 

8 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

It depends.  Probably nothing unusual, but if you're behind me and you turn on your high beams, then you're going to die.

 

2 hours ago, Badger said:

 

For the latter you'll see what you just passed, I guess.

I think I can answer that scientifiically speaking. But we must differentiate between how you got to that speed to begin with.

 

Newtonian Acceleration: Your headlights would heat up. Photons that were shoot precisely* along your path would propably stay there, just a Plank-unit away from your lights. All others would be scooped up. And as Photons are energy, this should impart some heating effect.

I am uncertain if their wavelenght (and thus energy content) would be affected by the relative axis. If it does, that might break Energy Conservation. And according to Hawking, even Black Holes conform to that rule.

 

*Now that I think about it, I am not so certain about those either. The uncertainty principle - as shown by the dual slit experiment - may cause them to interfere with themself, veering them "off course". So they would also be scooped up again. Plus following ones might interfer as normal with waves that collide.

 

Other FTL:

Within your FTL effect field, light would travel normally. The edge of your FTL effect would become the "outside" of your lamps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...