If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Aww crap, we're not gonna have to switch to metric time now are we?   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 214
    More: Interesting, Atomic Clock, optical lattices, International System of Units, Paris Observatory, microwaves, metric time  
•       •       •

21687 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jul 2013 at 11:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-10 03:03:43 PM  

durbnpoisn: I know that in terms of everything in math and science, always is done in metric.


If only that were true.
But hey, replacing freeway signs would be expensive.
 
2013-07-10 03:07:50 PM  

Mikeyworld: You change it one sign at a time, replacing signs and minds as you go. Make ignorance no excuse and everyone will learn metric in a hurry. You cannot make drastic changes, but you CAN get people started by making metric the law, with a period of adjustment allowed (still ,no excuses...) Just like seatbelts, the next generation will be fluent in metric, and you'll not find anything to put that 5/8" socket on.

I'm sixty. I've tried to deal with that abomination of tenths of inches that the architects made their plans out of. Metric is a better system and Americans can adopt, if industry would just get on with it.


You have much more faith in people than I do. To me doing only some of the signs a little at a time is just asking for trouble. People doing 45 kmh in a 45 mph zone and vice-versa, people slamming on their breaks on the highway because their exit came up faster than they expected and they can't go to the next exit and loop back because. Worse things that don't come to mind because my imagination is too limited.

/Plus speed traps become 1000x more insidious.
 
2013-07-10 03:08:39 PM  
0 degrees F = 255 degrees K. Half of 255 degrees K = 127 degrees K = -230 degrees F. So the answer is "really cold."
 
2013-07-10 03:25:53 PM  

clambam: 0 degrees F = 255 degrees K. Half of 255 degrees K = 127 degrees K = -230 degrees F. So the answer is "really cold."


Simple version...
<40 = colder than shiat
<55 = cold
<70 = cool
70 - 90 = just right
<100 = hot
> 100 = Africa hot
 
2013-07-10 03:33:59 PM  
The measures we'll never shed are the ones natural and originating from pre-accuracy eras.

Minutes and seconds are brief periods, an hour is a chunk of time, a day is self defining, and a year can be stopped at 360, which has 24 divsors{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180, 360} and it helps of you have a week or so around solstice to get hammered.

24 and 60 also have nifty factors.
 
2013-07-10 03:42:28 PM  

wildcardjack: The measures we'll never shed are the ones natural and originating from pre-accuracy eras.

Minutes and seconds are brief periods, an hour is a chunk of time, a day is self defining, and a year can be stopped at 360, which has 24 divsors{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180, 360} and it helps of you have a week or so around solstice to get hammered.

24 and 60 also have nifty factors.


I've always been partial to 13 months of 28 days, with an extra day (two every 4 years) to add for an annual holiday.
 
2013-07-10 03:43:38 PM  
Sorry, can't weigh in on this discussion, I've got to be at the gym in 25.99999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999 minutes.
 
2013-07-10 03:59:32 PM  

Teaser: [i41.tinypic.com image 700x662]


Why would anyone assume that Fahrenheit is based on the temperature at which water freezes or boils?  That is as silly as suggesting that Celsius is based on the temperature of a brine solution and the temperature of the human body.
 
2013-07-10 04:08:54 PM  
You don't all ready use metric time? Well how do you expect to make the Kessel run in just 12 parsecs then?

Remember in metric time there 1.13 regular seconds to 1 metric second 15 centons and .000178 parsecs.
 
2013-07-10 04:11:44 PM  

boarch: FTA: "The devices, called optical lattice clocks, lost just one second every 300 million years - making them three times as accurate as current atomic clocks. "

They tested this-- how?


WITH SCIENCE biatchES
 
2013-07-10 04:13:25 PM  

Bung_Howdy: The devices, called optical lattice clocks, lost just one second every 300 million years - making them three times as accurate as current atomic clocks

THANK GAWD! I have been frantic over the issue of losing 1 second every 100 million years with our current atomic clocks. What a VAST improvement! SCIENCE!


And someone somewhere is getting paid a metric tonload of money to figure all this stupid crap out.
 
2013-07-10 04:15:56 PM  

sharphead: Bung_Howdy: The devices, called optical lattice clocks, lost just one second every 300 million years - making them three times as accurate as current atomic clocks

THANK GAWD! I have been frantic over the issue of losing 1 second every 100 million years with our current atomic clocks. What a VAST improvement! SCIENCE!

And someone somewhere is getting paid a metric tonload of money to figure all this stupid crap out.


I know, right?  GPS sucks.  I wish it were never invented.
 
2013-07-10 04:23:29 PM  

Josu: sharphead: Bung_Howdy: The devices, called optical lattice clocks, lost just one second every 300 million years - making them three times as accurate as current atomic clocks

THANK GAWD! I have been frantic over the issue of losing 1 second every 100 million years with our current atomic clocks. What a VAST improvement! SCIENCE!

And someone somewhere is getting paid a metric tonload of money to figure all this stupid crap out.

I know, right?  GPS sucks.  I wish it were never invented.


GPS is great.... figuring out something as trivial as being 1 second more accurate in a 100 million years is retarded.
 
2013-07-10 04:28:40 PM  
One scientific advance leads to another.  Scientific advances lead to real-world applications.  It doesn't matter if you can't imagine why a scientific advance is useful, because somebody smarter will.
 
2013-07-10 04:30:20 PM  

sharphead: Josu: sharphead: Bung_Howdy: The devices, called optical lattice clocks, lost just one second every 300 million years - making them three times as accurate as current atomic clocks

THANK GAWD! I have been frantic over the issue of losing 1 second every 100 million years with our current atomic clocks. What a VAST improvement! SCIENCE!

And someone somewhere is getting paid a metric tonload of money to figure all this stupid crap out.

I know, right?  GPS sucks.  I wish it were never invented.

GPS is great.... figuring out something as trivial as being 1 second more accurate in a 100 million years is retarded.


Another shiathead who knows nothing.  You guys should start a support group.
 
2013-07-10 04:31:07 PM  

durbnpoisn: Teaser: [i41.tinypic.com image 700x662]

Okay...  I definitely understand what you're getting at here.  And I absolutely agree that the US has been tremendously stupid for adopting the "standard measure" of things, while the rest of the world went with the newer and more sensible measures.

I will never be sure how or why that happened.

Here's a couple of points to note...  Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit based his temperature scale on angles.  The scale is set on 3 variables - Boiling temp of water, freezing temp of water, and human body temp.  Thus why the term "degrees" came to be known for the values.  It's not so arbitrary if you look at it as degrees on a protractor.  That was actually a pretty spiffy idea.

Now Anders Celcius, who came up with the competing scale, totally did it a different way.  But he still didn't exactly get things right in the beginning.  He set boiling point at 0 and freezing at 100.  This was obviously reversed soon after.  In the end, his scale seems more sensible and intuitive.  But, us Americans can't really figure out what any Celcius temp means without some sort of calculator.  And clearly this is not the fault of the inventor.

As far as the rest of measurments go...  The metric system makes far more intuitive sense than what the US still uses.  And I really do not know why we haven't just abandoned that nonsense in favor of the more reliable system.


The whole point of both scales, is they were able to write up an explanation of how the scales worked, and scientists all over the world would be able to reproduce thermometers that produced similar results.    In the 17th and 18th centuries, it was cheaper to transmit the information on how to make something, than it was to make it and ship it around the world.   Speeded adaptation too
 
2013-07-10 04:31:57 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: The devices, called optical lattice clocks, lost just one second every 300 million years - making them three times as accurate as current atomic clocks.

I can't quite put my finger on why, but I don't think they tested that under real time conditions.  I think they're guessing.


If you watch it for a few years and it only loses 0.000000000333~ seconds a year, then it only loses 1 second every 300 million years.
 
2013-07-10 04:36:45 PM  

Mikeyworld: Korzine: uber humper: Random Discord: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can we farking switch to metric already.

for farks sake

Everyhing scientific is metric. Stock market dropped fractions.

Cooking , automobiles and outside temp/rain -- doesn't really make much of a difference what system is used.

Not only that but switching to metric now would require a HUGE public works program. All that road signage isn't going to change itself. Every speed limit sign, mile marker, interstate exit sign would have to be replaced and I don't think those signs are cheap.

You change it one sign at a time, replacing signs and minds as you go. Make ignorance no excuse and everyone will learn metric in a hurry. You cannot make drastic changes, but you CAN get people started by making metric the law, with a period of adjustment allowed (still ,no excuses...) Just like seatbelts, the next generation will be fluent in metric, and you'll not find anything to put that 5/8" socket on.

I'm sixty. I've tried to deal with that abomination of tenths of inches that the architects made their plans out of. Metric is a better system and Americans can adopt, if industry would just get on with it.


Most US industries have switched to metric.  Once upon a time, the automobile industry was the hangup.   Now it's aerospace.   Most machine shops in the US produce parts in metric units.   My shop uses english, because most of our customers give us prints in english units.   Our CNC salesman calls it the "Boeing Effect".
 
2013-07-10 04:50:25 PM  

I_Am_Weasel:

The devices, called optical lattice clocks, lost just one second every 300 million years - making them three times as accurate as current atomic clocks.

I can't quite put my finger on why, but I don't think they tested that under real time conditions.  I think they're guessing.

Not guessing, extrapolating.
 
2013-07-10 04:55:26 PM  

Mikey1969:

"For instance, if you have your wristwatch, and one day you are one second late, and one day one second early, then your clock is not stable. But it could still have good accuracy if over a million days the time is correct," Dr Lodewyck explained.

My watch syncs with the atomic time service in Denver. I farking love it... It's also solar, which is nice.

Too far away from Denver for that to work here, (Hawai'i) and no clock or watch I've seen will sync to WWVH...
 
2013-07-10 04:57:25 PM  

Mimic_Octopus:

ftfa:  Our current systems, called caesium fountains, expose clouds of caesium atoms to microwaves to get them to oscillate. But the the new ones use light to excite strontium atoms

 it has been a minute since my last science class, but isn't a microwave light too you tards ?

Verbal shorthand failure.  In this case, they should have said "visible light."
 
2013-07-10 05:00:09 PM  

Hollie Maea: durbnpoisn: I know that in terms of everything in math and science, always is done in metric.

If only that were true.
But hey, replacing freeway signs would be expensive.


When I heard NASA was sticking with imperial units on the SLS I lost a good chunk of faith in that organization (even though I know why they are doing it...legacy hardware).
Then Charlie Bolden claimed that no other country in the world had ever landed a craft on another world (groan). So what is Venus/USSR then exactly, Mr. NASA Administrator?

Sometimes you can cure stupid, other times you need to take comfort in the fact that you're not alone.
 
2013-07-10 05:06:30 PM  

GeneralJim: Mikey1969: "For instance, if you have your wristwatch, and one day you are one second late, and one day one second early, then your clock is not stable. But it could still have good accuracy if over a million days the time is correct," Dr Lodewyck explained.

My watch syncs with the atomic time service in Denver. I farking love it... It's also solar, which is nice.
Too far away from Denver for that to work here, (Hawai'i) and no clock or watch I've seen will sync to WWVH...


Biggest problem I have is that in Salt Lake, I am often in the shadow of the Wasatch Range, and won't get a signal for 3 days or so. Otherwise, works like a charm.

And yeah, I think currently with these G-Shocks, Denver is the only one they use.
 
2013-07-10 05:07:31 PM  

weiserfireman: Once upon a time, the automobile industry was the hangup.   Now it's aerospace.


In general, the biggest hangup (besides conservative politicians) is Mechanical Engineers.  A ton of them--and just about all the instructors, it seems--learned engineering in the Navy, and they can't bear the thought of not being able to use their military issue "engineering units" steam tables, or having to re-memorize their favorite equations (although most of them work automatically in the metric system if you take off, say, the 14.7 (or whatever) at the beginning of the equation that makes it work in slug-feet.
 
2013-07-10 05:07:51 PM  

Teaser:

[i41.tinypic.com image 700x662]

Measurement units as an anti-American rant...  Points for originality.

However, the BEST way to represent date is the way Fark does it -- look at the post times...


[full year]-[zero-filled two digit month]-[zero-filled two digit day of month]  for the day.

The reason that's "best" is that they sort alphabetically or numerically into sequential order, at least for any date that is A.D.


The time is the same way: [hours]:[minutes]:[seconds] ...

However, to sort by TIME as well as date, drop the AM/PM bullshiat, and use 24 hour time.

 
2013-07-10 05:09:11 PM  

clambam: Donnchadha: MayContainHorseGluten: Teaser: [i41.tinypic.com image 700x662]

Actually that Fahrenheit thing is wrong. 0 °F is when seawater freezes. 0 °C is freshwater.   Not arbitrary.

It's actually based on a temperature of an ammonium chloride slurry for the zero point. The freezing point of pure water was set to 32 degrees so that any "degree" mark could be identified through dividing the scale by 2 repeatedly.

Yesterday it was zero degrees F outside. Today it is twice as cold. What is the temperature?


Well, if "twice as cold" means "half as warm" it'd be about 28 below.
 
2013-07-10 05:11:01 PM  

lilbjorn:

The devices, called optical lattice clocks, lost just one second every 300 million years - making them three times as accurate as current atomic clocks

Oh, well by all means.  Let's spend billions of tax of dollars converting over to this new clock.

You're not getting this, are you?
 
2013-07-10 05:14:06 PM  

ChrisDe:

Actually for temperature, Fahrenheit is more precise. 180 units of measurement between freezing and boiling point, instead of 100. That really helps when I need to know if I should wear a sweater or not.
Better yet: Celsius with one digit past the decimal point.  Ta-dah!  You do see outside temperature readings that way where Celsius rules, but I've never seen that with Fahrenheit temperatures on the news.
 
2013-07-10 05:17:36 PM  

GeneralJim: You're not getting this, are you?


There are like 5 or 6 of them in this thread making the same braindead argument.
 
2013-07-10 05:21:37 PM  

Fano:

ChrisDe: Teaser: [i41.tinypic.com image 700x662]

Actually for temperature, Fahrenheit is more precise. 180 units of measurement between freezing and boiling point, instead of 100. That really helps when I need to know if I should wear a sweater or not.

And why don't all these celsius proponents acknowledge that it is inferior to Kelvin? If you plan to be arbitrarily precise you might as well go all the way. And setting 100 increments between the freezing point and boiling point of water at sea level is arbitrary as well.
Because the first time you tell someone it is 293 outside, they'll freak right out.  Also, global warming alarmists will count that change as proof of disastrous warming, and send trillions of dollars to India and China.
 
2013-07-10 05:35:10 PM  

GeneralJim: Also, global warming alarmists will count that change as proof of disastrous warming, and send trillions of dollars to India and China.


Doesn't that strawman belong in the "Global warming in 1913 LOL" thread?  Or did they scare you away by turning it into a boobies thread?
 
2013-07-10 05:45:03 PM  

Hollie Maea: weiserfireman: Once upon a time, the automobile industry was the hangup.   Now it's aerospace.

In general, the biggest hangup (besides conservative politicians) is Mechanical Engineers.  A ton of them--and just about all the instructors, it seems--learned engineering in the Navy, and they can't bear the thought of not being able to use their military issue "engineering units" steam tables, or having to re-memorize their favorite equations (although most of them work automatically in the metric system if you take off, say, the 14.7 (or whatever) at the beginning of the equation that makes it work in slug-feet.


I would personally be happier to see slug-feet instead of the current pants-on-head retarded implementation of pounds-force-feet vs pounds-mass-feet. And that's not even counting metric-ish mils and microinches.

The root of the aerospace problem isn't the engineers/technicians so much as it's the specs to which the aerospace contracts (and any subcontractors/vendors/manufacturers/suppliers) must conform. The requirements of MIL-STD/PRF/whatever are all expressed in weird metric-wannabe imperial units, and the library of MIL/J/whatever documents is absolutely gigantic. And that's nothing compared to the library of thousands upon thousands of old manufacturer part specs. The industry is starting to see conversions; mainly in the form of requirements being expressed in both imperial and metric units, but it'll be a long time before A) all of the old but active documents get revised into metric, and B) all of legacy stuff gets retired.

The old cranky engineers certainly aren't helping, but if there were an industry-wide push to go metric and go quickly, they'd be powerless to do anything much besides grumble to themselves or retire.
 
2013-07-10 05:49:23 PM  

Hollie Maea: GeneralJim: Also, global warming alarmists will count that change as proof of disastrous warming, and send trillions of dollars to India and China.

Doesn't that strawman belong in the "Global warming in 1913 LOL" thread?  Or did they scare you away by turning it into a boobies thread?


That turned into a boobies thread? I gotta go look into this 1913 global warming thing. BRB
 
2013-07-10 05:51:52 PM  

Teaser: [i41.tinypic.com image 700x662]


As somebody who designs and fabricates machinery with very precise tolerances for a living, I have to say... the american system of measurements is farking pants on head retarded.

1/4 of an inch works well for building a shelf.  Even 1/8 of an inch.  But the next time I have to figure out if a machine part is 21/64, 25/64 or 11/32, i'm going to farking stab somebody.
 
2013-07-10 05:58:18 PM  

Hollie Maea:

I'm amazed how many troglodytes in this thread think that the point of precise clocks is to maximize the amount of time it takes to loose a second. But then again considering the state of education in this country, I shouldn't be surprised.

Dunno, but maybe you should ASK people if that's what they think.  The amount of time to lose/gain a second is a measure of the drift rate of the time standard, and given very good stability, a proxy for accuracy.  Would you feel better if, instead of 1 sec/300MY, it was rated as 1 microsecond every 300 years?  It's the same thing.  (And mind-reading has STILL not been demonstrated.)
 
2013-07-10 06:02:02 PM  

Pick:

Sorry, can't weigh in on this discussion, I've got to be at the gym in 25.99999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999 minutes.
Whoops.  Looks like you're using an old Pentium chip...
 
2013-07-10 06:02:18 PM  

Hollie Maea: GeneralJim: You're not getting this, are you?

There are like 5 or 6 of them in this thread making the same braindead argument.


You strike me as the type of person who might be able ball park the increase in accuracy this would mean to GPS. Any speculation? Would it just be a 3 fold increase in accuracy or would that be multiplied by the number of satellites?

Current GPS is theoretically accurate to about 14 ft. if I did my math right. Most receivers are accurate down to about 100 ft. (again my math). Would the new clock reduce the theoretical down to under 5 ft.? That would be awesome as long as we could get receivers to notice the difference.
 
2013-07-10 06:06:01 PM  

SewerSquirrels: When I heard NASA was sticking with imperial units on the SLS I lost a good chunk of faith in that organization


Because converting and re-labeling all their existing parts, specs, and other measurement-related data wouldn't be subject to the same sort of error that you're worried about? There's a huge risk in changing measurement systems -- all those 1/4" bolts don't suddenly become 6mm just because you decided to use SI this week -- and all you get from changing systems is pre-loading all that conversion risk to the current stage of the project. Eventually there are benefits with respect to coordination with external processes, but for any project using existing materials/designs/suppliers/equipment/personnel you still have to do the conversion and you still have the same risk of error (or potentially more, if not all of your measurement data has strong interaction with external processes) as if you did the conversion only when required.

Long-term the change might be nice, but from a project-engineering standpoint it's not necessarily the right decision. And you do want NASA making sound engineering decisions, don't you?
 
2013-07-10 06:07:11 PM  
The real reason many advocate for metric is they are too ignorant to figure out anything else.

(haha, see that's funny because angsty people like to say their fellow Americans are too ignorant to switch to metric so I made a funny by saying.....oh, it wasn't funny?  Never mind then)
 
2013-07-10 06:10:04 PM  

TheAlmightyOS: BRB


I have a feeling it might be a while.
 
2013-07-10 06:11:40 PM  

SewerSquirrels: Would the new clock reduce the theoretical down to under 5 ft.?


No, because most of the error in GPS is related to signal transmission -- variances in the atmosphere, the position of transmitter, etc. -- not due to variances in the clock source.

If you record the raw data and do after-the-fact corrections using measured error data (like high-precision GPS units do) a higher-accuracy clock source would give you better fixes. It might also be usable as a local time source (i.e. if you carried one with you), so you don't have to derive the "real" time from high-error data. But for practical, real-time use it won't make much difference.
 
2013-07-10 06:11:53 PM  

GeneralJim: Would you feel better if, instead of 1 sec/300MY, it was rated as 1 microsecond every 300 years?  It's the same thing.


Uh...that was my point.
 
2013-07-10 06:15:21 PM  

SewerSquirrels: Hollie Maea: GeneralJim: You're not getting this, are you?

There are like 5 or 6 of them in this thread making the same braindead argument.

You strike me as the type of person who might be able ball park the increase in accuracy this would mean to GPS. Any speculation? Would it just be a 3 fold increase in accuracy or would that be multiplied by the number of satellites?

Current GPS is theoretically accurate to about 14 ft. if I did my math right. Most receivers are accurate down to about 100 ft. (again my math). Would the new clock reduce the theoretical down to under 5 ft.? That would be awesome as long as we could get receivers to notice the difference.


They lose me when they start talking about how they correct for disturbances in the ionosphere.  I've read that they would be able to increase GPS accuracy, but I don't know by how much.  There are other applications that would also benefit from more precise clocks. No one gives a shiat how many hundreds of millions of years go by before you are off by something as long as a second, but for whatever reason that's the only way that journalists seem to be able to frame it.  I guess they think that people can relate to 100 million years but not to a nanosecond.
 
2013-07-10 06:15:44 PM  

Mikeyworld: you'll not find anything to put that 5/8" socket on


Except anything built before the change. And anything built after the change but designed to be compatible with existing equipment -- the label might read 15.875 mm but it still be 5/8", not the 16mm you'd expect.

Eventually the conversion would happen, and in terms of teaching people it will only take 20-40 years, but many parts of the physical world are older than that and converting to a new measurement system will not make those things go away.
 
2013-07-10 06:15:51 PM  

profplump: SewerSquirrels: When I heard NASA was sticking with imperial units on the SLS I lost a good chunk of faith in that organization

Because converting and re-labeling all their existing parts, specs, and other measurement-related data wouldn't be subject to the same sort of error that you're worried about? There's a huge risk in changing measurement systems -- all those 1/4" bolts don't suddenly become 6mm just because you decided to use SI this week -- and all you get from changing systems is pre-loading all that conversion risk to the current stage of the project. Eventually there are benefits with respect to coordination with external processes, but for any project using existing materials/designs/suppliers/equipment/personnel you still have to do the conversion and you still have the same risk of error (or potentially more, if not all of your measurement data has strong interaction with external processes) as if you did the conversion only when required.

Long-term the change might be nice, but from a project-engineering standpoint it's not necessarily the right decision. And you do want NASA making sound engineering decisions, don't you?


Its actually much simpler and more political than that:  By enforcing imperial units, NASA and American aerospace contractors etc are ensuring the contracts are more likely to go to American companies.  International and foreign companies all tend to use metric for obvious reasons... and while they could be contracted to supply a part to spec, it adds a layer of overhead and risk that everybody wants to avoid.

This is also why the automotive industry has actually taken a lot of steps to convert to metric on their assembly lines... makes international trade much easier.
 
2013-07-10 06:18:24 PM  

profplump: SewerSquirrels: When I heard NASA was sticking with imperial units on the SLS I lost a good chunk of faith in that organization

Because converting and re-labeling all their existing parts, specs, and other measurement-related data wouldn't be subject to the same sort of error that you're worried about? There's a huge risk in changing measurement systems -- all those 1/4" bolts don't suddenly become 6mm just because you decided to use SI this week -- and all you get from changing systems is pre-loading all that conversion risk to the current stage of the project. Eventually there are benefits with respect to coordination with external processes, but for any project using existing materials/designs/suppliers/equipment/personnel you still have to do the conversion and you still have the same risk of error (or potentially more, if not all of your measurement data has strong interaction with external processes) as if you did the conversion only when required.

Long-term the change might be nice, but from a project-engineering standpoint it's not necessarily the right decision. And you do want NASA making sound engineering decisions, don't you?


Yeah, I said I knew why they were doing it. I still find it frustrating though because NASA would be a good place to spear head a conversion to SI units. Really, though, they should have made the change when they were designing the shuttle. Now I'm going to have to build a time machine so I can tell them that NASA will be forever screwed if they don't make the change (pre-shuttle).
 
2013-07-10 06:52:50 PM  

Gonz: I believe in coyotes, and time as an abstract.


Explain the change, the difference between.
 
2013-07-10 07:09:55 PM  

Mimic_Octopus: ftfa:  Our current systems, called caesium fountains, expose clouds of caesium atoms to microwaves to get them to oscillate. But the the new ones use light to excite strontium atoms

 it has been a minute since my last science class, but isn't a microwave light too you tards ?


Depends on the microwave; the countertop ones are light, but those over-the-stove ones with the exhaust fan are like two-man lift.

// I slay me!
 
2013-07-10 09:53:20 PM  

uber humper: Everyhing scientific is metric.


Not even close to being true.  I just got a new rack, and like all others it's for 19" wide equipment.  This one came with #10 screws and tapped holes.  OK, racks are general.  I tried going SI with optical mounting stuff and it was a huge headache, too many people in the US and UK ship stuff meant for 1" spacing and 1/4-20 bolts.   I have to design stuff about half in decimal inches and half in millimeters.  Sucks but that's the world we live in.

Anyway, point is I am a scientist and I've never been free of imperial units for my work.  I've even argued with physicists who PREFER things like feet and inches.  No joke.  The only point I agreed with them was that 'feet' and 'inch' and 'mile' are nice short one-syllable words.  "centimeter" and "meter" and "kilometer" are kinda chunky by comparison.
 
2013-07-10 10:27:42 PM  

meanmutton:

Teaser: [i41.tinypic.com image 700x662]

Why would anyone assume that Fahrenheit is based on the temperature at which water freezes or boils?  That is as silly as suggesting that Celsius is based on the temperature of a brine solution and the temperature of the human body.

Just for reference:

The Fahrenheit scale was originally defined as zero being the the temperature of a 1:1:1 mix of water, ice, and ammonium chloride, 32 being a water and ice mixture, and 96 as human body temperature.   Later, the definition was changed to that of 32 degrees being the freezing point of pure water, and 212 degrees being the boiling point of water, for better consistency, and ease of calibration.

Celsius, or centigrade, was originally defined by setting zero to the freezing point of pure water, and one hundred to the boiling point of pure water.  Now, Celsius is defined by setting the temperature of absolute zero to −273.15 °C and the triple-point of water (VMSOW) at 0.01 °C.

 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report