The meter is defined by the distance light travels in a specific fraction of a second. It may have been initially defined by a rough estimate but it (and all metric measurements) are now fixed to universal constants.
Also the foot is currently defined exclusively as 0.3048 meters, so you are already using metric.
I’m well aware that the U.S. has been on metric since the 19th century. My point is the base unit should be sensible. 1/299,792,458 of a second is not that. If the argument is “yeah, but that’s what we’re used to,” then what was the point of the metric system in the first place? Nine significant digits in a denominator suggests a systematic issue, not sensible science.
We’ve secretly replaced your arbitrary base unit with Folger’s Crystals. Let’s see if they notice. Tell me why that definition makes more sense than an inch being three barleycorns.
I don’t think there’s much way around seconds for terrestrial timekeeping. Defining the second by a round number of caesium oscillations causes issues with timekeeping on any larger scale. Defining distance is wildly different from deciding to ignore the Earth’s rotation and its role in defining days.
OK for timekeeping but I’d say that’s mostly for human scale stuff and as you say involves dumb stuff like leap seconds every handful of years, and presumably the Earth’s spin and orbits will change more radically eventually - i guess we’re just expecting humans to die out before it becomes too much more of a problem.
But thinking about measuring for science - irrespective of human geocentrism?
Should scientific measures all be built up from planck units or something?
Given that time is more of a human construct than a natural, measurable thing, I don’t know what reasonable options would look like. We very quickly run into relativity!
The meter is defined by the distance light travels in a specific fraction of a second. It may have been initially defined by a rough estimate but it (and all metric measurements) are now fixed to universal constants.
Also the foot is currently defined exclusively as 0.3048 meters, so you are already using metric.
I’m well aware that the U.S. has been on metric since the 19th century. My point is the base unit should be sensible. 1/299,792,458 of a second is not that. If the argument is “yeah, but that’s what we’re used to,” then what was the point of the metric system in the first place? Nine significant digits in a denominator suggests a systematic issue, not sensible science.
We’ve secretly replaced your arbitrary base unit with Folger’s Crystals. Let’s see if they notice. Tell me why that definition makes more sense than an inch being three barleycorns.
Genuine question, do you think seconds are sensibly defined either in SI or otherwise?
I don’t think there’s much way around seconds for terrestrial timekeeping. Defining the second by a round number of caesium oscillations causes issues with timekeeping on any larger scale. Defining distance is wildly different from deciding to ignore the Earth’s rotation and its role in defining days.
OK for timekeeping but I’d say that’s mostly for human scale stuff and as you say involves dumb stuff like leap seconds every handful of years, and presumably the Earth’s spin and orbits will change more radically eventually - i guess we’re just expecting humans to die out before it becomes too much more of a problem.
But thinking about measuring for science - irrespective of human geocentrism?
Should scientific measures all be built up from planck units or something?
deleted by creator
Given that time is more of a human construct than a natural, measurable thing, I don’t know what reasonable options would look like. We very quickly run into relativity!