Gotta love the snark.

  • bryndos@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    Genuine question, do you think seconds are sensibly defined either in SI or otherwise?

    • Powderhorn@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

      • bryndos@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        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?

        • Powderhorn@beehaw.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          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!