• Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Kethal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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. "

      • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Kethal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • accidental@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year 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!