Definition of kilogram, amp, and kelvin set to change forever

[jonnydot]

https://cosmosmagazine.com/mathemati...change-forever

[mklotz]

One is forced to wonder if they will be redefining the DRS (Dumb Redneck System) units so commonly used on TV news and documentaries...

Length: 747 wingspans
Area: football fields
Volume: Olympic swimming pools
Mass: elephants
Electrical Power: volts

[Jon]

One is forced to wonder if they will be redefining the DRS (Dumb Redneck System) units so commonly used on TV news and documentaries...

Length: 747 wingspans
Area: football fields
Volume: Olympic swimming pools
Mass: elephants
Electrical Power: volts

Couldn't resist!

[neilbourjaily@gmail.com]

Speaking of dumb redneck measurements, The fresh fruit packing biz learned me to estimate area pretty quickly: mile(1760yds) X mile =640acres, 1/2(880yds) x mile=320, 1/2 x 1/2=160, 1/2x1/4(440yds)=80, 1/4x1/4=40, 1/8(220yds)x1/4=20, 1/8x1/8=10, 1/16(100yds)x1/8=5, 1/16x1/16=2.5, 1/16x1/32(55yds)=1.25. Thus a redneck's football field is a touch more than an acre.

[mklotz]

Speaking of dumb redneck measurements, The fresh fruit packing biz learned me to estimate area pretty quickly: mile(1760yds) X mile =640acres, 1/2(880yds) x mile=320, 1/2 x 1/2=160, 1/2x1/4(440yds)=80, 1/4x1/4=40, 1/8(220yds)x1/4=20, 1/8x1/8=10, 1/16(100yds)x1/8=5, 1/16x1/16=2.5, 1/16x1/32(55yds)=1.25. Thus a redneck's football field is a touch more than an acre.

Kinda big "touch"...

(American) football field = 360 x 160 ft = 57,600 ft^2
Acre = 660 x 66 ft = 43,560 ft^2 = 75% of a football field

For the benefit of readers unfamiliar with ACS (American Customary Units)...

The definition of an acre is a classic example of the nonsense that went into defining ACS. An acre is the amount of land a man can plow in a day. This became standardized to be an area a furlong in length by a chain wide. A furlong is an eighth of a mile (5280 / 8 ft) or ten chains (10 * 66 ft). Thus an acre is ten square chains.

The chain itself is a little bundle of awkwardness. Used in surveying, it became necessary to divide the chain into smaller units. So the chain was divided into 100 links. 66 links might have made a modicum of sense but no, we now have a link that's 0.66 ft = 7.92 in long!

[Frank S]

They are wrong about the speed of light remaining constant in a vacuum light is effected by gravitational fields for one I think it was Feynman who lectured on the principals of light speed with varying time lapses
To quote Richard Feynman "...there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c."
What this means to the redneck in me is that no matter who well defined some may think their unit of measurement is there will always be someone who will come along later or has previously debunked your absolutes.

[nhengineer]

They are wrong about the speed of light remaining constant in a vacuum light is effected by gravitational fields for one I think it was Feynman who lectured on the principals of light speed with varying time lapses
To quote Richard Feynman "...there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c."
What this means to the redneck in me is that no matter who well defined some may think their unit of measurement is there will always be someone who will come along later or has previously debunked your absolutes.

Frank S, you are obviously a clear thinker so please respond to my question regarding the speed of light that I have been asking every person of similar awareness as you for the last sixty years. That would be, the speed of light relative to what exactly? Nothing in the universe is stationary; therefore, the speed of light must be relative to the body emitting it. If that body is moving at, say 3,000 cubits per second relative to the nearest body of mass (which itself is also moving by the way), then the speed of the photons being emitted must be equal to their speed relative to the body emitting them added to the speed of the emitting body but only if the emitting body is moving in the opposite direction as the body of reference. I could carry that out quite a bit further but I save that of another time.

I used cubits as a unit of measure because it is defined as from 17-1/2" to 20-6/10" which is accurate enough for me.

[Scotsman Hosie]

Frank S, you are obviously a clear thinker so please respond to my question regarding the speed of light that I have been asking every person of similar awareness as you for the last sixty years. That would be, the speed of light relative to what exactly? Nothing in the universe is stationary; therefore, the speed of light must be relative to the body emitting it. If that body is moving at, say 3,000 cubits per second relative to the nearest body of mass (which itself is also moving by the way), then the speed of the photons being emitted must be equal to their speed relative to the body emitting them added to the speed of the emitting body but only if the emitting body is moving in the opposite direction as the body of reference. I could carry that out quite a bit further but I save that of another time.

It has been demonstrated that the speed of light is a constant. Which, despite differences − demonstrated through various media, as well as the effects of gravity − means that speeds are not additive, with respect to the speed of light. A moving body will either compress or stretch wavelengths − in relation to an observer. Hence, the attendant red-shift, of a sources frequency is noted. The speed at which the wave is propagated, however, remains the same. It's how astronomers are able to tell whether stars are moving towards or away from us. And provides established evidence, for an expanding universe.

[nhengineer]

It has been demonstrated that the speed of light is a constant. Which, despite differences − demonstrated through various media, as well as the effects of gravity − means that speeds are not additive, with respect to the speed of light. A moving body will either compress or stretch wavelengths − in relation to an observer. Hence, the attendant red-shift, of a sources frequency is noted. The speed at which the wave is propagated, however, remains the same. It's how astronomers are able to tell whether stars are moving towards or away from us. And provides established evidence, for an expanding universe.

Well Scottie, respectfully I respond that you are merely re-quoting someone's theory that you read or heard. Yup, I know lots of research grant dollars were spent on the study of the speed of light but I'm not buying into that theory. I'm an independent thinker. It is not logically possible for the speed of light to be constant. I hope we both live long enough to find that I am right and that other guy was wrong.

Furthermore; I don't buy into the theory that petroleum comes from long buried, rotted, dinosaur carcasses and tropical vegetation or that we all originated from middle Africa or that Venus was originally formed in our solar system. I could go on but I really like this forum.

Check with my friend Immanuel for more information.

[DIYSwede]

Well Scottie, respectfully I respond that you are merely re-quoting someone's theory that you read or heard./SNIP

I'm an independent thinker. It is not logically possible for the speed of light to be constant./SNIP

Furthermore; I don't buy into the theory that petroleum comes from long buried, rotted, dinosaur carcasses and tropical vegetation or that we all originated from middle Africa or that Venus was originally formed in our solar system. I could go on but I really like this forum.

Check with my friend Immanuel for more information.

David - your purportedly respectful reply to Scottie is quite a claim from someone not even bothering himself to answer questions,
post relevant and identified facts or some empirically qualified theories, though demanding that every else should do so.
And when somebody (including myself) does - you "refute" them by calling them "fanatics", or as merely re-quoting someone,
instead of putting in some relevant, qualified and identified facts and theories yourself.

For starters: Please explain those "petroleum, human and Venus origin" ideas of yours,
and then just go on proving that you haven't merely swallowed Mr Velikovskys theories with bait, hook and sinker yourself?

As you presume to be a "Man on a Mission", walking the lonesome path of yet another "independent thinker",
feel absolutely free to experience more of this independence than even you could've imagined!

I, for one, wish you godspeed.

cheers
Johan