Timeline for What devices would people use to tell time on a tidally locked planet?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 11:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 6, 2017 at 8:58 | history | edited | Flater | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 614 characters in body
|
| Nov 6, 2017 at 8:55 | comment | added | Flater | @KeithMorrison: Note that your comments are not wrong, but you are referring to the definition of the meter, which is not the same as the initial rough estimate of what would be practical. I have updated my answer to disambiguate the two, I hope that settles the matter. | |
| Nov 6, 2017 at 8:52 | comment | added | Flater | @KeithMorrison: Before they decided on the definition of a meter, they first considered an estimate of what would be a practical unit. They didn't just calculate one ten-millionth of the distance between [...] and then decided to use that distance, regardless of whether the outcome was 1m, 1mm or 1km. They already knew that they were going to get a sensible unit of distance before they considered defining the exact distance. They first decided on a practical unit, and only then worked at creating an objective definition for that practical unit. | |
| Nov 4, 2017 at 2:18 | comment | added | Keith Morrison | I was responding to the statement that people just marked up a metal bar and decided that was a meter. That statement is wrong. The bar was that length because the calculation they made told them the bar was to be that length. They were slightly off on the calculation, which is why a century later they decided to just go with the length on the bar. It says all this in very article you linked to. | |
| Nov 3, 2017 at 14:59 | comment | added | Flater | @KeithMorrison: You're putting the cart before the horse. The meter wasn't decided because it's one ten-millionth of the distance between [...] (what would be the significance of using such a distance? It's a meaningless distance to humans). A meter was decided as an approximate length, and only then did they try to express that length as something that is universally measurable and reproducable. You're right about the first official definition of the meter, but that only came after deciding what a meter should (roughly) be from a practical point of view. | |
| Nov 3, 2017 at 14:51 | comment | added | Keith Morrison | The length of the meter wasn't picked arbitrarily. When they were defining the length of the meter, the initial definition was one ten-millionth of the distance between the equator and the pole (ie, a distance of 10,000 kilometers), and then changed that to the length on a bar a few years later. When they came up with this in 1793, they didn't realize the planet wasn't a perfect sphere, but they were close: that's why the circumference of the Earth is 40,007 km through the poles, and 40,075 km at the equator. | |
| Nov 3, 2017 at 14:30 | history | edited | Flater | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 3, 2017 at 14:25 | history | edited | Flater | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 191 characters in body
|
| Nov 3, 2017 at 14:19 | history | answered | Flater | CC BY-SA 3.0 |