Tucker Carlson vs. the Metric System

[Bronzeage]

Tucker Carlson is an idiot, the kind of idiot who is easily fooled.

We are surrounded by the metric system. Every fastener and thread on every automobile sold since 1977 is metric. You can go into a hardware store and buy a bolt with 1/4x20 threads, a very English denomination, but when you get home, you better have a 10mm wrench, because that's what size head is on a 1/4 bolt these days.

I was looking around my bench and picked up a pack of sandpaper. The sheet size is labeled 3&2/3 inches by 9 inches. There's no such thing as 2/3 of an inch.

 

[fast]

Tucker Carlson is an idiot, the kind of idiot who is easily fooled.

We are surrounded by the metric system. Every fastener and thread on every automobile sold since 1977 is metric. You can go into a hardware store and buy a bolt with 1/4x20 threads, a very English denomination, but when you get home, you better have a 10mm wrench, because that's what size head is on a 1/4 bolt these days.

I was looking around my bench and picked up a pack of sandpaper. The sheet size is labeled 3&2/3 inches by 9 inches. There's no such thing as 2/3 of an inch.

You had me until that last sentence. I’m thinking you can double it until there is such a thing; then, measure something that size and cut it in half as many times as you doubled it

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Tucker is a moron. For many years, I was an engineering model builder. I built models of oil refineries and off shore drilling platforms. The idea was to catch mistakes early on before they became seriously expensive mistakes. later the models would be used to orientate
construction crews and later to train operators.

This meant for me, a lot of trigonometry with a calculator. Doing trig with feet, inches and fractions of inches is a lot of fun. Even more fun with projects mixing feet and inches and metric.

I can guarantee you, Tucker Carlson couldn't do the math.

Fun fact. There really was no imperial system when America was founded. So one was created for America that standardized miles, gallons et al for the new country. By president Thomas Jefferson.

 

[bilby]

You are making a kilometer out of a picometer. The various differences in definitional measurements according to Wikipedia ( History_of_the_metre, see the last section on the history of the definitions) are extremely small.

oh.

I thought the distance light travels would be impacted by its extremely small change.

Negligibly so, apparently. My bad.

The distance light travels in a second is a fixed value. It never changes; It is EXACTLY 299,792,458 metres per second, and always will be.

Any measurements that are more accurate than those made previously will change the length of the metre.

 

[fromderinside]

See Lord Raleigh. These moderns have moved the speed of light from 300,000,000 meters/sec to 299,792,458 meters/sec by finding the metre is a few nanometers more than original measurements.

 

[bilby]

See Lord Raleigh. These moderns have moved the speed of light from 300,000,000 meters/sec to 299,792,458 meters/sec by finding the metre is a few nanometers more than original measurements.

On the contrary. The metre has always been exactly 1,000,000,000 nanometres. The metre (and therefore the nanometre) is simply not the size it was thought to be. The speed of light (like the number of nanometres in a metre) is defined, not measured.

 

[fast]

You are making a kilometer out of a picometer. The various differences in definitional measurements according to Wikipedia ( History_of_the_metre, see the last section on the history of the definitions) are extremely small.

oh.

I thought the distance light travels would be impacted by its extremely small change.

Negligibly so, apparently. My bad.

The distance light travels in a second is a fixed value. It never changes; It is EXACTLY 299,792,458 metres per second, and always will be.

Any measurements that are more accurate than those made previously will change the length of the metre.

See, another example of something that changed that impacts the meter. I’m not sure what’s more amazing: that we can keep everything straight with all these changing constants or that the changes are so minuscule it doesn’t matter.

 

[fast]

See Lord Raleigh. These moderns have moved the speed of light from 300,000,000 meters/sec to 299,792,458 meters/sec by finding the metre is a few nanometers more than original measurements.

On the contrary. The metre has always been exactly 1,000,000,000 nanometres. The metre (and therefore the nanometre) is simply not the size it was thought to be. The speed of light (like the number of nanometres in a metre) is defined, not measured.

That can have weird implications too.

 

[steve_bank]

Accuracy and precision are two different things.

Precision is how many decimal points you have. Accuracy is how close you are to a true value.

If you define the meter by the second then precision is how many divisions can be resolved in the distance. 1/4 wavelength of can be resolved using intermarry routinely. Laser gauges.

The second is not exact, it has an uncertainty.

 

[bilby]

Accuracy and precision are two different things.

Precision is how many decimal points you have. Accuracy is how close you are to a true value.

If you define the meter by the second then precision is how many divisions can be resolved in the distance. 1/4 wavelength of can be resolved using intermarry routinely. Laser gauges.

The second is not exact, it has an uncertainty.

The speed of light is constant and defined.

The second is defined exactly, and therefore it has a precise value; However it's measurement to an arbitrary degree of accuracy is not possible.

The metre is derived from c and the second. It is neither precisely known, nor measurable to an arbitrary degree of accuracy.

Exactitude is a measure of precision. (Un)certainty is a measure of accuracy.

Hence the well known, and perfectly reasonable instruction to chemistry students "Weigh out exactly approximately 12g of reagent...".

 

[Gun Nut]

There's no such thing as 2/3 of an inch.

it's 42/64th of an inch plus a coat of paint.

 

[Gun Nut]

See Lord Raleigh. These moderns have moved the speed of light from 300,000,000 meters/sec to 299,792,458 meters/sec by finding the metre is a few nanometers more than original measurements.

On the contrary. The metre has always been exactly 1,000,000,000 nanometres. The metre (and therefore the nanometre) is simply not the size it was thought to be. The speed of light (like the number of nanometres in a metre) is defined, not measured.

wouldn't the size change based on speed (closer to the speed of light the shorter it is)? As I hand you the meter long object, it is moving relative to me, and therefore changes size.

 

[steve_bank]

See Lord Raleigh. These moderns have moved the speed of light from 300,000,000 meters/sec to 299,792,458 meters/sec by finding the metre is a few nanometers more than original measurements.

On the contrary. The metre has always been exactly 1,000,000,000 nanometres. The metre (and therefore the nanometre) is simply not the size it was thought to be. The speed of light (like the number of nanometres in a metre) is defined, not measured.

wouldn't the size change based on speed (closer to the speed of light the shorter it is)? As I hand you the meter long object, it is moving relative to me, and therefore changes size.

Observed size between inertial frames can vary due to C.

 

[Gun Nut]

wouldn't the size change based on speed (closer to the speed of light the shorter it is)? As I hand you the meter long object, it is moving relative to me, and therefore changes size.

Observed size between inertial frames can vary due to C.

so then what's a meter, but simply a point of view of the observer... when getting into that level of precision.

 

[steve_bank]

wouldn't the size change based on speed (closer to the speed of light the shorter it is)? As I hand you the meter long object, it is moving relative to me, and therefore changes size.

Observed size between inertial frames can vary due to C.

so then what's a meter, but simply a point of view of the observer... when getting into that level of precision.

In relativity C is constnt in all frames. Regadless of relative frames a meter will always be a mer in a frame.

Two space ships are at rest to each other. On each ship a meter is measured. One accelerates away, a meter and second appear the same.

I belie one of AEs thought experiments was observing a train. The finite C limits when you actually make an observation of distance. Or so I think.

 

[bilby]

See Lord Raleigh. These moderns have moved the speed of light from 300,000,000 meters/sec to 299,792,458 meters/sec by finding the metre is a few nanometers more than original measurements.

On the contrary. The metre has always been exactly 1,000,000,000 nanometres. The metre (and therefore the nanometre) is simply not the size it was thought to be. The speed of light (like the number of nanometres in a metre) is defined, not measured.

wouldn't the size change based on speed (closer to the speed of light the shorter it is)? As I hand you the meter long object, it is moving relative to me, and therefore changes size.

A metre isn't an object; it's a distance. If you start with a metre long object, and arrange for it to accelerate past you at a large fraction of c, it will appear shorter than a metre to you. But if you travel along with it, it will remain the same length.

c is constant for all observers; But they may disagree on the duration of a second, and as a result also disagree on the length of a metre.

That time and distance are variable dependent on the reference frame of the observer, while c is not, is the cornerstone of relativity.

Fortunately for us, c² is a very large number; So Newtonian mechanics are accurate enough for most purposes. If that weren't true, it might have taken a very long time for humanity to develop a consistent understanding of mechanics.

Equally fortunately, Planck's Constant (h) is very small, so quantum effects are only important at very small scales. If they applied to macroscopic objects, it would have been very hard to determine the mechanics of the universe.

Because classical mechanics is very accurate at human scales, we were able to use them to bud the tools we needed to understand relativistic and quantum mechanics, which both seem very strange to brains that evolved in a slow and medium sized environment.

 

[fromderinside]

On the contrary. The metre has always been exactly 1,000,000,000 nanometres. The metre (and therefore the nanometre) is simply not the size it was thought to be. The speed of light (like the number of nanometres in a metre) is defined, not measured.

Basically I agree. However it is true that capability to measure time has improved over time. So when we finally get a measure reducing uncertainty of measurement of distance light travels in a amount of time of one part in 10^-13 for a second when we use that clock to measure the distance light travels one meter is now defined at 1/299,792,458 second.

The Standard Meter http://www.surveyhistory.org/the_standard_meter1.htm

Here's my problem. The distance from the equator to the pole changes continuously as the result, primarily, of the force exerted by changes in gravity produced by change in the distance from the earth to the sun.  History of the metre This form of error is reduced by using increasingly higher frequency molecule oscillations which reduce the uncertainty of measurement of light speed. So a meter is the same as long as the measure upon which the meter is based has the same uncertainty of measurement

[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center"]Basis of definition[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center"]Date[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center"]Absolute
uncertainty[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center"]Relative
uncertainty[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]​¹⁄_10,000,000 part of one half of a meridian, measurement by Delambre and Méchain[/TD]
[TD]1798[/TD]
[TD]0.5–0.1 mm[/TD]
[TD]10⁻⁴[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]First prototype Mètre des Archives platinum bar standard[/TD]
[TD]1799[/TD]
[TD]0.05–0.01 mm[/TD]
[TD]10⁻⁵[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Platinum-iridium bar at melting point of ice (1st CGPM)[/TD]
[TD]1889[/TD]
[TD]0.2–0.1 μm[/TD]
[TD]10⁻⁷[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Platinum-iridium bar at melting point of ice, atmospheric pressure, supported by two rollers (7th CGPM)[/TD]
[TD]1927[/TD]
[TD]n.a.[/TD]
[TD]n.a.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,650,763.73 wavelengths of light from a specified transition in krypton-86 (11th CGPM)[/TD]
[TD]1960[/TD]
[TD]0.01–0.005 μm[/TD]
[TD]10⁻⁸[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in ​¹⁄_299,792,458 of a second (17th CGPM)[/TD]
[TD]1983[/TD]
[TD]0.1 nm[/TD]
[TD]10⁻¹⁰[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The concept of defining a unit of length in terms of a time received some comment,^[65] although it was similar to Wilkins' original proposal in 1668 to define the universal unit of length in terms of the seconds pendulum. In both cases, the practical issue is that time can be measured more accurately than length (one part in 10¹³ for a second using a caesium clock as opposed to four parts in 10⁹ for the metre in 1983).^[54][65] The definition in terms of the speed of light also means that the metre can be realized using any light source of known frequency, rather than defining a "preferred" source in advance. Given that there are more than 22,000 lines in the visible spectrum of iodine, any of which could be potentially used to stabilize a laser source, the advantages of flexibility are obvious.^[65]

When all the above is true we still have the problem of ascertaining what one means by vacuum (number of particles per m³ ).

IOW we don't have the hand of God here we have best empirical evidence meaning 'same' is related to uncertainty of measurement. So we can't actually say 'light speed is defined' since the data is behind the definition is empirically generated.

 

[bilby]

On the contrary. The metre has always been exactly 1,000,000,000 nanometres. The metre (and therefore the nanometre) is simply not the size it was thought to be. The speed of light (like the number of nanometres in a metre) is defined, not measured.

Basically I agree. However it is true that capability to measure time has improved over time. So when we finally get a measure reducing uncertainty of measurement of distance light travels in a amount of time of one part in 10^-13 for a second when we use that clock to measure the distance light travels one meter is now defined at 1/299,792,458 second.

The Standard Meter http://www.surveyhistory.org/the_standard_meter1.htm

Here's my problem. The distance from the equator to the pole changes continuously as the result, primarily, of the force exerted by changes in gravity produced by change in the distance from the earth to the sun.  History of the metre This form of error is reduced by using increasingly higher frequency molecule oscillations which reduce the uncertainty of measurement of light speed. So a meter is the same as long as the measure upon which the meter is based has the same uncertainty of measurement

[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center"]Basis of definition[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center"]Date[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center"]Absolute
uncertainty[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center"]Relative
uncertainty[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]​¹⁄_10,000,000 part of one half of a meridian, measurement by Delambre and Méchain[/TD]
[TD]1798[/TD]
[TD]0.5–0.1 mm[/TD]
[TD]10⁻⁴[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]First prototype Mètre des Archives platinum bar standard[/TD]
[TD]1799[/TD]
[TD]0.05–0.01 mm[/TD]
[TD]10⁻⁵[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Platinum-iridium bar at melting point of ice (1st CGPM)[/TD]
[TD]1889[/TD]
[TD]0.2–0.1 μm[/TD]
[TD]10⁻⁷[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Platinum-iridium bar at melting point of ice, atmospheric pressure, supported by two rollers (7th CGPM)[/TD]
[TD]1927[/TD]
[TD]n.a.[/TD]
[TD]n.a.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,650,763.73 wavelengths of light from a specified transition in krypton-86 (11th CGPM)[/TD]
[TD]1960[/TD]
[TD]0.01–0.005 μm[/TD]
[TD]10⁻⁸[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in ​¹⁄_299,792,458 of a second (17th CGPM)[/TD]
[TD]1983[/TD]
[TD]0.1 nm[/TD]
[TD]10⁻¹⁰[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The concept of defining a unit of length in terms of a time received some comment,^[65] although it was similar to Wilkins' original proposal in 1668 to define the universal unit of length in terms of the seconds pendulum. In both cases, the practical issue is that time can be measured more accurately than length (one part in 10¹³ for a second using a caesium clock as opposed to four parts in 10⁹ for the metre in 1983).^[54][65] The definition in terms of the speed of light also means that the metre can be realized using any light source of known frequency, rather than defining a "preferred" source in advance. Given that there are more than 22,000 lines in the visible spectrum of iodine, any of which could be potentially used to stabilize a laser source, the advantages of flexibility are obvious.^[65]

When all the above is true we still have the problem of ascertaining what one means by vacuum (number of particles per m³ ).

IOW we don't have the hand of God here we have best empirical evidence meaning 'same' is related to uncertainty of measurement. So we can't actually say 'light speed is defined' since the data is behind the definition is empirically generated.

No, lightspeed is defined, arbitrarily and to a perfect degree of accuracy. It's a fixed constant, by fiat. So we cannot do anything OTHER than say 'light speed is defined'.

No matter what you measure, where, when, how, or to what degree of accuracy, c will continue to be exactly 299,792,458m.s^-1

We DO have the 'hand of god' here. God is the Conférence générale des poids et mesures, and they have set this by fiat.

The metre and the second are up for debate. c is NOT.

 

[fromderinside]

Look obviously c is a fixed number unless .... and there are a lot of unless this or unless that there. We believe and observer under the limitations of our place in the universe light speed within the bounds of our knowledge and availability to information.

We have fixed the speed of light by measurement within the limits of our ability to do and observe. We have tied another bow on our theories recently within, again, the limits of our ability to manipulate and observe.

But we aren't God and the declaration, is at base just the result of many observations. Speed of light is fixed by theory not fact. Yes theory that has been validated again and again, but still theory under continuing doubt resulting from error and limitation of our ability to observe and measure. It's why we use things like bound, limits, uncertainty when we specify strong, not perfect, definitions. It's why I took other's statements when I wrote the post above that specified uncertainty of measure. Yes the uncertainty is re distance and time because our clocks are not perfect nor are out tools to ascertain our measures of them.

It's just a shame that the table didn't include reference to which the uncertainties arise, hemisphere, melting point, frequency, and spectral line observational limitation .... I think just based on the text surrounding those bounds.

 

[bilby]

Look obviously c is a fixed number

Yes. Yes it is.

unless .... and there are a lot of unless this or unless that there.

No, there aren't. The ONLY 'unless' in this context is 'unless you are absolutely insisting to be allowed to be wrong'.

We believe and observer under the limitations of our place in the universe light speed within the bounds of our knowledge and availability to information.

We have fixed the speed of light by measurement within the limits of our ability to do and observe.

NO!

We have fixed the speed of light BY FIAT. No measurement is needed nor even possible.

We have tied another bow on our theories recently within, again, the limits of our ability to manipulate and observe.

But we aren't God and the declaration, is at base just the result of many observations.

Wrong.

Speed of light is fixed by theory not fact.

No, it is fixed by fiat. Neither theory nor fact need apply.

Yes theory that has been validated again and again, but still theory under continuing doubt resulting from error and limitation of our ability to observe and measure.

c CANNOT be measured.

It IS by definition 299,792,458m.s^-1.

It's why we use things like bound, limits, uncertainty when we specify strong, not perfect, definitions. It's why I took other's statements when I wrote the post above that specified uncertainty of measure. Yes the uncertainty is re distance and time because our clocks are not perfect nor are out tools to ascertain our measures of them.

That's lovely. But you are completely wrong. There's no uncertainty, and nothing to measure. No matter what you measure, and what accuracy or error there might be in your measurement, c remains unchanged, precise, and exact.

It's just a shame that the table didn't include reference to which the uncertainties arise, hemisphere, melting point, frequency, and spectral line observational limitation .... I think just based on the text surrounding those bounds.

It's just a shame you don't understand that c is fixed by fiat.

It's an anchor point. The length of the metre and (to a lesser extent) the duration of the second are uncertain. c is NOT.