Yes, it’s from a book called “Uncle John’s Bathroom Reader” and that book was resting on a closed toilet seat in a nation that only kind of uses the metric system in certain situations… however, you’d be surprised how much you can learn after a single visit to any local fast-food joint!

  • Fred@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    why should the distance from the pole to the equator be used as the baseline for a measurement used by humans?

    For both philosophical and scientific reasons, they wanted a definition that could be recreated any where in the world, certainly not the thumb or foot of any one man. With the “distance from pole to equator” definition, you just need to measure a long north-south axis (say a few hundreds km), and knowledge about the figure of the Earth helps you scale that to the full definition. You can do that anywhere on Earth.

    Another considered definition was the length of a pendulum whose half period is 1s, but even at the time the effect of local gravity was deemed to be too much

    • Rossphorus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      That’s not the point I’m trying to make. You can derive a length from any number of physical constants to make it reproducible, but considering the divisor of exactly ten million suggests the metric committee were far more interested in making something ‘clean’ than something human-friendly. They could have basically done what they do with the modern redefinitions of the metre - the distance travelled by light in 1/299792458 ths of a second. Obviously they chose that number to keep the definition in line with the original, but they could have done that with the original definition to make the metre basically any length they wanted, but they didn’t.