Author Topic: The Kilogram....Huh?  (Read 2549 times)

Offline Conniesaki

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 580
  • Country: us
Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2018, 02:41:18 pm »
...

Watch out for the 'cat stuff' though, just like the arrow example (if it takes 1/2 of the time for an arrow to travel 1/2 way to its target, and 3/4 of the time for it to get 3/4 of that distance..... then it holds that as the distance can be divided infinitely, so too can the arrow's displacement.... therefore, the arrow will never reach its target. Any arrow, under any circumstances).

...

Now you've gone all calculus on us. I think  ???

"If Achilles is to run from point A to B, he must first travel half the distance, then half again, and so on. Taking the distance from A to B as one, the distance Achilles must travel is the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8...... Because there is an infinity of terms in this series, Achilles can never reach his goal."

Offline B.D.F.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4783
  • Country: 00
  • It's only really cold if you fall down in it.
    • C-14 farkles you almost cannot ride without.
Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2018, 03:39:12 pm »
The ancient Greeks never <quite> got to calculus though they did get 'close enough' IMO. And yes, the arrow will never reach its target because there are infinite 'sections' of distance it must travel is the basis of the concept of limits and asymptotic lines: places one cannot get to but they would be the correct answer if one could go there. But again, when applied to things like moving objects and trying to use these mathematical concepts where they do not belong or apply is, again, mental masturbation IMO.

y = 1/x   As x tends toward infinity (works the other way too, as x tends toward zero), what happens to y. The classic example of limits and asymptopes. You cannot divide by infinity but the closer you get, as x gets bigger, the closer y gets to zero. Hence the limit of the function is zero- a place you cannot get to but you are 'tending toward' that value. And so y 'tends' toward zero. The concept simply does not apply to a moving object and the travel over distance.

But the world is full of miss- applications like that. I always thought Schrödinger's cat was ridiculous, as I think modern quantum physics having electrons disappear and reappear randomly is too.

Brian


Now you've gone all calculus on us. I think  ???

"If Achilles is to run from point A to B, he must first travel half the distance, then half again, and so on. Taking the distance from A to B as one, the distance Achilles must travel is the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8...... Because there is an infinity of terms in this series, Achilles can never reach his goal."
Homo Sapiens Sapiens and just a tad of Neanderthal but it usually does not show....  My Private mail is blocked; it is not you, it is me, just like that dating partner said all those years ago. Please send an e-mail if you want to contact me privately.

KiPass keeping you up at night? Fuel gauge warning burning your retinas? Get unlimited peace and harmony here: www.incontrolne.com

Offline fartymarty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1511
  • Country: us
  • COG#9712 '10 ABS
Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2018, 10:58:13 am »
The gram was never based on any volume measurement of water.

OK, I think that is where I made my major mistake. I went back and reread, and they use weathermanperson speak. (I.e. "chance of"; "likelihood of"; "trending towards"; "models show" )
Quote
The gram takes inspiration from the density of water: It’s roughly equal to the mass of 1 cubic centimeter of water held at 4°C.

Quote from: Wilkipedia
Originally defined as "the absolute weight of a volume of pure water equal to the cube of the hundredth part of a metre [1 cm3], and at the temperature of melting ice"[2] (later at 4 °C, the temperature of maximum density of water). However, in a reversal of reference and defined units, a gram is now defined as one thousandth of the SI base unit, the kilogram, or 1×10−3 kg, which itself is now defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, not in terms of grams, but by "the amount of electricity needed to counteract its force"[3]

I'm not sure why I started this thread, but at least it got to page three...
....is, again, mental masturbation IMO.
Agreed. ;D (even though that quote was about something else and not this thread as a whole, it still applies IMO)

Offline B.D.F.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4783
  • Country: 00
  • It's only really cold if you fall down in it.
    • C-14 farkles you almost cannot ride without.
Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2018, 03:09:11 pm »
Well, it seemed to me that you started this thread because you were curious about both the Kibble balance but especially about how, why and how accurately mass (the gram, the kilogram) was defined / determined / compared in the first place. I took a look, admittedly a skim at first, of the article at the link you posted and conversed about it.

Of course any serious discussion of science needs an injection of amusement so I did my best there...... but it seems to have bounced off. Oh well, off to the next discussion.

:-)

Brian



OK, I think that is where I made my major mistake. I went back and reread, and they use weathermanperson speak. (I.e. "chance of"; "likelihood of"; "trending towards"; "models show" )
I'm not sure why I started this thread, but at least it got to page three... Agreed. ;D (even though that quote was about something else and not this thread as a whole, it still applies IMO)
Homo Sapiens Sapiens and just a tad of Neanderthal but it usually does not show....  My Private mail is blocked; it is not you, it is me, just like that dating partner said all those years ago. Please send an e-mail if you want to contact me privately.

KiPass keeping you up at night? Fuel gauge warning burning your retinas? Get unlimited peace and harmony here: www.incontrolne.com

Offline MAN OF BLUES

  • Arena
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2685
  • Country: 00
  • WHISKEY.Tango.Foxtrot.
Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2018, 03:20:22 pm »
OK, I think that is where I made my major mistake. I went back and reread, and they use weathermanperson speak. (I.e. "chance of"; "likelihood of"; "trending towards"; "models show" )
I'm not sure why I started this thread, but at least it got to page three... Agreed. ;D (even though that quote was about something else and not this thread as a whole, it still applies IMO)

see what you started....

and it's just the beginning of the snow season......






by spring, everyone will have gone off the deep end....







see I told you to go buy a Royale with Cheese... and stay away from Burger King


30 YEARS OF KAW.....

Offline fartymarty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1511
  • Country: us
  • COG#9712 '10 ABS
Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2018, 08:01:20 am »

Of course any serious discussion of science needs an injection of amusement so I did my best there...... but it seems to have bounced off. Oh well, off to the next discussion.

:-)

Brian

Hey, I chuckled! You just couldn't hear it over the internet because of all the background noise left over from the big bang....or is that someone's baby blue Indian idling?