Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:04:51 UTC No. 16621794

>inspirance
>continuing wanting to care
>feeding the soul not just the mind

...or the occasional "it wasnt a meteor, we get there and that was a fully tilted raptor" life
... the price of freedom is balance yknow?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:40:53 UTC No. 16621830

>>16621788
Highly educated retards have always and will always prove that anyone "good at math" is making up for being bad at thinking. They're glorified calculators.

>>16621794
This second image is more scientifically realistic than the first image.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:08:50 UTC No. 16621919

>>16621788
"corresponding" doesn't mean "defined" to be equal to

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:43:37 UTC No. 16621937

Metric. The French System. The failed attempt to replace over 250,000 different systems of measure with a single system. What a sordid history for such an unscientific system. An incorrect measurement of one ten-millionth of the length from the North Pole to the Equator. Not bad enough. Instead, incorrectly measure the circumference of the Earth then take 9.5 arcs when Mars is at parallax. No, worse, let us redefine all this to the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458s. LOL
Wow. Hahahahaha. geez. Wait, it gets worse. Here's an idea: lets make cooking measurements based on commonly used ratios of things like flour to sugar to milk. No! cries the European. Take our manipulated and incorrect distance and cube it, call it a liter, now divide the theoretical weight of pure H2O (which we cannot create & is not even a kg) by 1000, and now you at home using a calibrated scale can measure out 128 grams of flour & 57 grams of butter instead of using 1 cup & 1/4 of a cup. LOL
9610 kJ. That's how much energy it takes to boil a GALLON of water. All arguments about a system being better than any other is BTFO once one notices a calculator. WolframAlpha. Duckduckgo. Your job (get a job) requires you to use multiple systems, because they're useful for different things. Just kidding, we all work for McDamazon now. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk, you are dismissed.
For the record, the measurement errors of the French don't even matter, because they extrapolated (literally guessed) on the remaining distance after reaching the coast. This obviously took place during a civil war or two, so I don't fault the surveyors, but the system lives with the problem to this very day. An inch is 25.4 mm. Every "refinement" to the meter has been copied over. Using the metric system is just cucking yourself to the french.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 22:20:33 UTC No. 16621996

>>16621788
Meter is one ten-millionth the distance from the equator to the North Pole

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 03:33:03 UTC No. 16622188

>>16621996
That is literally no longer true.
As the earth accretes matter from interplanetary space, its shape changes, and your statement becomes less and less true.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 03:35:00 UTC No. 16622189

>>16621919
How else do you define the hyperfine transition of cesium 133 in precise terms?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 03:57:26 UTC No. 16622201

>>16621788

metric fags in shambles

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 10:03:20 UTC No. 16622318

>>16622188
Doesn't matter to me, I will use that definition until the day I die

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:52:17 UTC No. 16622367

>>16622188
That is his definition. As long as Equator and North pole exist, that will be true. It's literally the meaning of a definition.
If the distance between them changes, it's the length of the metre that changes, not the number of metres between north pole and equator.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:20:00 UTC No. 16622381

>>16621788
Your problem isn't the definition of a meter, it's how we standardize what a second is.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 15:53:11 UTC No. 16622437

>>16621788
llm halucinating and bullshiting? That's unheardof.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:47:02 UTC No. 16622464

>>16621788
>define arbitrary imprecise measurement to make recording observations simple
>with new knowledge that follows, find better more precise reference to base measurement on that doesn't change its value in a significant way
>redefine old measurement to fit new one
I refuse to believe you're confused by this.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:02:39 UTC No. 16622472

>>16622464
How do you measure if you don't know the noise floor and you can experiment to find out where it is?