I can only imagine what that hellish workday must be like . . .
Posted on 04/20/2008 5:58:33 PM PDT by BGHater
In the more than a century since 'perfect' platinum-iridium cylinders were first used as the world's kilogram standards, their weights have mysteriously fluctuated. Scientists are rethinking what the measure means.
GAITHERSBURG, MD. -- Forty feet underground, secured in a temperature- and humidity-controlled vault here, lies Kilogram No. 20.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I thought this is was why the SI was so superior to the english system, at least that is what we were told.
The diameter and height of the Le Grand K are measured in INCHES? That sure makes sense.
My hunch is the universal gravitational constant isn’t.
Now where is that gravitational constant when you need it?
Just as variations in various nation's kilogram samples have varied, so too have their degree "samples". These degree "samples" have gotten hotter, as weather stations have been painted, moved, and have around them constructions of paved parking lots, buildings, cities.
Bush’s fault.
Now where is that gravitational constant when you need it?
I think they put it in charge of some woman and it hasn’t been the same since.
“Does this kilogram make me look fat?”
When that happens to me, it's usually the three heaping handfuls of Reese's Pieces I shovel into my maw before bed.
How could a standard weight fluctuate? Doesn’t that really mean everything else in the universe had their weight fluctuate?
Okay, who picked up the weight without wearing their silk glove?
I can only imagine what that hellish workday must be like . . .
(heh)
The ID response to this would be to simply state that the designer changed what it weighed and that no further research would be needed.
More likely that the magnetic/gravitational field of the earth has been changing over time. Also, the earth is viewed as a “geoid” as opposed to a constant sphere. a Geoid is somewhat “lumpy”. Also note that different locations over the globe have dfferent gavitic constants - theu, if we have a “known” mass and the gravitic constant for that particular region of the globe changes, that sample no longer “weighs” 1 KG.
Does that make sense?
Folks, ya gotta think "Ted Kennedy" here...
LOL!
As the universe expands, the atoms move farther apart; and so do the subatomic particles of the atom, so the distance between centers of two masses changes, so the gravitational attraction is reduced, so the apparent mass decreases, but due to higher geometries involved. the changes are not the same in all directions...but this also changes rotational and orbital speeds, which changes the centrifugal and centripetal forces, which...but...,which also implies that..., and then...,THEREFORE,...,if God so wills it.
Really? Who told you that SI was superior to Imperial because the replicas of the International Prototype Kilogram were exact and invariant?
And are you aware that since 1893, the definition of the avoirdupois pound (at least in the United States) has been in terms of the kilogram?
You were told that SI is superior to Imperial because it is.
My hunch is the universal gravitational constant isn’t.
Do tell. And does your hunch have a hypothesis to explain why all the replicas of Le Grande K have varied by different amounts? And are you aware that masses are measured using gravity-independent means?
The fact that the kilogram is defined as the mass of an artifact is a relic, left over from the 19th century when representing standards with physical objects was the best that could be done. Soon enough, this will become a nonissue when the kilogram is redefined by fixing Planck's constant, just as the meter was redefined by fixing the speed of light in a vacuum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.