3 ms·

Though one could argue that the (original) definition of a meter and the definition of a nautical mile are equally arbitrary and yet similarly based. Originall

by jp57 2y ago

Though one could argue that the (original) definition of a meter and the definition of a nautical mile are equally arbitrary and yet similarly based. Originally 1 meter was one ten-millionth of the distance over the surface of the earth from the equator to the pole. One nautical mile is the length one arc-minute of latitude along a meridian. (About 1.85km).

lmm 2y ago
They were. The difference is one is part of a standard system of units with sensible relations between different units in the system, and the other isn't; the specifics aren't what's important, the relations are.
eru 2y ago
Yes, the nautical mile is actually les arbitrary than the 'normal' mile. > Originally 1 meter was one ten-millionth of the distance over the surface of the earth from the equator to the pole. Even more originally, they wanted to use the length of a pendulum that takes one second to swing. But they discovered that this varies from place to place. So they came up with the newer definition based on the size of the earth. And just like with all the subsequent redefinitions (like the one based on the speed of light etc), the new length of the metre matches the old length of the metre: > [The] length of the string will be approximately 993.6 millimetres, i.e. less than a centimetre short of one metre everywhere on Earth. This is because the value of g, expressed in m/s^2, is very close to π^2. The definitions matching is by design, not an accident. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metre and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_pendulum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_pendulum If you want something less arbitrary, you can pick 'Natural Units': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units
water-data-dude 2y ago
1 foot is allllllllmost the distance light travels in a nanosecond. If we’d just adjusted the length a tiny bit it would be an excellent unit of measurement

by jp57 2y ago

lmm 2y ago

They were. The difference is one is part of a standard system of units with sensible relations between different units in the system, and the other isn't; the specifics aren't what's important, the relations are.

eru 2y ago

Yes, the nautical mile is actually les arbitrary than the 'normal' mile. > Originally 1 meter was one ten-millionth of the distance over the surface of the earth from the equator to the pole. Even more originally, they wanted to use the length of a pendulum that takes one second to swing. But they discovered that this varies from place to place. So they came up with the newer definition based on the size of the earth. And just like with all the subsequent redefinitions (like the one based on the speed of light etc), the new length of the metre matches the old length of the metre: > [The] length of the string will be approximately 993.6 millimetres, i.e. less than a centimetre short of one metre everywhere on Earth. This is because the value of g, expressed in m/s^2, is very close to π^2. The definitions matching is by design, not an accident. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metre and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_pendulum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_pendulum If you want something less arbitrary, you can pick 'Natural Units': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units

water-data-dude 2y ago

1 foot is allllllllmost the distance light travels in a nanosecond. If we’d just adjusted the length a tiny bit it would be an excellent unit of measurement