Our current system of seconds/minutes/hours/days/weeks/years is fucking barbaric. We have to make up some stupid bullshit like leap years, and leap seconds, because the system is so shitty since we tried to match the rotation of the earth along its axis (day) to the rotation around the sun (year).
Anyone agree or am I just retarded?
Nathaniel Rogers
Just because we have a leap year every 4 years, is that really a good enough reason to convert our entire system to something else?
Nathaniel Ward
Yes because it's based off of days and years since it was the only way people were able to measure time historically. But now we have science, and better methods can be developed for measuring time. For example, the amount of time it takes for light to travel across X amount of Hydrogen atoms.
Jayden Gray
>seconds/minutes/hours/days/weeks/years >not using the metric system
el oh el te be eightch
Angel Jenkins
>"The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom."
How exactly will changing that to >the amount of time it takes for light to travel across X amount of Hydrogen atoms fix anything?
Brody Parker
>Our current system of seconds/minutes/hours/days/weeks/years is fucking barbaric. Quite the opposite. 60 is divisible by 2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15 and 30. By contrast the metric system (SI) seems crude and primitive, ESPECIALLY since it was developed long before the "superior" base 10 system.
>We have to make up some stupid bullshit like leap years, and leap seconds, because the system is so shitty NO, it's because we're trying to apply a standardized system to such erratic (yet relevant) things as the Earth's rotation and orbit.
>am I just retarded? Maybe. Lets see: how would you "improve" the current system? Aside from ISO 8601, I see little room for improvement. Of course, we could adopt "megaseconds" and such for scientific reasons, ditto Julian dates, but these seem like band-aid style "solutions". What would you propose? In particular, what are you trying to fix?
Christopher Foster
>By contrast the metric system (SI) seems crude and primitive, ESPECIALLY since it was developed long before the "superior" base 10 system. Oops! should be: ESPECIALLY since it was developed long after the "inferior" base 60 system.
Aaron Green
I don't like it either, what would be a more efficient system?
Maybe we should just change our numeral system to base 12 or base 60.
Ethan Ramirez
No that would just be super confusing since we're changing the definitions of minutes, hours, and days
Evan Gray
>not including decade
Owen Brown
>redesigning the wheel
Justin Cook
How about
>10 metric hours in a day >100 metric minutes in a metric hour >100 metric seconds in a metric hour Under this scheme, a metric second would be about 0.864 of a contemporary second
Christopher Johnson
I actually kinda like that. it'll never happen though
Easton Young
>100 metric seconds in a metric hour you mean 100 metric seconds in a metric minute?
Adrian Collins
Yeah. Minutes would be 44% longer, and hours would be 144% longer
Jose Kelly
Unix time is already a thing. It can be expressed in terms of hecto- and kiloseconds for practical timescales.
Adam Stewart
The main obstacle is that changing it would create so much inconvenient work. Every document with a date, digital or written, would require you to calculate the time in your units through some obtuse formula. Not only that, historical dates, opening times of stores, it all would have to be realigned. And for what? You replaced one arbitrary system with another, the impending loss of divisibility is actually an issue, and nature still has constants which do fuckall to align to your system. You gained no convenience.
I can rather see a switch from base 10 to base 12 or 16. In that case, a couple of generations would have to learn foreign base calulations or how it is called.
James Cruz
I understand that using those units for anything scientific is idiotic and the whole 60 s = 1 min thing can be confusing, but all in all that's not a problem with how we take time, but the context it is measured in, namely the earth's orbit around the sun and its rotation. We can't change those.
>amount of time it takes for light to travel across X amount of Hydrogen atoms. Stop talking about shit you don't understand.
Michael Thompson
Yeah but a second is still pretty much arbitrary, and unix time still has the involvement of months and days because it's based on time since January 1 1970
Henry Ross
What's more important is we need to redefine the second in terms of fundamental physical constants instead of the properties of a particular element, ideally such that it will be an exact multiple of the Planck time.
Christian Wilson
>a second is still pretty much arbitrary all units of measurement are cmopletely arbitrary you colossal retard
Carson Gomez
>establish base 12 as the standard counting system >24 hour days are now easily represented as two whole parts >remove the concept of months entirely >years are now measured in weeks >weeks consist of 7 days to not trigger normies too much >a year consists of 2 semesters of 12+1 weeks each >the extra week is holiday >