this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
904 points (98.1% liked)
People Twitter
4975 readers
1635 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Big nope. It depends not only on height, but also on density of stuff under ground.
I'd say it's more of a "small yes" than a "big nope."
While gravity does vary, it goes from about 9.76 to about 9.83.
All of which does, in fact, round to 9.8
On ISS it's 8.722, but it's constantly falling.
Everything experiences different gravity (and “apparent gravity”) in space. We should pass a treaty of using metric only there, if only to avoid losing more spacecraft.
The pedantry in this post is so dense you would need a torch to cut through it
What's the variation? Does it ever get to 9.9 or 9.7? It's a negligible "nope" for people weighing themselves :D
We are talking about engieneering use. Though good scales can be callibrated.
You can look up gravity survey maps but it's not a huge variation in the habitable altitudes
We already have a permanently inhabited base outside Earth (ISS) with effectively zero gravity and there might be one on the Moon or Mars in 100 years. We should pass treaties to only use metric in space – a probe has been lost to unit confusion already.
On ISS it's ≈.89g, but agreed
I said “effectively zero gravity” for a reason – the term is “zero gravity” but I know it's a misnomer.
This is dated 2007. Apparently NASA is already using metric:
NASA Finally Goes Metric
I know, it has always used metric but the SW was by Lockheed Martin. Still, we need to convince potential extraterrestrial civilians.
We will convince them by force if necessary. They will adopt the Metric or get barred from entering the space bar