this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
180 points (89.5% liked)

memes

10278 readers
2084 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

No physicist would use pounds to define mass in the U.S. It is just wrong. Weight sure, but that same 1959 definition you mentioned did not mention it as mass from what I am seeing, rather weight - mass. I'll see if I can find the actual accord to see if they list the terms used when proposed as it would be foolish to use pounds, next thing you know we would get a moon lander laying on its side. Haha. : )

[–] PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I couldn't find the text of the agreement, but here is the notice from the US Department of Commerce based on that agreement. What's interesting is that they discuss the relation of the 1959 definition to previous ones, and even back in 1893 the pound was standardized as a unit of mass.

So it seems like, for at least 130 years, we have been "using the pound wrong" and no one bothered to correct us.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Haha, So that would require us to use pound and pound to have to different meanings. 1 pound of mass not equal to 1 pound of weight unless you are in the right circumstances haha. How dumb. Thanks for sending me that link by the way!