this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2025
829 points (98.4% liked)

Science Memes

17190 readers
3176 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] turdas@suppo.fi 13 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

The meter isn't really arbitrary, even when you ignore the redefinition posted by @jumperalex. It was originally defined as 1/10,000,000th the distance from Earth's pole to the equator, which is a pretty reasonable basis to use by 1791 standards.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 15 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

That's pretty damn arbitrary on a universal scale

[–] BC_viper@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Everything is pretty arbitrary on a universal scale. Except the speed of light. Which is really fucking slow on a universal scale too.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago

But not arbitrarily.

[–] turdas@suppo.fi 3 points 14 hours ago

True, but it was the 18th century. They could measure earthly things well enough, not so much photons.

It's a bit of a shame it wasn't redefined as 1/300,000,000th of the distance light travels in a second when it was redefined, but the redefinition was about 50 years too late for that to happen. A difference of 0.07% in the base unit of measurement used by all science would've been far too much for 2019, given all the precision measurements we do these days.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That's still arbitrary. The definition is just something that gave a result that was a useful scale for humans. There's no reason to pick that over, say, the average distance to the moon, or something else. That distance is just fairly easy to measure and reasonably consistent over time. There are other choices for it though. The 1/10,000,000 is just whatever number was needed to make it useful. Nature doesn't care about that distance, unlike the speed of light.

[–] turdas@suppo.fi 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Nature doesn't care about anything. It is not a conscious thing. The size of the Earth, however, is a natural phenomenon, just like the speed of light. It just isn't a universal constant, relatively unchanging though it may be.

A multiplier is obviously going to be necessary whatever the base measure, because there's no universal constant that happens to be of a useful, human scale. Or I guess you could use something like the wavelength of the hydrogen line -- about 21.1 cm, a fairly useful length -- but that isn't really inherently a special wavelength, it just happens to be useful in radio astronomy.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 hours ago

The specific chosen points to measure are not natural. The size of the earth is relative to where you pick those points. Sure, it is natural that those two points exist, but choosing them isn't. Any two points any the universe exist naturally. Picking two points to measure is not.

Yeah, to make it useful to humans it needs a scaler. No one is saying that isn't true. That doesn't make it any less arbitrary.