We define 0 as the arbitrary time when a random jew died. 60 secs in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours has never set well with me either. Why can't we get some sort metric hour, minutes, seconds so we have multiples of 10.
Why isn't there an SI time unit that isn't based on historical things?
- Thread starter GWestphal
- Start date
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,202
- 4,401
- 136
Time is a relative measure for virtually all calculations, so there is no driving force to cause people to change to a base-10 system: it's more work to switch and no benefit comes from it so why change?
Born2bwire
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2005
- 9,840
- 6
- 71
60 makes the most sense because it is so easy to divide into whole numbers. You can divide by 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 without any remainders. With 10, we only have 2 as the only non-trivial whole number divisor.
While it is relative, it seems silly to have everything else be in a nice ordered hierarchy but then leave out time.
What about year systems that start from a less arbitrary time than a random death? I suppose it would still be arbitrary, but ....
What about year systems that start from a less arbitrary time than a random death? I suppose it would still be arbitrary, but ....
Last edited:
I think modern history believes that Jesus was a real person, and lived in the time that Christianity believes he did. Thus, the numbering of year 0 shouldn't be considered to be a "mythological" thing - it's just an inaccurate numbering scheme based on the life of a particular person.
The significance of that particular person may involve myth, but you can't argue that Jesus had a huge impact on history leading up to the current day.
The significance of that particular person may involve myth, but you can't argue that Jesus had a huge impact on history leading up to the current day.
You realize you just posted this in the Highly Technical forum where some of us actually read scientific literature, right? Here is but one article (which cites many other sources) on the reality of the historical Jesus. It's ironic that this historical fact is questioned by those who think believers are suckers.
ussfletcher
Platinum Member
- Apr 16, 2005
- 2,569
- 2
- 81
On another note, the year 0 also doesn't exist. It goes 1 BC to 1 AD. This is why the new millenium technically started in 2001, not 2000.
Well, if we take 1 CE to be Year 1, then 2000 CE is to be Year 2000. It's like when you count something else, you start at 1 and celebrate milestones of 10 (or 100, or whatever). You don't celebrate 11 just because you started counting at 1.
Regardless, it's moot because it's an arbitrary definition based on an arbitrary measure based on an arbitrary reference. May as well have something that intuitively makes sense.
And 60 is also divisible by 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30. I think he left out the reciprocal factors on purpose.
OSULugan
Senior member
- Feb 22, 2003
- 289
- 0
- 76
Correct. So we celebrate 10 years (or 100 or 1000) passing. Not some arbitrary 9 (or 99 or 999) years passing just because we started counting at 1.
There were calendars with diverse eras used. Wiki calendar.
If you want real food for thought about our measurement of time, consider that up until quite recently, our definition of a second was based on division (/24 / 60 / 60) of length of day that was relatively easily measured with reference to stars. So it was a measure of integral of the angular velocity of Earth. Which happens not to be a constant. We've known about this inconstancy for a couple of centuries, but it took the modern atomic clock to provide something both more accurate and practical.
But the switch is not complete.
Atomic people run TAI.
Astronomically minded set seems to have a hold on UTC which defines (co-ordinates, they say) our 'civil time'. Nowadays, such time is used to timestampt pretty important stuff, like stock transactions, where every second counts.
There was a partial compromise (which many people hate), where UTC has accepted that the length of the second used for civil time is the same as that measured by TAI (and based on SI definition), but to keep their astronomical attachments to the position of Sun and stars w.r..t midnight and midday, they add a "leap second" every now and then.
Overall, Earth rotation keeps slowing down but it also flunctuates randomly. Hence no one can give you the table with exact predictions for future 'leap seconds'. Only trends.
Pain, I tell you...
If you want real food for thought about our measurement of time, consider that up until quite recently, our definition of a second was based on division (/24 / 60 / 60) of length of day that was relatively easily measured with reference to stars. So it was a measure of integral of the angular velocity of Earth. Which happens not to be a constant. We've known about this inconstancy for a couple of centuries, but it took the modern atomic clock to provide something both more accurate and practical.
But the switch is not complete.
Atomic people run TAI.
Astronomically minded set seems to have a hold on UTC which defines (co-ordinates, they say) our 'civil time'. Nowadays, such time is used to timestampt pretty important stuff, like stock transactions, where every second counts.
There was a partial compromise (which many people hate), where UTC has accepted that the length of the second used for civil time is the same as that measured by TAI (and based on SI definition), but to keep their astronomical attachments to the position of Sun and stars w.r..t midnight and midday, they add a "leap second" every now and then.
Overall, Earth rotation keeps slowing down but it also flunctuates randomly. Hence no one can give you the table with exact predictions for future 'leap seconds'. Only trends.
Pain, I tell you...
Interestingly, almost the entire metric system can (and mostly is) derived from accurate time measurements.
For instance, the speed of light is taken as a constant and the metre is defined as the distance traveled by light in 1/c seconds....
Most countries are switching from "cesium atomic clocks" to "cesium fountain clocks" for their time reference with better than 1 part in 10^15 accuracy.
Also, some of the most accurate time pieces known are actually millisecond pulsars.
But I think the general point of time keeping for the general public is correct about it being
a) useful to use a base 60 with analogs to angular measurment
b) extremely hard to replace (you think changing to metric is hard!)
For instance, the speed of light is taken as a constant and the metre is defined as the distance traveled by light in 1/c seconds....
Most countries are switching from "cesium atomic clocks" to "cesium fountain clocks" for their time reference with better than 1 part in 10^15 accuracy.
Also, some of the most accurate time pieces known are actually millisecond pulsars.
But I think the general point of time keeping for the general public is correct about it being
a) useful to use a base 60 with analogs to angular measurment
b) extremely hard to replace (you think changing to metric is hard!)
I like the idea of decimal time 121 d.hrs= 121/10=12.1 d.days. That's so much easier and more uniform. Just need to get rid of time zones too. Why does it matter if people work at 9am or 9pm? One set time and people just work during various hours. That way when you schedule a teleconference, it is at 11am end of story, no GMT -1 vs GMT +5.
In one place normal hours might be 0.0 to 4.0, in another you might work 6.0-10.0.
Also get rid of daylight savings time...
Though where to holidays/historical days go...maybe it's a fruitless en devour to try to change.
In one place normal hours might be 0.0 to 4.0, in another you might work 6.0-10.0.
Also get rid of daylight savings time...
Though where to holidays/historical days go...maybe it's a fruitless en devour to try to change.
Last edited:
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Umm, A.D. doesn't stand for "after death" as the OP incorrectly seems to believe. It stands for Anno Domini, as in "the year of the Lord."
edcarman
Member
- May 23, 2005
- 172
- 0
- 71
This part doesn't really depend on the time system in use. It's only based on seconds because we define c in units of m/s.
If we defined c in untis of m/decimal 'second', the definition would then be the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/c decimal 'seconds'.
Yup, never claimed it was inherent to the time system, in fact implicitly stated that the metric system can be derived from a time measurement (independent of choice of units). I was merely pointing out an interesting thing about measurements and standards related to time.
Some of this feeds back into the UTS time standards and all that, since the measurement and standards divisions of each country are what delineate this.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter