If they aren't using the iridium-platinum 1kg bar anymore, can I have it?

Since the article is about International Unit of mass, when you write Billion are you referring to one thousand million, or 10^9 (USA and UK) or one million million, or 10^12 ?

Thanks, enjoyed the article.

Simply drop mass. The field that we measure, i.e. mass, is not a constant, it changes as every object in the universe changes. juz say'n

@alvesman
Since 1974 the 10^9 definition of a billion has generally been adopted (including in the UK which used to use the 10^12 value). The word trillion is now used for 10^12.

@alvesman
Since 1974 the 10^9 definition of a billion has generally been adopted (including in the UK which used to use the 10^12 value). The word trillion is now used for 10^12.

Thank you. I'm asking because here in Europe, outside UK, we assume the 10^12 (a million million). https://www.youtu...2AI_ojyQ

@alvesman

I'm asking because here in Europe, outside UK, we assume the 10^12 (a million million).

I don't think you will find this true of the scientific community.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

@alvesman

I'm asking because here in Europe, outside UK, we assume the 10^12 (a million million).

I don't think you will find this true of the scientific community.

The scientific community uses scientific notation and not the words thus avoiding ambiguities.

Thank you. I'm asking because here in Europe, outside UK, we assume the 10^12 (a million million).

As a rule of thumb, the meaning of the word changes with the language being used rather than the location; English assumes 10^9

Simply drop mass. The field that we measure, i.e. mass, is not a constant, it changes as every object in the universe changes. juz say'n

Really? According to whom? Link to this ground breaking work, please.

why is she explaining it?

OK, lesson one. See the bigger picture! Their only exist charge. Charge does not have mass. Get it?

The field, updated relative to a charge's center at that point in time, with the velocity vector of the charge at that instant in time. Easier to visualize if you set each axis as Lambda, i.e. space and time equal in magnitude, c - Lambda/T. Need only inspect a single point. The wave is relative, to the magnitude of lambda. Space is big. You can't see space! To see space you need a massive computer, define all images in terms of what is real. Only this law. Each point viewed is updated to it's value, i.e. a computer using only logic to define to us what it sees. Yeah, yeah, you can probably pick a set, but really, define our stream.

Stuff very far away can't be from some guess on our visual. Think, the speed of light is equal to the initial wavelength divided by the measured period. The velocity may be +/- R, -infinity < R < infinity. So those hazy pictures may be clouds, but aberration, ain't from any Field. Fields don't do that to fields, charges due stuff to fields. I chose R for Rufus, use it each time you calucate the Velocity. DR. E? LOL!

Remember, the universe is infinite. Now put that in your calculation, whut? A density function? Conditions! For other intelligent life. We are very far from reaching Par. So bet on being behind!

^^^^WTF is that????? Explain how charge relates to mass. Which is what you originally posted. If I put a charge on a piece of tinfoil, can I make it levitate? If the charge on a spacecraft orbiting a mass (say a comet) alters, will the orbital parameters change? (hint: no they don't). So you are making no sense whatsoever. Please tell me that this isn't more of Thornhill's uneducated BS!

The universe has no beginning or end in space and time, the number of pairs of these + &- charges is also infinite. If you see the largest thing in the Universe, nobody will write about it!

^^^^WTF is that????? Explain how charge relates to mass. Which is what you originally posted. If I put a charge on a piece of tinfoil, can I make it levitate? If the charge on a spacecraft orbiting a mass (say a comet) alters, will the orbital parameters change? (hint: no they don't). So you are making no sense whatsoever. Please tell me that this isn't more of Thornhill's uneducated BS!

You are space trying to understand itself.

So trying to see the universe, i.e. G? Relative to what? Dude! The entire field?

I understand why it's being done as it will make science more accurate but for the common person in the street that number isn't going to mean anything. People need a physical item to be able to associate it when dealing with other masses.

I understand why it's being done as it will make science more accurate but for the common person in the street that number isn't going to mean anything.

You never know where such numbers are used. Possibly they increase the accuracy of something like your GPS signal - which is something that is of benefit to the 'person in the street' (particularly in the street, because increased accuracy can mean the difference between autopilot software being unworkable and it becoming an everyday feature)

We all benefit from these improvements on a daily basis - but we take this stuff for granted.

I understand why it's being done as it will make science more accurate but for the common person in the street that number isn't going to mean anything.

You never know where such numbers are used. Possibly they increase the accuracy of something like your GPS signal - which is something that is of benefit to the 'person in the street' (particularly in the street, because increased accuracy can mean the difference between autopilot software being unworkable and it becoming an everyday feature)

We all benefit from these improvements on a daily basis - but we take this stuff for granted.

Why not Engineer any way you want; but, instrumentation has physical limits, calculation with a correct theory shall show any accuracy.

We all benefit from these improvements on a daily basis - but we take this stuff for granted.

I won't debate that point and that wasn't the point I was making either. Try teaching a 2nd grader or even the average adult what a kilogram is when all you can tell them is some number that means nothing to them whatsoever and they can't relate to in any manner. That's the point I'm making. Many metric measurements are like that. They don't relate to anything physical in the real world that people can readily understand. They are fine for math and science but that doesn't help the person trying to buy a kilogram of potatoes.

Try teaching a 2nd grader or even the average adult what a kilogram

Liter bottle of water? 10 bars of chocolate? You make it seem like people in every other country are working with a system that isn't intuitive. Guess what: it is.

And the beauty is: once you have a hold of just one of these (e.g. a meter or a kilogram) you have a hold of all the other units - larger and smaller - because they are just off by a fixed factor of 1000. No need to know about quarts, ounces, feet, miles, inches and whatnot.

And I bet you can't calculate inches to miles without looking it up.

Something is wrong here. If E = h.n (n = frequency, and h = plaque constant)
.....

nikola_milovic_378

yes, I see something is wrong here, but not what you think; h doesn't equal "plaque constant", whatever that is, but rather "Planck's constant". Also, as far as I am aware, f is normally the letter to rep frequency; or at least I have never personally seen 'n' being used for that.

Ap. I didn't insult you but if you would like I can. I can calculate them without looking it up but I don't deal with a pompass asses like you. You are now blocked along with the rest of the jerks on here that can't add anything to a conversation except insult others.

Something is wrong here. If E = h.n (n = frequency, and h = plaque constant)
.....

nikola_milovic_378

yes, I see something is wrong here, but not what you think; h doesn't equal "plaque constant", whatever that is, but rather "Planck's constant".

Built upon probabilities, quanta, wavelets, selective, QM non-causal. Handy, if you think like that, your idea of mass and energy. Don't hang your PhD upon non-causality! So we have the tools, let us not be lazy, we may define causality!

Ap. I didn't insult you

Neither did I you.

If you want to argue what kind system is more intuitive and easier to learn for kids (never mind adults) I'll argue SI units take that one. No contest.