• KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      is it not dependent on mass at all? It’s possible given that this is the metric system that this is actually just a convenient retroactive truth about meters. I suppose it wouldn’t necessarily be, but then you’re accounting for gravity as well, which means you’re going to need a pretty effective approximation there. As well as a way to account for any mechanical losses as well.

      I’m not sure the metric system even existed when we developed the first mechanical time keeping devices.

      • alsimoneau@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        It’s only 0.3% off. You probably have more uncertainty on the length of the pendulum.

        • Successful_Try543@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          0.3 % would correspond to 3 mm difference in length of the pendulum.
          After an hour, the difference between real and measured time would already be 10.9 s, and over an entire day, it would accumulate to 261.3 s, way too much for useful long term measurements.
          Yet, it is an useful approximation for qualitative measurements, e.g. when Galileo Galilei did his fall experiments, he might have used a prendulum instead of his pulse for measuring.

          • alsimoneau@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I’m not hauling this as the ultimate time keeping method. Friction in the system will mean you need to readjust it anyways. It’s just a neat fact that pi^2 ~= g