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.
So I did some digging and the use of 1-second pendulum as a unit of length predates the metre by about a century. It’s very possible it informed the choice of ratio to use when defining it properly, like we did with the recent definition change.
It’s all on Wikipedia if you want to dive in yourself.
I don’t know if it’s purely a coincidence. The meter comes from the Earth’s circumference (1/10 000 000 of the pole-equator distance) and I believe the second is much older, which points to a coincidence.
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.
So I did some digging and the use of 1-second pendulum as a unit of length predates the metre by about a century. It’s very possible it informed the choice of ratio to use when defining it properly, like we did with the recent definition change.
It’s all on Wikipedia if you want to dive in yourself.
The mass cancels out.
I don’t know if it’s purely a coincidence. The meter comes from the Earth’s circumference (1/10 000 000 of the pole-equator distance) and I believe the second is much older, which points to a coincidence.