• LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    No physicist would use pounds to define mass in the U.S. It is just wrong. Weight sure, but that same 1959 definition you mentioned did not mention it as mass from what I am seeing, rather weight - mass. I’ll see if I can find the actual accord to see if they list the terms used when proposed as it would be foolish to use pounds, next thing you know we would get a moon lander laying on its side. Haha. : )

    • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I couldn’t find the text of the agreement, but here is the notice from the US Department of Commerce based on that agreement. What’s interesting is that they discuss the relation of the 1959 definition to previous ones, and even back in 1893 the pound was standardized as a unit of mass.

      So it seems like, for at least 130 years, we have been “using the pound wrong” and no one bothered to correct us.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Haha, So that would require us to use pound and pound to have to different meanings. 1 pound of mass not equal to 1 pound of weight unless you are in the right circumstances haha. How dumb. Thanks for sending me that link by the way!