Kilogram's Future Hangs In The Balance

Re:Kilogram's Future Hangs In The Balance by mseebach on Thursday August 20, 2009 @08:44AM (#774884)

Yeah, but that's 140 years ago. I'd like to think that we've progress since then. Also, it's pretty important to get the definition right. If my definition is right, then sneezing on the kilogram won't make every weight wrong, if will make the kilogram not quite have the mass of one kilogram.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kilogram's Future Hangs In The Balance by tokenadult on Thursday August 20, 2009 @09:10AM (#774940)

I'd like to think that we've progress since then.

The submitted article reports the direction progress has taken since then.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kilogram's Future Hangs In The Balance by mseebach on Thursday August 20, 2009 @09:17AM (#774955)

Yes. I'm merely expressing my surprise that the definition is, in fact, a physical object, and not at this point expressed in terms of other, discreetly measurable quantities.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kilogram's Future Hangs In The Balance by gloob on Thursday August 20, 2009 @10:35AM (#775107)

I'm sure you could measure the physical object either discreetly or discretely, or even both at once if the situation was dire.

[ Parent | on HN ]