Why the metric system isn't metric

Alright, so scientists like the metric system because it is consistent with itself, rather than being arbitrary like the "standard" system. In other words, 1 kilometer = 1,000 meters = 100,000 centimeters = 10,000,000 millimeters as opposed to 1 mile = 5,280 feet = 63,360 inches. Round numbers are nice, and easier to remember and convert between.

So it struck me as funny when I read this article today. Basically, there's a single block of metal in Paris that officially represents 1 kilogram, and scientists are concerned because it doesn't weigh what it used to, by a few billionths of a gram.

See the thing about measurement is that it's always relative. It just so happens that the entire system of metric weight is relative to this single chunk of metal in Paris. I mean, they had to pick something. But if their baseline is changing, what's a scientist to do?

Well, you reverse-engineer it of course. As the article points out, it's been done before, with the meter. The baseline for 1 meter used to be a stick next to the one kilogram chunk, but they decided to make it "less arbitrary" by defining a meter as the distance light travels in... wait for it... 1/299,792,458th of a second. Phew, thanks guys, glad you cleared that up.

I decided to hit Wikipedia to figure out where they came up with this number. It turns out that they based it on the fact that light travels 299,792,458 meters per second. You see what they did there? They used the speed of light, measured in meters, to define the length of a meter. Wow, impressive. In reality all they did was take two "non-relative" units of measurement - the speed of light, and one second - and figure out how much of each it would take to come up with the length we were already using. So if you know the speed of light, and you can remember the number 299,792,458, you can figure out how far a meter is.

That's all well and good, except a second is no less relative. 1 second is 1/60th of a minute, which is 1/60th of an hour, which is 1/24th of a day, which is 1/365th of the time it takes Earth to orbit the sun. Fortunately, science reverse-engineered the second as well, and decided that it can be expressed as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom". And no, I have no idea what that means. However, it's just another example of taking "non-relative" units of measurement to define an existing "standard".

Does this seem a little ridiculous to anyone else? I mean, science has other systems of measurement based on "natural units", or dimensions based on nature. It seems like those would be the best systems to use for scientific endeavors while leaving inches and seconds and pounds to the rest of us. There has to be a way to convert from one to the other, I suppose, but still... at some point it just seems silly.

I hope there's intelligent life on other planets. I hope we someday meet that life. I want to watch our scientists explain to them that to get to the U.N. building, they just need to head towards the positive planetary magnetic pole for the distance that light travels in 1/299,792th of the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom, then take a left.

The Morality of Morality

A friend posted a link on Facebook to this article. It details the divorce proceedings of a man who has been an active and outspoken advocate for a ban on gay marriages, and makes a point of saying that he was opposed to gay marriage because of his Catholic background, which makes the divorce he is now going through ironic because the Catholic church also opposes divorce.

Okay, so I totally agree that it's a shame to see such "inconsistent morality", especially in someone who has taken political actions based on moral (or religious) inclinations. However, I also think that to make a public spectacle of someone simply because they've failed to live up to their own moral code is just as much of a shame.

Nobody can be 100% moral 100% of the time, no matter what their particular moral code happens to be. Of course, when you make public statements about specific moral perspectives, especially as they concern heated social debates, you're just asking to be strung up the second you do something contrary to those statements.

So that begs the question: is morality all-or-nothing? If I am incapable of being 100% moral 100% of the time, should I abandon morality altogether? After all, without morals I cannot be scrutinized for immoral behavior; the measuring stick would not exist. People may say that there are some "universal morals" to which everyone must hold themselves accountable, but every religion (or lack thereof) has its own set of "universal morals" which hardly makes any of them "universal". If there are no universal morals, therefore, and the only morals I am responsible for maintaining are my own, why not just make it easy on myself and live the rest of my life without scruples?

What's funny about this to me is how blind people can be to their own moral violations while lambasting other people for theirs. People who would otherwise state that lying is wrong wouldn't bat an eye at telling a "white lie" to spare the feelings of a loved one. Someone that complains to you about a stupid driver that tried to beat a red light is quite likely the same person that passed you going 15 miles over the speed limit the day before. We "pick and choose" our moral incentives all the time, every day, and we don't even think twice about it, but that doesn't seem to stop us from blowing other people's transgressions out of proportion.

Jesus puts it this way, in Matthew 7:1-5 (from The Message translation; other translations can be found here):

Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults— unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, 'Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt? It's this whole traveling road-show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor.

Now I can't make a post like this without finishing by saying: I'm not perfect either. I freely admit that I fail at following my own moral code from time-to-time. My religious beliefs are sometimes at odds with my social beliefs, and the issue of gay marriage is one of those areas that I can't always agree with myself on. Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe. Probably. At least I can admit it. Can you?