Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

[tillingborn]

Look at the sun at midday. Do the same tomorrow. Divide by 86400.

Well that helps me fuckall!

1. How would I know when "mid day" is?
2. Once I have looked at the Sun two days in a row, what is it that I have to divide by 86400? What am I supposed to be counting?

Some scientist you are.

If any arbitrary measurement is fine, then why isn't the speed of light 123456789?

The choice of tools will not change the speed of light.

Yeah, but the design of your instruments is supposed to measure what that speed is. So it seems a bit weird that you can't even define what 1 second is. You know, because speed is distance over time.

The speed of light in a vacuum is 123456789 123456789ths of the distance it travels in 123456789 123456789ths of the time it takes to travel 123456789 123456789ths of the aforementioned distance. Feel free to use it.

[Skepdick]

Some scientist you are.

Yeah, maybe I am terrible at it.

That's why I am asking you to empirically derive 1 second.
Maybe I've set the bar too high for you?

Can you derive 1 meter empirically?

The speed of light in a vacuum is 123456789 123456789ths of the distance it travels in 123456789 123456789ths of the time it takes to travel 123456789 123456789ths of the aforementioned distance. Feel free to use it.

OK! That makes total sense. I can do both of those things!

Just as soon as you tell me how to empirically derive 1 meter and 1 second.

[tillingborn]

Some scientist you are.

Yeah, maybe I am terrible at it.

That's why I am asking you to empirically derive 1 second.
Maybe I've set the bar too high for you?

Can you derive 1 meter empirically?

Measure the distance from the North Pole to the equator. Divide by 10 million.

The speed of light in a vacuum is 123456789 123456789ths of the distance it travels in 123456789 123456789ths of the time it takes to travel 123456789 123456789ths of the aforementioned distance. Feel free to use it.

OK! That makes total sense. I can do both of those things!

Just as soon as you tell me how to empirically derive 1 meter and 1 second.

Easy peasy. Find something that is 1/123456789 of either and get 123456789 of them together.

[Skepdick]

Measure the distance from the North Pole to the equator. Divide by 10 million.

This is really really confusing.

What do I measure the distance between the North Pole and the Equator WITH?
What is this number that I am dividing by 10 million and how do I obtain it?

How the heck would I even tell where the North Pole is exactly?
How would I tell where the Equator is?

Easy peasy. Find something that is 1/123456789 of either and get 123456789 of them together.

1/123456789 of either WHAT? You haven't given me anything concrete yet!

Words are coming out of your mouth but they are all abstract numbers.

[tillingborn]

What do I measure the distance between the North Pole and the Equator WITH?

You could start with Eratosthenes' stick in the ground method. Or get a really big ball of string and walk it. Measure the shadow in a lunar eclipse. You claim to be a scientist. Use your imagination.

[Terrapin Station]

Empirically derive one second? One second is defined as 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.

That's certainly not a priori. It's empirical.

[Skepdick]

You could start with Eratosthenes' stick in the ground method. Or get a really big ball of string and walk it. Measure the shadow in a lunar eclipse. You claim to be a scientist. Use your imagination.

I am a scientist. You are just a bullshitter.

There is no empirical way to derive meters or seconds because they are arbitrarily chosen.

Drop your pants, get some string. The length of string between the base and the tip of your penis is now 1 Universe.

That's how units get defined.

[Skepdick]

Empirically derive one second? One second is defined as 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.

That's certainly not a priori. It's empirical.

Not a priori my ass.

That definition was literally re-defined/accepted in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_rede ... its#Second

Please explain to us with your humongous PhD but tiny brain how we empirically derived seconds in 2018 and earlier.
Not to mention that you've traded mission difficult for mission impossible.

Please produce a machine that counts exactly 9,192,631,770 (no more! no less!) periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

Lastly, you are confusing DEFINITION with DERIVATION. You understand the difference between the two, yes?

Definitions are stipulated.
Derivations are discovered.

So please fucking explain how we "derived" that 1 second is exactly 9,192,631,770 periods, and not 9,192,631,771 periods.

[tillingborn]

I am a scientist.

A computer scientist you say.

You are just a bullshitter.

There's a bit more to me than just that. I clearly know more about non-computer science science than you do.

There is no empirical way to derive meters or seconds because they are arbitrarily chosen.

Drop your pants, get some string. The length of string between the base and the tip of your penis is now 1 Universe.

That's how units get defined.

My point exactly.

[Skepdick]

A computer scientist you say.
There's a bit more to me than just that. I clearly know more about non-computer science science than you do.

Yesss. Your Science is better than my Science.

My Universe is bigger than yours Universe.

My point exactly.

Your point was that you can empirically derive seconds. I am still waiting for a derivation. So far all you've given me is definitions.

I'll spell out the difference for too (if if you aren't familiar).

Definitions are stipulated.
Derivations are discovered.

[tillingborn]

Your Science is better than my Science.

I knew we'd eventually find something we agree on.

Your point was that you can empirically derive seconds. I am still waiting for a derivation. So far all you've given me is definitions.

That didn't last long. No Skepdick, my point was and is that physical constants can be derived by observation; you know, Galileo deriving g by rolling balls down planes, using water clocks for timing, because he hadn't yet invented the pendulum escapement. Stuff like that. You really have to stop making silly demands that have fuck all to do with anything anyone has said. Blah, blah derive seconds. Blah, blah red blob. Any scientist worth his salt knows to give up when the same experiment consistently returns the same null result.

Definitions are stipulated.
Derivations are discovered.

That may be the language of computer science. In other sciences, few of which are as reliant on logic, language is much more pragmatic and it is perfectly acceptable to describe looking at the real world as derivation.

[Skepdick]

I knew we'd eventually find something we agree on.

Yeah.. And the respective sizes of our Universes too.

That didn't last long. No Skepdick, my point was and is that physical constants can be derived by observation; you know, Galileo deriving g by rolling balls down planes, using water clocks for timing, because he hadn't yet invented the pendulum escapement.

Physical constants is an oxymoron. You'll have to show me where one finds anything like a "physical numbers" outside of the man-made formal language of Mathematics.

Stuff like that. You really have to stop making silly demands that have fuck all to do with anything anyone has said. Blah, blah derive seconds. Blah, blah red blob. Any scientist worth his salt knows to give up when the same experiment consistently returns the same null result.

You are constantly and consistently failing to meet my challenges (as predicted by my theory).

That's not a null result.

That may be the language of computer science. In other sciences, few of which are as reliant on logic, language is much more pragmatic and it is perfectly acceptable to describe looking at the real world as derivation.

Sorry. This may be news to you, but Computer Science goes by many names. One of those names is Formal Language Theory

And as luck would have it Turing Machines (the abstract objects of interest to Computer Scientists) happen to be known as "Formal Language Recognizers".

If formal languages are the foundation of science/physics, then I do believe Computer Science is the foundation beneath formal languages. I am not going to bore you with the details, but maybe you want to catch up to the last 50-60 years or so...

[tillingborn]

Physical constants is an oxymoron. You'll have to show me where one finds anything like a "physical numbers" outside of the man-made formal language of Mathematics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... _constants

[Veritas Aequitas]

Lol, "personal objectivity"
Shall we call that objectivity-proper?

Note Skepdick's response, i.e. 'idiot' is most appropriate in this case.

Hiding behind Skepdick again? Do you really want to do that?

Do you think that the relationship between the temperature of a substance and the reading on a thermometer is subjective just because the numbers that are on the outside of the thermometer could have been other numbers?

Explain something equivalent to how temperature moves the mercury in a thermometer to justify how you pick a number of badnesses for kicking a horse in the balls. Give us the mechanism that causes the number to be true mister Personal Objecivity.

If what Skepdick had stated is true, I can just have ditto his view and save me the time.

Note I had already explained in another post the continuum of objectivity [knowledge] from opinion, belief to knowledge [high objectivity].
"Personal objectivity" along that continuum is at most personal and cannot go beyond to interpersonal objectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus, i.e. the higher rated objectivity which is represented by scientific facts/truths/knowledge.

I am reading "Hermeneutics: A Very Short Introduction" Jens Zimmermann. Therein he explained whatever is scientific knowledge is in one sense very personal, i.e. it based based on the scientist's inherent biasness, the current paradigm he is in, and other subjective elements.
What makes scientific knowledge objective is based on the consensus of subjects, i.e. intersubjective consensus. This is how the standards for temperature and other measurements are set.

Note how the 'kilogram' was standardized based on some physical thing, from like a liter of
water to the Kilogramme des Archives, then a cylinder of platinum-iridium, the International Prototype of the Kilogram (IPK), then ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram

The fundamental of all standards to be used for science or otherwise are all based on intersubjective consensus, thus fundamentally subjective.

[Skepdick]

Physical constants is an oxymoron. You'll have to show me where one finds anything like a "physical numbers" outside of the man-made formal language of Mathematics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... _constants

Ohhhh, so now you are pointing me to things measured in meters/second. But you can't even empirically derive one meter OR one seconds!
I am still looking for the "physical", the "objective" and the mind-independent here. Do you have a wikipedia page for that?

And just to be sure you don't wilfully mis-understand...

Imagine a world 100 years from now in which our technology/experiments get an upgrade and the speed of light is measured to be different from the estimations we have today. What do you think is going to be updated/revised?

A. The definition of the speed of light.
B. The definition of the meter.