ZetaX

Trivial: use the metric base units, but with the binary prefixes.

How the heck do you plan to do arithmetics of non-integer reals with Zeckendorf representations¿ But you made me think about how to multiply integers in Zeckendorf representation and so far I have not come up with anything significantly better than "split it down into a looong sum of 1s". Is there any reasonable formula of type F_a · F_b = [some sum of F_i's]¿

The comment was not about any choice being wrong, but what choice converges faster. But in general, a bad choice could lead to divergence or convergence to a second fixed point.

I knew of calculating a fixed point of f by trying \lim_{n\to \infty} f^n(x_0), but I never heard that name. Is that what physicists call it or where did you get it from¿

Ah, I missed that there is none that gives a flow of time (or is there¿). But then you still know it up to temporal scaling. In other words, you can randomly fix the speed of time. Which is not that problematic: we measure such things in "years", which just happens to be an orbital period...

The mass of the central body is definitely not calculatable unless you assume the gravitational constant to be known. But you simply don't need it to find the acceleration. As said, acceleration essentially turns down to calculating centrifugal forces (which follow from the orbit and the orbital speed; but hell of a lot of work for non-circular orbits I presume).

What I wrote: ~r² on the force.

The former. But as TheShadow1138 already pointed out, this is in the simplified system where only the central body's gravity matters. If it doesn't, then the parameters itself already make no sense as they are made to describe ellipses and ellipses only; and no orbit in a real life system would be ellipses.

Yes, it's accurate. It's probably a tedium to actually do (unless at least one orbit is circular), but it should be doable.

I answered that. How about reading it instead of claiming that people go off track¿

If you allow for those unstable solutions, then there are more, e.g. some figure-8 ones.

Actually, larger means longer. Your slow-down-force is proportional to cross section (~r²), your mass to volume (~r³). So your acceleration is ~1/r.

You don't need the mass of the central body. You don't need the forces. As has been said, acceleration is all you need. That acceleration is towards the central body and proportional to 1/distance², not depending on the orbiting body. You can calculate the actual acceleration at a given point (and thus all you need) from a single orbit. For a circular one this is especially easy, as centrifugal acceleration (which is a function in orbital speed and radius) has to match that acceleration towards the center; for general ones you could also calculate it by reducing it to the circular one, or doing it directly (but am now too lazy to find out an actual formula).

I stopped watching as he said "yeah, I have no idea what I just said" after he quoted Newton's law of gravity. He sounded almost proud to not understand something you supposedly learn in high school. If you seriously expect scientific value from such a person, I would also pity you

To add a new but quite formal approach: metric has higher entropy. So what does this mean¿ Well, in layman's terms, you need on average less symbols to express the same thing. Understanding why needs a bit of explanation: There is something called scale-invariance which is true for (almost) all sizes (significantly above quantum and below relativity). It amounts to the fact that for any fixed c>1 (c=10 is standard, but any other like c=2 or c=pi work equally well), things of size x and size cx are equally likely. A bit more mathematically: probability is equally distributed on a logarithmic scale. The reason from physics is the scale-invariance of its laws. This has some paradoxical effects: a majority of sizes, lengths, areas, volumes you encounter will start with a 1, 2 or 3 (in base 10); already around 48% start with 1 or 2. This is true regardless of the units used, as long as you use the very same unit each time, be it meter, yard or miles. Call such unit u. So if we let c be the square root of 10, then something of size in [u,cu] happens as often as something of size in [cu,c²u] = [cu,10u]. Thus for numbers between u and 10u, being below cu is as likely as being above it. But c is roughly 3.16 and surely lower than 4. So a majority of numbers is between u and 4u, in othe words start with 1, 2 or 3. If you want to know more details look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law. In the end, this implies that a system of several units (..., µm, mm, m, km, Mm, ... versus ..., foot, yard, mile, ...) works best if they are equally spaced apart. This is true for metric, and also for the digital prefixes, but not for imperial. And that's exactly where metric is better: Occam's Razor (extended to other things than hypotheses/theories). It uses a smaller amount of basic units (but not minimal, e.g. there are litres and cubic metres; the former is thus quite redundant) and then simply adds the prefixes (that also exist in other systems) to it.

That's because that is literally impossible. Or you have a weird definition of "directly observed". Nothing escapes from them, so no seeing, no touching, no going in there and telling us. We have several indirect indications from gravity influencing stars, accretion disks and lensing. And we have formal reasons to consider them real from relativity. There might be errors (e.g. maybe "certain information can escape if [weird conditions]" or "those smaller than 1m instantly vanish by the yet unknown fifth fundamental force"), but one akin to "black holes simply don't exist" is very unlikely.

That's it as a measurement for time now, not for speed. I wouldn't measure speed in something per half-day; not even as something per day.

Yes, but why would you actually use those¿ People do because they are used to that. But one could simply express everything ins m/s and be done with it.

Then at least go for 13 months of 28 days. Thus a month consists of entire weeks and we are only left with a single day (two in leap years) to get rid of.

There is simply not much reason to change the time system: a) All of the (industrialized) world already uses the same system. The weird conversion factors are irrelevant in many industrial uses (second is often all you need) except when there are human interfaces. Thus also things like unix time. c) Whatever you do, you would not get rid of a year having a very ugly number of days of 365pointsomething. In other words: two of the recurring time measurements (day, year) are incommensurable, but both have a meaning in everyday life for good reasons.

I hope you aren't serious with that example... I also don't see why fractions are harder than decimals. Decimals _are_ certain fractions. And entering them into a calculator is the very same number of button presses in your example (I even added one for the fraction in case you want to convert first).

I was talking about decimal (in the metric system) in contrast to binary (in the imperial system) there. What for exactly¿ I am a bit confused and fear we might have talked a bit past each other. - - - Updated - - - I am in favour of anything that does not put the months on the outside; why would you ever sort things by middle/smallest/largest...¿

Most metals need significant temperatures to melt (e.g. gold). Those that don't are mostly found as ores, i.e. in chemical compounds, and thus you need a lot of energy to turn them into metal. In both cases you would need something hotter than your usual small campfire.

It is quite easy to translate into binary; especially here, because instead of using the fractions, you could directly use the ruler's markings. But as you mention, this is also directly resolved by having floating point binaries. Or people learning to do fractions with denominators a power of 2. There are many solutions, all of them not harder than learning decimal. So in the end my point stands: your objection is only based on being used to it.

That's not true, you are just used to it. Metric is base 10, fractional inches are base 2 (just stop writing it as 1/64th of an inch, instead use 0.00001 inch, where the "decimal" is in base 2). Base 2 is actually more fundamental than the arbitrary number 10 as seen in computer science or by 2 being the smallest number for which using it as a base makes sense; but even computer science students often cannot calculate well in base 2 because they never got used to it. - - - Updated - - - That 10% of area has more than 20% its population. All the empty space between cities does not require much signs (maybe one every 10 kilometers of road; yes, kilometers, not miles ).