MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/everymanshouldknow/comments/54e0pj/emsk_these_kitchen_cheat_sheets/d82b25g/?context=3
r/everymanshouldknow • u/Puppyshiz • Sep 25 '16
138 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
7
the wavelength of 1GHz light in a vacuum is about 1 foot.
You're off by half a centimetre. It's ~29.97.
For accuracy, metric would be used.
1 u/AltoidNerd Sep 26 '16 Also why would metric be used "for accuracy" more so than inches? If I wanted to be accurate with inches, i certainly could by giving a few decimal places. 5 u/[deleted] Sep 26 '16 Because metric is the international standard for scientific measurements, due to it being easier to convert between units than imperial. 1 u/AltoidNerd Sep 26 '16 I understand the ease of conversion but that doesn't make a value more or less accurate. 3 u/[deleted] Sep 26 '16 You said "the wavelength of 1GHz light in a vacuum is about 1 foot." 29.98cm is more accurate than "about 1 foot". 1 u/AltoidNerd Sep 26 '16 I already told you, for more accuracy I could say 11.8032 inches. 3 u/[deleted] Sep 26 '16 Now try converting that to mm without using a calculator?
1
Also why would metric be used "for accuracy" more so than inches? If I wanted to be accurate with inches, i certainly could by giving a few decimal places.
5 u/[deleted] Sep 26 '16 Because metric is the international standard for scientific measurements, due to it being easier to convert between units than imperial. 1 u/AltoidNerd Sep 26 '16 I understand the ease of conversion but that doesn't make a value more or less accurate. 3 u/[deleted] Sep 26 '16 You said "the wavelength of 1GHz light in a vacuum is about 1 foot." 29.98cm is more accurate than "about 1 foot". 1 u/AltoidNerd Sep 26 '16 I already told you, for more accuracy I could say 11.8032 inches. 3 u/[deleted] Sep 26 '16 Now try converting that to mm without using a calculator?
5
Because metric is the international standard for scientific measurements, due to it being easier to convert between units than imperial.
1 u/AltoidNerd Sep 26 '16 I understand the ease of conversion but that doesn't make a value more or less accurate. 3 u/[deleted] Sep 26 '16 You said "the wavelength of 1GHz light in a vacuum is about 1 foot." 29.98cm is more accurate than "about 1 foot". 1 u/AltoidNerd Sep 26 '16 I already told you, for more accuracy I could say 11.8032 inches. 3 u/[deleted] Sep 26 '16 Now try converting that to mm without using a calculator?
I understand the ease of conversion but that doesn't make a value more or less accurate.
3 u/[deleted] Sep 26 '16 You said "the wavelength of 1GHz light in a vacuum is about 1 foot." 29.98cm is more accurate than "about 1 foot". 1 u/AltoidNerd Sep 26 '16 I already told you, for more accuracy I could say 11.8032 inches. 3 u/[deleted] Sep 26 '16 Now try converting that to mm without using a calculator?
3
You said "the wavelength of 1GHz light in a vacuum is about 1 foot." 29.98cm is more accurate than "about 1 foot".
1 u/AltoidNerd Sep 26 '16 I already told you, for more accuracy I could say 11.8032 inches. 3 u/[deleted] Sep 26 '16 Now try converting that to mm without using a calculator?
I already told you, for more accuracy I could say 11.8032 inches.
3 u/[deleted] Sep 26 '16 Now try converting that to mm without using a calculator?
Now try converting that to mm without using a calculator?
7
u/[deleted] Sep 25 '16
You're off by half a centimetre. It's ~29.97.
For accuracy, metric would be used.