I use ddd-yyyy for interstellar dates. Local timekeeping varies, of course, but rarely matters enough to spell it out.

I just make shit up.

Quote from: Vic99;952429I like the idea of metric seconds, Jeff.

A second is metric. It's an S.I. unit, and it specifically represents the amount of time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom. It's a universal measurement.

Scientists do not use minutes or hours or years in their calculations, only exponentials of seconds.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961558A second is metric. It's an S.I. unit, and it specifically represents the amount of time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom. It's a universal measurement.

Scientists do not use minutes or hours or years in their calculations, only exponentials of seconds.

Scientists routinely use those other metrics when they are pertinent or convenient to their research questions, but I think we understand the point. A second is an International System of Units Base Unit of measurement, and one that could be communicated to another species across space, who would not need a Sol/Terran reference point to be able to understand.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;961590Scientists routinely use those other metrics when they are pertinent or convenient to their research questions

Sorry to be a pedant, but I ought to have said before that I am a Science (Physics) teacher and this isn't correct. There are only seven S.I. base measurements that are useable in scientific reports (that are peer reviewed in academic institutions). These include Metres, Newtons, Kilograms, Kelvin, Amps, Mols, Candela and Seconds.

Scientific reports must use these measurements (or derivations like ms^-1, etc) and not any other. All scientific equations and formula, used internationally are based upon these measurements only. You cannot use minutes or hours or any other unit for Time other than Seconds and if other values are referenced, then they have to be converted. The same is true of kilometres (must be metres), grams (must be kg), celsius (must be K, although technically C is a derivative of Kelvin), or many others. These values may be metric, but they aren't S.I. Very big numbers are represented in scientific notation e.g. 7.2 x 10⁶s, etc.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961674These include Metres, Newtons, Kilograms, Kelvin, Amps, Mols, Candela and Seconds.

I was going to remark on why this is Kilograms and not Grams, because I thought it would be odd expressing something as 5 millikilograms instead of 5 grams, but then I looked up the mass of a grain of salt and completely forgot about Scientific Notation and lo and behold Kilograms everywhere. Neat. I learned something today.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961674Sorry to be a pedant, but I ought to have said before that I am a Science (Physics) teacher and this isn't correct. There are only seven S.I. base measurements that are useable in scientific reports (that are peer reviewed in academic institutions). These include Metres, Newtons, Kilograms, Kelvin, Amps, Mols, Candela and Seconds.

Scientific reports must use these measurements (or derivations like ms^-1, etc) and not any other. All scientific equations and formula, used internationally are based upon these measurements only. You cannot use minutes or hours or any other unit for Time other than Seconds and if other values are referenced, then they have to be converted.

Sorry to be a pedant, but I work with research publications at an academic library, and it took me only a few moments to find an article (DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-00618-6) recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports which contains the text

Quote from: Characterization of ATP7A missense mutants suggests a correlation between intracellular trafficking and severity of Menkes diseaseTo test whether proteasomal degradation is either fully or only  partly responsible for the reduced accumulation of G860VC and G1255RC,  we treated the fibroblasts with the proteasome inhibitor Bortezomib for 20 hours, and determined the ATP7A protein content by WB.

Note that the duration of treatment is specified as "20 hours" rather than "72 kiloseconds" or "7.2 x 10⁴s".  "Days", "months", and "years" also appear in the full text of the article.  None are converted to seconds and a quick scan through the article turned up no references to times in seconds at all (although I could have missed it).

Did you perhaps mean to say that seconds are the only unit time allowed for use in formulas rather than the only unit "useable in scientific reports (that are peer reviewed in academic institutions)"?

Quote from: nDervish;961688Sorry to be a pedant, but I work with research publications at an academic library, and it took me only a few moments to find an article (DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-00618-6) recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports which contains the text

Note that the duration of treatment is specified as "20 hours" rather than "72 kiloseconds" or "7.2 x 10⁴s".  "Days", "months", and "years" also appear in the full text of the article.  None are converted to seconds and a quick scan through the article turned up no references to times in seconds at all (although I could have missed it).

Did you perhaps mean to say that seconds are the only unit time allowed for use in formulas rather than the only unit "useable in scientific reports (that are peer reviewed in academic institutions)"?

Yes I did, and I also pointed out why. The S.I. measurements are required for interactions with formula and equations. This particular article clearly involves no reference to such things, and indeed is a medical text. Life sciences and medical reports frequently make no reference to physical sciences. When they do, they are required to use S.I. measurements.

You may work in a library, but have you ever had to complete a scientific report yourself, or pass a scientific exam? You aren't being pedantic, by the way. You are being snarky (and I do note the irony in pointing that out to you).

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961674Sorry to be a pedant, but I ought to have said before that I am a Science (Physics) teacher and this isn't correct.

It most certainly is, and at this point, I think I'm going to ask you to back up your claim with a reference to this requirement, who makes it, and what enforcement power they have over the overall scientific community.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961690Yes I did, and I also pointed out why. The S.I. measurements are required for interactions with formula and equations. This particular article clearly involves no reference to such things, and indeed is a medical text. Life sciences and medical reports frequently make no reference to physical sciences. When they do, they are required to use S.I. measurements.

You may work in a library, but have you ever had to complete a scientific report yourself, or pass a scientific exam? You aren't being pedantic, by the way. You are being snarky (and I do note the irony in pointing that out to you).

I don't know about nDervish, but I absolutely have completed scientific reports, published peer reviewed articles, and passed scientific exams, and you'd better believe when we are reporting on things like annual checkup compliance, etc., we measure things in years, and not seconds. Are you certain you are not talking about the narrow subset of science in which you work?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;961692It most certainly is, and at this point, I think I'm going to ask you to back up your claim with a reference to this requirement, who makes it, and what enforcement power they have over the overall scientific community.

""SI" stands for "System International" and is the set of physical units agreed upon by international convention. The SI units are sometimes also known as MKS units, where MKS stands for "meter, kilogram, and second." In 1939, the CCE recommended the adoption of a system of units based on the meter, kilogram, second, and ampere. This proposal was approved by the Comité International des Poids et Mesures (CIPM) in 1946. Following an international inquiry by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), which began in 1948, in 1954 the 10th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) approved the introduction of the ampere, kelvin, and candela as base units for electric current, thermodynamic temperature, and luminous intensity, respectively.

The name International System of Units (SI) was given to the system by the 11th CGPM in 1960. At the 14th CGPM in 1971, the current version of the SI was completed by adding the mole as base unit for amount of substance, bringing the total number of base units to seven." Dana Romero, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SI.html

"The International System of Units was established in 1960 by the 11th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM— see Preface). Universally abbreviated SI (from the French Le Système International d’Unités), it is the modern metric system of measurement used throughout the world." http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/sp811.pdf


List of member states of the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) - http://www.bipm.org/en/about-us/member-states/

"Only units of the SI and those units recognized for use with the SI are used to express the values of quantities. Equivalent values in other units are given in parentheses following values in acceptable units only when deemed necessary for the intended audience." http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html

"When you are trying numerical problems always make sure that you use the SI unit of each quantity given - this guarantees that the quantity you are calculating will be in its SI unit.

The kilogram is the SI unit for mass - do not change kilograms to grams." Physics exam requirements, BBC bitesize. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/physics/units/units/revision/1/

"The international system (SI) of units, prefixes, and symbols should be used for all physical quantities" International Astronomical Union https://www.iau.org/publications/proceedings_rules/units/

http://pubs.acs.org/paragonplus/submission/joceah/joceah_authguide.pdf

"c) The paper must be clearly presented, written in good scientific English, and conform to journal .... All figure axes must be labelled, including units where applicable. ..... The nature of the revisions required will be explained in the report. ..... Use SI units and those additional units which are recognized for use in astronomy, ..." Oxford University instructions for https://academic.oup.com/mnras/pages/General_Instructions

"Writing a Technical Paper or Brief ... It is of the greatest importance that all technical, scientific, and mathematical information contained in the paper be checked with the utmost care. SI Units. It is ASME policy that SI units of measurement be included in all papers. .." Oxford University Press, New York

QuoteI don't know about nDervish, but I absolutely have completed scientific reports, published peer reviewed articles, and passed scientific exams, and you'd better believe when we are reporting on things like annual checkup compliance, etc., we measure things in years, and not seconds. Are you certain you are not talking about the narrow subset of science in which you work?

Physical sciences and S.I. measurements are anything but a narrow field in Science. If you are using scientific formula and equations, you apply S.I. measurements if you want it to be recognised internationally. If you chose not to in even a basic school exam for Physics, you would fail the paper. This is a requirement set by international academic institutions who set the standards for those exams, and it continues through those institutions. The same is true in Chemistry and other sciences wherever scientific formula and/or calculus are used. In life and social sciences, where statistical analysis is more prevalent over calculus, the requirements are less emphasised.

Look, my only issue here is that you're trying to say that "SI units only" is a universal requirement that applies to all scientific publications, when there are clearly some scientific publications to which that requirement does not apply, such as those in the life and social sciences.  If that requirement doesn't apply to life sciences, then either the rule isn't universal to all scientific publications or you're making a covert claim that life sciences aren't really science.

Or, more likely, you misspoke, and are now attempting to defend a position you hadn't actually intended to take in the first place.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961690You may work in a library, but have you ever had to complete a scientific report yourself, or pass a scientific exam?

I started in a physics major, before switching to computer science.  (I work as a programmer and sysadmin, not a librarian.)  So, yes, I've done work in the physical sciences, albeit only at an undergraduate level.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961693Physical sciences and S.I. measurements are anything but a narrow field in Science.

Any single field within science is a narrow field in science.

 

QuoteIf you are using scientific formula and equations, you apply S.I. measurements if you want it to be recognised internationally. If you chose not to in even a basic school exam for Physics, you would fail the paper.

For Physics, which is not the whole of science.

QuoteThis is a requirement set by international academic institutions who set the standards for those exams, and it continues through those institutions. The same is true in Chemistry and other sciences wherever scientific formula and/or calculus are used. In life and social sciences, where statistical analysis is more prevalent over calculus, the requirements are less emphasised.

And I hope you recognize that life and social sciences are part of science.

Quote from: nDervish;961698Or, more likely, you misspoke, and are now attempting to defend a position you hadn't actually intended to take in the first place.

Pretty sure that's what we're looking at.

For personal record keeping, standard Gregorian Calendar. For players, often the standard Gregorian Calendar, just for communication's sake. I might sprinkle a name or two in order to remind them to drop their expectations and be present. But I have more than a few players who would just get lost or jolted out of being present trying to reconcile the jargon. It's a "know thy audience" sorta thing.

Quote from: nDervish[/QUOTELook, my only issue here is that you're trying to say that "SI units only" is a universal requirement that applies to all scientific publications, when there are clearly some scientific publications to which that requirement does not apply, such as those in the life and social sciences. If that requirement doesn't apply to life sciences, then either the rule isn't universal to all scientific publications or you're making a covert claim that life sciences aren't really science.

Or, more likely, you misspoke, and are now attempting to defend a position you hadn't actually intended to take in the first place.

Pretty sure that's what we're looking at.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;961704Any single field within science is a narrow field in science.

I am talking about "The Physical Sciences'. That is not a 'narrow field', especially when all science is underpinned by Physics, which is considered to be 'the fundamental science'. Without physical science underpinning them, there would be no life or social sciences. Biology is applied chemistry, which in turn is applied physics.

As Earnest Rutherford said (and I am paraphrasing, although it's a famous quote) "That which is not measurable is not science. That which is not physics is stamp collecting. Physics is the only real science."

Moreover, in the context of space travel which is what we are talking about with Traveller, then it is absolutely about physical science that we are talking about with measurement.

Beyond that, anybody who had studied a Physical science to any degree, or even a biological degree, would know that the S.I. system of measurement and the calculations thereof is pretty much the first thing you learn about. Both of you are acting like an indignant Year 11 class.

EDIT: I have also confirmed with two other teachers in my department, that any experimental data in Chemistry or Biological Sciences that utilises any formulaic calculation requires SI measurements for academic submission. They both have PhDs.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;961735Beyond that, anybody who had studied a Physical science to any degree, or even a biological degree, would know that the S.I. system of measurement and the calculations thereof is pretty much the first thing you learn about. Both of you are acting like an indignant Year 11 class.

Any time someone has to resort to an argument along the lines of 'no you're the one being immature,' it's pretty clear how the discussion has gone. And that the person making said statement is likely the only person who thinks it is the opposing side who has shown a lack of maturity.

I won't even dignify the attempts at defining which science is the most important science. The very discussion diminishes us all. If any one science was focused upon exclusively by society to the exclusion of others, we would be in trouble. They all are important in answering the questions they study, and pretending on is more important, purer, better or the like almost completely misses the point of the advancement of knowledge. I used the term narrow field of science to reference physics as a subset of a larger set of knowledge. If you found the term narrow insulting, that genuinely was not my intention. However, given that you have (purposefully or otherwise) given the backhanded implication that sciences other than physics aren't really science, and those of us who have published peer reviewed articles that used measurements other than in seconds as somehow having done shoddy work, I think it's a little late for you to put on the mantle of an aggrieved party.

However, let's do some rudimentary life sciences (not really) and do an autopsy--of this conversation. In post #18, you made the claim that "Scientists do not use minutes or hours or years in their calculations, only exponentials of seconds." I called out the limitations of that broad sweeping statement in #19 in what I feel was a perfectly reasonable and respectful way. At that point, you could have regrouped, looked at what you said, thought for a minute, and responded with something along the lines of "whoops, misspoke. I was speaking in generalities and with a bent towards physics, which is my field and pertinent to the discussion at hand." And we would have moved on, no harm, no foul. We really would. And probably defer to your expertise in physics and/or SI usage in physics (I know I have questions*). Instead, you doubled (and now tripled) down on an unsupportable position to no one's benefit. Certainly not yours.

I think nDervish got it in one. You misspoke, accidentally made a statement about measurement metric standard in published science that you wanted to make about a specific subset of that larger topic. That statement is true in that subset (and in fact pretty well known even to laypeople. I'm no physicist, but I know that planetary motion is measured in m/s, not AU/year or something), but obviously incorrect within the greater whole that is science (an anthropologist does not describe his study of a 1300 year old social practice as being 1.439 x 10^8 seconds old, as the first example outside my own field that came to mind). You are, as he put it, "now attempting to defend a position you hadn't actually intended to take in the first place." You've placed yourself in a position of looking ridiculous when all you had to do was say "my bad" and moved on and this whole thing would have been over in moments with your dignity intact.

I am fascinated by the number of people here who, when finding themselves in a hole, seem to have to keep digging when it is absolutely not necessary. I don't know why. I've been wrong here (genuinely wrong, not accidentally said something wrong), and the world didn't end and everyone here didn't turn on me or eat me alive. Heck, in a semi-recent thread on medieval hygiene, I made two mistakes, people said 'defuq?' and I said 'yeah, I don't know what I was thinking there.' and then we moved on. I would really suggest this course of action, to you and anyone else.

But please, if you would prefer, ignore said advice and tell us more about how we're the ones acting like an indignant Year 11 class. I'm sure you'll convince others that such is the case.



*Such as, if the non-S.I. units are listed in part of a name, should they be converted (ex. "and was cooled with a Honeywell 1800 BTU Compressive Cooler")?