• Vilian@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    just use a time based on light?, like meter is based on the speed fo light in the vaccum, or use atomic based times?, like how long take for the hydrogen atom todo something bla bla bla

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s actually what’s different on the moon. Relativity and all that means that time itself actually flows differently on the moon than it does on earth.

      The actual problem they’re working to solve is around timekeeping and GPS applications in different reference frames, but it’s hard to make a short headline about.

      • Ahrotahntee@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        When I first saw the news I was thinking “there’s no way atoms vibrate differently on the moon” but you’re right it’s about perspective and I’ve realized there’s no way I’m smart enough to handle timezones on an interplanetary scale. I can only hope that the difference between earth seconds and moon seconds can be expressed as a consistent ratio.

        I will gladly use some programming library invented in the basement of a university powered by coffee, and rage.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s well understood math, but it’s “only” relativistic orbital mechanics.

          It boils down to a pretty consistent number, but how you get there is related to the weight of the moon, how far it is from earth, and how fast it’s going.
          Since the moon is going different speeds at different places in it’s orbit, the number actually changes slightly over the month.

          They’re just using the average though, since it makes life far easier. We use the average for earth too, since clocks move differently at different altitudes or distances from the equator.