• enkers@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s definitely part of it, but the lb dates way back to before there was any conception of difference between weight and mass. Nowadays, the kg, and thus the U.S. lb, is defined in terms of universal constants (the Planck constant and the speed of light), but traditionally the lb would have been defined by some sort of standard physical object, whereas the kg was defined as the mass of a litre of water. There was an implicit reliance on the force of earths gravity in the measure of the lb, which wasn’t part of the measure of the mass of a kg. So, I think historically speaking it’s understandable to think of the lb as a unit of weight, not mass.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      If I’m understanding correctly does this imply that a space colony might measure things in kilograms but have an entirely different value due to differing gravity?

      Edit: rereading I’m realizing that the opposite is true, lbs and kgs would be the same on and above every planet