3 ms·
Indeed, IIRC the intention was to define the meter so that the distance between the North Pole and the equator at the meridian through Paris would be exactly 10
by roelschroeven 7y ago
Indeed, IIRC the intention was to define the meter so that the distance between the North Pole and the equator at the meridian through Paris would be exactly 10000 km, making the full circumference along that meridian and the one opposite it 40000 km.
EDIT: that information is already in the article, making my comment redundant and unnecessary.
- leoc 7y agoMine also. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- cwtpk 7y agoNobody reads tfa so it's cool.
- tinus_hn 7y agoWell, the article claims that that is the definition which is false. The definition of a meter is ‘the distance traveled by light in 1/299792458 of a second’ so a kilometer is a thousand times that. The story in the article is the original, obsolete definition.
- FabHK 7y agoStill bears highlighting, I think: From pole to equator it's 90 (deg) * 60 (minutes/deg) = 5400 nautical miles or 10000 kilometres. Pretty much the only way I can remember the conversion factor. Well, that's not true, 1.852 also consists of the country code of the USA followed by the country code of Hong Kong, so that's easy.