3 ms·
1. Miles are Roman, not Medieval. 2. What would be medieval would be a superstitious reaction to units of measurement as if they were purity religion cult sign
by romaaeterna 7y ago
1. Miles are Roman, not Medieval.
2. What would be medieval would be a superstitious reaction to units of measurement as if they were purity religion cult signifiers rather than simple rational concepts to be converted between at will, depending on the task at hand.
- mcbits 7y agoThe "correct" conversion to (modern) miles would be 20, both because 30 has only one significant digit and because it makes more sense to round 18.x to 20 than to 15.
- johnr2 7y ago> The "correct" conversion to (modern) miles would be 20 In nautical miles it would be closer to 15 ;-)
- Aaargh20318 7y ago> Miles are Roman, not Medieval English miles aren't. Also, the conversion wasn't done correctly, there was no need to convert it al all, and SI units are the preferred unit of measurement in science.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- romaaeterna 7y agoWho do you think ruled Britain until 410AD and give the English their mile, which is simply the word for "1000" in Latin? And I think that the press release is in error here. There was no radius measurement proposed in the Nature Astronomy paper. However, the radius in the press release is far to large. See: https://i.imgur.com/Y34OspJ.png https://i.imgur.com/Y34OspJ.png (From https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.02698.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.02698.pdf) Something on the order of 6-10 miles for a 2.14 M neutron star is much more appropriate. Notice that this measurement may rule out some of our models (mostly the gray lines on the left of the chart) that don't predict neutron stars this massive.
- Jedd 7y agoI think you're conflating the historic etymology around the word mile, versus the US mile conversion rate to SI unit (metre).