3 ms·

I am annoyed by the way the article says "close to the speed of light" and then revises that to "1% of the speed of light". You can call 90% "close", or 99%, or

I am annoyed by the way the article says "close to the speed of light" and then revises that to "1% of the speed of light". You can call 90% "close", or 99%, or 99.9%, etc. But 1% is not close. Also, again, in the beginning it says "relativistic" and then switches to "sub-relativistic". I don't know exactly what the latter is, but surely it implies not relativistic?

mirimir 7y ago
There's lots of apparently sloppy editing. For example: > Despite having a sound theoretical basis, the question remains as to whether or not meteors larger than a grain of dust enter Earth's atmosphere at sub-relativistic or relativistic speeds. These would be meteors that measure 1 mm (0.04 in), 1 cm (0.4 in), or 10 cm (4 in) in diameter. I mean, what, they're quantized?
- pdonis 7y ago
  > There's lots of apparently sloppy editing. Typical for phys.org. They're going for eyeballs and clicks, not accuracy.