2 ms·

Sorry I hyperfocused on the value but it's really the context which makes it confusing: > 10^-7, that is, 4 times 10^-17 times larger than the gravitational wa

Sorry I hyperfocused on the value but it's really the context which makes it confusing: > 10^-7, that is, 4 times 10^-17 times larger than the gravitational wave detected which doesn't sound right. (Like saying "X is 0.1 times larger than Y" when X = 10Y.) The ear displacement is 2.5×10^16 larger than the gravitational wave, no? (Also I think 10^-7 should be 10^-5 in the quoted phrase, as per your reply above.)

rachofsunshine 2y ago
> (Also I think 10^-7 should be 10^-5 in the quoted phrase, as per your reply above.) Yeah, you're right, I had a typo in one of the intermediate numbers (the rest of the calcs used the correct number). Turns out I was just wrong overall though, not because of a typo but because of an incorrect assumption. Energy goes as 1/r^2, but amplitude is only 1/r, so the correct value is much smaller (it's about the Earth-Moon distance). > 10^-7, that is, 4 times 10^-17 times larger than the gravitational wave detected which doesn't sound right. (Like saying "X is 0.1 times larger than Y" when X = 10Y.) The ear displacement is 2.5×10^16 larger A is 2.5x10^16 larger than B is equivalent to B is 4x10^-17 larger than A, although I get what you mean by the phrasing being weird. "times the size of" would've been better than "larger".