4 ms·
> This is moderately misleading in some ways I think that this is more than moderately misleading, because it is ambiguous: - if they meant "diameter is simil
by vova_hn2 24d ago
> This is moderately misleading in some ways
I think that this is more than moderately misleading, because it is ambiguous:
- if they meant "diameter is similar to Ohio dimensions", they are a little bit off, because Ohio is about 355*355 km and Enceladus diameter is around 500km
- if they meant surface area, then they are very off, because Ohio is 116,096 km^2 while Enceladus is about 800,000 km^2. In this case it would be more accurate to say that it is bigger then Texas, but smaller than Alaska (if we want to use US states for comparison)
- messe 24d ago> - if they meant "diameter is similar to Ohio dimensions", they are a little bit off, because Ohio is about 355*355 km and Enceladus diameter is around 500km I think they used the diagonal of a hypothetical square Ohio: sqrt(355^2 + 355^2) ≈ 502 km.
- MarkusQ 24d agoIf so, they passed up the opportunity to make another dumb Ohio joke: "Ohio isn't actually square, though you wouldn't know that from talking to the inhabitants" or some such.
- fph 24d agoThe classical definition of diameter of a set is "the largest possible distance between two points". So in this sense your square Ohio has a diameter of 502 km. (It is still misleading to compare it to the diameter of an almost-spherical object, I agree. Especially because moving on the surface of a sphere it takes much longer than 502 km to walk from one point to the antipodal one.)