21–30 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The designation of trillion is ambiguous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion
my understanding is the long scale has largely died out think it is more than permissible to use what is scientifically standard (trillion = 10^12)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The designation of trillion is ambiguous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion
Same for one billion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion I've never heard someone use the long scale, it is only ever mentioned as a novelty. I think the scientific community, at the very least, has standardized on the short scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The long scale is common in French, German and Spanish for example. English usually uses the short scale. The scientific community uses SI prefixes, which aren't part of either scale (you don't say a billion joules which is ambiguous, you either say a terajoule for a long-scale billion or a gigajoule for a short-scale one).
what? the scientific community absolutely also uses billion and trillion by short scale it’s all over papers and nobody is ever using the long scale that i’ve seen
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what? the scientific community absolutely also uses billion and trillion by short scale it’s all over papers and nobody is ever using the long scale that i’ve seen
Are those papers in English? Long scale may be translated to short scale if the paper is translated from the original language where long scale is common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my understanding is the long scale has largely died out think it is more than permissible to use what is scientifically standard (trillion = 10^12)
“Scientifically standard” are the SI prefixes. So, given the ambiguity of what 1 gigastar is (1/1000th of 1 terastar or a really huge star?) one should say “10¹²s of stars” maybe.
We can spot the orphan stars at this distance. However, Euclid needs to turn to closer targets than the Pegasus cluster to spot rogue planets. https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/may/23/eucl... . In this case, it found dozens of rogue planets in the Orion nebula, which is only 1,500 ly away. I am presuming there are also going to be great numbers of rogue planets in deep space, not tied to any star or ga…
Can we resolve these individual orphan stars? Or just see the cumulative glow from a lot of them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same for one billion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion I've never heard someone use the long scale, it is only ever mentioned as a novelty. I think the scientific community, at the very least, has standardized on the short scale.
The long scale is far from just a novelty, most European countries other than the UK use it. Actually I thought it was used in all non-English-speaking countries, but Wikipedia showed me that the situation is far more complicated than I thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales#/media/F... Besides short scale and long scale, there is a sizable "short scale with milliard instead of billion" fraction…
We can spot the orphan stars at this distance. However, Euclid needs to turn to closer targets than the Pegasus cluster to spot rogue planets. https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/may/23/eucl... . In this case, it found dozens of rogue planets in the Orion nebula, which is only 1,500 ly away. I am presuming there are also going to be great numbers of rogue planets in deep space, not tied to any star or ga…