First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
1–10 of 129 posts
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#2TFA specifies "more than 1,500 billion". That's more than a _trillion_, not "billions"! Why the reluctance to use the proper number?
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#3TFA specifies "more than 1,500 billion". That's more than a _trillion_, not "billions"! Why the reluctance to use the proper number?
The UK used a different definition of trillion until ~50 years ago (10^18 vs 10^12), so it probably helps avoid ambiguity
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#4TFA specifies "more than 1,500 billion". That's more than a _trillion_, not "billions"! Why the reluctance to use the proper number?
The designation of trillion is ambiguous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#5TFA specifies "more than 1,500 billion". That's more than a _trillion_, not "billions"! Why the reluctance to use the proper number?
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.
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#6TFA specifies "more than 1,500 billion". That's more than a _trillion_, not "billions"! Why the reluctance to use the proper number?
Billions is not wrong. Trillions (plural) would be wrong. "More than a trillion" would be needless words.
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#7I assume this is being hugged to death?
504 Gateway Time-out
The server didn't respond in time.
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#8Earlier 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.
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).
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#9Website seems down. Alternate links:
https://scitechdaily.com/euclid-mission-uncovers-1-5-trillio...
https://thedebrief.org/euclid-first-look-stunning-new-images...
...I was under the impression that there was a faint blue glow coming from everywhere, that was hypothesized to be extra galactic stars. Has there been any follow up on that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_star#Observation...
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#10TFA specifies "more than 1,500 billion". That's more than a _trillion_, not "billions"! Why the reluctance to use the proper number?
A very famous person is very well known for his particular style of enunciating billions. After that, saying any other word is just a wasted chance of having Sagan's voice in their head reading the word.