|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Skycloud" wrote in message ... I have absolutely no problem with the British billion and I wish it had prevailed, but the US has an obsession with being biggest, best, and first which occasionally becomes absurd. You're right. I've fallen into the habit of using the US billion rather than the British. I must say I think it's much more convenient to have the billion come up after on the next thousand-multiple than the million-multiple. I think the 'battle' here has been lost - that is if you want people to know what you're talking about without explaining which billion you mean every time ! I actually blame the majority of English speakers who complain about this, but have allowed the proper term for 10^9 - milliard - to be forgotten, and so only have themselves to blame. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Charles Gilman" wrote:
Why not a British billion? It's primarily a British newsgroup (hence the uk in the name), and multiplying by a million at a time is more logical in that the prefix indicates the power of a million involved (an American billion isn't ANY rational number squared). A thousand isn't any rational number squared either. Why does that matter anyway? Tim -- You are being watched. This gives you power. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Skycloud
writes "Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message ... In message , Charles Gilman writes I have absolutely no problem with the British billion and I wish it had prevailed, but the US has an obsession with being biggest, best, and first which occasionally becomes absurd. But I had my doubts that Skycloud was using it, and bigger doubts that a star will have cooled substantially in 100 thousand million years. That's only about 10 x the current age of the universe. You're right. I've fallen into the habit of using the US billion rather than the British. I must say I think it's much more convenient to have the billion come up after on the next thousand-multiple than the million-multiple. I was attempting to not step too far outside accepted cosmological time frames or put people right off, by citing the mere 100 x 10(9) yrs. As has been pointed out though, this 'room temperature star' though could well need a full British billion years to get 'comfortable'. But really, has no serious work been done on this? It has, but I suspect it's a little _too_ serious for me :-) Typing "heat capacity" "white dwarf" into Google gets lots of hits, and "cooling of a white dwarf" gets 52. For instance, the MIT exam question at http://www.core.org.cn/CN_NR/rdonlyr...tical-Physics- ISpring2003/8B5E1DAA-FEAA-46A3-A648-408521362372/0/Exam4.pdf&ei=BcQlQ5-ZA qbeRMmY1NMH looks as though it could tell us a lot. I like that "mere". There was an article in Sky and Telescope some time ago that tried to predict the future of the universe up the times when protons decay and large black holes start evaporating. One of the most interesting ideas was a crusted star, which still has a hot core due to some nuclear reaction but has a solid crust with clouds and an atmosphere. That was something like 10^10 years from now - as Arthur Clarke notes, scientific notation makes even defence budgets look small. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
As you ask, the point is not that the British meanings are all something
squared (which as powers of a million they coincidentally are), but that they should all be the same thing (a million) to the power of the number implied by the prefix. In that system Europa's mass is 48 quadrillion grammes and you can think "Ah, quadri-, that means four, million to the four, ten to the 24". Substituting septillion means a cumbersome extra calculation. I prefer the simpler system as I prefer metric to imperial measurements. Just as I can't be bothered to remember which number is ounces per pound and which pounds per stone, I can't be bothered with the extra "plus one" of the thousand-at-a-time when there are so many more interesting things in the Cosmos to think about. "Tim Auton" wrote in message ... "Charles Gilman" wrote: Why not a British billion? It's primarily a British newsgroup (hence the uk in the name), and multiplying by a million at a time is more logical in that the prefix indicates the power of a million involved (an American billion isn't ANY rational number squared). A thousand isn't any rational number squared either. Why does that matter anyway? Tim -- You are being watched. This gives you power. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - February 27, 2004 | Ron | History | 0 | February 27th 04 03:40 PM |
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 7 | January 29th 04 09:29 PM |
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 | Ron | History | 6 | January 29th 04 07:11 AM |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
Space Calendar - July 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | July 24th 03 11:26 PM |