Timeline for Why are these equations valid despite seemingly inconsistent units?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2016 at 14:20 | comment | added | garyp | One sees this too often. Another way of looking at it is that the author neglected to ascribe units to the prefactor: 1500 K cm g${}^{-1/3}$ | |
| Jan 22, 2016 at 14:07 | history | edited | David Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fix typo
|
| Jan 22, 2016 at 5:50 | answer | added | David Z | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 22, 2016 at 5:37 | history | edited | David Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improve title and formatting and tags
|
| Jan 22, 2016 at 5:15 | comment | added | CuriousOne | Yes, that's bad style, even though the commentary "where $\rho$ is the density in $gcm^{-3}$" makes it right. What it means is that the authors expect the reader to strip the units from the value of the density and insert it into the equation as a raw number. They should have written $T_M\approx 1500\rho^{1/3}Kcmg^{-1/3}$, instead. Admittedly, that looks very "funny" in itself. | |
| Jan 22, 2016 at 5:08 | answer | added | DJohnM | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 22, 2016 at 4:06 | comment | added | pfnuesel | See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
| Jan 22, 2016 at 3:56 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 22, 2016 at 4:05 | |||||
| Jan 22, 2016 at 3:54 | history | asked | user4437416 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |