That depends on what you mean by miles. There are different types of miles.
You seem to lack comprehension of significant figures. The original number only had 3 significant digits, all to the left of the decimal. Thus, the minimum accuracy is implied to be +/-0.5 mile or about 1 km. Not knowing the situation, I can't say for sure how accurate the original 400 miles is meant to be. It may be a rounded figure for media purposes only. I also don't understand why we even need to discuss a "Metre = 1/10^5th of ONE degree". What is the logic behind this? The concept of trying to tie the metre to the earth is wrong. Very wrong. The earth-degree is extremely unreliable and highly inaccurate. The earth degrees vary with location and increase and decrease in size as the earth swells and contracts. We are technically beyond the point of using FFU artifacts for measurement standards. I don't know who you think is going to take your idea seriously, and why you feel someone should. The speed of light definition of the metre is far superior to using the earth's meridians. Answer this: How would one calibrate a metre stick on mars if the metre was defined from the earth's meridian? Let's stop this nonsense about redefining the metre and stick with promoting the metre we have. You are wasting your time. In effect, you are pissing in the wind. Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 2004-04-16 23:23 Subject: [USMA:29550] Re: NASA is at it again > Euric, Pat friends: > 400 miles is 643.7376 km. AND if I work using Metre = 1/10^5th of ONE degree > is shall be: > 578.92734 km'.
