Talk:Metre per second

message: My maths may be being particularly ropey this evening, but 1 kilometre per second ≈ 2.237 miles per hour (approximate)?  That seems a 'touch' low (though I would not like to trust my late night mathematical abilities to calculate it correctly).  Might there be a decimal point in the wrong place?
KRMike (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1km/s

message: The page has a table at the moment and some of the numbers on the left don't coincide with the facts on the right.  Could we just make this a list of sorts with things like:
*1m/s                  typical human walking speed; speed of action potentials in brain
*586,000 miles/sec     ~speed of light
Seems like something in this format might fix the alignment problems, though, on looking at the preview it still isn't quite right; I think the text is too close to the numbers.  The original table could of course be fixed itself but I don't know how.  Snowmanmelting 02:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: I was looking over here, and it says that accelerating a 3000 ton object to 120,000 kilometers a second will have the force of around 1E22 joules, a rather high number. I don't quite get how they got this number. Anyone care to explain? The Gwai Lo 02:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to have been calculated using the formula for kenetic energy: E_{\rm k} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2. Note that joules measure energy, not force. Indefatigable 20:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the MAC cannon article is about a pure sci-fi thing though this isn't clearly mentioned and the references etc. rather make it look like a page describing a real thing. I think this should be fixed. anyway, on earth nobody could even accelerate a gun bullet to that speed, which is over 1/3 of the speed of light, so the classical mv²/2 formula isn't good anymore, either, and relativistic formula should be used instead. — MFH:Talk 22:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy and Power

message: are there references for the "benz unit" ?
never heard of that. — MFH:Talk 22:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe I saw your participation at the deletion discussion for benz as a standalone article.  However, the consensus from that discussion was to merge information about the informal unit into this article (metre per second) and redirect the original title to here.  I was actually the editor who performed the merger, and as you can see, the salient information is indeed present here, including the Klein citation you reference above, along with a couple of others.  I've just tweaked the content to cite that Cardarelli source; I had overlooked it during my earlier referencing.  Ultimately, community consensus on having a standalone article is unlikely to change; the coverage given in those sources is not "substantive", but this solution ensures that the information is still available to the project's readers, in a place that, if anything, is more visible than it would otherwise have been. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  benz unit 

message: Is there any information on the usage of the character ㎧? Is it a full-width symbol which is only used in East-Asian languages for compatibility reasons?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.214.104 (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full-width symbol? 

message: "Although m·s−1 is an SI derived unit, it could be viewed as more fundamental than the metre, since the metre is now derived from the speed of light in vacuum, which is defined as exactly 299 792 458 m·s−1 by the BIPM."
I noticed this statement while I was browsing, and I thought it looked like original research, as defined under the WP:NOR. I looked at the source provided, and it backs up my conclusion. No where does it say anything about m/s being a more "fundamental" unit than the meter.GreenWolf013 (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research? 

message: I find it a slight bit redundant to use ≈ and then say approximately  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKing44 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: Previously, a link to metre was only in the "See Also" section, and there was no link to seconds in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.124.152 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added hyperlinks to "Metre" and "Second" in opening sentence