undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvisarga3y ago0 comments

For the same question I got:

> The distances between the Sun and its planets vary greatly. For example, the distance from the Sun to Mercury is about 36 million miles, while the distance from the Sun to Pluto is about 3.6 billion miles. The size of the Sun is about 864,000 miles in diameter, which means that the distance from the Sun to its planets is much greater than the size of the Sun itself.

Then it says something that doesn't follow, probably answering the more frequent question of relative sizes of the planets compared to the Sun

> To put it into perspective, if the Sun were the size of a basketball, the nearest planet, Mercury, would be about the size of a grain of sand, and Pluto would be about the size of a golf ball.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

intotheabyss3y ago

Interesting. I got a totally different answer:

>The distance between the Sun and its planets is relatively small compared to the size of the Sun. The Sun is a massive object, with a diameter of about 1.4 million kilometers, while the distance between the Sun and its planets can vary greatly. For example, the distance between the Sun and Earth is about 150 million kilometers, which is about 100 times the diameter of the Sun. Similarly, the distance between the Sun and the outermost planet in the solar system, Neptune, is about 4.5 billion kilometers, which is more than 3,000 times the diameter of the Sun. So while the distances between the Sun and its planets are not insignificant, they are still relatively small compared to the size of the Sun itself.

I wonder if it chooses units based on where you are located, or if it's just arbitrary. Also, it seems clear from this example that is has no context for the answer because it doesn't see that its first statement is contradicting its next statements.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse