<p>It is in fact supposed to be in $\mathrm{\frac{km}{s}}$ (KILOMETRES per second).</p>

<p>I think that whoever authored the paper, probably took it as a random shortcut and assumed anyone reading it would either have read the paper and understand it is supposed to be $\mathrm{\frac{km}{s}}$, or just assume it from the fact it says velocity.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-31T08:45:11.670Z
This can also be confirmed by the single cross mark in Figure 1 at the location described by the sentence "The result, 745 km./sec. for a distance of 1.4 x 10[6] parsecs..."
uhoh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-29T15:12:36.870Z
2017-12-31T03:16:21.310Z
2017-12-31T03:16:21.310Z
Eujinks
<p>Figure 1 from <a href="http://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/d_1996/hub_1929.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hubble 1929</a> (original paper with <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/15/3/168" rel="nofollow noreferrer">open access pdf</a>) has velocity with units of km. Is this just a typo or was there a reason the plot is printed this way?</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/clIHd.gif" alt="enter image description here"></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-17T02:15:22.563Z
The paper indicates that it should be km/s. Maybe the creator of the graph was not awake when it was made.
LDC3
<cosmology><history>
Original Hubble diagram units incorrect?
Aaron
# Original Hubble diagram units incorrect?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-08-17)

Figure 1 from [Hubble 1929](http://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/d_1996/hub_1929.html) (original paper with [open access pdf](http://www.pnas.org/content/15/3/168)) has velocity with units of km. Is this just a typo or was there a reason the plot is printed this way?

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/clIHd.gif)

**Tags:** cosmology, history

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The paper indicates that it should be km/s. Maybe the creator of the graph was not awake when it was made.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-08-29. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

It is in fact supposed to be in $\mathrm{\frac{km}{s}}$ (KILOMETRES per second).

I think that whoever authored the paper, probably took it as a random shortcut and assumed anyone reading it would either have read the paper and understand it is supposed to be $\mathrm{\frac{km}{s}}$, or just assume it from the fact it says velocity.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: This can also be confirmed by the single cross mark in Figure 1 at the location described by the sentence "The result, 745 km./sec. for a distance of 1.4 x 10[6] parsecs..."  

---

