On Fri, 17 May 2002 15:41:31 Barbara and/or Bill Hooper wrote: >It is a very poor idea to try to redefine the second just for the purpose of >getting rid of the 60 second minute and 60 minute hour and 24 hour day. We >need to look for ways to use SI to solve problems, not ways to change SI to >deal with relatively minor and narrow difficulties. > Bill, unfortunately you seem to fail to recognize that this is more a question of *building a framework*. If the current definition of the second is at odds with "nature" (since we would not end up with a nice decimal "size" for the number of seconds in a day) it behooves us to consider coming up with one that would! We simply have no choice in the matter here. There are things in life that we are stuck with, like there are 365 days in a year, there is NOTHING anyone can do to change that fact. However, on things we CAN change, change we must. But as I said it before, *ultimately*. There is just too much dust out there. We must wait till that settles before proceeding any further.
>The best way to get rid of these strange numerical factors is to leave the >second alone and just admit that there is not a simple number of seconds in >a day (it is 86400) so that it is NOT POSSIBLE to divide the day into 10's >and 100's and 1000's evenly. > ? Why should we admit to a flawed framework when changing the second would fix that? Again, please consider this as an academic discussion, Bill. No need to remind me of the implications of this change. I honestly can't see how we can "fix" this thing without changing the duration of the second. I've given it considerable thought and unfortunately after much discussion with a lot of colleagues here I reached the conclusion that, again, *academically*, the only way to get this thing "right" is to fiddle with the duration of the second itself. Yielding to the use of some horrible "86.4" number is absolutely out of the question to me. Sorry, my friend... And I'd like to believe that many here would feel the same way. Let's face it, Bill. In view of the above I have to concur with the overwhelming majority on this and stick with the lesser evil, the hideous 60-60-24 framework... :-S ... >Using the current second, simply decide on the appropriate SI multiple to be >used for longer time intervals during the day. That multiple would be the >kilosecond (about 17 minutes long). There is no need for two intervals (like >minutes and hours) between the second and the day. One interval, namely, the >kilosecond, will do quite adequatel. > Well... Just like the proposal for 100 hours of 1 ks would, too! The difference would be that the new ks would be relatively shorter in duration than the current one. But for practical purposes I do see even the need for an extra interval for time (the hour in this proposal). Besides, let's remember that the closer one makes the new framework to the current one, or at least in appearance terms or that uses concepts most people are already familiar with (like percentages), the easier it would be for it to be accepted. ... >==================== >For intervals shorter than one kilosecond, simple fractions will do for some >purposes and seconds will do for others. Here are some examples: > >I'll be there in about 10 minutes. >I'll be there in about half a kilosecond. > Hmm... I'd rather use 1/2 an hour like in the 100-h proposal... >It's just a five minute drive. >It's just a 300 second drive. > No problem in usage here that I can see. >It only takes a minute or two. >It only takes about 100 seconds. > Ditto above. >(In the next example, 0F and 0C should be the symbols for degree Fahrenheit >an degrees Celsius, respectively.) >Bake at 350 0F for 15 minutes. >Bake at 175 0C for for 900 seconds. > Ditto above. >==================== >For intervals of the day longer than 1000 seconds, the kilosecond will do >just fine. Here are some examples of that: > Why not the hour itself now? 1 ks = 1 h (new hour, that is, evidently...) >I work for 8 hours with a half hour lunch break. >I work for 30 kiloseconds with a 2 kilosecond lunch break. > No need to change first sentence, as people would just use the new hour. >That comedy show on TV is a half hour long. >That comedy show on TV is 2 kiloseconds long. > Ditto above. >That movie runs 92 minutes. >That movie runs 5 and a half kiloseconds. > Ditto above. >Tonight's ball game will probably last about 4 hours. >Tonight's ball game will probably last14 or 15 kiloseconds. > Ditto above. Again, let's please remember that people would keep the same parlance they do now, i.e. they'd make use of the new hour, except that there would be a bigger number of them when addressing these things, that's all. Not a big deal in my opinion... :-) >==================== >And for time of day (assuming at least that we probably would continue to >measure the day starrting at midnight) we would have examples such as: > >I woke up at 6:15 am. >I woke up at 22.3 kiloseconds. > In the new 100-h proposal, one would say I woke up at, say, 25:00! ;-) >Let's meet for lunch today at about 1:30 pm. >Let's meet for lunch today at about 48 kiloseconds. > Let's meet for lunch today at about 56:00. >Rush hour is from 4 to 7 pm. >Rush hour is from 15 to 25 kiloseconds. > Rush hour is from 66 to 79. >I usually go to bed about 11:30 pm. >I usually go to bed about 84.5 kiloseconds > I usually go to bed about 98:00. >Midnight tonight is 12:00 pm, which is also 0:00 am the next day. >Midnight tonight is 86.4 kiloseconds, which is also zero the next day. > Midnight tonight is 100:00, which is also 0:00 the next day. >I don't know whether the phrase "o'clock" (as in "It is 5 o'clock.") would >be used on the 86.4 ks time of day scheme. > We could continue using it with the 100-h proposal!... >I have no doubt that clock manufacturers could make new clocks (especially >digital ones) that register time in kiloseconds from zero to 86.4 and then >start over again at zero. > Just like they could with a new XX.XXX type of watch. Hours would show like 09.450, for example. >==================== > I repeat, I am not proposing this, although think it would work. I DO >think it would be less disruptive than trying to change the length of the >second to fit a 10 "hour" day with 100 "minutes" to the hour and 100 >"seconds" to the minute. (That is a day of 100 000 new seconds as opposed to >86 400 of the current seconds.) > I'd like to believe that a better proposal would be the simpler 100 hours of 1000 seconds! Apart from the disruption of having to redefine many a unit, I see no big hassle with this type of framework. I'd say that people would get used to it fairly quickly, perhaps even more quickly than with the 10-100-100 framework. Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
