On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:11:33 Pat Naughtin wrote: >Dear Marcus and All, > >Thank you for your kind thoughts. I have interspersed some remarks. > You're welcome, Pat. :-) Let's then take a look at your remarks below. ... >Let's take one thing at a time (tee hee). I disagree that we should maintain >the nexus between angle and time. This connection has now outlived its >worthlessness.
Well... I'm very sorry for saying this, Pat, but I honestly can't see how we could even do that as these ARE intrinsically connected for at least two applications that I can see, aviation and time zones. Please let me explain, at least the latter one, since it's the simpler to go about. Time zones around the world are defined based on their longitude location on the sphere of our planet, which is basically an "angle". In other words, in order for us to define where on earth it's, say, 14:00, we need to check the location's "angular" position on the surface of our planet, which will prevail for a *segment* thereof (nowadays, usually a 15-degree "slice" per hour of time). Tiing this to aviation/navigation, it would be much easier for aviation folks to deal with latitude/longitude issues if they could relate decimal angles and distances with decimal time. It would be a real no-brainer. Not so, though, with this stupid 65-deg 13' 15" crappy stuff surveyors insist on pushing on us (and it's very unfortunate that this thing is plaguing GPS instruments and all... !#$%#$...) True, not all time zones are rigorously thus defined, it's currently actually quite a mess. However, we *could* fix that when introducing decimalization to these entities, or, if not, at least retain the principle. I'm certain that with technology becoming more and more a part of our lives, that the introduction of this more rigorous "mathematical" approach to time/location would make everybody's lives much easier (again, I'm aiming at the future here, Pat). > The connection between angle and time has inhibited progress >in the measurement of both angle and time - now is the time (more tee hee) >to separate the two so that we can move forward. > Please, see my comments above. However, I'm not sure that such 'connection' has indeed been inhibiting 'progress' in both fields. I'd say that professionals in *both* fields are to blame for this (plus, evidently, people's resistance to change...), since they haven't been bold enough to volunteer definitive changes to both areas. ... >One obviously good way to break the nexus between angle and time would be to >choose the right angle as the SI base unit of plane angle and leave the >circle to the time and calendar folk. > (One additional personal note/observation before I proceed though is that I wouldn't want to see this 'nexus' broken. I personally like this "parasitical" relationship between both of these concepts. Perhaps maybe because of my aviation background, I don't know. Still... And even if we do "succeed" in breaking this 'nexus' I'd still think that if there were an advantage somewhere, somehow to use a hypothetical "reconnection" between them, it would certainly be easier and more straigthforward if structurewise they were both decimalized and "related" to each other the way(s) I proposed) I'm not sure I understood your digression about angle above. Angles and circles are intrinsically "connected" entities (at least that's what we learn at school, especially in trigonometry classes...). So when one talks about, say, 'right angles' one is talking about a section of a circle. I just sense that there could be serious definitional difficulties with your approach, Pat. >As a side issue here we could consider the practicalities of introducing a >circle into (say) the building industry by telling all of the trades that a >circle is an angle. This will take some time. > ? I'm no 'builder', or of the profession, but from what I know I'd say that they already consider it this way, don't they? (Please, anyone in the field correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks) >Noting that the radian has already failed to become a popular unit of plane >angle - with the continued use of Babylonian units - I believe that an angle >that looked like an angle would have more success. A right angle looks like >an angle, while a circle does not look like an angle. Let's please go in parts here. First, the radian issue. The main reason, I'd say that the radian "failed" in popular parlance is the fact that it's undeniably intractable and cumbersome. Referring to angles like pi over 4, pi, pi over 2, etc, is a nuisance to practicality. (let's just please imagine us creating a compass to measure angles with such "values" especially considering that "round" values would have absolutely no significance, usefulness or meaning, i.e. the scale would be useless, 1, 1.1, 1.2 rd etc...) Second, 'a circle does not look like an angle'. I don't think the case here is a one of "looks", but of *definition*. We're told by academics that circles (even the whole one) ARE angles, they're 360-deg ones. We even use the artificiality of drawing a single straight line from the center of the circle to the circumference of it (usually at the top) to denote this... "angularity" (and some would even add a smaller circular arrow ending to the left of this vertical line to indicate it). Again, I'm sorry for saying but I don't know how to take your comments here, Pat. > On the other hand a >circle looks like a circle and I know that it would take a long time and a >lot of education to convince building workers (and the general population) >that a circle is an angle. > Please, see my earlier comment, i.e. that it came as a surprise to me that they wouldn't already. >> The tie-up to this approach would clearly be beneficial for aviation, >> geographers, surveyors, etc, in the long run. > >Marcus, could you elaborate on these advantages. I do not have any >experience in aviation so I cannot see any advantages of tying angle and >time together. I'll try my best, Pat. Besides the examples I've cited earlier in this post I can think of the following. For example, popularly, we, pilots (especially fighter pilots), are used to say things like "2 o'clock" position, "4 o'clock", etc when referring to angular positions in the sky. True, this may sound like sillyness, but nonetheless in people's minds they do make this harmless connection which in their thinking would convey information in simpler terms than saying 270 degrees, or 120 degrees, etc. We do not per se use a connection time/location to do things in aviation. However, if charts were gridded with decimal units, as opposed to stupid nautical miles, simple navigational parameters could be more easily made. If time were also decimalized "in tandem" with that we could benefit from it by working in *either* approach. I.e. given a known flight speed we could just look at city positions as if on a clock and come up with flight times, etc. For instance, say Chicago to Seattle is equivalent to 10 "hours" (where my hours is the "new" hour, 100 hours in a day, 100 units in a circle) in my "watch", or circle. Let's say the "rule of thumb" is 1.8 (i.e. it would take 180 "hours" for the aircraft to complete a tour of the earth). Travelling between two cities spaced 10 "h" apart would then take, 18 "h". GPS-based instruments could even show a "slice" calibrated with final decimal time scaling making this even more effortless! One could look at a slice of the sphere and *read* time directly from the "watch" for *any* two cities apart!!! Cool, isn't it? ;-) > My suspicion is that because the connection between angle and >time has prevented development in either, we have simply retained the >Babylonian measure because it is too difficult to change two things at once. >When you try to reform time the angle folk squeal, and if you decide to try >reform of angle the time folk scream. Either way, it is probably possible to >reform one thing at a time if you can break the connection. > Hmm... You may be right. On the other hand, if we could get these 2 folks together and show them how beneficial it could be for them to work together on this one we could get something done. ... >The error is sleight; the value is close enough for almost all purposes. As >we can quite comfortably say that a litre of water has a mass of a kilogram, >so we can say that it is 10 megametres from the equator to the North or >South Pole. > True. And I see this as another reason why this continued 'connection' could work and be beneficial for both camps! My personal take, of course. Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
