On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 15:33:23 Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: >Hi Marcus, Friends: >I do get surprised when I find even experts THINKING anything decimal is >Metric. >METRIC is what is related to METRE and not mere linked to 'decimal units or >divisions'.
??? Please some historian correct me if I'm wrong, but the metric system is a SYSTEM that has the metre *as part of it*! In other words, there is a lot more to it than just the metre. As far as I know we call the SI system "metric" mostly because of the breakthrough that the proposal of the metre represented, which was a major departure to the idiotic ifp crap! However, please notice that the decimal framework is an intrinsic *inseparable* part of the SI system, even practically... "by definition". Take decimalization out and you actually don't have an SI system, my friend, it's that simple! Now, perhaps the only "exception" to that would be if humanity decided to change the base system it uses for mathematical counting, like for the duodecimal base or something like that. Then all principles of the SI system would have to be "redefined" (or readapted, whatever...) taking into account this new counting "reality". But, then again, THAT would be a REAL mess!!... >Why are we interested in changing NAMES if can make ammendments >or changes in PHASED manner. >Let us keep the HOUR as we have and divide the Hour into 100 divisions and >further 100 seconds and link the arc-angle ONE degree into 100x100 >arc-seconds. ? I'm sorry, but your proposal is quite... confusing to me. What is this business of "arc-angle ONE degree into 100x100 arc-seconds"? You completely lost me here, sir. On the other hand, I honestly don't think that the original proposal (10x100x100) is such a great proposal after all. I dispute that we would *require* the use of more than 2 "sub-units" for time to function efficiently as a society. In other words, I honestly believe that second and hour is more than we would ever need. >I had devised my 10Hr x 100m x 100s clock to show me that 10-day >Decaday or TWO 5-day 'quintoday'intervals could mean that metric second >could be 1/73 millionth of the year. Again, I must confess I'm still lost with your... "proposal". 'Decadays', 'quintoday'... If you're hinting at changing the weekly cycle as we know it. I'm very sorry to say it, but there is a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y NO chance in hell for that to happen (Why? Simple, religion, my friend!). If decimalization of time failed it was definitely mostly due to this too ambitious aspect of the proposal. Had they left the 7-day cycle alone and probably the 10x100x100 might have even survived to this day. >But, gianed NO support since >trigonometric functions would need to be reviewed (chich were already >thought about). Refer my published document: THE METRIC SECOND; ISI Bulln; >V25 N4; !973 April by Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi(India). I'm not sure, but it seems fair to say that most of us in this forum have already been exposed to at least parts of your idea for "metric time", Mr. Vij. While I don't speak for others it may also be fair to say that it received "cold shoulders" from this group perhaps mostly due to its being quite hard to understand! :-S The famous KISS principle comes to mind to me now. We need to come up with proposals that would be simple, easy, and that any sub-70 IQ folk would understand and relate to, and, unfortunately, based on the little I read about your proposal, it simply does not seem to fit well that profile/requirement (sorry...). > While I >am here I can be used to enlighten my friends we believe in IMPOSSIBILITY >and .....Well, the calendar question and other things could be independently >sorted out. >BRIJ BHUSHAN VIJ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > With all due respect, Mr. Vij, I honestly don't think this issue is that complicated after all. There are basically two fundamental options: change the second or don't change the second. Changing the second seems to have the consensus by the majority here *from a definitional perspective*, i.e. that if we are serious about decimalization of time there simply seems not to be any other option! The major reason though why most of us elect not to take any action on it is that we also realize the incredible and very challenging task that it would be to make that change as it would significantly impact an inordinate amount of SI unit definitions. Therefore, if there is ever to be a change in the time framework we're practically unanimous here in accepting the fact that it won't happen in the next 100 years or so (at a minimum!)... Nonetheless, I still see this as a worthy exercise. *IF* we were to fix this what would be the BEST way of going about doing it? (and I, personally, have pretty much abandoned any models that would keep the definition of the second as we know it, since they have just too many bugs and difficulties... ;-) ) Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
