Hi All & Markus,Sir: I agree that most of us have remained confused with the differential between usage of the decimally divided units and TREATED them as of or belonging to the METRE and hence the metric system.To elucidate: "Metric, pertain to or of the metre; -system, decimal measuring system with the metre, & litre and the gram determined by it, as the unit of length, capacity and weight; the prefixing to the metre etc., of the Greek derived ��deca-, hecto-, kilo-,�� denoting multiplication by 10, 100, 1000 as in the kilometre of 1000 metres; that of Latin derived ��deci-, centi-, milli-�� denoting division by 10, 100, 1000 as in decilitre, one-tenth of a litre". At no stage did I refute that 'metric' was not decimal but too much of decimals did confuse the 'metric system'. I too had, as some among my friends might feel. But the clouds must get cleared that: Whatever belongs to the metric system is METRIC but whatever is DECIMAL cannot be labled 'metric' My initial works were decimally based 'metric' but I have slowly been reviving my concepts and wish to call METRIC only those areas which are related to the 'metre'. THIS IS WHY, I thought of reverting from my earlier proposal of 20 x 100 x 100 (200000-metric second day) with the 100-degree(or gon - as I was ignorant then) QUADRANT to the 90-degree quadrant and re-work calculations to merge time and arc-angles i.e. 1h x 100m x100s with 1-degree x 100' x100". It is this merger that brings closer relationship that make my calendar work UNIQUE in proposing 240000 decimal seconds to the day, maintain the '7-day sabbath cycle' along with the 90-degree quadrant (each degree of 100' x 100") and the year of 365.24219878125 days to work for 52-week year during the FIVE years and ALL years divisible by SIX(6) to have an added Leap Week (i.e. 53rd week) during the year in which it occurs, according to the Leap Week Rule that I propose. This is where I call my proposal: Calendar Reform the Decimal Way: Of Metre, Arc-angle and Year Count by Weeks and Decimalised Hour of the Day, a copy of THIS full exposition has been sent to USMA for examination of the proposal. YOU shall appreciate the attempts that I made 'unsupported' had to make many uphill travels. But, being a convinced individual found the attempts worth travelling this way. I do need support, and more so the necessary EXAMINATION of my document.I did 'shelve' my 20-year Metric Calendar Work done till early 90's to rework the entire scheme, now perhaps - the Decimal way (May be this too can be labled METRIC if metre were to be based on 'hypothetical sphere of radius 6371 kilometre'). The original metre has already been dispensed with in favor of time taken by light to traverse this distance. Partly failure of the 'original' metric system was due to its non-mereger between TIME and ARC-ANGLE i.e. the Hour had not been linked to Nautical distances and hence what we have of SI this day. Brij Bhushan Vij
>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:20834] SI and decimal frameworks >Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:48:41 -0700 > >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 _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
