On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:54:22 Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: >... > This is perhaps the first information that some one is really interested >in Metrication of TIME.
Well... Actually I think it would be fair to say that this 'interest' has always been there, but that it has always "stumbled" due to some... "technical" problems, the biggest of which being that it would wreak havoc with the SI construct. I, personally, am not afraid of that though, as I, personally, don't care about whether changes would be... "too big" or something. To me what matters is *to do things right*! IMHO there is a much higher good behind changing the time/angle frameworks, *EVEN* if it meant spending billions of dollars in the process. But I'm a visionary I suppose... The trick here though is to convince enough stakeholders to go along with the idea and *actually do it*!!! But, evidently, before we get to that we MUST agree on a *technical* proposal for this conundrum, and I suppose this is just the right forum to get that job done! More on this below. > To construct a clock or rework the entire 'theory' I >find no difficulty myself. In this connection I suggest, some one seriously >looked at my BASIC writeup: The Metric Secons that was published by Indian >Standrads Bulletin; V25 N4; 1974 April(acopy of which should be available in >any library). A 1000 divisions to the clock face would mean 10x100 minutes >to the day or night ie 20 hour to the day change. I'm sorry to rain on your parade, Brij, but I honestly don't think we need to read your technical publication described above to present a... "critique" to it (honestly!). For starters, if we're to *decimalize* time, from a basic, fundamental, point-of-view IMHO a use of any other "factor" than a *PURE* decimal one for the *duration of A (one) day* would simply be against the very nature of such a proposal! So, I'm sorry to say this, but if your idea is to change from 24 hours to 20 hours per day than I honestly see no merit in going through all this trouble for that! I might as well keep our current 24-60-60 framework and "just go home"! Anything other than dividing a day's counting based on the factor 1 would be acceptable! Divide it in 1, 10, 100, 1000... whatever, but NOT 20, 40, etc. Why am I saying that? Simple, because we COUNT in decimals, and if we ever are to be successful in coming up with a universal "star trek style" clock that "naturally" continues counting into the next day, it has to be this way. Now, evidently, when it comes to the calendar we unfortunately cannot EVER accomplish that as there are 365 days in a year! This is unfortunately the ONLY exception that we HAVE to swallow (plus the 7-day week cycle which is divinely established and noone should EVER attempt to temper with that!) and put up with since it comes from nature and that's the way it is. Everything else is fixable. Now, please notice that this approach is more flexible when it comes to angles though, because we can *choose* what the fundamental unit would be, and some here have proposed that it be the entire circle (like me) while others (like Pat) prefer the quarter circle. > This would also mean 400-degree to the circle or 'grads' but the >difficulty as the author now proposes would be the trigonometric functions >and their application. This spade-work had been presented in my article >mentioned. I wonder if my book TOWARDS A UNIFIED TECHNOLOGY is still lying >in the US Congress Library. ? I honestly don't follow your initial argument above, that a 20-hour day would 'mean 400-degree to the circle'... On this Pat seems to be right, there just isn't *necessarily* a connection that needs to be made there between time and angles. It would be nice if it did (like in my approach), but it doesn't HAVE to be. On this BTW I'm starting to see more and more the merit of Pat's proposal, especially because I've been thinking lately that it may be more important that the circle be tied to length than time (especially due to new GPS technologies)! Why? Because the meter has originally been tied to 40 Mm to the earth's circumference (inasmuch as this is evidently incorrect or inaccurate). If international organizations ended up agreeing on a 1.852 m to a nautical mile (so that the end result would be 40003.2 km for an "average" circumference), which is evidently ALSO incorrect and inaccurate, than I don't see why they wouldn't be able to attach that to an even 40 Mm! (Note: just a reminder to some that 1 minute of arc in the Babylonian system is equal to 1 nautical mile, while in the "metric" angle 1 hundredth of a grade would be 1 km - Pat's proposal) > International community was somehow non-respondant, because of the >difficulties foreseen. Since 1990's, I have been revising my works and >urge a glance at the few write-ups: >1.Metric, Sidereal or Decimal Calendar; Standards Engineer, New Delhi; V26 >N2-5; pp. 44-47; 1992 April 1993 March; Bureau of Indian Standards, New >Delhi >2. Need to Revise Length Unit for Decimalisation of the Hour in Relation to >Angular Degree and World Decimal Calendar with Leap Weeks; Proceedings of >International Conference on Advances in Metrology and its Role in Quality >Improvement and Global Trade; Document No. 78; pp. 408-11; National Physical >Laboratory, New Delhi; 1996 February 20-22. >116 Relevance of the Metre in Indus Civilisation when Linked with Times Unit >and Calendar Reform with Leap Weeks; Proceedings of 2nd Internat- ional >Conference on Metrology, Quality and Global Trade (MQGT-99); pp.257 264; >National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi; 1999 February 24-26 Brij, please see my above comments. If you really want that people be more... 'respondant' to your proposal, please review it and give serious consideration to making it *truly* decimal (for starters...). >3. Decimale Calendar: Measuring Year by the Weeks and Decimalised Hour of >the Day; Proceedings of International Conference on Current Trends in TIME & >FREQUENCY (ICTF); Document # 44; pp. 363 371; National Physical >Laboratory, New Delhi; 2001 February 6-7. >4. Shelving Mile in Favour of Nautical Kilometre; Proceedings of >International Conference on Current Trends in Metrology in Global Trade >(MMGT - 2001); Document # **; pp.** ; National Physical Laboratory, New >Delhi; 2001 February 4-8. As for the above 2 references, since I haven't read them I'll abstain from commenting except to say in foresight that I would totally agree with the nature of #4. Yes, indeed. The stupid idiotic nautical mile crap MUST go no matter what and from whatever perspective!!! But careful, VEEEERY careful with #3. Please, again I beseech you, NEVER *EVER* consider changing the 7-day week cycle. This would be anathema and would kill any viable worthy proposal you may have (PLEASE!!....). > It shall give me pleasure to see the 'resistance of technical grounds' >rather off-track mentions that the ideas presented mean nothing and >foolhardy. I sincerely hope that you won't see my personal opinion as judging your ideas to 'mean nothing and(/or) foolhardy'. AFAIMC they just need some adjustments... Regards, Marcus >BRIJ BHUSHAN VIJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >2108 Henry Court, MAHWAH ,NJ, 07430-3805 >Tele: +1(201)684-0191/6696 (care MUNISHS VIJ) > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph B. Reid) >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: [USMA:20925] Re: AAT ICAS metric-time initiative >>Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:33:56 -0400 >> >>Wizard of OZ wrote in USMA 20910: >> >> >sorry, but this idea is far far away from being good, it is too >>complicated >> > >> >a good system must be quickly perceptable! >> >>it is worse than that. The AAT proposes a day of 1000 chron with 20 time >>zones around the world. The second is involved in 69% of the units listed >>in "The International System os Units". The chron would involve changing >>all these units and the instruments used for measuring them. To fit with >>20 time zones the measurement of angles would also need to be changed. >> >>The BIPM will not even consider changing the *name* of the kilogram, which >>is the only SI base unit that has a prefix in its name. >> >> >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Alliance for the Advancement of Technology (AAT)" >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:57 PM >> >Subject: [USMA:20908] AAT ICAS metric-time initiative >> > >> > >> >> Hello all, >> >> >> >> I have recently subscribed for information about >> >> metrication. I am interested in strategies for >> >> presenting uses of metric measures. >> >> >> >> The nonprofit Alliance for the Advancement of Technology >> >> (AAT) is pursuing development of a metric-time standard, >> >> the Integrated Chronological Applications System (ICAS), >> >> and has explored certain strategies of presentation >> >> in the current version 6.02. >> >> >> >> Along the way a number of technical issues have also >> >> been considered, however certain standards issues >> >> also remain. >> >> >> >> AAT ICAS in Brief version 6.02 is available in both HTML >> >> and PDF versions from AAT ICAS Itinica on the >> >> aatideas web at http://www.aatideas.org/itinica via Internet. >> >> >> >> Until later, >> >> >> >> Ron >> >> -- >> >> Ronald L. Stone, programs manager >> >> Alliance for the Advancement of Technology (AAT) >> >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> http://www.aatideas.org >> >> >> >> AAT >> >> PO Box 141155 >> >> Mpls., MN 55414-1155 >> >> USA >> >> >> >> >> >>Joseph B.Reid >>17 Glebe Road West >>Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071 > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
