On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:43:21 Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: >Hello Markus,Ron and friends: > I have never said that the time interval does not change.
Ok, so I interpreted your proposal correctly as far as this point is concerned. > We shall have >240000 decimal seconds instead of 86400 SI-seconds to the day. Your proposal is to change the duration of the second to 36% of its present value. I'm sorry, but I see serious problems with this proposal. Firstly, this sounds awefully too short! Changing the duration of the second to something this different would more than wreak havoc with people's minds. True, each hour will have the exact same duration as people are used to now, but when it comes to the perception of minutes and seconds... I can see a change in the order of magnitude of 86% for the second not being too big of a deal, but 36%? Hmm... Secondly, your proposal, again I repeat, does NOT *completely* decimalize time. We would still be "slaves" to a non-decimal factor, 24. The advantages of fixing minutes and seconds IMHO would hardly justify this scheme. Hours MUST also be "fixed". I.e., if we are to fix and mess with this it behooves us to fix *everything* we can! Otherwise the fix-up is only partial and does not go far enough. Thirdly, you would be more than wreaking havoc with nearly everything else measurementwise. Especially if we also modified the length of the meter as you proposed below. This would amount to nothing short of starting everything again from scratch! Man, this is just too much! This would be going way too far IMHO. >...The 'quadrant' continues to >have 90-degree and each degree has like the HOUR 1-degree x 100' x100" to >tie up the clock face as 100:60ratio. ? And may I respectfully inquire why in the world would we want to keep this 90-degree stuff??? And perpetuate some '100:60 ratio'??? Please, Brij, think about it. If we are to go through all this trouble why not seize the opportunity to do it right? > This is where 'stretching' the >length unit METRE by about 11.2% shall be needed. And, today when scientist >family thinks of Metre defined with 'VELOCITY OF LIGHT' as reference, the >problem is not impossible to achieve. Evidently nothing is impossible, but changing the size of the meter? This would be more troublesome even than changing time! > The calendar I propose is a socio-economic need and Gregorian calendar is >already out of date by 2.5 days, and need adjustment; more so a further >correction shall be need at year 3320 (over accounted error). Agaist this, >my working for the Leap Week introduction mean, an error over a period of >88645 years. I guess noone disputes that the Gregorian calendar would need some fixing itself. For that one I'd recommend the simple 10 x 36/37 framework and that's it! Now, I honestly don't follow how your simple change to the second to 0.36 s would provide such advantages as you mentioned above... Perhaps further clarification would be in order? > There is a need for serious thinking; since I have spent some time >I have a reason to THINK positive.The paper I forwarded to Madam Valerie >Antoine was with the intention that it gets its scientific evaluation. Excellent, Brij. I'm really glad we here see some folks trying to really work on a solution to this age-old problem. However, I'm sorry, I'm still convinced that your proposal falls somewhat short of what we need. Marcus >Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: Change in time framework and e-mail from Canondale >>Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:17:33 -0700 >> >>Hello, Bij... (Please, you can drop the 'sir', ok? I think we can be >>more... informal from now on and I'll certainly always assume that you'll >>be respectful towards me just as I hope I'll continue to do the same with >>you, ok?) >> >>On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:09:23 >> Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: >> >Hi Marcus, sir: >> > As I mentioned in one of my responses, we don't really need to change >>the >> >face of the clock of 24-hour 'zones' or the quadrant of 90-degree; to get >> >into the framework of DECIMAL concept of time. Thus, we shall have >> >24x100x100 decimal seconds to the day change and link it with 24 'time >>zone' >> >of 15-degree each as 1-degree x100' x100" or 100000 arc-seconds to the >> >DEGREE. >> >>Hmm... I guess I think I now understand where you're coming from, Brij. >>You're proposing that we change the 60 by 60 framework to 100 by 100, is >>that it? But how do you plan to achieve that without changing the duration >>of the second? And if your proposal IS to change that, then we might as >>well change the entire time construct to a *pure* decimal one! Havoc would >>be wreaked already with your proposal, so, why not go the extra >>distance?... >> >>But, if your plan is NOT to change the duration of the second we do have a >>serious problem with your approach because clocks would have to be adjusted >>to how the actual day changes! You see, it takes 86400 seconds on average >>for a day to "change" to a next one. A new 240000-second day would be >>nearly three times as long, it just wouldn't work... >> >> > The calendar need not change its 'sabbath cycle' and we have a >> >52-week YEAR for five(5) years and ALL YEAR divisible by six(6) can have >>a >> >53rd week as LEAP WEEK of the year in which it occurs. Detailed >>astronomical >> >data is avaialable. The change can be brought about in phases. >> >>Well... I'm glad your proposal seems not to change this aspect of our >>calendar (the duration of the week), but again I repeat if we are to go >>through all this trouble of changing the duration of the second we might as >>well change the 24 figure, too! >> >>Marcus >> >> >Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >2108 Henry Court, MAHWAH, NJ 07430-3805 >> > Tele: +1(201)684-0191/6696 (care MUNISH VIJ) >> > >> > >> >>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>Subject: [USMA:20926] Change in time framework and e-mail from Canondale >> >>Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:05:05 -0700 >> >> >> >>True. A change in the time framework would have a significant impact on >> >>the SI system. However, I foresee the day when they (BIPM) will >>eventually >> >>have to bite the bullet and do it... >> >> >> >>I must also agree with Joe's comments on the proposal itself. One >>thousand >> >>would be just too high a number to deal with, 100 sounds a lot more >> >>adequate. As for 20 zones I have mixed feelings about it. Perhaps 25 >> >>would be less of a nuisance and would require much less changes to >>current >> >>time zones. On the other hand, 20 would have the benefit of tiing more >> >>nicely to a potential 400 figure for the angle measurement of an entire >> >>circle (Pat's proposal). >> >> >> >>Marcus >> >> >> >>On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:33:56 >> >> Joseph B. Reid wrote: >> >> >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 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably >> >>Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. >> >>Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >_________________________________________________________________ >> >Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com >> > >> > >> >> >>Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably >>Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. >>Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >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
