I'm very glad to hear the tone of your post, Brij, this gives me great hope, my friend. Now, on to your arguments below...
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:21:08 Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: >There is no dispute that 'science' uses the SI-second as far as time is >concerned. So speed got me measured in Metres/second; however, for >day-to-day use and man's need hours-minutes-seconds are used. Since, a >number of experts have been arguing that 'second' being an already SI unit >and uses 'splitting' of this unit any other unit must be divided in DECIMALS >to be recognised as of the 'metric system'. Agreed! Makes perfect sense, evidently. BUT, please notice that a new time constraint based on ANY other framework would not *entirely* fulfill this desirable feature, so, '200000 seconds to a day' simply canNOT cut it! (By your OWN argumentation, BTW...) > Why, decimals and not METRES, has been a suggestion since I started my >venture and as many called it my 'obsession with the METRE'. If this point >is taken into consideration, angular rotation of Earth becomes important and >linking 100000 or 200000 seconds to the day would need to be reconciled with >200 or 400-degree circle; to establish TIME zones etc. ? Here I fail to recognize your rationale, Brij. However, please note that there DOESN'T HAVE TO BE a necessary relation angle-time, i.e. 1 to 1. This relationship can be a different ratio, as long as it's a *simple* one. Now... A 100000-s day would relate to a 100 (or 1000) arc (for the entire circle) with a ratio of 1 to 1 (the ideal one, evidently). But it could work just as well with a 400 arc the ratio would be 1 to 4 and time zones can still be reasonably simply constructed (every 4 hours - 25 time zones altogether - for every 16 "degrees", simple, effective and to the point, too!) (NOTE: If you, Brij, are willing to work with a ratio 2, based on your previous paragraph, you should also be open, flexible, to accept that this factor be 4 instead, right?... ;-) ) > This, shall need >necessary changes in re-thinking about mathematical functions and a total >revision. This FEAR has potential in defeating the Metrication of Time >argument and Calendar Reform. >From a technical point-of-view I can't see much opposition to the above proposal. It >would be simple, easy, effective and people could relate to it. So, the... 'fear' >factor you're talking about is actually mostly the kind of challenges it would cause >in the "practical" world out there... > I support HOURS be the link; since science has already tried the >'second, the day, the Bessilian Year: especially when the needs are kept in >mind about Calendar Reform. So, keeping the minimal changes: >the 7-day 'sabbath'; the 24-hour clock; the interval of Earth's ONE >revolution and the 90-degree 'quadrant' and dividing the ONE degree x >100x100 arc-second, the scheme FITS well. And so (even more so, I'd say) would 10 months of 37/36 days with the same 7-day wk cycle, 100-h clock, the 100-degree (already aka grade!) 'quadrant' and the ONE hundredth degree x 1 km arc!!! ;-) > May be I have to learn more BLACK HOLES in my thinking; but I must get >positive hints to work further. All other fears can be resolved, by using >the factors for NEW time interval and the length unit and their RECIPROCALS >for alignment of 'other derived units. I sincerely hope you'll view the above approach as 'positive hints', Brij! :-) Warm regards, my friend. Marcus >Brij Bhushan Vij > >>From: Carl Sorenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: [USMA:21203] RE: Unit for Speed >>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:44:14 -0600 >> >>Gene wrote: >> >Would you recommend m/s or km/h for rates of ascent and descent of >>aircraft, or >> >would you argue that ft/s should be retained because most pilots >>(except pilots >> >from eastern Europe) are already more comfortable with ft/s? >> >>Of course I would not argue in favor of ft/s! There is no benefit to >>using feet except the pilots are already more familiar with it. >>Familiarity, of course, is not likely to be much of an argument to >>anyone on this mailing list (including me). That is not the issue as >>with km/h vs. m/s. In that issue, I am talking about whether we will >>likely be measuring time intervals in hours or seconds. >> >>I'm not a pilot, but I would imagine they would be interested in both >>m/s and km/h. If they want to know how many hours it will take to get >>to a city, km/h will probably be more natural. >> >> >Nevertheless, I want m/s as a "option" relating to closing distances >> >and time intervals before a collision. >> >>I suspect that pilots would entirely agree with this. They are much >>more likely to quantitatively analyze closing distances and time >>intervals than the average motorist. >> >>With digital readouts on dashboards now, it would be easy to include the >>option of m/s. I wouldn't mind the option of seeing speed in m/s, but I >>wouldn't use it all the time. >> >>Carl >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On >>Behalf Of Gene Mechtly >>Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:10 PM >>To: U.S. Metric Association >>Cc: U.S. Metric Association >>Subject: [USMA:21202] Unit for Speed >> >> >>On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Carl Sorenson wrote: >> > ... If even the metric countries don't use m/s in cars and on >> > highways, it will be a lonely crusade, ... >> >>Carl, >> >>Nevertheless, I want m/s as a "option" relating to closing distances and >>time intervals before a collision. >> >>On a related question, we are told that international rules for air >>traffic control are being revised. >> >>Would you recommend m/s or km/h for rates of ascent and descent of >>aircraft, or would you argue that ft/s should be retained because most >>pilots (except pilots from eastern Europe) are already more comfortable >>with ft/s? >> >>Gene. >> > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >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
