So we are hopeful! Yes, for TWENTY years I held on to my views about 400-degree circle and allied *thinking* between 1970 thro 1990. And, I thought if masses don't wish to change from the present *concepts* canNOT I work back and leave every thing as it is and allow things things to take shape. So my NEW re-thinking. It does need *working* to see through from the view point of astonomy and mathematics - although I am but a little man! Brij Bhushan Vij
>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21233] Re: Unit for Speed >Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:44:14 -0700 > >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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
