Very well, then. Just please rework whatever calcs you may need and I hope you won't forget that evidently this 400 to 40 Mm is actually an approximation (even the 1.852 km - nautical mile - to the Babylonian minute of arc is ALSO an approximation). However, this error of 3 point some km may not be that important in the end - but if it is, folks who need the added accuracy can always factor in whatever factor they may need into their calcs or something.
Marcus On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:55:48 Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: >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 > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
