This 400-degree circle or *gradian* that I learnt later was what it meant linking with the length unit *METRE* that I refer to in The Metric Second (both Time and Angle). The Metre i further link with Crucunno-Stone Rectangle and The Indus Civilisation were outcome therein. Brij Bhushan Vij
>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21238] Re: Unit for Speed >Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:04:52 -0700 > >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 _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
