Dear Brij and All, It may be convenient to you to consider a method that I have recommended to measure angles.
This method firstly names a right angle a 'quad', a short form of quadrant. Secondly I divide a quad into a thousand parts each of which (using a standard SI prefix) I call a milliquad. As you will readily see this means that we can say that a milliquad on a meridian on the surface of the Earth will represent a distance of 10�kilometres. Similarly a microquad represents a distance of 10�metres. I hope this helps your considerations. Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia on 2002-07-19 05.15, Brij Bhushan Vij at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 >
