Hi Markus and friends: Honestly I see no reason: Why should you support my proposal, since you have made up your mind NOT TO SEE through and read in between the lines of what we have been discussing. However, i am in for a reason and a *scientific NO can satisfy my zeal*. You other mail suggesting that till we have the PROPER duodecimal notation approved we should not or cannot go for TIME/METRE redefinitions and other derived units... I think I should refrain from more comments! We must accept that HUMAN mind is lethargic and wants to cling to old values. If we wish to distract minds from the actual *theme* of reforming the Gregorian calendar and NOT think of changing the definitions for time and/or length; we could have stayed back in the 'fps' days or in the ancient units of "vipla, pal, vigadi, gahadi, mahurat" etc. of the ancients for time and the length unit of Mohenjo-Daro. I am an advocate for the change and corrections *BUT for good and NOT* for holding on to mixed usage. There is always achance for improvement; moreso if the cxhange meets the demand of society and does not *cost* beyond reason. I suggest you ask for a fuller copy of my paper from USMA headquaerters and disect the data to form your opinion. My unqualified appology if I have annoyed your feelings. Human life shall stop if there were NO CHANGE! Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21578] Re: Proposal For World Calendar >Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 09:21:41 -0700 > >Well, Brij... And I hope you'll understand I can never in good conscience >support your proposal to keep 24 hours in a day. As a scientist that I >also am I must have a commitment to do things *the right way*. And if we >sort of agree that using the factor 1 for number of hours in a day is in >harmony with that principle, then I unfortunately cannot concur with >gettting anything less than that. So, I'm sorry if I can't support your >proposal... > >As for the meter aspect, I also cannot see anything majorly wrong with the >current meter size (except in that it's now tied to the speed of light >(SIC!)). Therefore, I also see no reason for a change there. So, again, >sorry if I can't support your proposal in this regard either... > >Marcus > >On Wed, 07 Aug 2002 18:50:18 > Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: > >Hi Marcus and All: > >I was always an advocate for 10, 100, or any division of the day. This is > >wherefrom I started my expositions as: Metric Norms for Time Standard; >but, > >I laid mysellf to remove the *confusion* of calling anything linked to > >'decimalisation' being the metric. I resolved anything if was not linked >to > >the 'METRE(old or the new proposed)' could not be long to the metric >system > >or the SI. The paper Metric Second exhibits this. My turning back and > >keepoing my 20-year work on shelf was to review: Why and where my theory >had > >not been eccepted by most scientists. I realised that *practical > >difficulties* were the culprits; as I see here in America (where people >are > >at least open and say VIJ your letter the I wrote to 'friends of > >metrication' appears to be that of a propagandist. > >Rightly as U asked why increase the length of 'metre'; this is to bridge >the > >'new' metre with the SI-metric units and to define the METRE > >in physical terms for day-to-day activity and express as 'time interval > >linking the velocity of light' - like what I had shown in The paper >*Metric > >Second*. > > I have always said the old units could be used for a limited period and > >then removed. This is where I proposed NO CHANGES except division of the > >HOURS and the DEGREE (for arc-angle) to cause 'no confusion' especially > >since the change in time affects every sphere of human activity. Thus, > >keeping the 24-Hours shall go a long way (24 being exactly divisible by >2, > >3, 4, 6, 8, 12); this is chosen to defeat the SIXTY (which is >additionally > >divisible by 5,15, 20,and 30) so HOUR-ANGLE is not disturbed and we >*still > >can find a way to go metric i.e. link the definition of METRE to the NEW > >change*. I hope, you understand my views. I suppose, NO ASTROLOGER, > >MATHEMATICIAN or ASTRONOMER shall have difficulty in reconciling to the > >changes predicted. > >Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Subject: [USMA:21544] Re: Proposal For World Calendar > >>Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 16:33:56 -0700 > >> > >>? I'm a little confused about what these changes you alluded to are, >Brij. > >> Would you please clarify? Are you saying you've finally accepted to > >>consider 10, 100 or 1000 for number of hours in a day? As for the >"dual" > >>representation, this has always been a dilemma for many here. How to > >>undertake the transition. > >> > >>I'm of the opinion that unless you *eliminate* the old and make the use >of > >>the new compulsory there may be little chance of success. Transitions >are > >>best handled when you allow a certain time for both to co-exist, *then* >you > >>disallow the old one by a certain D-day. So far, experience shows that > >>this is the best approach. > >> > >>Marcus > >> > >>On Tue, 06 Aug 2002 15:56:11 > >> Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: > >> >Hi Marcus: > >> >Thanks and I am glad that I shall still be getting mail from you. TWO > >> >aspects: (ONE) I changed my mind from 10-hour or 20-hour day and its > >> >*metric* sub-divisions was the 100-degree QUADRANT and the >difficulties > >> >Astronomers and Mathematicians - especially the *fortune tellers* and > >>humans > >> >connected with the aura of knowing their fate shall be the culprits >BUT > >> >*science* sees NO SUCH reason. The divisions of the sky into location >of > >> >planets and their coordination like we do with 60 or 24 shall not be > >> >achieved with 100; and (TWO) conceptual disorientation to consider the > >>TIME > >> >as 2h 50m (decimal or SI metric) while it is actually 6h in the >morning, > >> >shall become un-acceptable to many. I had done this exercise long ago >and > >> >felt unless there is DUAL representation during the transition, it may > >> >defeat the issue. Well, the choice is *SCIENTIFIC* rather than ours! > >> >I have been working on the *Confusion of the ZERO* year; and have > >>parallel > >> >working like the MJD, CE (Christian Era) and KY (KaliYuga) Dating, >which > >>I > >> >suppose is not for THIS forum, so withheld info. There is a hope and > >> >discussion must go on for International coordination for common dating > >>like > >> >the ISO 8601:1988 (Descending Order Dating and Represntation of Day >time > >>and > >> >events). > >> >Regards, > >> >Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > >> > > >> >>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >>Subject: [USMA:21534] Re: Proposal For World Calendar > >> >>Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 17:18:56 -0700 > >> >> > >> >>On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:23:45 > >> >> BB VIJ wrote: > >> >> >Marcus, Joe, Bill and friends: > >> >> > I have seen USMA 21366 - Proposal on Decimal Time. I have not >seen > >> >>any replies to proposal or additional information. > >> >> > >> >>??? I don't keep track of posts by numbers, besides, I have very > >>limited > >> >>space in my angelfire mailbox's account, so I'm sorry if I can't >follow > >> >>your statement above. On the other hand I feel that as far as I'm > >> >>concerned I've provided you with significant input concerning your > >> >>proposal. I even went as far as coming up with one of my own. > >> >> > >> >>Your points presented below have IMHO been adequately addressed > >>throughout > >> >>discussions by members of this forum, therefore I honestly don't know > >>what > >> >>else you would expect from us, Brij. > >> >> > >> >>Again, in summary, regarding your proposal I continue to stress the > >>point > >> >>that if we are to change the duration of the second keeping ANY other > >> >>factor but 1 for a new time framework will find extremely strong > >>resistance > >> >>from most of us here. So, I'm sorry to say that your 24 x 100 x 100 > >>simply > >> >>won't cut it. More below. > >> >> > >> >> > It is unfortunate that I do not see many seriuos enthusiasts to > >>'see > >> >>through' the difficulties and insist the day to be of TEN hours >duration > >> >>etc. > >> >> > >> >>And what WE can't figure out is why you appear to insist on NOT > >>considering > >> >>a pure decimal factor for the time framework when this would simply >be > >> >>*absolutely paramount* to finally bring the time construct in line >with > >>the > >> >>SI system philosophy! > >> >> > >> >> > Other than the general clockwork, the time zones, the 365-day year > > > >> >>re-distribution and rotation of Earth connection with *geometric >angle* > >> >>i.e. > Hour-Angle; the proposal I sent for realistic examination to >USMA > >> > > >> >>headquarters, has most solutions that I have attempted to make home >into > >> > > >> >>minds. May be I lack in the approach..... and? > >> >> > >> >>Many of us here also pointed out the difficulties with your 24 x 100 >x > >>100 > >> >>approach, plus your apparent insistance on changing the length of the > >> >>meter. Again, I must ask, dear Brij, what else would you expect from >us > >>in > >> >>this forum? Please let us know. > >> >> > >> >> > Some relevant factors that additionally need be considered are: > >> >> >FUTURE CALENDAR MUST MEET THE CRITERIA > >> >> >(a) to over come discrepancies of the Gregorian calendar and > >> >> > > >> >> >provide possible solution to account for 365th and 366th day > >> >> > > >> >> >over the 52-weeks (of 7-days in each week) without causing a > >> >> > > >> >> >break in the continuation of 'sabbath cycle'; > >> >> > > >> >>But the current "corrections" already IMHO adequately address this > >> >>discrepancy. Sure, there would be a need for more "additional days" > >>along > >> >>the road. That's why I see the simple change of the duration of the > >>second > >> >>to 86.4% of it current size as good enough. In other words, we'd > >> >>circumvent the intricacies of the calcs you presented to us. > >>Nonetheless, > >> >>if you argue that a factor other than an exact 86.4 would be in >order, > >>no > >> >>problem, I have no quarrells with using, say, 85.9328..., or >87.2494... > >> >>whatever (I hope you know what I mean). As long as the number of > >>seconds > >> >>in a day would be related to a pure decimal factor I'd gladly go >along. > >> >> > >> >> >(b) apart from these social requirements, the future calendar > >> >> > > >> >> >must stand the litmus test for scientific account of planetary > >> >> > > >> >> >motions and maintain count of time passage in 'Years/Weeks or > >> >> > > >> >> >Months/Days and Time of the Day in Hours-Minutes-Seconds' > >> >> > > >> >> >and also keep track of angular motion of spin of the earth in its > >> >> > > >> >> >axis; > >> >> > > >> >>Isn't the current time model good enough for that? I suppose the >burden > >>of > >> >>proof as to its inedaquacy should fall on you to demonstrate, fair? > >> >> > >> >> >(c) to cause minimal changes in 'set mind frame' of humans, > >> >> > > >> >> >when dealing with day-to-day activities among NATIONS; > >> >> > > >> >>The "percentime" proposal could easily fulfill that role. > >> >> > >> >> >(d) consideration for ease to manipulate calculations related > >> >> > > >> >> > with mathematics (trigonometric functions) and planetary bodies > >> >> > > >> >> > and natural or manmade objects in space; > >> >> > > >> >>We, here at USMA, believe that decimal frameworks are the only way to >go > >> >>when it comes to the issue of measurements. Therefore, if we are to > >>"mess" > >> >>with the time model we would certainly ONLY support proposals that >would > >> >>follow this SI principle. > >> >> > >> >> >(e) use of day count during the year for input/output >parameters > >> >> > > >> >> >in Automatic Data Processing Machines/Systems; and > >> >> > > >> >>? I'm not sure I understood your point here. Perhaps you should > >>elaborate > >> >>on it, please? > >> >> > >> >> >Narmalisation in science the expression of the instant of an event >by > >> >>numbering of SI or decimalized seconds elapsed since origin of an Era >or > >> >>TAI (International Astronomical Time) - inclusive of Years, >weeks/months > >> >>and day-count along with part of the hour-minute-second (solar, >sidereal > >>or > >> >>other scales). > >> >> > > >> >>? Ditto. If I read you right this would be a significant challenge >as > >>it > >> >>appears we have 3 (or 4?...) different year reckoning nowadays. I > >>honestly > >> >>doubt it we'd ever be able to come together on this, unfortunately... > >> >> > >> >> > I have been attempting to awaken the *will of experts* to join >and > >> >>reawaken the 'need for a World Calendar' which had been strayed into > >> >>politico-religious discussions (as I imagine - in the absence of >valid > >> >>information), rather than the socio-scientific values connected > >> >>withboosting the SAVINGS and ease day-to-day activities. A delayed > >>decision > >> >>is NO DECISION and hence sidetracking from the main forum. > >> >> > >> >>I do sympathize with your... "frustration" with this. Like you, I, >too, > >> >>would like to see some movement on this. However, we need to choose >our > >> >>"wars" and right now the more pressing matter is to get the US on >board > >> >>when it comes to the SI system itself. Sure, in the meantime we can > >>always > >> >>go after those other outstanding issues, like the time framework. >But > >>we > >> >>have been discussing this at length now, Brij. > >> >> > >> >> > Could some body help me in getting in touch with *the reasons of > >> >>failure of World Calendar Proposal of 'Elizabeth Achelis' - then > >>President > >> >>of World Calendar Association, New York*? As for me, I only need >petty > >> >>facility to make America and India proud that 'there are solutions to > >> >>problems'; rather than problems for solutions! > >> >> > >> >>Since I have no idea about this Liz Achelis business I'll refrain >from > >> >>commenting on it. > >> >> > >> >> > I wish my mail box gets filled with 'healthy arguments'.... > >> >> > >> >>And I hope, again, that you'll see mine as one of those... :-) > >> >> > >> >>Regards, > >> >> > >> >>Marcus > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>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 > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >>Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably > >>Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. > >>Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > > > > > >Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably >Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. >Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
