I fully agree with what Han said. SI is based only on multiples and division of 10 and not the division of 2 as used by earlier systems.
We use the 24 hours / day system just because it is already accepted and not that 24 hours is a better way. The '.beat' system (dividing a day into 1000 units) devised by Swatch is a flop because they sell their wrist watch for US$ 60 / unit which is very expensive for an average person. Ask them to sell it for US$ 20, then we can see the difference. Madan --- Han Maenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brij, > > I simply do not see where I ridiculed you. I have > never personally attacked > you (ad hominem). I just disagree with you as the > changes you propose in SI > go much too far to me. SI would probably collapse if > we undertook such > changes at present and ifp would emerge as the > winner. > The founders of the metric system deliberately > abandoned the principle of > divisibility as they wanted to build a coherent > system of units, based on a > number system, 10 in this case. > It IS true that the opposition's main objection to > the metric system is that > is not based on divisibility. > If you object to the terms of 'illiterary' or > 'innumeracy' I used in that > message, this was NOT targeted at you, but it was > about the fact that most > people in the 19th century and the era before that > were innumerate and > illiterate. They were not able to use a number > system and therefore had to > divide everything, in most cases by 2 and powers of > 2 and also by 3 and 12 > now and then. > > Regards, > > Han > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, 2002-08-10 21:18 > Subject: [USMA:21650] Re: Proposal For World > Calendar > > > > Is the proposal sent to USMA not good enough or my > published documents in > sufficient to display what I have been saying (or > some may say HARPING) all > these THIRTY years. Well, I may be considered NO > BODY but I mean things and > challenging too. Please examine: WHERE excatlt I > have erred, so I can try > and improvise. Just rediculing me does not make me > deter or refrain from > expressing *What I feel is right*! > Regards, > Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > >From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Subject: [USMA:21646] Re: Proposal For World > Calendar > > >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:14:17 +0200 > > > > > >This is the same accusation our ifp friends make > time after time against > the metric system. Just go to their websites and > see. This concept of > divisibility is outdated, it belongs to the Middle > Ages and the Ancien > Regime when most people were illiterate and > innumerate and had to divide by > two etc. But it is still possible to divide a meter, > a kilogram and a liter > by 2 and 4 and get rational numbers. > > > > > >Han > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Sent: Friday, 2002-08-09 23:46 > > >Subject: [USMA:21612] Re: Proposal For World > Calendar > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 16:27:48 > > > > Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: > > > > >Hi All: > > > > > Unfortunately the metric system suffers > from the disadvantage that > it > > >is not rationally divible by most numbers - a > mandatory requirement of > the > > >human mind (for ease) in knowing the excat > position of planetary bodies > > >*for > > >astronomy and mathematics*. > > > > > > > > ? First of all, why would this be such a > strong requirement? I beg > to > > >disagree! The base system for counting is *the > foundation* of our > > >civilization! Changing that would require much > more than a monumental > > >task. > > >It would mean changing the very fabric of our > doing math itself. Please > > >don't go there! > > > > > > > > > This is an area that most fortune tellers > befool > > > > >the common humans who are desire to know > :What lies in store of their > > >FUTURE! > > > > > > > > And to me these folks (astrologers, > fortune-tellers) are just > deceptive > > >people who prey on people's naivete to make money > on them! I don't want > to > > >offend anyone by my comment above, but I have > absolutely no sympathy for > > >these kinds of things. If people paid more > attention to simple > statistics > > >(just to name one way of unveiling the truth on > this!) they would find > for > > >themselves what these quacks really are! > > > > > > > > > This is where the NUMBER 60 prevailed all > along (of being its > > >divisibility > > > > >by 2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20,and 30. This cannot > be achieved by 10 or 100 > > >or > > > > >1000 etc. > > > > > > > > ? So what if 100 is not divisible by that > many factors?!! The > question > > >is, is such "advantage" crucial/paramount? My > answer would be no! This > > >coupled with more important requirements would > make me a strong defender > of > > >getting rid of it (24-60-60 model). > > > > > > > > > Will the deo-decimal proposal some parties > advocate hold this? > > > > >But, first the system has to be worked and > proved *so the status quo > or > > >NO > > > > >CHANGE* attitude! > > > > > > > > Change for change, with all due respect, is > somewhat of an idiocy. > I'm > > >always ready to welcome change though, BUT when I > can clearly see its > > >benefits, that pros significantly outweighing the > cons, for starters... > > > > > > > > > As far the 24-hour scheme, it has prevailed > for ages (again because > > >of > > >its > > > > >excat divisiblity by 2,3,4,6,8,12. > > > > > > > > Perhaps. However, I'd like to believe that it > survived mostly due to > > >the > > >ill-advised desire of the proponents of decimal > time at the time to > change > > >other factors, like the 7-day weekly cycle. I > still sustain that had > they > > >NOT tried to change this specific aspect and > their quest would have > > >ultimately been successful. > > > > > > > > > Decimalisation of the HOUR *hereon* will > > > > >not make much impact on humans or > astologers/astronomers or the > > > > >mathematicians; especially when the tying is > linked with the similar > > > > >division of the DEGREE i.e. the HOUR-ANGLE. > > > > > > > > I honestly see no reason why mathematicians > and astronomers could not > > >embrace a decimal time construct. The resistance > appears to come mostly > > >from cartographers and navigators who apparently > never === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
