On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 22:43:33 Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: >Hi Marcus, Joe and friends: > Thanks for your reaction. Unfortunately *your* assumption of SI is the >present and my assumption is to LINK the 'metre (old or new)' with ARC-ANGLE >i.e. 1/100th of the DEGREE or 'grad' to be the Nautical Kilometre wherefrom >the NEW definition of the 'metre' must be arrived at and also linked to the >new definition of TIME unit (240000th of the solar day or 1/87658127.7074th >of the tropical year).
? Brij, the current meter can *already* be linked to that! 0.01 g = 1 km! The only "modification" required is simply to choose a slightly smaller average diameter for the earth! There is absolutely no need for a change to the current size of the meter by doing this simple adjustment! >...SI and all other derived units can be re-worked to *new* >values by using the multiplication and division factors (ready to use). There can be nothing simpler than using 0.864 as a factor for that. But, again, we're talking *major* changes to many SI units here. That's why such changes (to the time construct) must be very carefully evaluated and, above all, **done right**! And, I'm sorry to repeat this for the nth-time, keeping the 24-hour format is a definitive no-no! > How unfortunate, if proponants of SI-metric usage reduces to it >non-coherance and defeat the very purpose of *change to metric*? I am sure, >there shall be some who would sense that ANY THING THAT IS DECIMALLY DIVIDED >IN NOT METRIC *but* anything that is METRIC must be linked to SI-METRE (the >old or new unit) for length! ? I hope I'm not alone on this, but your sentencing construct above is very hard to understand, Brij. Perhaps you should rephrase it so that I could make the appropriate comment about it. In any case, this is how it is: The SI and decimal-base systems are *intrinsically* related. One canNOT dissociate one from the other. The same goes for the coherence/consistence aspects of the SI. In other words, when SI base units are employed dimensionals should *always* yield the appropriate unit in mathematical equations. These are the pillars of the SI system and cannot be tampered with EVER. Marcus >Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: [USMA:21612] Re: Proposal For World Calendar >>Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 14:46:44 -0700 >> >>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 showed any interest >>in cooperating with fixing the flaws of their own models. >> >>Now, there are effective proposals to address the specific issue of angle >>measurements. The question is whether there would be enough support to >>carry any of them through. >> >> > This is where the need to >> >increase the length UNIT *metre* by the factor 1.11194886884 times the >>metre >> >we use. >> >>I honestly couldn't see *anywhere* why there would be a *necessity* for >>this change, Brij! The "grid" in which the earth is "divided up" considers >>a specific *average* size for a spherical diameter for the earth. We can >>always adjust such to our convenience. >> >> > My paper The Metric Second (1973 April) amply demosntrated THIS. More >>so, >> >I had tried to give (at page 157)worked results for using *velocity of >> >light* as a measure for TIME. >> > I wish some one took a serious note of what I had done or am trying to >> >propose. >> >>Sigh... And I'll repeat here what I've been saying all along, Brij. >>Please, submit a proposal, a model, whatever that is **technically in >>line** with the SI framework and we'd gladly consider getting into the more >>technical stuff. But until such a proposal fulfills some simple >>requirements like being easy, practical, etc, such exercise would be moot. >> >>Marcus >> >> >Brij Bhushan Vij<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >> > >> >>From: M R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>Subject: [USMA:21602] Fwd: Re: Proposal For World Calendar >> >>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 05:48:28 -0700 (PDT) >> >> >> >>The reason for using decimal system is the simplicity >> >>of + , - , * and /. >> >> >> >>30 + 10 = 40 (just add 1 # to the left digit) >> >>50 - 10 = 40 (subtract 1 # from left digit) >> >>40 * 10 = 400 (add another 0) >> >>5000 / 10 = 500 (remove a 0) >> >> >> >>Its mostly a matter adding and removing 0. >> >>This simplicity cannot be found in any other # system. >> >> >> >>Madan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>--- "Joseph B. Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 20:57:35 -0400 >> >> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph B. Reid) >> >> > Subject: [USMA:21568] Re: Proposal For World >> >> > Calendar >> >> > >> >> > Brij Bhushan Vij and Marcus Berger have proposed >> >> > several iconoclastic >> >> > improvements to the metric system. They don't go far >> >> > enough. First we >> >> > should reform the number system, and then build a >> >> > new metric system on that >> >> > foundation. >> >> > I have a set of tables, "Duodecimal Arithmetic" >> >> > (radix twelve) by George S. >> >> > Terry, published in 1938 by Longmans, Green. It >> >> > contains 407 pages of >> >> > mathematical tables of factors, fractions, >> >> > factorials, reciprocal >> >> > factorials, powers, reciprocal powers, squares, >> >> > cubes, square roots, cube >> >> > roots, reciprocals, trignometrical functions of >> >> > common angles, conversion >> >> > of angles, conversion of time, sin, cos, tan, n cot >> >> > n, logarithms, log >> >> > trignometric functions, napierian logarithms, log >> >> > sin, log cos, log tan in >> >> > radians, exponential, sine and cosine integrals, >> >> > factorial function, >> >> > digamma function, Bessel functions, interpolation >> >> > coefficients. >> >> > >> >> > Truly a labor of love, It was achieved BC (before >> >> > computers) using a >> >> > modified Munroe calculator that used parts from >> >> > Munroe sterling >> >> > calculators. >> >> > >> >> > Joseph B.Reid >> >> > 17 Glebe Road West >> >> > Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071 >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >> >>Do You Yahoo!? >> >>HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs >> >>http://www.hotjobs.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 >> > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >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
