On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 23:53:11 Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: >As in my several other postings, I remain in favour of the existing scheme >of keeping the 24hr day x100 decimal minutes, and each decimal minute of 100 >decimal seconds; NO CHANGE in the *quadrant of 90-degree but the degree >itself gets divided into 100x100 sub-divisions like the 'hour' to make the >task of HOUR-ANGLE unchanged.
Brij, Brij, Brij... What would it take for you to understand this fundamental concept? If we are to go through the hassle of changing the size of the second, why keep the flaws of the 24-hour **number itself**??? Again, it makes no sense whatsoever to go through this very comprehensive change (the size of the second) without fixing the non-decimal nature of the time construct that would remain under your proposal!!! There would be **significant** advantages of using a decimal time construct as you evidently acknowledge yourself, but a one that would be *W-H-O-L-L-Y* decimal, and not only to the minute and second levels! Just fixing the 60-60 part of the 24-60-60 construct does NOT go far enough! Besides, a change of the duration of the second to this level of difference, 36%, is just too extreme, it would upset people's perception of time beyond what common people could possibly grasp. In addition, all other units that are time-dependent would also be changed beyond reasonable limits. All of us would have to simply start relating to measurements practically from scratch! Again, the hassles of only **partially** addressing this particular advantage is not worth the trouble of changing the size of the second. I'm absolutely sure and convinced that you would not be able to gather any support whatsoever for such *partial* fix-up (I'm sorry...) > Thre shall be *no change* in the 7-day week or >sabbath cycle but ALL YEARS can have 52-weeks during FIVE(5) years and all >years DIVISIBLE by SIX(6) shall have the added *FULL WEEK* of one sabbath >cycle as 53rd week (to be called LEAP WEEK OF THE YEAR) in the year of its >occurance. In a span of 896-years cycle, ONLY TEN(10) inter-calary LEAP >WEEKS shall be needing further adjustment at intervals of every 90-years, >according to the *Leap Week Rule*. This make the proposed calendar 'a ZERO >defect' which shall accumulate an error of ONE day over along period of >88645 years (as against the present Grgorian 3320-years) or so. This aspect of your proposal on the other hand is one that I'd tentatively have not much trouble supporting. This idea seems to be worth taking a closer look at. > Added to *THIS* no other hassals of changes the existing NORMS of time or >other counting sysyetms! What other adorable *surest, cheapest and more >co-herent* sysyetm could we THINK! Fixing the time construct cannot be done in a way that would be like putting "new tissue on old rags". True, evidently keeping some aspects of the "old" would sound like a good idea. However, since the change would be so comprehensive *anyways* we might as well do it in a way that would bring the construct in line with the SI framework. Unlike you think, Brij, the costs of this change are horrendous, but NOT fixing the rest would certainly add to the bill as we would be incurring the opportunity cost of not going far enough! So, the economics of this change is like this: Fixing of the 60-60 construct *only* would result in a net cost to society without foresseable recovery for centuries. Complete overhaul of the time construct to bring it in line with the SI construct would result in very high net costs to society, but that could be recovered in a few decades due to the net advantage gains of using a *totally* pure decimal model for the time construct. > I would gladly want to ADD more inputs if these help improve the SI-metric >system! And, welcome *criticism for improvemnt sake, if there could be any*! Well... And I insist suggesting that you review the 24-hour part of your proposal (*without* touching the size of the current meter (just adjust the "official" average diameter size of the earth)) and you would probably stand a better chance of succeeding... ;-) Marcus ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: [USMA:21614] Re: Proposal For World Calendar >>Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 22:43:33 +0000 >> >>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). >> The proposal can be looked from its implimentation aspect in *PHASED* >>manner: say, change the dail face only and study other aspects e.g. the >>calendar; rather than create confusion (which I tried, as scientists >>adovated earlier). SI and all other derived units can be re-worked to *new* >>values by using the multiplication and division factors (ready to use). >> 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! >>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 > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. >http://www.hotmail.com > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
