On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 13:07:58 kilopascal wrote: >2002-08-10 > >Maybe I'm missing something here, but why are we still hung up on this >Nautical kilometre nonsense? We don't need it. We don't need degrees, we >don't need minutes and we don't need seconds of arc. Plain and simple we >don't need them. > >If there is a need to measure the surface of the earth in a coherent >combination of both linear and angular units, then the provision already >exists. All that needs to be done is to APPLY it. > >Let's repeat what already exists, as it appears it must not have been >understood the first time presented. From the North Pole to the Equator, >there are 10 000 000 m of distance. The angular measure that this distance >subtends is equal to 100 grads. Thus, one grad is already equal to 100 000 >m, or 100 km. An angle of one centigrad(e) would be equal to a surface >distance of 1 km. This is very simple. Why do we need to come up with >something new and try to FFU-ise it with names like Nautical kilometres, >degree, minute and second? We don't. > Precisely my point, John! Perhaps more should be done by authorities to simply give more support to the grad/gon construct, at least for navigational purposes. However, until we get rid of the foot, knot... crap in this industry that will unfortunately not happen.
>We already have a time unit, the second that is FIRMLY linked to the metre, >via the speed of light. Why do we need to recreate a whole new time unit >based on FFU errors? > Well... I think it's fair to say that the time construct is the only major sticking point left in the SI framework to address. True, this is not the time to mess with that... yet... But one day we'll, hopefully, bite the bullet and fix it for ultimately this 24-60-60 nonsense will eventually have to go. Marcus > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, 2002-08-09 18:43 >Subject: [USMA:21614] Re: Proposal For World Calendar > > >> 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]> > > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
