On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 14:54:20 kilopascal wrote: >2002-08-11 > >I think that the controversy with the calendar has a lot to do with how it >is to be set up. Traditionalist and even to some extent calendar reformers >try to connect the measuring of time with the rotation of the earth around >the sun (year), the rotation of the moon around the earth (month) and the >rotation of the earth about its own axis (day). Any attempt to revise the >present calendar, yet keeping these constraints on it is doomed to failure. > Hmm... Not necessarily, my dear friend. I still believe we could (and actually even should!) keep our "attachment" to these important/vital environmental guides and benefit from an orderly simple measurement construct like the SI system. One should not preclude the other necessarily.
True, the number of days in a year will never change from the apparently insensible 365.24... days, the 24-hours in a day, 12 months in a year and so it goes. But look at how this could be much more "user-friendly" if they were like 37/36, 100 hours, 10 months, etc... In other words, there is a way to keep the obvious irresistible advantages of being guided by natural elements and yet put order to it *our* way, so to speak... >A true metric (SI) calendar would have to be totally independent of these >constraints. Not necessarily, John. I still think there is wisdom in letting natural phenomena guide our lives. Imagine if we decided to use weird things to guide us without any regard to what the environment "tells" us, we'd be doing us more harm than good. > Cycles of the planets in this solar system and the stars would >have to be totally ignored. A true SI calendar in the sense of "cycles" >then in actuality could not exist. What would exist is the use of the >already existent SI unit the second. A point of origin would have to be >decided as time equals zero seconds and all time forward would be measured >linearly from that point. If the point of origin is the moment of the big >bang, then there would be no negative time. But, a problem exists. We >would not be able to know the exact moment of the present time as accurate >measurement of time has not been recorded since the moment of the big bang. > And the above would be just one of the difficulties of this proposal, John. Unfortunately there are things in life we have no control over, so we just have to accept such limitations and do the best we can with what we've got. >Events would be recorded as to the exact second they occurred, and events >such as age would be determined from the present time subtracting the moment >of birth. Thus all differences in time would recorded in seconds and its >prefixes. Of course, this will never be adopted, but it is the only true >way to measure the passage of time and still be within the framework of SI. > Or, alternatively, we could evaluate other time constructs that could offer the advantages we all seek and try to support it for when the time for its change comes. >As far as I see, calendar reform is a moot issue. We are wasting out time >even thinking about it unless we plan to adopt the true SI unit to measure >time. As long as we are restricted to measuring time via the sun, the moon >and the stars, our present calendar is totally useful and in no need of >reforming. Well... I'd say that we're just used to its quirks and quarks (to borrow a Canadian term...). But from a purely technical point-of-view, dealing with 24-60-60, 12 months in a year, etc, is still a pain in the neck... > Those who do ponder reform have yet to show me a truly workable >"calendar" that is superior enough to the present one to cause us all to >change. > Well... I'd like to believe that there are decent proposals for that which would still keep our "natural guide friends" as parameters of reference. Due to nature's limitations though it would evidently be impossible to cut the cake and eat it, too. But in the end a decent compromise could be adopted, one that would be satisfactory to all concerned. Now, whether this would be sufficient for you, individually, would be your personal matter to deal with. Cheers, my dear friend, Marcus > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Louis JOURDAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, 2002-08-11 07:51 >Subject: [USMA:21666] Re: Unit names; consumers' rights; duodecimal system > > >> At 20:08 +0000 02/08/10, Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: >> >Hi Mike: >> > The French failure of the Calendar and Time were not the reasons >> >that it lacked its links with the NUMBER system, but the *failure to >> >link arc-angle with TIME zones* i.e. the hour-angle. If this was >> >done,in that *had the Nautical Kilometre* been defined and linked to >> >METRE: as 1/100th of the *grad* it might have survived for some more >> >time, or may be could have continued and I would have learned that >> >way! >> > But, Napoleon's coronation could yet be another reason to abandone >> >the *Freedom calendar of France*. Could someone *enlighten me* on >> >this since I worked without any information on the subject! >> >> see >> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/louis.jourdan/metrication-en/tempsen.html >> >> Louis >> > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
