Hi Marcus and All:
Here is an oppertunity to align the planetary motions that concern humans
and plant life! As in other postings, the exactness of the intervals
*science* recognises must be taken care:
Some important parameters used for calendaric calculations are:
Length of the Tropical Year = 365d.24219878125 - 0.07614 (t-1900),
where, t is the Gregorian year = 366.242198943 sidereal days
= 8549.91277075 hours
Moon�s Lunar Month or Lunation = 29 d.5305882- 0.06 2T days, where
T = centuries after year 1900 = 708.7341168 hours
Sunlight falling at any place of latitude, q = 12 + 2 /15 Sin-1 (tanq
tana) hours, during a day; where, a is the declination of the Sun at a
place of latitudeq ; positive (+) for North & (- ) for South of equator
Moon�s Sidereal Period = 27d .321661 = 655.719864 hours
One solar day = 1.0027379097 sidereal day; and
One sidereal day = 0.99726956598 solar day
Precession of Equinoxes is the intersections point in space, where the sun�s
apparent path (ecliptic) crosses the celestial equator (an equivalent of
terrestrial equator in space), which slowly moves in a westerly direction;
at a rate given by: 50�. 25645 + 0.000229 T per year. This means that it
will take 25775y 292d 4h.906178328 for the precession of equinoxes to take
one full circle.
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [USMA:21698] Re: Proposal For World Calendar
>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:10:27 -0700
>
>On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:46:06
> Brij Bhushan Vij wrote:
> >Hi Marcus and All Friends:
> > I have seen most posting during the past 4 to 5 days and reflect that
>what
> >YOU propose was left behind a 'decade ago'. You now appear to support the
> >World Calendar and the World Days that I advocated in 1971:
>
>Dear Brij, I don't think we should be concerned about whether we decide to
>"go back" and "resupport" a previous proposal or not. What really matters
>is if *a* proposal ends up being *the best*!
>
>Now to your "summaries" below.
>
> > (a) A World Calendar for All Ages (1970-71): The year was divided into
> >twelve months of four (4) quarters, each quarter of 13-weeks or 91 days;
>the
> >365th day of the year was named World Saturday and during leap years
>the
> >366th day was to be called a Leap Sunday. These two (2) days were
> >suggested to be observed as cease-fire Days by all nations (Refer The
> >Sunday Tribune, Chandigarh; 1971 June 06).
>
>I definitely do NOT support the continuation of the division of months in
>12. If we are to decimalize time, calendars should also be "part of the
>deal", as much as one possibly can (please remember that the 7-day cycle
>is... *"sacred"*!...). And I'd rather see 5 fiscal "quintals" instead or
>the current 4. As to how to tackle the leap year problem I still don't
>know it myself and am open to suggestions.
>
> > (b) Metric Norms for Time Standard (1971-73): What happens if time
> >standard went metric, I argued? The metric clock could have 100 metric
> >seconds to the metric minute; 100 metric minutes to the metric hour; and
> >10-metric hours to the day or night period i.e. the metric day to have 20
> >metric hours.
>
>Why 20 and not 10??? Again, let's make it *PURE* decimal. Therefore, the
>only alternatives to consider should be 1, 10, 100 or 1000 for number of
>hours. Again, I repeat, if we are to go through the hassle of changing the
>duration of the second, let's make it **worth it**!
>
> > This could also mean FIVE weeks to a month and 10-months to
> >the year.
>
>Unfortunately there would NOT be 5 wk to a mo, but a broken number. We'd
>continue to have 52 wk per year, but with a predictable 5.2 wk per mo now
>instead. We could inaugurate such a calendar when the first day of the
>"new calendar" falls on a Sunday (the first day of the week).
>
> > Format of TWO half years of 182 days or 26 weeks each, with
> >alternating months of 37 and 36 days had their names after the planets in
> >the Solar System, receding away from the Sun. The last month was,
>however,
> >named after the most naturally occurring element, Uranium.
>
>Almost. Half years would still be like today, 182.5. Can we, BTW,
>confirm, what the 10 planets are, please? I think it's indeed a good idea
>to order the months after their proximity to the sun. We'd finally be able
>to know exactly their order and all... ;-)
>
> > A Descending
> >Order time representation for instant retrieval had been proposed. The
>365th
> >and the 366th days of the year shall be World Saturday and the Leap
> >Sunday.
>
>Well... I think it would fall on whatever it falls, not necessarily always
>the same day of the week.
>
> > Conventional and metric (Dual) time scales were suggested (Refer
> >The Standards Engineer, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi; V5 N4; pp.
> >58-62; (1971)
> > (c) The Metric Second (1973 April) dealt exhastively as to *how a
>Metric
> >clock of 10x100x100 metric seconds to the DAY or NIGHT i.e. 20-metric
>hour
> >day could link the 'metre and arc-angle; to define Nautical Kilometre'
>and
> >length unit made use of 'the Velocity of Light' as the tool!
>
>Again, please, not 20, but 10, if you prefer (I still have a preference for
>percentime though... Not 10, nor 1000, like Swatch people suggest, but
>100).
>
> > Your suggestion that I revised the CLOCK face and the present day of
> >24-hours x 100 x 100 'seconds' is well *taken* but, I am afraid some
>FRIENDS
> >of metrication try this and *reason out: WHY THIS MAN LEFT IT*.
>
>I've given you plenty of reasons to successfully defend a pure decimal
>number of hours. Just use such justifications and do not worry about it.
>
> >As in my several earlier postings, I have given several formats and
> >possibiliteis but I stand on the SEA SHORE OF VAST OCEAN OF KNOWLEDGE
>THAT
> >LIES UNEXPLORED. May be some one one tells me *Where the flaw is* rather
> >than suggest that I changed my mind from *Decimalisation of the HOUR that
> >links the Arc-angle* and the Leap Week Rule take care of the
>1.24219878125
> >day left after 52-weeks (as 53rd Week: to be called LEAP WEEK OF THE
>YEAR).
>
>I honestly can't think of any other better ideas to fix the time construct
>than what's been discussed here to death (really!...), Brij. It's honestly
>that simple. Decimalization of time can ONLY mean using pure decimal
>factors for the division of a day. By doing so, even those here advocating
>to "stick" with the second would be satisfied as they'd just have to move a
>decimal point to fall to that level. Any other number of hours in a day
>would preclude that!
>
>The "arc-angle" business is very well covered by the current grade/gon
>model. We would just have to adopt it!
>
> >However, *think tanks may think better* and work out where I have not
> >explored. Unfortunately, NO ONE talks *THIS IS THE WAY it can be done!
>
>Well... apart from my flexibility about the number of hours in a day I
>think it's fair to say that we do have a workable proposal on the table,
>Brij... In summary:
>
>- 100x1000 for time construct
>- 0.01 gr = 1 km
>- 20 world time zones 5 h apart
>- New calendar with 37/36 days per month with 10 calendar months named
>after our planets in ascending order of distance from the sun, 5 fiscal
>periods. Leap year at end of year to make it 37 just like we currently do
>
>There, brief, simple to the point... :-)
>
>Regards to you, too.
>
>Marcus
>
> >Regards,....
> >Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Subject: [USMA:21676] Re: Proposal For World Calendar
> >>Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:33:59 -0700
> >>
> >>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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
