Han, Mike, Marcus and friends:
I had already forgotton the inscidence. In fact, I use computer of my
children that had *crashed* and had to be reformatted or whatever! I had not
directly referred to your 'rediculling' my efforts. It is just natural. All
these years, I had been accepted as NO BODY since I have had NO FORMAL
education, but have been an autodidact. I have, knowing that *NO WORK* had
been done in this area took upon myself to see through; and as a result
THREW UP my Air Force Commission in 1983. I feel no regrets, since I
invested my TIME and whatever I could save after meeting my childrens'
needs. I have had many such - what one may call setbacks. Relax, sir.
Now to calendar: *SCIENCE* has already tried (Decimalising the Year
as:Bessilian Year; the Day, about which attempts are still ON (since I
started work on calendars); the Second (already in use to the extent of
sub-multiples or count of time in SECONDS by astronomers). IT HAS BEEN THE
*hour* WHICH lacked this attempt. This is what I present it to all my
friends.
DOWNWARD decimalisation of the hour is *simple* but it is the UPWARDS that
we as humans are linked to the comforts of our daily routines as:
DAY/Week/Month/Year and so ON. If SI is to adopt a different unit: WHY NOT
THE HOURS as BASE but count of *long intervals of time, is what we got to
take 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
LEAP WEEK RULE:
'An 896-year span shall have 327257.01010776 days, to account 159 �leap
weeks�. All years shall have 52 weeks, OTHER THAN THOSE YEARS DIVISIBLE BY
SIX (6), which shall have an added 53rd week as the leap week of the year.
In addition, only TEN (10) inter-calary leap weeks need be included at a
frequency of every 90-years - the first three (3) years later (i.e. during
93rd year) and the last three (3) years earlier (i.e. during 87th year), if
896TH year itself happen to be divisible by SIX (6). An accumulated �under
accounted� error of only ONE DAY shall creep into after a long period of
88645 years. As against this, the Gregorian calendar accumulates such error
in about 3320 years'.
Note: 966 Solar days = 965 �tithi or phases�; and
849 solar days = 839 �nakshatra or asterisms�
If my calulations make sense, there is need to examine the CALENDAR
QUESTION; I have the will to accept my failure where more improvement can be
done.
Yes, to those friends who advocate the 'TEN (10)' philosophy, WHY can't
they think that *TEN belong to Decimal Notation and NOT METRICATION, since
not linked to 'SI-metre'* and that can be achieved by choosing the very
large interval of 4.32 million Years (the period of HINDU "Kaliyuga", as the
ONE UNIT for TIME and keep subdividing into smaller intervals till we reach
the common man's understanding.
I again tender 'unqualified appology' if I have hurt any member's
feelings. As far me ALL FORGOTTON!
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [USMA:21658] Re: Proposal For World Calendar
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:16:46 +0200
>
>Brij,
>
>I simply do not see where I ridiculed you. I have never personally attacked
>you (ad hominem). I just disagree with you as the changes you propose in SI
>go much too far to me. SI would probably collapse if we undertook such
>changes at present and ifp would emerge as the winner.
>The founders of the metric system deliberately abandoned the principle of
>divisibility as they wanted to build a coherent system of units, based on a
>number system, 10 in this case.
>It IS true that the opposition's main objection to the metric system is
>that
>is not based on divisibility.
>If you object to the terms of 'illiterary' or 'innumeracy' I used in that
>message, this was NOT targeted at you, but it was about the fact that most
>people in the 19th century and the era before that were innumerate and
>illiterate. They were not able to use a number system and therefore had to
>divide everything, in most cases by 2 and powers of 2 and also by 3 and 12
>now and then.
>
>Regards,
>
>Han
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Saturday, 2002-08-10 21:18
>Subject: [USMA:21650] Re: Proposal For World Calendar
>
>
> > Is the proposal sent to USMA not good enough or my published documents
>in
>sufficient to display what I have been saying (or some may say HARPING) all
>these THIRTY years. Well, I may be considered NO BODY but I mean things and
>challenging too. Please examine: WHERE excatlt I have erred, so I can try
>and improvise. Just rediculing me does not make me deter or refrain from
>expressing *What I feel is right*!
>Regards,
>Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> > >From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Subject: [USMA:21646] Re: Proposal For World Calendar
> > >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:14:17 +0200
> > >
> > >This is the same accusation our ifp friends make time after time
>against
>the metric system. Just go to their websites and see. This concept of
>divisibility is outdated, it belongs to the Middle Ages and the Ancien
>Regime when most people were illiterate and innumerate and had to divide by
>two etc. But it is still possible to divide a meter, a kilogram and a liter
>by 2 and 4 and get rational numbers.
> > >
> > >Han
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Sent: Friday, 2002-08-09 23:46
> > >Subject: [USMA:21612] Re: Proposal For World Calendar
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> > http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> >
> >
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
