Hi Madan and friends:
I am not here to create confusion *rather* to disown confusing attitude
that florish in us. I am a born HINDU and my religion, HUMANISM. I embrace
all religions. I rarelyly go to *our HINDU mandir*, but am not avert to
going to Church or mosque or for that matter any place of significance. Yes,
the mention of Kaliyuga was with a reference to *time period*.
I have been doing some calculations on 'correcting the Eras'. A friend Bill
Ellis sent me his 'booklet' and i thought of drawing the attention of usma
members. *The 2001 CONFUSION* could possibly be resolved if dates in the
Christian Era Anno Dommini and Before Christ are read and interpretted
inperspective of the YEAR 'Zero'; to be considered as we do to date change
i.e 14/15th August, 1947 that marked the distribution of pre-independent
India. I was a child of just 11 years and have gove throgh those *painful
sights* of murders and looting!
Y2K, CE and Julian Dates:
The Flag of Confusion, 2001 � A Space Odyssey had been raised �well above�
several minds, but lacked the WILL to resolve differences expecting more
problems which being a dilemma to be the tip of the iceberg. The Gregorian
calendar suffered from the disadvantage that there was NO ZERO year, and
hence it used �cardinal numbering�. Arguments continue to position negative
and/or positive zero, among radicals with a loose screw.
The Christian calendar �not only had no zero year but also used Roman
Numeral I (pronounced �eye�) and not 1 (one) at the start of calendar count.
As history started unfolding, need arose to keep day/date count with Before
Christ (BC) and Anno Domini (AD) referring to the �birth� of Lord Christ.
Calendars use a finite system, and cannot thus be mystic. There is a need to
review: How to fix the instant of Lord�s Birth, in continuation of the
calendar i.e. the instant at Winter Solstice in the Year 4 BC (4 BC December
21/22 (midnight)?
The Child JUST BORN cannot be called �born now for full� one year or aged
ONE year, till he completes one year of 365/366 days; in a similar way as
the present lies between the past and the future, during the flow of time
passage. My suggestion would be to count number of days/months/weeks/years
elapsed during history of Before Christ as: December, November, October,
September, August, July, June, May, April, March, February, January during
negative Years i.e. Before Christ (to be separated by a slash (/) at instant
ZERO OF HISTORY); and count positive Dates during Anno Domini Years
(normally) as: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August,
September, October, November, and December.
Any past or future Event/Era can then be in a clear position to define the
NUMBER of elapsed Years/Months/Weeks/Days/Hours/Minutes or Seconds; avoiding
the �confusion of ZERO year�. There is to be �no dispute� regarding
observation of the Royal Observatory Greenwich or the US Naval Observatory
(Astronomical Applications) that *HUMANITY * marched into the start of 3rd
Millennium on completion of the last day of Year 2000 on 2000 December 31
(midnight); which was 4 years 10 days too late from the instant of Lord
Jesus� birth.
The Gregorian calendar and Modified Julian Date count has gone out of step
by 12 � days (out of which the Papal Bull corrected only 10 days on 1582
October 05/15 (and by Britain on 1752 September 02/14). The Modified Julian
Date count at start of the Year of Confusion (2000 January 01/12h UT1)
stood at MJD 2451545. The Millennium Year and the �new century� started on
completion of 2000 years of Christian Era i.e. 2004 Years and 10 days after
birth of Jesus Christ (MJD 2451911).
This is 40 days ahead of the �count effective Era of Creation (4713 BC
January 01)� i.e. on completion of 6712 years at the currently known
duration of the year: 365.24219878125 days. The attempted working �withheld
for want of proper platform' refers to Count of Solar Days from Start of Era
of Creation, the Hindu Kaliyuga (3102 BC February 17/18 (midnight) and
corrected date of Birth of Lord Christ (4 BC December 21/22 (midnight).
I mean NO OFFENCE to any individual or religion, even unintentionally.
My regards to all friends.
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: M R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [USMA:21714] Fwd: Re: Towards A World Calendar
>Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 06:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Hi Brij
>
>Our intention is not to hurt you, but what irritates
>us is changing the length of the meter.
>
>Meter is the length based on the planet earth, yes the
>
>cicumference of the earth is 40 Mm (megameters), tell
>this to a child or a layman and they can understand
>and
>memorise it very easily.
>
>Instead if you base it on arc-angle it becomes more
>complicated. Also think of the impact on our World.
>
>Changing the length of meter affects
>* 800 million vehicles.
>* Millions of sign-posts.
>* 100's of 1000's of trains, boats, ships, aeroplanes,
>etc.
>* Entire clothing industry.
>* Cables.
>* Metal rolls, etc and a lot more.
>Also it will impact other units like pressure, area,
>volume, etc.
>
>Your justification for 24 hours is even more annoying.
>If 24 is a good #, then we can set
>1 deka = 24
>1 hecto = 576 (24 * 24)
>1 kilo = 13824 (24 * 24 * 24)
>In the same way, the divisibles like deci, centi &
>milli.
>
>Metrication is only a part of base-10 system and hence
>a part of decimilization. No 1 claimed that it is
>above it.
>
>By the way, if you bring the religious concept of
>Kaliyuga, then some of our christian friends will be
>bringing their 'theory of creation' which will create
>choas in this group. Please keep religion out.
>
>Again I repeat, the length of meter we use is the
>simplest and the most scientific.
>
>But I wish your extensive knowledge of calendar and
>astronomy will be helpful for some industry. All the
>best.
>
>Kind regards
>Madan
>
>--- Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [USMA:21708] Re: Towards A World Calendar
> > Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 02:14:53 +0000
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
>http://www.hotjobs.com
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
