On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:21:04 Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: >Hi Mike, Marcus, Joe: > Thanks for your noting and I reciprocate feelings. > When did I try to dis-associate *METRE from the SI Units*; more so I have >been saying that ANYTHING that is decimal need not be "Metric" but every >thing that is RELATED to Metre shall automatically be DECIMAL.
The most important thing to realize is that, like in the theory of logic, |- SI -> decimal (If I affirm SI then it's decimal. The exception being exactly our current time construct with its 60-60-24 relationship, hence my proposal for a change to 1000-100) > Yes, the >Calendar Question must as it has *its limitations* - the main being the >motion of planets, the regulatory laws; and their intervals of transition as >they go about the SUN and in their "axial spin' over which man has NO >CONTROL. True, indeed. > The count of HOURS is linked to our Day-Night and Spin of Earth; and tied >to this is the motion of Moon (phases and asterisms). The problem of how we >count 364-days to the year is SIMPLE; but the period over this: >1.24219878125 day that account the inter-calary LEAP and tied to 'religious >7-day sabbath' is where I thought of working for the *Leap Week Rule* over >an 896-year cycle:... As I already mentioned earlier, I have no qualms with this part of your proposal, especially considering that it's independent of the time construct discussion, i.e. it could be adopted independently of the other part of your proposal regarding the change to the time construct. >... Joseph B. Reid asked me as to: HOW I reached the definition for New Metre >to be 1.11194886884 time the present unit metre. We are aware that: Polar >radius of Earth is: 6356.784 km; Equitorial radius of Earth is: 6378.136 km; >and Mean radius of Earth (considered to be a hypothetical sphere) is: 6371 >km. Based on this the Circumference is 40030.1592786 km. Just a small correction to say that it's actually more like 40030.173... > Since, FOUR >quadrants and the 90-degree concept remain UNDISTURBED the Nautical >kilometre is *derived* as 1/100th of the degree (to replace the 1/60th of >degree as the Nautical Mile). And, again, I must comment that the very attempt of our discussions is to find solutions that would do away with these non-decimal aspects of these physical properties. Going through all this trouble and NOT fix the 24-h and 90-degree thing is to me futile. But I know what you're trying to do. While commandable at first, Brij, again, they do not go far enough. I don't want to switch to a mixed system where decimalization would be only partial, especially when *there are* other proposals that do address the decimalization aspect in *its entirety*. As I said before, there are things we can't change in life, but *where we could* we might as well do it! With regards to the arc-angle discussion there simply is no need AT ALL to change the 60-60-90 model to a 100-90 alternative. I'd rather see a resurgence of the French grade model, which is *completely* decimal BTW, than to keep the 90-degree stuff. >... > If some friends consider my working to be non-SI or non-metric; may be I >lack some missing information; and stand corrected!... It's this simple, Brij. Please allow me to quote the science of logic again, now in its counter-positive application of the previous "law": |- ~decimal -> ~SI (In other words, if I affirmed SI -> decimal, then by the counter-positive law of logic I must also affirm that if non-decimal then it's not SI!!!) Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
