Hi Marcus, friends; Sure enough parallel lines do not meet. And, I gain mention reciprocity must be used and applied, BUT never at the cost of *stalemate*. Anything that is DECIMAL necessarily is not 'metric' BUT everything that is METRIC is 'automatically' decimal. This is the principle of SI-metric, if I ever read correctly - the coherrence! My regards, anyway for your healthy participation. It was at this juncture, I reverted to make some sacrifices to the cause of The Metric Second! And, the calendar that I worked *then*. Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21750] Re: Towards A World Calendar >Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:13:42 -0700 > >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 > _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
