Joe, sir: My regards to you for compliments that I should have been born during 1790-1793. I am not sure: when did Antoine Lavosieur die or under what circumstances (I read he was sent to gullotins). Forgive my spellings! People say, I am perhaps ahead of TIMES. At 66+, I am trying and giving out *MY KARMA* - the deeds! At your age, 88 or so, your contribution is more than given already. But, sir, MIND has *NO AGE*. Let's keep going. If I happen to be around Toronto next time, do give me the liberty to call on. I did leave a message on your phone machine this July 5th, when I came to visit Toronto, after visiting Niagara. Brij B. Vij
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph B. Reid) >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21739] Re: Towards A World Calendar >Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:00:25 -0400 > >Brij Bhushan Vij wrote in USMA 21733: >. > > 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. 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). A simple working shall show that this is > >similar to the *grad or the metric minute of arc-angle: that I showed in >my > >paper The Metric Second (1973). > > > >From Brij's figures, based on a hypothetical spherical earth, > 1 "nautical kilometre" = 40 030,159 278 6 / 36 000 = 1.111 948 868 >84 km. >This implies an accuracxy of + or - 10 nm. Actually, Brij used an >incorrect value for pi. With the correct value for pi the answer would >have been 1.111 949 266 m + or - 1 um That is as far as my calculator will >go. The present standard of the metre is considered to be accurate to >within + or - 10 nm. > >It is a pity that Brij wasn't in France from around 1790 to 1793 when the >concept of the metric system took form. Since 1799 the metre has not been >based on the distance from the north pole to the equator. > >Joseph B.Reid >17 Glebe Road West >Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071 _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
