On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:18:00 Pat Naughtin wrote: >Dear John, > >I agree with your thoughts below. My simple addition is to remark that SI is >'supported' it is 'coherent' and it is a 'system'. This means that all of >its units are inter-related. A change to one means a change to all. > >If you change the second, the metre also changes, m/s changes. m/s^2 >changes, kg.m/s^2 (newton) changes as do all other international standards, >in all crafts, trades, and professions They would all have to change to suit >the 'new' second. It is simply not worth any of this effort to have another >definition of the second. >... Pat is evidently right in principle with his observation above (that changing the duration of the second will have a significant impact on other SI units). However, in the specific case of the meter it actually doesn't have to be! It would simply suffice for the denominator of the fraction that defines it to change accordingly and presto! In other words, we *can* keep the present *length* of the meter despite a change to the duration of the second.
Again, I must reiterate what I commented earlier that I regard this issue as an ongoing R&D effort which the world isn'tyet ready for. However, when technology changes even more and IT is more effectively used I predict that changes of this caliber may not end up being such a hassle in the far future after all!... ;-) Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
