I tried to home on my views in creating a definition for nautical Kilometre since 1973 April via my contribution: The Metric Second (Time & Arc-Angle).
While *Nautical Mile - is 1/60th of ONE degree arc-angle on Earth curvatutre; what is wrong if the Natical Kilometre - is concieved as 1/100th of ONE degree arc-angle?*. Yes, the definition for 'Distance METRE' would need be linked to define the 'new' Time interval Decimal Second to be 1/240000th of the atomic day.
Thus, the day shall be 24hx100mdx100sd or 240000 decimal seconds (instead of the present 24hx60mx60s or 86400 seconds); and the QUADRANT remain of 90-degree with each degree divided into 1-degreex100'x100" instead of the present 1-degreex160'x60" like the HOUR.
This can and has the potential to *Shelve the Nautiocal Mile*. Also refere to my published documnt: Shelving Nautical Mile in Favour of Nautical Kilometre; Proceedings 3rd International Conference MMGT-2001; NPL New Delhi; 8-10 February 2001; pp 164-169.
Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda.
*****The New Calendar Rhyme*****
Thirty days in July, September:
April, June, November, December;
All the rest have thirty-one; accepting February alone:
Which hath but twenty-nine, to be (in) fine;
Till leap year gives the whole week READY:
Is it not time to MODIFY or change to make it perennial, Oh Daddy!
And make the calendar work with Leap Week Rule! ***** ***** ***** *****
From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [USMA:25273] Re: posting on metricsucks Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:31:31 +0100
I have tried to answer with this post, but the connection is horribly slooooooooooooooooooow at the moment. i will try again later:
The so-called 'metric establishmentarians' did not want any nautical mile in the first place. It only survives because sailors are addicted to that unit and because it is pushed by Anglo-Saxon nations. The metirc side wants distances measured by the kilometer alone. The 1852 m nautical mile is just a compromise between the two sides.
The GPS system makes the nautical mile redundant as it is metrc. Any data given on a GPS-device in medieval units is convertedby special software. It is time to do away with the nautical mile.
And that ridiculous stuff about metric units expressed in numerous decimal places makes me sick. That is just disinformation and lies by the anti-metric camp, trying to make metric look stupid.
> In the interest of mathematical purity the > figure "1852 m" is a value that > has been trimmed by none other than the > metric establishmentarians themselves. Had > they been mathematical purists dedicated to > a metric based on (a) "exact > value" of the metre and (b) > mathematical purity, then "their" > nautical mile would actually be > "1.85185185... ad infinitum (nautical) > miles.
<snip>
----- Original Message ----- From: kilopascal To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Saturday, 2003-03-22 0:35 Subject: [USMA:25255] posting on metricsucks
2003-03-21
Went to metric sucks and posted a "pro-metric" comment and was surprised to see the number of positive responses. Seems metric sucks is being invaded by pro-SIers.
Read here:
http://www.metricsucks.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl?read=12122
John
_________________________________________________________________
Cricket World Cup 2003 http://server1.msn.co.in/msnspecials/worldcup03/ News, Views and Match Reports.
