You are absolutely right to THINK that just by division of day into 20 Metric hours and like wise linking with 400 'gon or metric degrees' as I called then in my contribution: The Metric Second (1973 April) could result in Nautical Kilometre. I am surprised USMA friends have not admitted that such a contribution was published by Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Sad, indeed and you revoke the 'centime issue'.
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: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [USMA:25302] Re: Posting on metricsucks_Nautical Kilometres Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:40:06 -0800
Again, one must *insist* that there simply is absolutely NO advantage to decimalizing only minutes and hours while keeping the number 24 for a new time construct. The change in angle measurement unit from our current mediocre 360 degree framework to either the gon/grade or 100 per circle would be enough to eliminate the hideous nautical mile thing.
Marcus
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:04:02
Brij Bhushan Vij wrote:
>Han and friends:
>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.
>
>
____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
_________________________________________________________________
Cricket World Cup 2003- News, Views and Match Reports. http://server1.msn.co.in/msnspecials/worldcup03/
