THIS IS A *POINT OF ORDER* TYPE OF MAIL, PLEASE! Well... Although this may be a touchy issue for some I must express my opinion that you should not apologize for sharing your R&D efforts on an issue that, contrary to some's thinking, DOES affect the SI system even if many of us would not support such changes.
I'd also like to comment that I honestly fail to see why so much opposition to the sharing of such R&D, especially among our moderator(s). Perhaps we should think this through and more thoroughly assess the consequences of such position. For example, what message would this position send to metrology scientists? Should we stop efforts towards improving the SI system and "sit on our laurels"? What is the difference between discussing time constructs *within SI principles* and, say, the topic of replacing the kilogram artifact??? If we agree that what we are REALLY defending here is the adoption of THE BEST tool for measurements why can't discussions of the SYSTEM ITSELF take place? We have talked (and CONTINUE to do so!) about several issues dealing with this here AND freely, like changing the name of the kilogram, adding new prefixes, EVEN consideration of a "new system" (Planckian units)! I, again I repeat, fail to see the harm in allowing people's point-of-view to be expressed here especially when THEIR objective is to address some of the fundamental flaws the SI system has, something which EVERYONE agrees exist!!! The day we curb discussions on R&D issues I'm afraid is the day we stopped thinking rationally and started looking a lot like ifp zealots whose only interest is to defend the status quo no matter what merits there might be for alternative solutions or improvements thereon! True, metrication is STILL our desired ultimate goal, but ONLY BECAUSE in our understanding it remains as THE BEST system of measurements today. But if we're true to ourselves we should also embrace discussions on issues that would be addressing some problems with the SI system. Like it or not, there is a lot more to such flaws than just bad prefixes, bad naming, old-habits-that-die-hard issues, etc. In any case, Tim, I'd like to get to know what your proposal is (I don't think you've ever shared with us what 'CirgreeSys' is all about yet). You can do so in private if you prefer. Cheers, Marcus On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:57:59 CirgreeSys wrote: >Dear group and groups owners: > > I would like to apologize to this group and it's owners if the my recent >posts about time has obstructed or degraded this forum. > I understand that SI is a sience that helps us live in todays world. > I understand that I have authored and invented a none reconized metric clock >and time system. > I have no excuse for the post other than I may have been blinded by the >years of research and development or the countless hours of labor not to >mention the money that has made a dream clock come true for me. Many people >have tried for hundreds of years and have fail. The conversion of all of this >to a couple of days group participation has been sow uplifting for me. Sow >upsetting for some. > No one out of all of the people that have a metric clock that I have >invented have ever >said that it's not worthy. Granted none of them where scholars of SI units. > I would like to remain a viewer of this forum and try to understand the >subject matter >sow that I might conform. > Again I apologize. Tim > ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
