On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:07:49 Bill Potts wrote: >As I've pointed out here before, we already have SI (metric) time. It's >called the second. It is the only SI unit approved for that purpose. >Minutes, hours and days are non-SI units, approved for use with SI. > Yes, of course, however, 'minutes' and 'hours' are much more extensively used by ordinary people than even the second! That's a reality.
>For scientific purposes, we can use the unit symbol "s" with any of the >approved prefixes. (Even non-scientists are familiar with ms, 5s and ns.) Please note that those prefixes are *"sub"-multiples* (negative powers of 10) of the second. To my knowledge EVEN in scientific circles practically never do we see ks, Ms and the likes, when the need for "larger" "units" emerge. It's always 'minutes' and 'hours'. >For keeping appointments and checking schedules, minutes, hours, months and >years are not really a burden. But this is only so because we have instruments (watches, clocks...) that show these measurements *directly*! However, tell that to sports athletes (like me, a bit... :-) ), for example, and others who would need or benefit from being able to keep track of developments in time. It IS a huge pain in the butt having to deal with these crappy units. If the time construct were *purely* decimal though we would have no difficulty at all anywhere. Evidently I'd assume instruments would be calibrated or display such decimal time construct. > There's not a whole lot we can do about >months and years, anyway, as they're based on phenomena over which we have >no control. True, very limited improvement could be introduced here. Ten months to a year is possibly the best one could do. > We don't control days either, but at least they're really close >to being uniform in length. > True, again. But I'd rather associate a decimal number to the duration of that entity than some obscure 24-hour number! Anyways... It's important for me to mention again that I do agree that time reform is somewhat elusive at this time. However, it doesn't prevent me from exploring constructs for potential future introduction and implementation. That's what technology is all about. At first the ideas are born, then discussed to death, then once a proposal gets support and approval plans for its introduction are put into place, then... ;-) Pity I may be long dead before I see any of these proposals actually in place. But (who knows?) it would give great pleasure if I could humbly be counted among the "pioneers" of time/calendar reform if and when that day comes!... :-) Cheers, Marcus >Bill Potts, CMS >Roseville, CA >http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Behalf Of James Wentworth >>Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 15:34 >>To: U.S. Metric Association >>Subject: [USMA:25329] Battlestar Galactica (Re: metric clocks) >> >> >>I respectfully suggest that those who are interested in metric >>clocks should >>restrict their postings on the subject to Battlestar Galactica enthusiast >>newsgroups. (For those who may be unfamiliar with Battlestar Galactica, it >>was a late-1970s science fiction television show in which >>decimal-based time >>units [centons, microns, etc.] were used.) >> >>Metric time is a nice idea, but it has about as much of a chance of being >>adopted as Esperanto does of becoming the world language. T'ain't gonna >>happen. When I receive such posts, they are instantly deleted unread. >>Let's stick to SI, folks! -- Jason > > ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
