The French revolutionaries should have kept the 360 degree circle and defined the meter as 1/9,000,000 th of the distance from the equator to the pole instead of 1/10,000,000.AND
speak DUAL language. It seems there is 'an extra ZERO' in 1/9,000,000 th (90-degree x100 x100 =1/900000th). Since METRE is now defined in terms of the value for 'velocity of light' - making PHYSICAL metre New (m') and 'decimal second =36% of SI-second' with their suggested reciprocals should not pose SUCH a big issue; especially when science is looking for *co-herence of Systeme Internationale d'Unites). Yes, the longer we delay the 'magnitude of problems shall keep broadening their base' and changeover 'astronomical' to defy the very purpose.in meters or units derived from the meter, there is no way that the meter is going to be redefined to be over 11% longer!
Thus, the matter needs attention of CCDS, CCM and CCU to make a review on :'what is best for the advancement of science'? From Dateline to 'dateline' the 24-hour clock is already in use, which can be brought to the longitude of SEVRES (France) or stationed at GMT (England), if considered.
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20031022/11:56 AM(IST)
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: "John S. Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [USMA:27242] Re: Pandora's box Re: Angles quads and milliquads Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:08:48 -0700
Hi Vij,
Your argument against grades and quads is a good one. A timezone of 16 2/3 grades leaves a lot to be desired!
The French revolutionaries should have kept the 360 degree circle and defined
the meter as 1/9,000,000 th of the distance from the equator to the pole
instead of 1/10,000,000. It would have fixed our cartography / geographic
position / nautical mile problem. However, they didn't.
Given the complete and total global dominance of the meter, given the fact
that designs and drawings and machinery and measuring equipment and documents
and specifications and prices worldwide are currently in meters or units
derived from the meter, there is no way that the meter is going to be
redefined to be over 11% longer!
The same is true for time measurement. Changing the definition of the second
implies changing the units for energy, power, force, speed, acceleration,
frequency, electric current, electric fields, magnetic flux, resistance,
capacitance, inductance, torque, angular velocity.... The list goes on!
Realistically, the biggest improvement on time units that has any chance at all of being adopted as a global standard would be to use the 24 hour clock instead of AM & PM.
John
On Monday 20 October 2003 17:47, Brij Bhushan Vij wrote:
> Marcus, Jhon Sirs:
> >And here is the brink of the question. Why choose an arbitrary 36 "units"
> >for a
> >full circle, too? Why not pick a specific common "slice" and assign it a
> >decimal value?
>
> Any division of the circle (arc-angle) shall fit the bill, so long its
> 'linking with TIME unit' gets taken care of. I kept my 'ideas on The Metric
> Second' on shelf to rework: What if DEGREE was not to change? My
> suggestion: *Keep the 24-hours clock and divide the HOUR into 100x100
> units; and tie arc-angle 1/360th of circle (DEGREE) and divide into 100
> x100 (decimal) arc-seconds*. Thus, 15-degree HOUR-angle and 'cosmic clock
> shall maintain un-intrrupted relatioship with Earthlings'.
> Imagine, then the need to produce 'Educational aids' to rescue children
> from their Geometery, mathematics (using trigometric/logarithmic)
> calculations! It can be done BUT at what chaos.
> I suggest: 'just increase the LENGTH unit - Metre New (m') = 1.11194886884
> m'; and leave the 24-hour clock with 15-degree 'hour-angle' to use
> *Decimalised Time of the Hour in minutes & seconds*. Also, refer my
> contribution: Relevance of the Metre in Indus Civilisation when Linked with
> Time Unit and Calendar Reform with Leap Weeks; 2nd International Conference
> on Metrology, Quality and Global Trade (MQGT-'99); 1999 February 24-26; pp
> 257-264; NPL (India), New Delhi.
>
> Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 20031021/06:17 AM(IST)
> 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:27233] Re: Angles quads and milliquads
> >Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:42:49 -0700
> >
> >Very good argumentation, John. Just please allow me to add a few more
> >thoughts though to your already great thought process.
> >
> >On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:29:48
> >
> > John S. Ward wrote:
> > >Hi Marcus,
> > >
> > >Yes, indeed, I was aware of this when I wrote the text copied below.
> >
> >Yes, the
> >
> > >grade is already on calculators, a major advantage over the quad. No, I
> > >don't think grades are generally taught in school, at least not from
> >
> >polling
> >
> > >friends from a variety of countries. Perhaps they were mentioned and
> >
> >most of
> >
> > >us just forget about them since they are so seldom used.
> >
> >'Course. However, the fact remains and which was my very point: DESPITE
> >the fact that this may not be used, people *know* that there are 100 gr to
> >a quarter circle, just like there are 90 degrees to it!
> >
> >But your point is taken. It comes to me as a surprise though because last
> >time I checked both Canada and Brazil, for instance, included grade
> >teaching in their curricula.
> >
> > >I think the most important point to focus on is whether or not mankind
> >
> >would
> >
> > >be better off measuring angles with the degree define as 1/360 circle,
> > > or with something else. Readers of this list seem to mostly believe
> > > that
> >
> >the
> >
> > >preferred unit would be to divide the circle into 4*10^N base units.
> >
> >True, and I'd say with good reason. Again, it goes to the fabric of using
> >a *purely decimal system*. More on this below.
> >
> > >First off, we probably all agree that minutes of arc and seconds of arc
> >
> >should
> >
> > >not be used for ANY modern purposes.
> >
> >Excellent. We both strongly agree on this one. However, please notice
> >that marine and air foggeys continue to insist on using them, not so much
> >the second, but *certainly* the minute! Why? Precisely because of its
> >association with the nautical mile crap!
> >
> > >Secondly, let's remember that the original killer feature of the metric
> >
> >system
> >
> > >was to extend each base unit by the application of a prefix to make a
> > > new unit that is 10^N the size of the base unit. The advantages are
> >
> >(obviously)
> >
> > >that then we can convert from any unit to any unit by simply shifting
> > > the decimal place appropriately, among other things. This does NOT
> > > mean that
> >
> >the
> >
> > >selection of the base unit itself has to be a factor of 10 of something.
> >
> >The
> >
> > >base unit for electrical current is a good example. There's no
> >
> >particular
> >
> > >advantage of the particular definition chosen for the ampere. In fact,
> >
> >it's
> >
> > >pretty arbitrary! The important thing is that we can derive kA, mA,
> > >microamps, etc. from the base unit. Furthermore, we can derive other
> >
> >units
> >
> > >from the ampere (volts, ohms, etc.) that can also be used as base units
> >
> >to
> >
> > >derive kV, mV, etc.
> >
> >However, this is not the point though here, John. What one must take into
> >account now is the relationships that would emerge from the USE of this
> >'unit'. It is important that one finds *key* associations with key
> >situations that should be decimal in nature.
> >
> >And here is the brink of the question. Why choose an arbitrary 36 "units"
> >for a full circle, too? Why not pick a specific common "slice" and assign
> >it a decimal value?
> >
> >Here is another indication why the use of grade would be academically
> >"perfect" (it goes without saying that this is also somewhat true of the
> >quad, but not as clearly so!). We associate the spectrum of angles to be
> >contained in a quarter circle. Supplementary angles and others bigger
> > than 180 degrees, "self-repeat" or collapse into these ones! Alas, if
> > everyone associates 100% as representing the ENTIRE spectrum of phenomena
> > being investigated, why not use it to study and relate to the quarter
> > circle?
> >
> > >An important question to then ask is why not just stick with degrees?
> >
> >Degrees
> >
> > >are THE defacto-standard unit for angle world-wide. If we simply drop
> > >minutes and seconds of arc and instead use centidegrees, millidegrees,
> >
> >etc.
> >
> > >then 99% of our objections to degrees go away.
> >
> >Why not? Because there is a lot more to it than just the degree aspect.
> >Navigation, time zone, cartography... All these guys work with a system
> >that incorporates concepts like arc-angle, 24 hour zones and whatnot.
> >
> >The use of the grade would greatly facilitate terrestrial associations on
> >projections since the earth is nearly a sphere and the errors between this
> >assumption and the ideal of a perfect sphere are not too detrimental.
> >True, perhaps academically speaking the best would be to fix the size of
> >the meter to fit a "perfect" 40 Mm on the "average" surface we currently
> >use, like SEA level, but... this would truly open up a can of worms
> > here...
> >
> >Please note that originally the creators of the metric system found it to
> >be important to come up with a "unit" that would end up with a "round"
> >number around the planet (in this case they assumed that it would be 40
> >Mm). This conceptual work was done with a reason, John.
> >
> >It's regrettable that in reality there is a difference of some 31 km for
> >that association to be "just perfect" on a surface level we call SEA
> > level. More on this later.
> >
> > > Furthermore, the second
> > >killer advantage of SI is to have a single, unambiguous global standard.
> > >Degrees are exactly that.
> >
> >? I must respectfully disagree. It's not because the present 60-60-24
> >hour construct is "universal" (global) that it is THE best or most
> > adequate system to use.
> >
> >We all know and most can even *PROVE* that there are inefficiencies and
> >significant serious problems with this framework, like the constant need
> >for conversion factors and whatnot. The exact very thing why we fight so
> >hard to have the SI system the ONLY true universal system for mankind.
> >
> >Therefore, I'm sorry, but I canNOT be happy with accepting something just
> >because it's being globally used! We're unfortunately wasting countless
> >money by sticking to a mediocre system, even if EVERYBODY uses it!
> >
> >Imagine the incredible amount of time and money our civilization would
> > save if we used a perfect decimal time construct, for instance. But, no,
> > most (even here) continue to argue the old "cost card" to disregard
> > adopting a different framework. This is really sad... Why?
> >
> >Firstly, because instead of focussing on **SCIENCE** they focus on market
> >power to push a specific standard even if they know fully well that it's
> >probably the worst there is!!! So, how can I as a scientist take this?
> >Please tell me.
> >
> >Secondly, they "conveniently" overlook that in the long run we WOULD be
> >MUCH better off by changing (even if it requires the entire planet to do
> >it!) to that kind of system than to be content with getting global
> >acceptance of a very flawed construct. And I'm talking about cost
> > *ITSELF* (YES, the very lame argument many propose to reject change and
> > progress here!... ;-) )
> >
> > >The problem is cartography. That's it! Is it worth it for the world to
> > >replace a broadly accepted ubiquitous international standard with some
> >
> >other
> >
> > >unit just to fix cartography? I will say this: EITHER we stop
> > > measuring angles in degrees in favor of quads or grades or whatever OR
> > > we give up trying to use angles for latitude and longitude and define a
> > > meter-based geographical coordinate system.
> >
> >Very good, John. I'm with you here. So, to answer your very pertinent
> >question, I'd say a resounding YES. It IS worth it! But the benefits are
> >apparently small and can only be perceived by a rigorous calculation. The
> >problem though is that this calc seems to point towards "breaking even" in
> >some 6 or 7 decades (or maybe even a century!...). And folks don't like
> >that, so they prefer to put up with 60 minutes to an hour, 60 seconds to a
> >minute and 24 hours to a day, for instance... What can I say?...
> >
> >Your second part of the paragraph above is a very pertinent and
> > interesting aspect, a one which I understand and concur with. However,
> > John, we would NOT need to see this as mutually exclusive, my friend!
> > What I mean is that we COULD cut the cake and eat it, too, here!!!
> >
> >In other words, why not have EVERYTHING??? We can enjoy the advantages of
> >the grade ALONG with what you suggested and NOT have to make a choice
> >between one OR the other, you see!
> >
> > >Until 30 years ago, it wasn't possible to separate angles and geography,
> >
> >as
> >
> > >cartography was based on astronomical angle measurements. Nowdays,
> >
> >however,
> >
> > >electronic navigation can sidestep the problem.
> >
> >That is evidently been demonstrated to be true when GPS came along. No
> >argument here. But, again, we don't have to "forget" about the angle
> >situation necessarily. I firmly believe we can STILL have the best of
> > BOTH worlds! If only we had a little bit of more good will to accept
> > some changes...
> >
> > > If I fight my perfectionist
> > >urges hard enough, I start to think that this would be a lot more
> >
> >practical
> >
> > >solution than deprecating degrees.
> >
> >Well... Perhaps, but please consider that you would not necessarily have
> > to sacrifice your 'perfectionist' stance in life for that...
> >
> >:-)
> >:
> > >I think it's a bad idea to base the standard datum on a reference
> > > surface
> >
> >over
> >
> > >500 meters below sea level.
> >
> >? John, perhaps you're not aware of or don't realize it, but there is an
> >unsurmountable systemic problem with EVEN our current SEA LEVEL approach,
> >my friend. Why? Because the earth EVEN on SEA level is NOT perfectly 40
> >Mm, or whatever the hideous nautical mile trash turns out to be! So, this
> >is totally moot, my friend.
> >
> >On the other hand, why would this new UAR be important, you would ask?
> >Good question, and the answer is a matter of a "perfect academic system
> >structure"!
> >
> >There are two options here, either we take the inaccuracy associated with
> >the surface of the earth and tolerate it, as it's presently done, or, we
> >fix that by fixing the reference to a perfect one and build projections
> >based on the UAR. So what if good part of places on earth would NOT be on
> >UAR? Most are not on SEA level, either!!!
> >
> >What's the big deal if altitudes would be quoted as, say, 3500 m UAR,
> >instead of 2969 m SEA (actually this would be more like 3000 m as flight
> >levels and all are devised with round rational numbers vis-a-vis that
> >reference)? FL's and whatnot would simply be redefined with the UAR in
> >mind. This would evidently entail in practical terms a meager 31 m
> >difference from their present "location". Hardly something to cause so
> >much headache to the traveling community!... ;-)
> >
> > > Is your reference surface a perfect sphere?
> >
> >Evidently yes.
> >
> > > I'm
> > >afraid I just don't see the advantages. At the surface (where it
> >
> >matters),
> >
> > >your great circle grade will still not be 100 km.
> > >...
> >
> >But it's not 1.852 km per minute arc angle either!!! We continue to deal
> >with approximations here, John.
> >
> >On the other hand you do have a point in the sense of my reference surface
> >being somewhat farther below than our current SEA level "average". But
> > the advantages of dealing with grade angles on a *perfect* sphere set up
> > probably would outweigh such disadvantages.
> >
> >I concede I could be mistaken, though. Therefore I appeal to those
> >professionals in the area to come up with refutations to my UNS idea
> >proposal, not as a: "I-dare-you" attitude, but in the name of finding real
> >solutions for mankind. It may be the case that I may need to revisit my
> >entire proposal after all, I don't know.
> >
> >So far I haven't sensed too great difficulties with UNS usage. FL's calcs
> >and all could be performed on *perfect* locations to render the system
> >usage irresistibly attractive for navigational purposes, and now I'm
> >talking more about on-board computer gizmos and things like that. Please
> >let's also NOT forget that airplanes cover distances on the air and NOT on
> >the surface. But sea boats and ships would be a different story (that's
> >true...). But then again, computers can work wonders at any altitude
> >level, UAR or non-UAR...
> >
> >Anyways, I've already spoken too much...
> >
> >Thanks a million for a very healthy discussion, John, I've been really
> >enjoying this and hearing from you.
> >
> >Take care,
> >
> >Marcus
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus!
> >Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cheer a special someone with a fun Halloween eCard from American Greetings!
> Go to http://www.msn.americangreetings.com/index_msn.pd?source=msne134
_________________________________________________________________
Find your first love.Rekindle past joys! http://www.batchmates.com/msn.asp Get in touch with batchmates.
