Not only does it not say anything about metrication, it is utterly incoherent.Coherence of 'metrication' must be recognised with the correct understanding of term *metre and the metric system* often confused among most experts. I elaborate:
METRIC vs. DECIMAL: Considerable confusion exists among scholars when referring to
the term "metric vs. decimal", which need elucidation. It is a known fact, that from METRE - the unit of length, all other measurement units are derived. The metre originally intended to be acceptable to all nations and was arrived at by actual measurement of a quarter of the terrestrial meridian from North Pole to Equator, between Barcelona and Dunkirk.
This, although, was acceptable but all meridians are not equal. The difference being of no importance
during commercial transactions. The METRE was divided into parts of 'ten', and those further into 'ten'
times smaller or larger. The 'metric system' is often confused with the decimal notation:
"Metric, pertaining to or of the metre; -system, decimal measuring system with the metre, & litre and the gram determined by it, as the units of length, capacity and weight; the prefixing to the metre etc., of the Greek derived 'deca-, hecto-, kilo-' denoting multiplication by 10, 100, 1000 as in kilometre of 1000 metres; that of Latin derived 'deci-, centi-, milli-, denoting division by 10, 100, 1000 as in decilitre, one-tenth of a litre".
Instead of creating a dividing line, between the use of 'second and decimal second' for the base unit of time, I suggest, we settle for WHAT scale we wish to use and 'then resolve to overcome' any black spots, to reconcile with *coherence of the metric system & time reform*.
I assume friends of 'metrication' shall recall my posts of last year, when I was *hinted* NOT to press for time/calendar aspect on usma list. I did assure that I shall resort to reply only interested mail in my mail box to clarify MY VIEWS.
regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20031029/18:33 PM(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: "Mighty Chimp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [USMA:27337] Decimal Second vs percentime exclusive of 'second'
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:10:33 -0500
2003-10-29
This post has completely lost me. Not only does it not say anything about metrication, it is utterly incoherent.
Euric
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 2003-10-28 13:52 Subject: [USMA:27337] Decimal Second vs percentime exclusive of 'second'
> Ronald, sir & friends:
> Among the three scales: 24h x60m x60s; 10h x100m x100s (or 20h x100m
x100s);
> and 24h x100m x100s
> if the choice were to be left *for surest, cheapest & transparent* scale
to
> be used during TRANSITION; and link it with its potential necessity for
use
> with astronomy/astrology and/or space application: WHAT scale would you
> recommend?
> Let us remember, CALENDAR too is tied with any change that need attention.
>
> Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 20031029/00:21 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: "Ronald L. STONE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: [USMA:27336] percentime exclusive of 'second'
> >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:00:29 -0800
> >
> >Marcus,
> >
> >In my view, the term 'percentime' clearly represents a decimal scale; and
> >does not create a new scalar quantity of a 'second'.
> >
> >Regardless of one's views on the development or use of decimal scales of
> >time, the restriction of the term 'second' to the SI scale and to a
> >traditional 24-60-60 scale of time will support the reinforcement of
> >principles by which the different scales are defined.
> >
> >In practice, there are other methods for conveying or representing
decimal
> >scale times other than by the names of other established standard units.
> >
> >Usage of terms is important for those who use SI as well as those who use
> >decimal scales of time. I am just saying that term usage should be
> >reconsidered.
> >
> >Hope that this can be of help.
> >
> >--
> >Ron
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >**********************************************************************
> >this message does not necessarily reflect
> >the views of any organization I may be affiliated with,
> >and should be regarded as personal opinion.
> >**********************************************************************
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Call your NRI friends.Introduce them to Citibank RCA.
> http://server1.msn.co.in/sp03/diwali/rca/referrca.asp Win 2 tickets to
visit
> them abroad.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail now on your Mobile phone. http://server1.msn.co.in/sp03/mobilesms/ Click here.
