You make some good points. Quoting Matthew Zotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2004 FEB 16 MON > > I support the second as it is already defined. There is no sense in > changing it; especially since the rotation of the earth changes with respect > to time. If I've heard right, we won't always have 24 h days. I believe > that we have to adjust our clock by 4 second a year right now. How many > days are there nowadays? Anomalistic, Bessel, calendar, Gaussian, sidereal, > solar mean, tropical, . . . Anyways, I think the let's-change-time group is > just one more obstacle to metrication in the United States of America. I > see a lot of good brain power being wasted on this distraction. > > Sincerely, > Matthew Zotter > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Bill Hooper > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 3:45 PM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:28704] Re: Decimal "Metric" time is already in use and the > use is growing > > Gavin wrote (regarding decimal days and redefining the second): > > Your > > resistance to my proposal is really no different than the resistance > > of the USA > > public to the current SI metric system. > > > Oh, but it is very different. SI is a simpler system than Ye Olde > English units. Your proposal for redefining the second in terms of your > decimal day requires the wholesale disruption of that good system with > no improvement in the problem areas you cite; at least no improvement > that cannot be accomplished more simply and WITHOUT changing the > defrinition and the size of the second. > > Regards, > Bill Hooper > Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA > >
