From: "Pat Naughtin" Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:45 AM
> 4   The month is the relatively un-uniform interval of time it takes for
the
> Moon to revolve around the Earth, and it has proven to be fairly difficult
> to use as a regulator of human time.

I don't agree with this at all.  The moon has regulated human time for
millenia, and is pretty uniform.

As for the rest of your e-mail, check out my page at
http://decimaltime.hynes.net/time.html#1

John


> Dear Brent,
>
> One can't help but be influenced by the constant dripping of the time
> people's pressure to change time measurements from the old irrational
> Babylonian time framework we are currently be-saddled with, and the search
> for more rational methods.
>
> It seems to me that there are several quite immovable constraints in any
> discussion about time units. They are:
>
> 1 The SI unit of time is the second, and because so many other units are
> based on its definition, it is too hard to change, and there is no
> likelihood of its being changed by the CGPM.
> 2   The day is the more or less uniform interval of time it takes for the
> Earth to turn on its axis.
> 3   The year is the more or less uniform interval of time it takes for the
> Earth to revolve around the Sun.
> 4   The month is the relatively un-uniform interval of time it takes for
the
> Moon to revolve around the Earth, and it has proven to be fairly difficult
> to use as a regulator of human time.
>
> Other time units (such as the minute, hour, week, and fortnight) are
purely
> arbitrary and these are all currently set as multiples of the SI second.
As
> these are arbitrary, they are the units that could be altered in the
> interests of a more rational system, but, as I suggested earlier, it is
> probably not possible to alter the SI second, and the year and month are
> completely out of our control.
>
> If we keep the SI second at its present value and decimalise time units we
> could get:
>
> 1 second = 1 SI second          no change
> 1 day = 86400 SI seconds      approximately correct
>
> 1 milliday = 86.4 s          1 new minute    a bit longer than an old
minute
> 1 centiday = 864 seconds    about a quarter of an old hour
> 1 deciday = 8640 seconds    a little under 2 1/2 hours
>
> This arrangement would give rise to the following relationships
>
> 1 milliday = 86.4 seconds exactly
>
> 10 millidays = 1 centiday = 864 s exactly
> 10 centidays = 1 deciday = 8640 s exactly
> 10 decidays = 1 day = 86400 s exactly.
>
> That should release enough pigeons for the cats, so I'll leave my thoughts
> on decimal weeks, fortnights, and months until another day.
>
>
> By the way, thanks for that url -- I really enjoyed watching the 'little
> hand', and I recalled a line from my father, 'I love hard work -- I can
sit
> and watch it all day!'
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pat Naughtin LCAMS
> Geelong, Australia
>
> Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication
> matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words
> subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
>
> on 25/3/04 11:28 AM, Brent AU at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > With all the past silly talk about 'metric time' in this newsgroup, I
thought
> > those who are insterested in the status quo may like to go to this url
for a
> > bit of fun:
> >
> > http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html
> > <http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html>
> >
> > PS. Before metric time is ever seriously considered, the USA should be
> > customary with the metric system, as the rest of the world is, or are
doing.
> >
>
>

Reply via email to