I cannot but remark Gavin's very outspoken enthusiasm for decimal time! Way to go, Gavin. As we would say in Portuguese: "� isso a�, meu!"
Unfortunately, to the despair of those opposing discussion of this topic, there ARE quite a few of us who can see a future for time decimalization!... ;-) Indeed, vive le temps decimal!!! :-) Marcus PS: Now back to our usual programming, yawn... --- Gavin Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By the way I notice that the Julian day numbers > (calendar) system uses decimal > days (metric time) for fractions of days (for > example to indicate the > precise time of an event)! That system is used by > many astronomers. Thus > metric/decimal time is used by some scientists as > well the Swatch watch > company. Thus means that metric/decimal time has > caught on within at least one > branch of science! This encourages me to continue my > promotion of decimal time. > I remember seeing an astronomy show on TV where the > astronomer's computer > program for indicating the postion of the stars on a > given day and time used > decimal fractions to indicate the time of day. > > See the following websites for more information: > > - http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/jdn.htm (see > section 4 where it says that > the "Julian date 1.25 is 6 p.m. on -4712-01-02 JC" > (since Julian days start at > 12 noon Gregorian and thus 0.25 days past noon is 6 > pm, and because Julian > calendar starts at 4713 BCE Gregorian and Julian > Date system has a year 0 > whereas Gregorian calendar has no year 0). See also > section 8.) > > - http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/JulianDate.html > (notice that the Julian > date uses a decimal fraction of a day to represent > the current time of day. > This website is by the US Navy Observatory!) > > - http://www.aavso.org/observing/aids/aboutjd.shtml > > - http://convertalot.com/calendars.html > > - > http://docs.kde.org/en/3.2/kdeedu/kstars/ai-julianday.html > (This webpage > says "Julian Days can also be used to tell time; the > time of day is expressed > as a fraction of a full day, with 12:00 noon (not > midnight) as the zero point. > So, 3:00 pm on 1 Jan 1970 is JD 2440588.125 (since > 3:00 pm is 3 hours since > noon, and 3/24 = 0.125 day). Note that the Julian > Day is always determined from > Universal Time, not Local Time.") > > - http://www.decimaltime.hynes.net/dates.html > > - http://zapatopi.net/metrictime.html (This site > does an excellent job in > promoting metric time and coins the term quintoday > (qd) (which = 1/100000 day) > in place of my tentative term of "centimiliday". The > site suggests that the > prefix quinto be added to the SI system (at least > for time) to represent > 1/100000) it also points out that "the Julian day > system uses a decimal number > to express the time of the day"!) > > There is thus much evidence that decimal/metric time > is in use. Viva la time > metric! Long live metric time. I thank the French > for creating the metric > system and their French Revolution metric clock! I > also thank astronomers for > using decimal time in their Julian Day Number > system, thus keeping alive metric > time use within the scientific community! May metric > time (decimal time) never > die! > > > > >From: Gavin Young > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Subject: [USMA:29445] Re: USMA digest 1573 > > >Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:11:45 -0500 > > > > > >After the the entrie world has converted to the > current SI system, the SI > > >second shown be thrown out the door. Then a new > SI time unit should be > > >created that is based upon a standard day (which > would equal exactly 86,400 > > > > >of > > >the current SI seconds). > > > > > >I know you don't like posts about decimal time on > this server, but as long > > >as > > >you comment about decimal time on this server in > a negative manner, I will > > >defend decimal time on this server! > > > > > >Interesting I notice that your website at > http://metric1.org/ on the page > > >called Date and Time Notation says the following: > > > > > >"Although there is a metric unit of time (the > second), there is no such > > >thing > > >as metric time. There have been several > proposals, over the years, to > > >decimalize the way we express time � at least for > the hours, minutes and > > >seconds in a day. None of them ever caught on." > > > > > >The reason why metric time (decimal time) has not > caught on is because > > >people > > >like you try to prevent discussion of it in > forums that are devoted to > > >metric, > > >even though people like you are fans of metric > for other usage. As long as > > >forums even devoted to metric are against metric > being used for talk of > > >decimal/metric time proposals (other than the SI > second) and as long as > > >such > > >forums prefer that Babylonian units (hours and > minutes) to be used > > >in conjunction with the SI second, then of course > metric time will have a > > >hard > > >time catching on. However it is ironic that fans > of SI metric are against > > >reforming the SI system to expand the metric > system to include all of the > > >time > > >units that are equal to a day and smaller! > > > > > >Your comment of "bastardizing of the prefixes" is > outrageous and a > > >misrepresentation of what I think Pat Naughtin > was trying to say. I believe > > > > >he > > >was saying what I also have said, namely that the > SI second should be > > >scrapped > > >as the fundamental time unit and that the new > fundamental time unit should > > >be > > >called the SI day and the SI day should be > defined in such a manner that it > > >exactly equals 86,400 of the current SI seconds. > After the new SI unit > > >becomes > > >the SI day, it will then be appropriate to use > the metric prefixes of deci, > > >centi, amd milli in conjunction with it. > > > > > >I notice that you often use inflammatory language > (such as your use of the > > >word "bastardizing") directed to anyone (such as > myself and Pat Naughtin) > > >that > > >posts comments contrary to your views. How would > you like if myself and > > >others > > >started using the same language directed at your > posts? Must you be so > > >combative? Can't this forum be used in a > civilized manner? Can we disagree > > >without be disagreeable? > > > > > >The above comments are reply to Bill Potts > comments listed below. > > > >------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >Recently Pat Naughtin suggested: > > > > 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 > > > > > >I can't help feel uncomfortable using the SI > prefixes with non-SI units > > >(SI prefix milli with non-metric day to make > milliday). > > > > > >We may not be able to control what others do but > I'm not sure those of > > >us who want to promote SI metric should encourage > such === message truncated === ===== Jesus ONLY settles for THE best, so what excuse can you possibly give to NOT go SI??? ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
