You have made an error is associating the word metric with decimal. That is anything that is expressed in decimal terms also is metric. Measurements in metric units tend to be expressed in decimal and thus metric is often called a decimal system for its preference of expressing numbers in decimal form. But, other facets of numeration that may use decimals does not imply an association with the metric system.
Decimal time may mean the expressing of time decimally, but the only association with the metric system would be if the second was the time unit and time was expressed decimally in seconds. If you are encouraging the use of "decimal time" without encouraging the exclusive use of the second, then you are not promoting the only metric unit of time, the second. Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gavin Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 2004-04-07 03:51 Subject: [USMA:29454] Re: USMA digest 1573: Julian Day Numbers sytem is decimal (metric) time and in use by astronomers! > 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 bastardizing of > > >the prefixes. > > > > > >Also, I would maintain that breaking the day into smaller units of > > >millidays, centidays and decidays, where each is an odd multiple of > > >seconds, is not much of an improvement over 24 hours, 60 minutes and 60 > > >seconds. > > > > > >However, I am happy to see that Pat agrees with the importance of not > > >changing the size of the SI second in any half baked effort to simplify > > >civil (daily) time. That would cause more problems than it would solve. > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > >Bill Hooper > > >Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA > > ><><><><><><><><><><><><> > > >Make it simple; Make it Metric > > ><><><><><><><><><><><><> > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Thinking of a vacation? Get all the best deals. http://www.msn.co.in/Travel/ > > > > Right here at MSN Travel! > > > > > > > Gavin Young > http://www.xprt.net/~hightech , http://www.renewableelectricity.com, > http://www.electric-automobile.com > >
