My definition of the New Metre (m') is for comprehension, if we mean to know the quadrant or circle. Degree can be discarded in favour of 'Radian provided Radian or Pi are DEFINED'.
This can be done by a glance at my worked values for Pi used by man, Refer: http://the-light.com/bbv_pi-radian.jpg
I define: �Metre (m') is the distance traversed by light, in vacuum, during the time interval, 1/97059575.22th of the decimal second�.
Since�1/100TH of one degree� is to be the Nautical Kilometre; length distance METRE can be seen as 1/100000th of the degree or 1/10^5th of arc-angle ONE degree.
Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [USMA:29552] Re: NASA is at it again Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:49:27 -0400
That depends on what you mean by miles. There are different types of miles.
You seem to lack comprehension of significant figures. The original number only had 3 significant digits, all to the left of the decimal. Thus, the minimum accuracy is implied to be +/-0.5 mile or about 1 km. Not knowing the situation, I can't say for sure how accurate the original 400 miles is meant to be. It may be a rounded figure for media purposes only.
I also don't understand why we even need to discuss a "Metre = 1/10^5th of
ONE degree". What is the logic behind this? The concept of trying to tie
the metre to the earth is wrong. Very wrong. The earth-degree is extremely
unreliable and highly inaccurate. The earth degrees vary with location and
increase and decrease in size as the earth swells and contracts. We are
technically beyond the point of using FFU artifacts for measurement
standards.
I don't know who you think is going to take your idea seriously, and why you
feel someone should. The speed of light definition of the metre is far
superior to using the earth's meridians. Answer this: How would one
calibrate a metre stick on mars if the metre was defined from the earth's
meridian? Let's stop this nonsense about redefining the metre and stick
with promoting the metre we have. You are wasting your time. In effect,
you are pissing in the wind.
Euric
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 2004-04-16 23:23 Subject: [USMA:29550] Re: NASA is at it again
> Euric, Pat friends: > 400 miles is 643.7376 km. AND if I work using Metre = 1/10^5th of ONE degree > is shall be: > 578.92734 km'.
_________________________________________________________________
Post Classifieds on MSN classifieds. http://go.msnserver.com/IN/44045.asp Buy and Sell on MSN Classifieds.
