Your definition of the metre would invalidate two centuries of scientific data and engineering standards. For what you conceive as "comprehension" would actually create massive confusion. To high a price to pay for no real advantage.
Radian is already defined as is pi. Your post shows grievous inconsistencies. In one point you say degree can be discarded, then you want to define the metre as 1/100000th of the degree or 1/10^5th of arc-angle ONE degree. Which is it? You can't have both? Then you advocate the creation of a nautical kilometre to create confusion within SI that is present within FFU. No way! Even so, it can never be done. Not only will it destroy the coherency of SI , it is forbidden under SI rules. Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2004-04-17 00:04 Subject: Pi & Radian RE: [USMA:29552] Re: NASA is at it again > Euric, sir: > 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 . > Regards, > Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
