Will these incessant posts about new meters and metric time ever stop? These proposals are about as pro-metric as your average BWMA member. It's just about enough to drive one to unsubscribe.
Personally, I prefer feet and inches over the "new meter." John On Friday 16 April 2004 21:04, Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: > 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. > Since1/100TH 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.
