I am ignoring the posts on decimal time, but I refuse to ignore posts telling me that the metric units need to be changed because someone doesn't like the number of metres along a certain meridian of the earth.
I can see this guy is not a scientist, nor an engineer. Neither would get this bogged down in determining pi to unnecessary precision, nor worry about how many radians there are in a degree, and if we don't like the number, lets propose a change. Can you imagine an engineer telling his boss he was late on the job because he had to calculate pi out to 100 decimal places, because 8 (or what ever the calculator uses) wasn't accurate enough. This guy would be collecting his next paycheque from the unemployment office. Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, 2004-05-17 08:42 Subject: [USMA:29580] Re: Pi & Radian RE: Re: NASA is at it again > Beforehand: I do NOT want to open once again a thread about decimal time. It > does not belong on this list and it is a project for the future. Any message > to me about decimal OFF-LIST, please. > I absolutely OPPOSE any scheme for decimal time that requires such > devastating changes in SI. The only winners will be the supporters of ifp. > NO Nautical Kilometre, NO change in the length of the metre! > The BWMA would really rejoice it if this were done. > > Han > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, 2004-04-17 6:04 > Subject: [USMA:29553] Pi & Radian RE: 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 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 > numberonly 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'. > > > >
