Dear Brij,
Thank you for the offer, but if you recall I
(politely) flatly rejected this model due to
insurmountable difficulties in implementing it, among
other things.
Please understand and I'll repeat it for the n-th time
I canNOT support a model that would involve changing
the size of the meter, P-E-R-I-O-D! And the strongest
reason for my stance on this is simple: this change is
UTTERLY UNNECESSARY! We can accomplish the SAME goal
(decimalization of time) in a much more effective way,
by simply ridding ourselves of the crutch of s/min/h
for once and for all via a redefinition of a new size
for the second.
The arc-angle relationship would be accomplished as
I've outlined to you in the past, i.e. via adopting
the 400-gr framework for angles (or the quad model by
Pat Naughtin).
Given that this 'redefinition' is ALSO (at least
temporarily) unacceptable for BIPM folks, the best one
can accomplish is to accept to live with ONE
conversion factor AND get the new second recognized as
a 'supplemental unit accepted for use with the SI
system'.
There!
One *last* word on this. Please do not take my
position on this as "belittling" of your research
work, but as a *final* assessment of the merits of a
change of this magnitude that you propose. I've given
you PLENTY of reasons *technically* about why IMV your
proposal cannot deserve my support, so please refer
back to them.
In the meantime I do wish you the best of luck and
success.
Take care.
Marcus
--- Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marcus, sir:
> You can procure a copy of: The Metric Second; V25
> N4; pp 152-! 57; 1973 April;
> Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi or send me
> your mailing address to
> post you one. I recall haveing scanned the article
> BUT the reponse was
> UNREADABLE. My book: Towards A Unified Technology
> (1982) dealt with this
> concept. Should you need one I can afford to spare
> one.
> You may download a copy of:
>
http://www.the-light.com/cal/bbv_IndiaContributes.doc
> which is reasonable BUT not comprehensive as a
> proposal.
> Question: Should a mail <RE: [USMA:31538] Some
> decimal time... jabs> NOT be
> replied to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], as I am often advised?
&! gt; Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 0041201H1858(decimal) PM(IST)
> 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!
> ***** ***** ***** *****
>
Thank you for the offer, but if you recall I
(politely) flatly rejected this model due to
insurmountable difficulties in implementing it, among
other things.
Please understand and I'll repeat it for the n-th time
I canNOT support a model that would involve changing
the size of the meter, P-E-R-I-O-D! And the strongest
reason for my stance on this is simple: this change is
UTTERLY UNNECESSARY! We can accomplish the SAME goal
(decimalization of time) in a much more effective way,
by simply ridding ourselves of the crutch of s/min/h
for once and for all via a redefinition of a new size
for the second.
The arc-angle relationship would be accomplished as
I've outlined to you in the past, i.e. via adopting
the 400-gr framework for angles (or the quad model by
Pat Naughtin).
Given that this 'redefinition' is ALSO (at least
temporarily) unacceptable for BIPM folks, the best one
can accomplish is to accept to live with ONE
conversion factor AND get the new second recognized as
a 'supplemental unit accepted for use with the SI
system'.
There!
One *last* word on this. Please do not take my
position on this as "belittling" of your research
work, but as a *final* assessment of the merits of a
change of this magnitude that you propose. I've given
you PLENTY of reasons *technically* about why IMV your
proposal cannot deserve my support, so please refer
back to them.
In the meantime I do wish you the best of luck and
success.
Take care.
Marcus
--- Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marcus, sir:
> You can procure a copy of: The Metric Second; V25
> N4; pp 152-! 57; 1973 April;
> Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi or send me
> your mailing address to
> post you one. I recall haveing scanned the article
> BUT the reponse was
> UNREADABLE. My book: Towards A Unified Technology
> (1982) dealt with this
> concept. Should you need one I can afford to spare
> one.
> You may download a copy of:
>
http://www.the-light.com/cal/bbv_IndiaContributes.doc
> which is reasonable BUT not comprehensive as a
> proposal.
> Question: Should a mail <RE: [USMA:31538] Some
> decimal time... jabs> NOT be
> replied to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], as I am often advised?
&! gt; Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 0041201H1858(decimal) PM(IST)
> 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!
> ***** ***** ***** *****
>
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
