--- Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marus: > I thank you, but I am NOT looking for support 'for > my idea'. It is for > technology to accept or reject.
Brij, I didn't hint at the above necessarily (my support). However, I did make my analysis DO taking into consideration the *technology* aspect and I must repeat this, again: your model is NOT the best proposal, and this, I'm afraid, is NOT a matter of opinion! Take the 24 hour aspect, for example. 24 is NOT decimal! You may retort, well, 400 isn't either. True, however, when it comes to angles the quarter circle is what really should matter as all other angles above 100 gr can be referred back to a sub 100 gr value! Alternatively, the 1000 quad stuff (Pat's proposal) could work also in spite of the quarter circle argument. There simply is no gain in going through all the hassle of changing the value of the second in this way. In addition, just another point, the meter does NOT need to be changed AT ALL! As Bill Hooper rightfully commented earlier, for instance, the surface of the earth is totally unleveled. Therefore, one can simply adopt a specific altitude reference to tie up the arc-angle relationship easily and nicely! >... > Supply me your address and I shall donate you my > BOOK: Towards A Unified > Technology, that deal with my ideas on 'The Metric > Second/The Metric > Calendar Year' dealing with the above model moreso > linking these to Indus > Civilisation. While I do appreciate your generosity, please forgive me if I decline for now. > I urge USMA list *not to link my mail with > <usma31542..> or else I shall per > MY NORMS think of replying to usma listserv. You can > send me a private mail > to get a private reply. The only reason I'm still replying to the list this way is because I'm making a reference to two of our most valued colleagues there (Bill and Pat). Marcus > My regards, > Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 20041202H0815(decimal) AM(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! > ***** ***** ***** ***** > > > > > >From: mavi fibe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: [USMA:31542] RE: Some decimal time... jabs > >Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:29:37 -0500 (EST) > > > >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? > > > 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 > > _________________________________________________________________ > Life on the fast track! Get hooked to it! > http://server1.msn.co.in/sp04/tataracing/ Meet the > champs! > > ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
