--- Bill Hooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... > But I find his suggestion that the second be > radically redefined > equally objectionable. > > I am interested in promoting SI metric, not > destroying it by changing > the well established and highly precise definitions > of the basic units > like either the metre or the second. > ?? No one is trying to 'destroy SI'! Quite au contraire, we're trying to develop new ideas that will fix the small irritants left, like the name of the kg, prefixes names/order, etc. That's what science is ALL about, it's coming up with measurement *frameworks* that would withstand the test of time. > The problem seems to be decimalization of the way we > measure time of > day (in minutes and hours). Change the minutes and > hours if you wish > (they are not part of SI anyway), but leave the > second (and the metre) > alone. > But in order for us to fix that the ONLY *technical* solution MUST go through a redefinition of the size of the second. I'll explain this a bit more with your forbearance, please. So, bear with me, ok? > There are 84600 seconds in an average day (it > varies). Learn to live > with it.
NO, I'm sorry, but I can't! A true scientist would NEVER be content with "second-class" concepts. We *all* know that this is the last wrinkle left when it comes to *frameworks*. While it's very true that such a change would be a challenge, again, I'm talking *science* here! BTW the 'science' I'm referring to is NOT how things are *rigorously* defined when it comes to preserving immutable sizes. That's is evidently NOT my point, or the point. There is more to a *SYSTEM OF UNITS OF MEASUREMENT* than securing that, Bill. Frameworks, frameworks, frameworks. We went through that when we started the whole thing, cgs, MKS, etc. In all this effort we stopped at one (we nicknamed SI) that *seemed* definitive, but from a *purely technical* point-of-view it's crystal clear it should NOT be. The culprit? The time framework, of course. Please understand, I do understand the challenge for this, what this would represent, and that's why I changed in my position (thanks greatly to YOU, my friend! :-) ). But I think I came with a proposal that would address this without upsetting you or the system; at least until the day we'd have the means to make a radical change like this workable. The day we're ready for that, THEN there seems to be the case we'd have arrived at the end of the line (evidently I'm assuming if this is ever feasible, small irritants like kg, prefix, etc could ALSO be done in one shot, since these would be a piece of cake). > My height and mass are 1.8 m and 71 kg. I'd > like them to be > nice round numbers like 2 m and 100 kg, but I > certainly don't propose > changing the entire SI system just so that someone > (me) can have a > couple useful numbers be simpler. Yes, of course. But we're not talking about changing things 'just so... someone can have... useful numbers'. If we're willing to continue research on this and allow for the conceptual framework aspect of systems to be developed further, clearly we'd have NO choice but to review the second size business (eventually). This is the LAST bastion left to address, we all know that (even you do!). But I'm willing to effect that in a smart way, giving world and scientists alike time to do things orderly and all. You're absolutely right, as it stands NOW, a change to the second size would be a real challenge indeed. > The is no reason > that the day needs > to be some nice round number of units either, > whether it's 24 > somethings or 84.6 somethings.** > Oh, yes, but there is! And I'll get to that a little later below. Please bear with me a little longer. Again, this is an *academic* discussion, please remember that. >... > * By radically redefined, I mean redefining so that > the size of the > unit is changed significantly. The metre and second > have been redefined > numerous times in the history of SI but those > changes were always made > in such a way that, to the precision available at > the time of the > change, the unit stayed exactly the same size. You're right, of course. No argument here. > That > kind of change is > desirable when technology makes higher precision > measurements possible. > The kilogram is long overdue for that kind of > change... > Right, again. Very good. > **Divide up the day into any number of smaller units > of whatever sizes > you choose just as long as the net result is 84600 > seconds. Name those > other units anything you like. The 24 hours of 60 > minutes each of 60 > seconds is awkward (but well entrenched). > Now, the thing, Bill, is the *number* itself! Clearly 86.4 ks wouldn't cut it. It's too cumbersome a number to be of any usefulness *time tracking* wise! Why do you think Babylonians devised this crazy 60-60-24 stuff? Because *CLEARLY* there IS a need for *rationality* in time framework. Unfortunately (and please remember I'm talking *FRAMEWORKS* here) 86.4 is evidently a nuisance AS an O-P-E-R-A-T-I-N-G number! Please note, this is markedly different from using a *conversion factor* of THAT size! IF and WHEN one needs to do inter-unit works/calculations THEN *THAT's* when this number would emerge! More below, please. So, in essence, it's different to do things this way: 86.4 ks a day (as time reckoning, VERY CUMBERSOME) - no factors versus 100 ki a day (VERY CONVENIENT) - 0.864 s conversion factor (cumbersome indeed BUT, at least no more 60-60-24!!! And the day this is made official, eventually, ultimately - probably even centuries ahead of us - it won't be a conversion factor anymore, due to redefinition of SI units that are time dependent) > I've suggested here before that the day be divided > into intervals > called kiloseconds (ks), where 1 ks = 1000 s, and > the day contains 84.6 > ks. Neat, clean, doesn't mess with the basic SI > second, and has just > one awkward part (the number 84.6) to cope with. YES, *precisely*! And THAT's the awkward aspect I'm trying to address in my proposal. Unfortunately here is the reality: it's *impossible* to tackle that WITHOUT a change to the size of the second. This is a technical reality. > One > awkward number is > preferable to three (24-60-60) in the present > system. Hmm... ok, here you would have a point, BUT, it would NOT help the situation since this would involve a RADICAL change to the face of clocks and all! Surely if one is to use the ks concept, watches and time pieces would HAVE to be readjusted and people's time reckoning changed *JUST AS RADICALLY*, Bill, and I'm sure you know that! Again, remember, *OPERATIONALITY* business! (BTW, before I proceed, for the sake of the others, I'm not using capitals, dashes and asterisks as a means of "shouting" or "downspeaking" others, but merely because in a text environment one has no good choice of mechanisms to enhance specific words and sentences) So, while using 86.4 (and I must concur) WOULD address the 60-60-24 conundrum, it unfortunately FAILS to *RATIONALIZE* the time framework, or it does *only partially*. > I'm not promoting > this scheme, simply suggesting that there are > alternative the the > disruptive schemes being proposed which change the > second (or the > metre). > Alright, I read you, my friend. Message gotten. Unfortunately though when it comes to *FRAMEWORKS* such 'scheme' is sadly lacking. If this would involve such radical change as an *operating* mechanism and IF we're discussing means to derive a P-E-R-F-E-C-T system, we have NO choice but to eventually touch the size of the second, there simply is NO way out. The alternative is the equally unacceptable status quo of coping with a VERY mediocre 60-60-24 crappy proposal. This is CLEARLY a monstruosity that should be flatly rejected for the 21st century and beyond. Finally, below. > Even that 84.6 factor can be partly ameliorated by > any one of several > plans. There are possibilities like 3 days of 84 ks > and 2 days of 85 ks > in each five day period. We live with months that > are not all the same > length; surely we could live with days that are not > all exactly the > same length. Alternatively, ten day "week: could > consist of 6 days of > 84 interspersed with 4 days of 85 ks. Or maybe lump > all the 85 ks days > together at the end of the 10 day week and make them > a long weekend of > four days each of which is extra long. > These are VERY worthy and (I must add) clever ways of addressing the problem. And I guess that's where we left off, my dear friend. We got interrupted (remember?) when we were devising the above schemes. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to develop this further and come up with a workable proposal to achieve that next. I'm STILL *very* flexible and willing to hear you and what you may come up with. But as it stands I cannot be much optimistic because 0.4 of a kilosecond seems to be a hefty amount difficult to overcome with schemes like you propose. BUT I'm all ears and willing to give it a try. Who knows, if you can come up with a proposal that would have a similar "irritating" effect as the one we have to cope every now and then (daily savings time, calendar adjustments, etc), fine... (kidding, I used the word 'irritating' tongue in cheek, please disregard it. I *would* live with that, much more than the 60-60-24. THIS ONE, never, never, never, n-e-v-e-r!... ;-) Your friend and very much so still and always! Cheers, Marcus ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
