The yard did not become more accurate, it changed slightly. the yard is
not
defined as 0.9144 m, but rather as 0.9144 m EXACTLY. This means that it
changed from 0.91443992 m to 0.9144000000 m.
I have missed checking my INBOX for some time. Reverting from Metre to Yard
may switch to disater. My providing a new defionition for Metre New (m') as:
1/10^5th of the DEGREE (Pi/180) has the potential to settle dust over the
issue by choosing if we wish to call Metre New (m') and re-term it as New
Yard (yd').
Will this blow Le Systeme Internationale d'Unites (SI) to winds?
Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij
(Saturday, Kali 5106-W40-06)/D-023 (Monday, 2006 January 23H17:01(decimal)
ET
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
(365th day of Year is World Day)
******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendar******
2108 Henry Court, MAHWAH NJ 07430 (USA)
Telephone: +001(201)684-0191
From: "Martin Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:35790] Re: decimal time
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:35:54 -0000
The yard did not become more accurate, it changed slightly. the yard is
not
defined as 0.9144 m, but rather as 0.9144 m EXACTLY. This means that it
changed from 0.91443992 m to 0.9144000000 m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:55 AM
Subject: [USMA:35785] Re: decimal time
>
> >
> >When the yard became 0.9144 m, it was effectively made *less* not more
> >accurate than when it was 0.91443992 m
>
> For someone like myself 0.00003992m is a pretty small amount for
something
> that could never be measured to that sort of scale on a brass bar in
> Trafalgar square - and small enough never to have a problem in my life.
In
> fact its probably about the same distance when talking about how the
> accuracy of the metre got better defined over the years.
>
