I did not upload data from an unknown source. I got it from his web page.
I have only one line referring to him on my site:
"Jesse Yoder's Flowtime proposes dividing hours into 100 decimal minutes,
each minute being 36 SI seconds long, but divided into 100 decimal seconds,
each 0.36 SI seconds long."
There is a hyperlink in that sentence to his web site at
http://www.flowresearch.com/Flowtime/flowtime.htm. I do not know why you
cannot click on it. It's also on my links page. There you can find further
information, including an e-mail link. I do not know anything more about
this person. I have hundreds of links on my site, and I do not know the
authors of most of them.
However, I do know that this sentence is not copyrighted by you, because
this exact type of decimal time was in use before you were even born. You
cannot copyright something that is in the public domain. Decimal hours are
used by many organizations already, and go back at least to the 19th
century. However, it's such an obvious idea that I do not doubt that both
you and he thought of it independently, and I'm pretty certain that he never
heard of you. Either way, you cannot claim copyright on ideas already in
the public domain. This one idea is not original and you not deserve any
credit. I have already given you proof of this.
If you believe that I am violating your copyright, then you need to contact
a lawyer and sue me. You will lose. I will NOT give you credit that you do
not deserve.
--
John Hynes
www.decimaltime.org
2006 Jan. 27.003 UT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: [USMA:35766] Re: decimal time
John Hynes:
I do not possess any contact information for him.
This is highly UNLIKELY that you uploaded data/information from an unknown
source.
My search on Jesse Yoder led me into NO MAN's world - Is he/she an
imaginary charcter?
"RootsWeb: YODER-L Re: [YODER] Jesse Yoder
Subject: Re: [YODER] Jesse Yoder Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 12:25:49 EDT. I'm
not
sure if this is the same Jesse Yoder that I'm looking for. Do you ...
archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/YODER/2002-05/1022689549 - 4k - Cached -
Similar pages
FindArticles search for ""Jesse Yoder""
View 5 profiles and email results for Jesse Yoder at Reunion.com Jesse
Yoder -
age 22, Colon MI. Jesse Yoder - age 20, Turlock CA. Jesse Yoder - age 20,
...
www.findarticles.com/p/ search?tb=art&qt=%22Jesse+Yoder%22 - 29k -
Cached - Similar pages
FindArticles search for ""Jesse Yoder""
Jesse Yoder - age 20, Turlock CA, Kealakehe High School and more at
Reunion.com.
... Find jesse yoder and more at Lycos Search. No clutter, just answers.
...
www.findarticles.com/p/ search?qt=%22Jesse+Yoder%22&qf=qa3739 - 31k -
Cached - Similar pages
[Your search -
cache:45cn2tf4KgQJ:www.findarticles.com/p/search?qt=%22Jesse+Yoder%22&qf=qa3739
Jesse Yoder - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
• Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
• Try different keywords.
• Try more general keywords.
• Try fewer keywords. ]"
I am aware that COPYRIGHT protection is granted for the lifetime of AUTHOR
plus 70 years, after which it becomes public property - like my works of
*Investigative nature* on Mohenjo-Daro & Indus Civilisation.
I reacall having posted my longer document, which I think I also uploaded
at Victor's site as:
http://www.the-light.com/cal/bbv_IndiaContributes.doc
Kindly accord accredition to my works on your site, and help locate Jesse
Yoder - the ONE you quoted at your site: <www.decimaltime.org>
Brij Bhushan Vij
(Tuesday, Kali 5106-W41-02)/D-026(Thursday, 2006 January 26H
17:11(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: "John Hynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:35766] Re: decimal time
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:10:11 -0800
First of all, I have no connection to Jesse Foder or his proposals. I
merely have a link to his site, as well as dozens of other web sites. If
you wish to contact him, you should go to his web site and click on the
email link there. I do not possess any contact information for him.
Secondly, you cannot copyright anything that is in the public domain. You
did not invent decimalized hours, because they have been since at least
the
19th century, and are currently used by many organizations around the
world.
It is such an obvious idea that it has been thought of by many different
people. As documented in Einstein's Clocks, Poincare's Maps: Empires of
Time by Peter Louis Galison, in the 1890s a French commission studied the
decimalization of times and circumference, and proposed dividing the
standard hour into 100 minutes, each of 100 seconds. See
http://tinyurl.com/9xaxo (you must have or sign up for a free Google
account
to read it)
I agree that Foder is not the first person to come up with the idea, but
neither are you, and I think it is highly unlikely that he got the idea
from
you. I find it offensive that you claim credit for the ideas of others
who
died before you were even born! You have no rights and deserve no credit.
--
John Hynes
www.decimaltime.org
2006 Jan. 21.123 UT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brij Bhushan Vij"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 8:38 AM
Subject: RE: [USMA:35750] Re: decimal time
John Hynes & friends:
I recently visited your Home Page and went to Jesse Foder's Flow Time
Clock
page. I obsrve this as *infringment upon my Copyrighted works* since
there
has been NO CREDIT granted to me or my contributions.
My communication to Chairman, New York Academy of Science (Dr.Torsten
Wiesel) of 2002 May 07 refers (see attachment). Kindly provide me updated
<url linking credits to my works>. Please visit:
http://www.the-light.com/cal/ (under bbv_....) and
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/genesis.revealed/ebook/ (also, Calendar
section
of Parent Directory)
I shall appreciate a note from the AUTHOR, Jesse Yoder & his/her address
for
contacting.
Thanking you,
Brij Bhushan Vij
(Wednesday, Kali 5106-W40-03)/D-020(Friday, 2006 January
20H11:63(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: "John Hynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:35750] Re: decimal time
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:20:50 -0800
Some of these terms already have other meanings. For instance:
the metric mile = 1500 metres exactly (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_mile )
the metric foot = 30 cm exactly (see
http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/units/length.htm )
There have been proposals for other metrified English units:
the metric inch = 25 mm exactly
the metric yard = 900 mm exactly
the metric chain = 20 m exactly
the metric furlong = 200 m exactly
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrified_English_unit )
--
John Hynes
www.decimaltime.org
----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Naughtin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:40 PM
Subject: [USMA:35748] Re: decimal time
Dear Phil,
Thanks for your analysis, below.
This is why I refer to the post-1959 measures as:
the metric inch = 25.4 millimetres exactly,
the metric foot = 304.8 millimetres exactly,
the metric yard = 914.4 millimetres exactly,
the metric chain = 20.116 8 metres exactly,
the metric furlong = 201.16 8 metres exactly, and
the metric mile = 1 609.344 metres exactly.
I do this because I find that their descriptively accurate title,
'post-1959
measures with quaint old pre-metric names' too cumbersome.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216
Geelong, Australia
61 3 5241 2008
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.metricationmatters.com
This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee
and
may
contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged.
This
email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be
partly
or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any
unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is
prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately
delete
it
from your system and notify the sender by return email.
On 20/01/06 10:13 AM, "Philip S Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is interesting to note that not only is a yard defined as 0.9144 m
but
the inch is not defined as 1/36 of a yard but as 25.4 mm (exactly).
Therefore, customary measures are all defined by metric ones and not
in
relation to each other.
If you do the arithmetic you will find that:
0.0254 * 12 = 0.3048,
36 * 0.0254 = 3 * 0.3048 = 0.9144
0.9144 * 1760 = 1 609.344
all being exact with no rounding.
Hence:
(a) 1 in = 0.0254 m, 1 ft = 12 in
(b) 1 ft = 0.3048 m, 1 in = 1/12 ft
Are equivalent statements, as are
(c) 1 ft = 0.3048 m, 1 yd = 3 ft
(d) 1 yd = 0.9144 m, 1 ft = 1/3 yd
and so on.
Hence to define linear imperial measures all that is requires is the
absolute size of one of them (e.g. 1 yd = 0.9144 m) , and then state
the
ratios between all the others. True enough we usually do see the
absolute
sizes tabulated rather than the ratios but it doesn't alter anything.
The real bombshell (if they only but knew it) is the use of that word
"exact" in relation to the figures 0.0254, 0.3048, ...
When it comes to the real world there is no such thing as "exact". All
measurements have a tolerance however small it may be. Hence imperial
measures are *tied* to metric by an abstract idealised relationship.
Imperial can have no independent physical definition of its own on
that
basis.
Phil Hall
