From: "Brian White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USMA:35949] INFRINGMENT Re: Re: decimal time
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:26:57 -0800
This just goes to show what a stupid idea this is...no matter who came up
with it and no matter
what the details are.
Let's leave time alone.....it's already a world standard. Other
measurements are as well, and
thus, we should work to convert the UNITED STATES to that measurement
system.
Decimal time, I'm sorry to say, belongs on its own maillist server...if not
in the trash heap.
Brij has been asked before, by many people, to take the decimal time
arguments elsewhere, but
somehow it keeps coming back. He has also been educated on the use of a
carriage return, but to
date, his emails are bundles of paragraphs bunched together.
*sigh*
---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 23:15:43 +0000
Subject: [USMA:35949] INFRINGMENT Re: Re: decimal time
> John Hynes, sir:
> It is sad you have chosen NOT to reconcile.
> By now, you would have seen sevral documents that I sent to you in
support
> of my calims. I also recall having posted you, on 2004 April 07, my
> document: March to Millenium - RELEVANCE of the METRE IN INDUS
CIVILISATION
> WHEN LINKED WITH TIME UNIT AND CALENDAR REFORM WITH LEAP WEEKS; that
speak
> of site you referred of a 'presumed ficticious character: Jesse Yoder'.
> Now to your views:
>
> >"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.
> It surprises me that Flowtime is a site of people connected with
> FLOWMETERS who would NOT respond to mail addressed at their site:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Identity of Jesse Yoder, thus remain elusive may
be
> one among the 4 or 5 Jesse Yoders. While, you are right pointing
> decimalisation of time could have been thought prior to my birth BUT
NO
> HISTORIC individual living or dead attempted to establish links with the
> *flourishing age of Indus Civilisation where I interpret and provivide
> evidence via the Indus Inch* that Indus Metre (IM) was related to length
> units, Megalithic Yard, Nipur Cubit & remen, as:IM =2½ MY =4 Nipur
Cubit; &
> MY =sqrt 5 remen =2.721 ± 0.001 ft.
> THIS, therefore, i.e. the Indus Metre directs one to the fact that INDUS
> PEOPLE used their clocking/time measurement based on 10-Indus Hours to
the
> day; each of 100 Indus minutes & 100 Indus seconds i.e. 100000 Indus
Seconds
> to the day. Thus, my claim on infringement STANDS.
>
> >Since nothing on my site was based upon your work, nor was Mr. Yoder's
site
> >based upon your work, and since the idea was not original to you, you
are
> >deserving no credit. The idea you are claiming credit for was in the
> >public domain for centuries, so you cannot claim it as yours. There is
> >nothing else
> >about your "theme" except that one idea. There is no mention of
"Linear
> >standard" or Indus civilization or pi repeating after 5244 decimal
places,
> >or Kali V-GRhymeCalendar, or Metre New or New Yard, etc.
> While,
..there is no mention of "Linear standard" or Indus
civilization or
> pi repeating after 5244 decimal places, or Kali V-GRhymeCalendar, or
Metre
> New or New Yard, etc in the writeup at:
> http://www.flowresearch.com/Flowtime/flowtime.htm. your site or that of
> Jesse Yoder do NOT GET grant of excuse is in public domain by use of
*my
> coined terms Decimalisation of Time of the HOUR i.e. decimal minutes
and
> decimal seconds equivalent to time intervals: *
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 or that decimal
minute
> after the HOUR would be got by simple multiplication 5/3 to the position
of
> minutes hand after the hour digital or otherwise!".
>
> >You certainly were NOT the "first investigator" to come up with this
idea.
> >As I have already demonstrated at http://tinyurl.com/9xaxo , a French
> >commission under Poincaré considered exactly the same idea in the
1890s.
> >Many others have used decimal hours since then. Whatever other ideas
may be
> >included in your "theme", this one idea, the decimal division of the
hour,
> >is not original to you.
> Denial to my claim, on grounds ─ that Bessilian Year, Decimalised
Day
> COUNT, or count of time passage in SI-seconds or parts thereof ─
is
> heard or is in vogue. My claim, therefore is for the DEVELOPMENT OF THIS
> THOUGHT *providing a link to establish that MY CLAIM is for
Decimalisation
> of Time of the HOUR in relation to arcAngle; based upon which I define
the
> time interval ─ Decimal Second (sd) and LINKED to this revised
Length
> Unit: METRE New (m). YOU may find an entry on Decimalisation of Time of
the
> Day/Hour at LIMCA Book of Indian Records (1994; p.129).
>
> >Read the link I posted, which states that "On 7 April 1897" a French
> >commission decided on "keeping the twenty-four-hour clock and
decimalizing
> >the hour into 100 minutes with each minute split into 100 seconds."
How
> >can you be "the first investigator" to come up with this when it
happened
> >in 1897? Were you on that commission, sir? Are you over 120 years
old?
> >Are you French? If not, then you are using the ideas of others,
without
> >giving THEM credit!
> Was there ANY mention or attempt to DEFINE the terms Decimal Minute
(md)
> and Decimal Second (sd). Rather, I have resolved the FEARS , and
provided
> some workable 'thought'. IMAGINE the chaos, since 1897 (as you say) that
> THIS created and the cost of change-over, for NOT admitting proposals
that I
> have *demonstrated*, being workable even in phased manner. Please also,
see:
> http://www.the-light.com/cal/bbv_m-astrounits.doc
> and http://www.the-light.com/cal/bbv_index.html
> Several other documents are placed at:
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/genesis.revealed/calendar.html
> THIS when linked to *Decimal Second (sd) = 36% of SI-second* lead you to
NO
> changes in the foramt of 24-hr x100md x10sd i.e. 240000 decimal seconds
> (instead of 86400 SI-seconds) during the flow of a day's passage. And,
now -
> compare with what I suggest: Length Unit, New Metre (m') is: 1/10^5th of
ONE
> degree (pi/180); along with decimal second of 36% of SI_atomic second.
> FURTHER, please reconcile with my recent mails posted & nabbled at USMA
> listserv, where I post my responses connected with 'decimal time'.
> I am here, in United States NOT TO CREATE 'cultural diffrences among
fellow
> beings' - especially the elite group of intellegentia and/or THINK
TANKS.
> You will agree that my lifetime utilised in my - attempts to show where
and
> how THIS BLANK areas in science & technology, need a patch up (inclusive
of
> Calendar Reform leading to Decimalisation/Metrication of Time of the
HOUR,
> in relation to arcAngle) - my proposed definitions in this matter
elucidate,
> establishing my claims.
> My regards to all list members; and appology for any
> *offensive reply* - meant only to stress upon the topic of discussion,
sirs.
> Brij Bhushan Vij
> (Wednesday, Kali 5106-W42-03)/D-034(Friday, 2006 February
03H18:26(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-GRhymeCalendaar*****
>
> >From: John Hynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: [USMA:35873] Re: decimal time
> >Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:20:10 -0800
> >
> >>The question I raise is not of AN IDEA but *devlopment of a THEME, I
have
> >
> >Since nothing on my site was based upon your work, nor was Mr. Yoder's
site
> >based upon your work, and since the idea was not original to you, you
are
> >deserving no credit. The idea you are claiming credit for was in the
> >public domain for centuries, so you cannot claim it as yours. There is
> >nothing else about your "theme" except that one idea. There is no
mention
> >of "Linear standard" or Indus civilization or pi repeating after 5244
> >decimal places, or Kali V-GRhymeCalendar, or Metre New or New Yard,
etc.
> >
> >>It definitely is NOT the question of 'who or when was an individual
born'
> >
> >It is, if the idea you are claiming possession of was published before
your
> >birth!
> >
> >>BUT that who was the first investigator to INVEST his lifetime &
resources
> >
> >You certainly were NOT the "first investigator" to come up with this
idea.
> >As I have already demonstrated at http://tinyurl.com/9xaxo , a French
> >commission under Poincaré considered exactly the same idea in the
1890s.
> >Many others have used decimal hours since then. Whatever other ideas
may
> >be included in your "theme", this one idea, the decimal division of the
> >hour, is not original to you.
> >
> >Read the link I posted, which states that "On 7 April 1897" a French
> >commission decided on "keeping the twenty-four-hour clock and
decimalizing
> >the hour into 100 minutes with each minute split into 100 seconds."
How
> >can you be "the first investigator" to come up with this when it
happened
> >in 1897? Were you on that commission, sir? Are you over 120 years
old?
> >Are you French? If not, then you are using the ideas of others,
without
> >giving THEM credit!
> >
> >--
> >John Hynes
> >www.decimaltime.org
> >2006 Jan. 28.096 UT
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Brij Bhushan Vij"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 8:53 AM
> >Subject: RE: [USMA:35873] Re: decimal time
> >
> >
> >>John Hynes:
> >>>.....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.
> >>The question I raise is not of AN IDEA but *devlopment of a THEME, I
have
> >>persued for almost 35 years: from Time/Calendar Metrication to
> >>'investigation that led me to physical dimensions of Indus Culture'
and my
> >>contributions that belong to *history and its research*.
> >>>>>>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!
> >>It definitely is NOT the question of 'who or when was an individual
born'
> >>BUT that who was the first investigator to INVEST his lifetime &
resources
> >>as 'a convinced motivator to lead and bring out RESULTS to show
> >>'misleading
> >>myths' for POSITIVE contribution to science & society.
> >>I attach my contributed document "Linear Standard in the Indus
> >>Civilization
> >>published in
> >>FRONTIERS OF THE INDUS CIVILIZATION
> >>(Sir Mortimer Wheeler Commemoration Volume) by
> >>Indian Archeological Society
> >>And
> >>Indian History and Culture Society, New Delhi.
> >>You may have reluctance BUT would like to upload THIS document, and my
> >>several contributions at Victor's <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> site, on
> >>your
> >>site giving due credit.
> >>Sincerly,
> >>Brij Bhushan Vij
> >>(Wednesday, Kali 5106-W41-03)/D-027 (Friday, 2006 January
> >>27H11:89(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:35873] Re: decimal time
> >>>Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:05:18 -0800
> >>>
> >>>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
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
------- End of Original Message -------
