Hi Marcus, Friends: I do get surprised when I find even experts THINKING anything decimal is Metric. METRIC is what is related to METRE and not mere linked to 'decimal units or divisions'.Why are we interested in changing NAMES if can make ammendments or changes in PHASED manner. Let us keep the HOUR as we have and divide the Hour into 100 divisions and further 100 seconds and link the arc-angle ONE degree into 100x100 arc-seconds.I had devised my 10Hr x 100m x 100s clock to show me that 10-day Decaday or TWO 5-day 'quintoday'intervals could mean that metric second could be 1/73 millionth of the year.But, gianed NO support since trigonometric functions would need to be reviewed (chich were already thought about). Refer my published document: THE METRIC SECOND; ISI Bulln; V25 N4; !973 April by Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi(India). While I am here I can be used to enlighten my friends we believe in IMPOSSIBILITY and .....Well, the calendar question and other things could be independently sorted out. BRIJ BHUSHAN VIJ ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:20818] Re: The gon; >Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:52:37 -0700 > >On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 20:34:08 > Joseph B. Reid wrote: > >Ma Be wrote extensively on this subject in USMA 20796 in reply to Pat > >Naughtin's USMA 20789. > > > > 300 = 33.33.. gon = 0.3333.. quad = 0.08333.. >circle > > 600 66.66.. gon = 0.6666.. quad = 0.16666.. >circle > > > >The minute and second of arc could well be abolished because they serve >no > >useful purpose. > > >True. Agreed. > > >Clocks displaying decimal time with a 10 hour day were constructed in > >France in 1793, but decimal time was abandoned in 1795. Reviving it now > >would require the majority of metric units to be redefined due to the > >replacemewnt of the second. > >That is a major change. The CGPM doesn't dare even to rename the >kilogram, > >so I can't imagine that it would give the slightest consideration to a > >proposal to replace the second with a quite different unit. > > >Unfortunately, so it seems. Pity that we have to combat "enemies within" >our own ranks when it comes to continuing progress of the SI system. >Without wanting to be "an ultimate Judge" on this, I still think that it's >just plain wrong to avoid "facing the music" just because of the potential >huge implications that further changes could bring to the picture. If, >fundamentally, there IS something wrong with the current time framework >then change we MUST. > >BTW, I'm seriously considering contacting a major watch manufacturer and >request that they build a custom-ordered watch for me. I'll ask that they >build a digital model for me with 100 hours of 1000 new seconds of 0.864 of >the current one. Perhaps the Swatch company may be willing to do this >since they've been heavily involved with innovative ideas like the beat >thing... > > >With decimal time the working day would be divided into 3 shifts of >3,33.. > >hours each. > >... >One of the difficulties of decimalization of time is indeed evidently >things like the above. However, who said that such shifts would *have to* >be equal?... Since working at night is usually more stressful it may stand >to reason that we divide it like 34, 34, 32, for instance (with 4 hours for >"lunch")... > >Marcus > > >Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably >Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. >Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
