Dear Vij, Marcus, and All, The metric system was always a decimal. Remember that the first unit of length was based on a quadrant of the Earth divided into 10�000�000 parts each one metre long. The designers of the metric system were aware of earlier recommendations about decimal measures going back to Simon Stevin's De Thiende (Of Tenths) in 1585.
By the way, I think that this is a good example of how confused we can get when we start to combine our thinking on measuring angles (see gon in heading) with our thinking about measuring time. Time and angle are fundamentally different quantities and should be treated separately and differently as suits their innate differences. Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia on 2002-07-06 01.33, Brij Bhushan Vij at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 >
