Just because the mice have closed their eyes, does not *exhibit* the cats have been driven away. Look at the advantage that CATS provide by their mere presence in the house. The mouse must find a new piece of cheese! I don't ever mean to hurt any one's feelings; but In some earlier posting I was asked to 'go to wherever I came from'. However, my applogy if I hurt, you have a reason NOT to agree with my views. Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [USMA:21614] Re: Proposal For World Calendar >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 13:07:58 -0400 > >2002-08-10 > >Maybe I'm missing something here, but why are we still hung up on this >Nautical kilometre nonsense? We don't need it. We don't need degrees, we >don't need minutes and we don't need seconds of arc. Plain and simple we >don't need them. > >If there is a need to measure the surface of the earth in a coherent >combination of both linear and angular units, then the provision already >exists. All that needs to be done is to APPLY it. > >Let's repeat what already exists, as it appears it must not have been >understood the first time presented. From the North Pole to the Equator, >there are 10 000 000 m of distance. The angular measure that this distance >subtends is equal to 100 grads. Thus, one grad is already equal to 100 000 >m, or 100 km. An angle of one centigrad(e) would be equal to a surface >distance of 1 km. This is very simple. Why do we need to come up with >something new and try to FFU-ise it with names like Nautical kilometres, >degree, minute and second? We don't. > >We already have a time unit, the second that is FIRMLY linked to the metre, >via the speed of light. Why do we need to recreate a whole new time unit >based on FFU errors? > >We don't need to make foolish changes to SI that have no advantages. We >need to expend effort in getting the US to change to SI. After the whole >world is using SI and have totally forgotten the old units, then and only >then can we consider minor tweaks to the system. Until then, forget all of >this Nautical kilometre nonsense. It is just distracting us from the real >issue of metrication. > >John > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, 2002-08-09 18:43 >Subject: [USMA:21614] Re: Proposal For World Calendar > > > > Hi Marcus, Joe and friends: > > Thanks for your reaction. Unfortunately *your* assumption of SI is the > > present and my assumption is to LINK the 'metre (old or new)' with >ARC-ANGLE > > i.e. 1/100th of the DEGREE or 'grad' to be the Nautical Kilometre >wherefrom > > the NEW definition of the 'metre' must be arrived at and also linked to >the > > new definition of TIME unit (240000th of the solar day or >1/87658127.7074th > > of the tropical year). > > The proposal can be looked from its implimentation aspect in *PHASED* > > manner: say, change the dail face only and study other aspects e.g. the > > calendar; rather than create confusion (which I tried, as scientists > > adovated earlier). SI and all other derived units can be re-worked to >*new* > > values by using the multiplication and division factors (ready to use). > > How unfortunate, if proponants of SI-metric usage reduces to it > > non-coherance and defeat the very purpose of *change to metric*? I am >sure, > > there shall be some who would sense that ANY THING THAT IS DECIMALLY >DIVIDED > > IN NOT METRIC *but* anything that is METRIC must be linked to SI-METRE >(the > > old or new unit) for length! > > Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
