Is the proposal sent to USMA not good enough or my published documents in sufficient to display what I have been saying (or some may say HARPING) all these THIRTY years. Well, I may be considered NO BODY but I mean things and challenging too. Please examine: WHERE excatlt I have erred, so I can try and improvise. Just rediculing me does not make me deter or refrain from expressing *What I feel is right*! Regards, Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21646] Re: Proposal For World Calendar >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:14:17 +0200 > >This is the same accusation our ifp friends make time after time against >the >metric system. Just go to their websites and see. This concept of >divisibility is outdated, it belongs to the Middle Ages and the Ancien >Regime when most people were illiterate and innumerate and had to divide by >two etc. But it is still possible to divide a meter, a kilogram and a liter >by 2 and 4 and get rational numbers. > >Han > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, 2002-08-09 23:46 >Subject: [USMA:21612] Re: Proposal For World Calendar > > > > On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 16:27:48 > > Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: > > >Hi All: > > > Unfortunately the metric system suffers from the disadvantage that it >is not rationally divible by most numbers - a mandatory requirement of the >human mind (for ease) in knowing the excat position of planetary bodies >*for >astronomy and mathematics*. > > > > ? First of all, why would this be such a strong requirement? I beg to >disagree! The base system for counting is *the foundation* of our >civilization! Changing that would require much more than a monumental >task. >It would mean changing the very fabric of our doing math itself. Please >don't go there! > > > > > This is an area that most fortune tellers befool > > >the common humans who are desire to know :What lies in store of their >FUTURE! > > > > And to me these folks (astrologers, fortune-tellers) are just deceptive >people who prey on people's naivete to make money on them! I don't want to >offend anyone by my comment above, but I have absolutely no sympathy for >these kinds of things. If people paid more attention to simple statistics >(just to name one way of unveiling the truth on this!) they would find for >themselves what these quacks really are! > > > > > This is where the NUMBER 60 prevailed all along (of being its >divisibility > > >by 2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20,and 30. This cannot be achieved by 10 or 100 >or > > >1000 etc. > > > > ? So what if 100 is not divisible by that many factors?!! The question >is, is such "advantage" crucial/paramount? My answer would be no! This >coupled with more important requirements would make me a strong defender of >getting rid of it (24-60-60 model). > > > > > Will the deo-decimal proposal some parties advocate hold this? > > >But, first the system has to be worked and proved *so the status quo or >NO > > >CHANGE* attitude! > > > > Change for change, with all due respect, is somewhat of an idiocy. I'm >always ready to welcome change though, BUT when I can clearly see its >benefits, that pros significantly outweighing the cons, for starters... > > > > > As far the 24-hour scheme, it has prevailed for ages (again because >of >its > > >excat divisiblity by 2,3,4,6,8,12. > > > > Perhaps. However, I'd like to believe that it survived mostly due to >the >ill-advised desire of the proponents of decimal time at the time to change >other factors, like the 7-day weekly cycle. I still sustain that had they >NOT tried to change this specific aspect and their quest would have >ultimately been successful. > > > > > Decimalisation of the HOUR *hereon* will > > >not make much impact on humans or astologers/astronomers or the > > >mathematicians; especially when the tying is linked with the similar > > >division of the DEGREE i.e. the HOUR-ANGLE. > > > > I honestly see no reason why mathematicians and astronomers could not >embrace a decimal time construct. The resistance appears to come mostly >from cartographers and navigators who apparently never showed any interest >in cooperating with fixing the flaws of their own models. > > > > Now, there are effective proposals to address the specific issue of >angle >measurements. The question is whether there would be enough support to >carry any of them through. > > > > > This is where the need to > > >increase the length UNIT *metre* by the factor 1.11194886884 times the >metre > > >we use. > > > > I honestly couldn't see *anywhere* why there would be a *necessity* for >this change, Brij! The "grid" in which the earth is "divided up" considers >a specific *average* size for a spherical diameter for the earth. We can >always adjust such to our convenience. > > > > > My paper The Metric Second (1973 April) amply demosntrated THIS. More >so, > > >I had tried to give (at page 157)worked results for using *velocity of > > >light* as a measure for TIME. > > > I wish some one took a serious note of what I had done or am trying >to > > >propose. > > > > Sigh... And I'll repeat here what I've been saying all along, Brij. >Please, submit a proposal, a model, whatever that is **technically in >line** >with the SI framework and we'd gladly consider getting into the more >technical stuff. But until such a proposal fulfills some simple >requirements like being easy, practical, etc, such exercise would be moot. > > > > Marcus > > > > >Brij Bhushan Vij<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > >>From: M R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>Subject: [USMA:21602] Fwd: Re: Proposal For World Calendar > > >>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 05:48:28 -0700 (PDT) > > >> > > >>The reason for using decimal system is the simplicity > > >>of + , - , * and /. > > >> > > >>30 + 10 = 40 (just add 1 # to the left digit) > > >>50 - 10 = 40 (subtract 1 # from left digit) > > >>40 * 10 = 400 (add another 0) > > >>5000 / 10 = 500 (remove a 0) > > >> > > >>Its mostly a matter adding and removing 0. > > >>This simplicity cannot be found in any other # system. > > >> > > >>Madan > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>--- "Joseph B. Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 20:57:35 -0400 > > >> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph B. Reid) > > >> > Subject: [USMA:21568] Re: Proposal For World > > >> > Calendar > > >> > > > >> > Brij Bhushan Vij and Marcus Berger have proposed > > >> > several iconoclastic > > >> > improvements to the metric system. They don't go far > > >> > enough. First we > > >> > should reform the number system, and then build a > > >> > new metric system on that > > >> > foundation. > > >> > I have a set of tables, "Duodecimal Arithmetic" > > >> > (radix twelve) by George S. > > >> > Terry, published in 1938 by Longmans, Green. It > > >> > contains 407 pages of > > >> > mathematical tables of factors, fractions, > > >> > factorials, reciprocal > > >> > factorials, powers, reciprocal powers, squares, > > >> > cubes, square roots, cube > > >> > roots, reciprocals, trignometrical functions of > > >> > common angles, conversion > > >> > of angles, conversion of time, sin, cos, tan, n cot > > >> > n, logarithms, log > > >> > trignometric functions, napierian logarithms, log > > >> > sin, log cos, log tan in > > >> > radians, exponential, sine and cosine integrals, > > >> > factorial function, > > >> > digamma function, Bessel functions, interpolation > > >> > coefficients. > > >> > > > >> > Truly a labor of love, It was achieved BC (before > > >> > computers) using a > > >> > modified Munroe calculator that used parts from > > >> > Munroe sterling > > >> > calculators. > > >> > > > >> > Joseph B.Reid > > >> > 17 Glebe Road West > > >> > Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071 > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >>__________________________________________________ > > >>Do You Yahoo!? > > >>HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs > > >>http://www.hotjobs.com > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably > > Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. > > Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
