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
