It's About Time
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> "Time" is a relative issue. Why not a decimal clock
> instead of time units with base 60, 12, 24, and 365.24...?
Yes! Why not have a 10 hour day, with 100 minutes in each hour and 100
seconds in each minute?
It would be MUCH easier. That should be done at the same time that GMT -5
is declared the official worldwide time.
I think a simplified calendar would be good too. We should have ten
months, each one with 36 days, divided into 6 six-day weeks.
The extra 5 (or six) days could be the "holiday season".
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
time is not an arbitrary measure. It is based on the rotation of the
Earth. Years based on revolutions about the sun. An arbitrary
decimal system would not fit our physical world.
Curly Surmudgeon
> In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> "Time" is a relative issue. Why not a decimal clock instead of time
>> units with base 60, 12, 24, and 365.24...?
>
>
> Yes! Why not have a 10 hour day, with 100 minutes in each hour and 100
> seconds in each minute?
>
> It would be MUCH easier. That should be done at the same time that GMT
> -5 is declared the official worldwide time.
>
> I think a simplified calendar would be good too.
Agreed.
> We should have ten months, each one with 36 days, divided into 6 six-
> day weeks.
>
> The extra 5 (or six) days could be the "holiday season".
Still too complex. My suggestion is this:
Use a single, uniform, basis for "day" such as sun rising over Greenwich
England, then extend time in both directions by base 10.
0.001-day second
0.01-day minute
0.10-day hour
10-day weeks
100-day "year"
This is still not optimal because it's tied to earth rotation which is a
variable. We'd have to either pick a specific "day" for all future
calculations or use another time base entirely such as nuclear decay or
light seed. Using one earth rotation as a basis would still require
resets at regular levels.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 Days More of George Walker Bush Plundering the Economy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
Since mankind is on the brink of leaving this rock I do not see that as a
problem but as an opportunity. Of course Esperanto didn't take off
either.
h...@nospam.com
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>> time is not an arbitrary measure. It is based on the rotation of the
>> Earth. Years based on revolutions about the sun. An arbitrary decimal
>> system would not fit our physical world.
>
>Since mankind is on the brink of leaving this rock I do not see that as a
>problem but as an opportunity.
speak for yourself. I'm not planning on going anywhere for awhile. It
is going to be an interesting adventure though.
Dan
Why not? The clock is based on the degrees in a circle, which was
decided long before the decimal system or calculators. Base-12/Base-60
is a good system for a primitive people with little education, but
decimal is far more general and useful. The day will still be the time
of a rotation and the year the time of a revolution. No change there.
But, as with metric, the none-too-bright Americans (like hal, who cannot
grasp the concept) will balk...
Dan
Ace Lightning
>I'm sure I'm too old to go but the day after the Challenger accident -
>with a civilian onboard - a friend asked if anyone would ever be
>willing to go again. My immediate answer was "in a heart beat". I
>still feel that way. Probably too much Sci-Fi.
>In fact there are medical benefits from low/zero gravity for some
>ailments. As the boomers age, they may be attracted. IF it exists by
>then. IF medicare pays for it. IF If if ...
i've already begun planning for my 100th birthday party to be
held in space, or possibly Luna City - wherever there's the
most fun to be had. i am completely serious about this.
Curly Surmudgeon
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>And if that's too easy for you, the year is slowly increasing as the
>Earth's orbit time lengthens.
Is the year increasing in length faster than the day?
-- Roy L
(David P.)
>
> i've already begun planning for my 100th birthday party to be
> held in space, or possibly Luna City - wherever there's the
> most fun to be had. i am completely serious about this.
You're just thinking of yourself here. That was O.K.
when the population wasn't skyrocketing.
Not any more.
.
.
--
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
Huh? How would the system I proposed "not fit our world"?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
(David P.)
Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081010004955AAecjBe
Resolved Question
Has China always been so heavily populated?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
A good question requires some research,
and this question did prompt some research.
Here's an interesting fact, 90 percent of all
the people how have ever lived are alive today.
So no, China has not always been so heavily
populated. The population of the world as a
whole has skyrocketed since the industrial
revolution, However, Asia and particularly
China have always had the largest percentage
of the world's population since recorded time.
There are a number of reasons for this;
climate, technology, culture, infant
mortality, advances in medicine, etc.
The exact reasons for this would make
an interesting Doctoral thesis.
* 2 months ago
Source(s):
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/global...
Libby Loo
"Blackwater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:qis8l49ufgpon32d1...@4ax.com...
> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>
>>In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Time" is a relative issue. Why not a decimal clock
>>> instead of time units with base 60, 12, 24, and 365.24...?
>>
>>
>>Yes! Why not have a 10 hour day, with 100 minutes in each hour and 100
>>seconds in each minute?
>
> Here here !!!
>
You would need to shorten the second, since your system requires an
additional 13,600 seconds each day.
Jonathan Kirwan
<imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
><snip>
>Here's an interesting fact, 90 percent of all
>the people how have ever lived are alive today.
><snip>
This quoted part (not your words but in your post) probably isn't
right:
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Number_of_humans_that_have_ever_lived
However, take close note of the number of people estimated from about
8000 BC to 1 AD given in the first link. It's almost half the
estimate and is based largely on educated guesses. Still, I don't
think it is possible to arrive at that 90% figure. Probably more like
5-10%. But interesting just the same, I suppose.
Jon
--
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled
with the entrails of the last priest. [Denis Diderot]
(David P.)
> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >Here's an interesting fact, 90 percent of all
> >the people how have ever lived are alive today.
> ><snip>
>
> This quoted part (not your words but in your post)
> probably isn't right:
>
> http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx
>
> However, take close note of the number of people estimated from about
> 8000 BC to 1 AD given in the first link. It's almost half the
> estimate and is based largely on educated guesses. Still, I don't
> think it is possible to arrive at that 90% figure. Probably more like
> 5-10%. But interesting just the same, I suppose.
Also, one person in this age doesn't equal one from 8000 BC!
When you factor in our impact on the environment, it's like
Bigfoot vs. Tom Thumb!
.
.
--
(David P.)
Web
Results 1-2 of 2 for "The population has
_always_ been skyrocketing". (0.22 seconds)
Search Results
1.
meat-head mutiny re: It's About Time - misc.misc
Dec 26, 2008 ... The population has _always_ been
skyrocketing, meat-head. Exponential curves are
self-similar. The first population doubling from
a single ...
groups.google.com/group/misc.misc/browse_thread/
thread/341fa3a4fc2f6bdc
2.
Discussions - misc.misc You're just thinking of
yourself here. That was > O.K. when the population
wasn' t skyrocketing. The population has _always_
been skyrocketing,... more » ...
groups.google.com/group/misc.misc
.
.
--
(David P.)
>
> However, take close note of the number of people estimated from about
> 8000 BC to 1 AD given in the first link. It's almost half the
> estimate and is based largely on educated guesses. Still, I don't
> think it is possible to arrive at that 90% figure. Probably more like
> 5-10%. But interesting just the same, I suppose.
And if you total up all the people that have lived
since 1900, when 90% of the industrial activity
has occurred, it's double that!
.
.
--
Curly Surmudgeon
The new second would only be 13.6% faster/shorter. No big deal, boil
your 5 minute egg for 5.78703703703703703703... minutes instead. The
great part is that you wouldn't have to take 78.703703703703703703...% of
60 seconds and just remain in base 10. And the increased granularity
would improve timing.
The mind is an incredible tool, use it.
Libby Loo
"Blackwater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:a94el4104031ct8ij...@4ax.com...
> Actually ... LENGHTEN the second.
>
> But ... no problem. Like any metricization, it's just a
> matter of DOING it and sticking with it.
>
Lengthen it, now wait a second...
Ace Lightning
>>i've already begun planning for my 100th birthday party to be held in
>>space, or possibly Luna City - wherever there's the most fun to be had.
>>i am completely serious about this.
>My name is on the volunteer list at spacex.com.
hmm. i didn't see a volunteer list, and the only "career opportunity"
i might qualify for would be in the wire-harness room. but i did sign
up for their mailing list.
Blackwater
wrote:
>
>
>"Blackwater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
>news:a94el4104031ct8ij...@4ax.com...
>> "Libby Loo" <gu...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Blackwater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
>>>news:qis8l49ufgpon32d1...@4ax.com...
>>>> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Time" is a relative issue. Why not a decimal clock
>>>>>> instead of time units with base 60, 12, 24, and 365.24...?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes! Why not have a 10 hour day, with 100 minutes in each hour and 100
>>>>>seconds in each minute?
>>>>
>>>> Here here !!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>You would need to shorten the second, since your system requires an
>>>additional 13,600 seconds each day.
>>
>> Actually ... LENGHTEN the second.
>>
>> But ... no problem. Like any metricization, it's just a
>> matter of DOING it and sticking with it.
>>
>
>Lengthen it, now wait a second...
Metric or Stupid ?
Ten 'hours' composed of ten 'minutes' composed of
ten 'seconds' ... deciseconds, centiseconds etc..
Unless you want 100 hours of 100 minutes of 100 seconds ...
A standards committee is clearly required.
V for Vendicar
As it would violate the current scientific standard, it would be a very big
deal indeed.
The speed of light would change, as would virtually all of the derrived
constants used in science.
V for Vendicar
"Blackwater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote
> Ten 'hours' composed of ten 'minutes' composed of
> ten 'seconds' ... deciseconds, centiseconds etc..
Already done. The Daleks have 10 rels in their day.
Curly Surmudgeon
Come on, you know better than that. With the given infrastructure we
cannot change line frequency. Increasing it would benefit all of society
but there is too much legacy equipment to even contemplate such a change.
Just scale 60Hz to the new second. So what if the number is different?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Days More of George Walker Bush Plundering the Economy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Libby Loo
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:495877b5$0$31702$7836...@newsrazor.net...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:39:57 -0500, V for Vendicar wrote:
>
>> "The new second would only be 13.6% faster/shorter. No big deal,"
>>
>> As it would violate the current scientific standard, it would be a very
>> big deal indeed.
>>
>> The speed of light would change, as would virtually all of the derrived
>> constants used in science.
>
> Come on, you know better than that. With the given infrastructure we
> cannot change line frequency. Increasing it would benefit all of society
> but there is too much legacy equipment to even contemplate such a change.
>
> Just scale 60Hz to the new second. So what if the number is different?
>
It would be too much to change as you state. However scaling frequency to
the new second won't change present devices like timers for your microwave
and hundreds of other appliances, machine controls , etc that do their
timing base on low voltage resistor capacitor circuits or IC chips like the
555 timer. Just think of all the soldering :)
Blackwater
Sounds good ... but what about the shorter units ?
You'd think anything based on a salt shaker would
have more 'granular' units :-)
V for Vendicar
V for Vendicar wrote:
>> "The new second would only be 13.6% faster/shorter. No big deal,"
>>
>> As it would violate the current scientific standard, it would be a very
>> big deal indeed.
>>
>> The speed of light would change, as would virtually all of the derrived
>> constants used in science.
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote
> Come on, you know better than that. With the given infrastructure we
> cannot change line frequency. Increasing it would benefit all of society
> but there is too much legacy equipment to even contemplate such a change.
>
> Just scale 60Hz to the new second. So what if the number is different?
Clueless... Completely clueless...
David Johnston
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>> time is not an arbitrary measure. It is based on the rotation of the
>> Earth. Years based on revolutions about the sun. An arbitrary decimal
>> system would not fit our physical world.
>
>Since mankind is on the brink of leaving this rock
Oh like hell we are.
Curly Surmudgeon
Thank you for the cogent, detailed, descriptive explanation of your
opinion.
David Johnston
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:59:35 +0000, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> On 25 Dec 2008 18:44:52 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> time is not an arbitrary measure. It is based on the rotation of the
>>>> Earth. Years based on revolutions about the sun. An arbitrary
>>>> decimal system would not fit our physical world.
>>>
>>>Since mankind is on the brink of leaving this rock
>>
>> Oh like hell we are.
>
>Thank you for the cogent, detailed, descriptive explanation of your
>opinion.
What details? We're a long way away from the technology required to
move large numbers of people off the planet, and we have no place to
move them to which is more appealing than where they already are. We
might be within a century of establishing a few Antartica-style
outposts out there but actually leaving Earth in the sense of having
more people off of it than on it? That's millenia away at a minimum.
The economics just don't make sense.
Blackwater
wrote:
Really ! We'll be infesting this rock for a LONG time
to come. Maybe not as MANY of us - after the mass
starvation and resource wars do their work - but we'll
still BE here.
Blackwater
wrote:
>On 29 Dec 2008 20:13:15 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
He thinks Global Warming is gonna kill everyone ... not
that we'll actually move everybody off the planet.
I think we need to bust-up Europa and send the giant chunks
of ice towards a gentle kiss with Mars. Add a few comets for
the nitrogen content and a handful of grass seed and wait
about 50 years ....
Libby Loo
"Blackwater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:495944e1...@news.east.earthlink.net...
Heh, we haven't figured out how to grow hair on a bald head yet, and you
want to grow grass on Mars.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:57:00 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On 29 Dec 2008 20:13:15 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:59:35 +0000, David Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25 Dec 2008 18:44:52 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> time is not an arbitrary measure. It is based on the rotation of
>>>>>> the Earth. Years based on revolutions about the sun. An arbitrary
>>>>>> decimal system would not fit our physical world.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since mankind is on the brink of leaving this rock
>>>>
>>>> Oh like hell we are.
>>>
>>>Thank you for the cogent, detailed, descriptive explanation of your
>>>opinion.
>>
>>What details?
Precisely.
>> We're a long way away from the technology required to
>>move large numbers of people off the planet
What part of "on the brink of leaving" do you fail to comprehend?
>> and we have no place to
>>move them to which is more appealing than where they already are. We
>>might be within a century of establishing a few Antartica-style outposts
>>out there but actually leaving Earth in the sense of having more people
>>off of it than on it? That's millenia away at a minimum. The economics
>>just don't make sense.
Again, what part of "on the brink of leaving" do you fail to comprehend?
> He thinks Global Warming is gonna kill everyone ... not that we'll
> actually move everybody off the planet.
When did you first start channeling? Better get a new gig, the bullshit
your guide is giving you is seriously fucked up.
> I think we need to bust-up Europa and send the giant chunks of ice
> towards a gentle kiss with Mars. Add a few comets for the nitrogen
> content and a handful of grass seed and wait about 50 years ....
Centuries but that's a good start.
terryc
> I think we need to bust-up Europa and send the giant chunks
> of ice towards a gentle kiss with Mars. Add a few comets for
> the nitrogen content and a handful of grass seed and wait
> about 50 years ....
It is so reassuring when some one displays their total ignorance of how
life works.
Blackwater
wrote:
>"Blackwater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
Probably easier .... :-)
Blackwater
wrote:
Oh ... I forgot to throw in the magik Jeezus Dust !
How foolish of me :-)
Doug Morse
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:41:27 -0600, "Libby Loo" <gur...@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
> >"Blackwater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
> >news:495944e1...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:57:00 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 29 Dec 2008 20:13:15 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> >>><CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:59:35 +0000, David Johnston wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 25 Dec 2008 18:44:52 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> >>>>> <CurlySu...@live.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> time is not an arbitrary measure. It is based on the rotation of the
> >>>>>>> Earth. Years based on revolutions about the sun. An arbitrary
> >>>>>>> decimal system would not fit our physical world.
> >>>>>>
Actually, time -- that is, the base unit of one second -- is presently defined
in terms of the natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770
Hz). For the curious, see http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm
Blackwater
wrote:
We never DID really use the 'astronomical' second ...which
is why we always wound up with that extra 1/4 day each year.
The nearest 'natural' second ... the heart rate of a moderately
athletic male at rest. Kinda like a 'foot' being based on an
actual foot.
David Johnston
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:48:13 +0000, Blackwater wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:57:00 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 29 Dec 2008 20:13:15 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:59:35 +0000, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25 Dec 2008 18:44:52 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>>>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> time is not an arbitrary measure. It is based on the rotation of
>>>>>>> the Earth. Years based on revolutions about the sun. An arbitrary
>>>>>>> decimal system would not fit our physical world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since mankind is on the brink of leaving this rock
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh like hell we are.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for the cogent, detailed, descriptive explanation of your
>>>>opinion.
>>>
>>>What details?
>
>Precisely.
>
>>> We're a long way away from the technology required to
>>>move large numbers of people off the planet
>
>What part of "on the brink of leaving" do you fail to comprehend?
Well as I understand it, "on the brink of" means "close to". We are
not close to leaving. We are as far away from it as we are from the
beginning of recorded history.
Jeff Mc
Yep. On a geological time scale, maybe. But moving off Earth for good
is not very likely to be an available option for anyone alive today, nor
for their grandchildren. I sometimes feel I was born a couple of
hundred years too early, or too late. Ours is not an age of explorers
or pioneers.
I find it rather shameful that our parent's generation made it to the
Moon in a decade, and then our generation largely turned our backs on
manned space exploration for forty years. My Palm Pilot has more
computing power than an Apollo spacecraft, and we are still flying a
1970's technology-based Space Shuttle. We have the means, and lacked
only the will.
The sole bright spot has been remote-sensing planetary exploration,
where we have learned much. The new Orion spacecraft ain't looking too
good, and Bush's return to the Moon plan is largely an unfunded mandate.
The race to the Moon payed for itself many times over in terms of the
technological and economic revolution it spurred. My previously
mentioned Palm Pilot owes much to the space program. A renewed push
into space may be just the sort of economic stimulus we need right now.
Jeff
Libby Loo
"Jeff Mc" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:QOw6l.519$Y32...@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
I sometimes get that same feeling about being too early or late. Oh well,
maybe next time :) While your Palm Pilot has more computing power than
Apollo, the Mars rovers have more than the Palm Pilot. I think I would also
like to see more action from the space program, waiting for more computing
power isn't the answer. Goals, with bright ideas on how to reach them is the
answer. Returning to the moon is a good start, no matter who thought of it.
I'd like to live long enough to see men walk on other planets, Mars might be
a good possibility.
Curly Surmudgeon
Never give up. With Bush out of office and ready to unleash science it
is entirely possible that I will live considerably more than the 125
years now planned for.
Besides, "for good" wasn't my words. I'd be satisfied with another rock
in our system or even asteroid mining. As the next step.
> I sometimes feel I was born a couple of
> hundred years too early, or too late. Ours is not an age of explorers
> or pioneers.
The curve of science accelerates, don't give up hope.
> I find it rather shameful that our parent's generation made it to the
> Moon in a decade, and then our generation largely turned our backs on
> manned space exploration for forty years. My Palm Pilot has more
> computing power than an Apollo spacecraft, and we are still flying a
> 1970's technology-based Space Shuttle. We have the means, and lacked
> only the will.
> The sole bright spot has been remote-sensing planetary exploration,
> where we have learned much. The new Orion spacecraft ain't looking too
> good, and Bush's return to the Moon plan is largely an unfunded mandate.
>
> The race to the Moon payed for itself many times over in terms of the
> technological and economic revolution it spurred. My previously
> mentioned Palm Pilot owes much to the space program. A renewed push
> into space may be just the sort of economic stimulus we need right now.
>
> Jeff
Agreed. First to rebuild our heavy-lift capability (Falcon9) and gain a
permanent orbital capability. Second to reach the nearest gravity well
for raw material, use rail guns to launch the mined material to L1 and L2
factories. Then to the asteroid belt where the material is already
fragmented and ready for transport.
I want to see another solar system with my own eyes...
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 Days More of George Walker Bush Plundering the Economy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Paul Dolan
> Doug Morse <mo...@edoug.org> wrote:
>> Actually, time -- that is, the base unit of one
>> second -- is presently defined in terms of the
>> natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom
>> (9,192,631,770 Hz). For the curious, see
>> http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm
> That is, of course, a totally random choice of a
> 'standard'.
Not at all. It is, IIUC, defined to be the length of
the second at the turn of the 1900's, which, since
that standard was developed in mid-century, was a
perfectly reasonable baseline point (compared, say,
to Unix setting its time baseline in 1972; if Unix
had used 1900, the limited duration of the standard
due to insufficient bits to hold "time" would have
been immediately apparent, there wouldn't have been
enough bits even to reach 1972).
Since earth's revolution is slowing due to the tides
(and doing it a bit unevenly, so that no fixed rule
can be used for determining when to do the below
adding), that long distance between us now, and
then, works with a second enough longer in reality
today than by that standard, that every now and
again we have to add in a leap second to make the
year come out ending with earth in the right
orientation to the sun and the fixed stars.
IMO
xanthian.
By the way, a "decimal time" is madness. The purpose
of the current standard is that the units of time are
among them divisible by so many small whole numbers:
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12... making for convenient
subdivisions; decimalization leaves only 2, 5 and
their powers and multiples. We often think in quarters,
it is an easy way to cut a pie. We rarely think in
fifths, cutting a pie that way is hard.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote:
>
>>Blackwater wrote:
>> > Doug Morse <mo...@edoug.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> Actually, time -- that is, the base unit of one second -- is
>> >> presently defined in terms of the natural resonance frequency of the
>> >> cesium atom (9,192,631,770 Hz). For the curious, see
>>
>> >> http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm
>>
>> > That is, of course, a totally random choice of a 'standard'.
>>
>>Not at all. It is, IIUC, defined to be the length of the second at the
>>turn of the 1900's, which, since that standard was developed in
>>mid-century, was a perfectly reasonable baseline point
>
> Absolutely arbitrary .... nothing in the universe suggests that time
> should be sub-divide thusly. We just made it up.
Arbitrary, precisely, but the current "second" wasn't just made up. It's
a subdivision of earth rotation. Irrelevant in the grander scheme of
things though since the unit is entirely arbitrary.
>>By the way, a "decimal time" is madness. The purpose of the current
>>standard is that the units of time are among them divisible by so many
>>small whole numbers:
>
> We can do that with decimal time too ...
Can do it better in decimal for that's the base most are familiar with.
Could be hexadecimal, octal, binary, base71, doesn't matter. What
matters is what works best and that's base10, the average number of toes
or fingers people have.
Trogs don't count, they haven't conquered number bases or opposable
thumbs yet...
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Days More of George Walker Bush Plundering the Economy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackwater
wrote:
>On 02 Jan 2009 07:37:59 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
><CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:01:33 -0500, Blackwater wrote:
>
>>> Absolutely arbitrary .... nothing in the universe suggests that time
>>> should be sub-divide thusly. We just made it up.
>>
>>Arbitrary, precisely, but the current "second" wasn't just made up. It's
>>a subdivision of earth rotation. Irrelevant in the grander scheme of
>>things though since the unit is entirely arbitrary.
>
>True. But which of a million possible subdivisions? Historically
>it's accepted that it is approximately a human heartbeat mushed within
>the 12/60/24/360 scheme. Everything since then is just a more precise
>definition.
>
>The yard/meter was the length of an arm and became a fraction of the
>Earth's diameter and then a special stick preserved in a laboratory.
>Most units are like that. Something arbitrary but human and later put
>on a repeatable exact basis.
>
>>Can do it better in decimal for that's the base most are familiar with.
>>Could be hexadecimal, octal, binary, base71, doesn't matter. What
>>matters is what works best and that's base10, the average number of toes
>>or fingers people have.
>
>I used to tell my digital students that people have eight fingers and
>two pointers. The byte is conveniently divided into to nibbles.
>Bogus, but hey, it works.
>
>A naked man can count to 21.
Until the Viagra wears off .... :-)