Why is starting epoch 17 Nov 1858?

[FRED ZWARTS]

Kevin McQuiggin writes:

> Does anybody know why the epoch time in VMS runs from midnight,
> 17 November 1858?
>
> I'm sure I used to know this, but I can't remember...
>
> Sleepless in Vancouver,
>
> Kevin
> mcqu...@sfu.ca
>

A few years ago I saved a nice answer to this question, which was floating around and posted by different authors.

> Here's the story from DEC. This came off of DSIN some time ago and I'm not
> aware of any copyright protections on this article.
> ------------
>
> 38 Why Is Wednesday November 17, 1858 The Base Time For VAX/VMS?
>
> COMPONENT: SYSTEM TIME OP/SYS: VMS, Version 4.n
>
> LAST TECHNICAL REVIEW: 06-APR-1988
>
> SOURCE: Customer Support Center/Colorado Springs
>
>
>
> QUESTION:
>
> Why is Wednesday, November 17, 1858 the base time for VAX/VMS?
>
>
> ANSWER:
>
> November 17, 1858 is the base of the Modified Julian Day system.
>
> The original Julian Day (JD) is used by astronomers and expressed in days
> since noon January 1, 4713 B.C. This measure of time was introduced by
> Joseph Scaliger in the 16th century. It is named in honor of his father,
> Julius Caesar Scaliger (note that this Julian Day is different from the
> Julian calendar named for the Roman Emperor Julius Caesar!).
>
> Why 4713 BC? Scaliger traced three time cycles and found that they were
> all in the first year of their cyle in 4713 B.C. The three cycles are 15,
> 19, and 28 years long. By multiplying these three numbers (15 * 19 * 28
> = 7980), he was able to represent any date from 4713 B.C. through 3267 A.D.
> The starting year was before any historical event known to him. In fact,
> the Jewish calendar marks the start of the world as 3761 B.C. Today his
> numbering scheme is still used by astronomers to avoid the difficulties of
> converting the months of different calendars in use during different eras.
>
> So why 1858? The Julian Day 2,400,000 just happens to be November 17, 1858.
> The Modified Julian Day uses the following formula:
>
> MJD = JD - 2,400,000.5
>
> The .5 changed when the day starts. Astronomers had considered it more
> convenient to have their day start at noon so that nighttime observation times
> fall in the middle. But they changed to conform to the commercial day.
>
> The Modified Julian Day was adopted by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Obser-
> vatory (SAO) in 1957 for satellite tracking. SAO started tracking satellites
> with an 8K (non-virtual) 36-bit IBM 704 computer in 1957, when Sputnik was
> launched. The Julian day was 2,435,839 on January 1, 1957. This is
> 11,225,377 in octal notation, which was too big to fit into an 18-bit field
> (half of its standard 36-bit word). And, with only 8K of memory, no one
> wanted to waste the 14 bits left over by keeping the Julian Day in its own
> 36-bit word. However, they also needed to track hours and minutes, for which
> 18 bits gave enough accuracy. So, they decided to keep the number of days in
> the left 18 bits and the hours and minutes in the right 18 bits of a word.
>
> Eighteen bits would allow the Modified Julian Day (the SAO day) to grow as
> large as 262,143 ((2 ** 18) - 1). From Nov. 17, 1858, this allowed for seven
> centuries. Using only 17 bits, the date could possibly grow only as large as
> 131,071, but this still covers 3 centuries, as well as leaving the possibility
> of representing negative time. The year 1858 preceded the oldest star catalog
> in use at SAO, which also avoided having to use negative time in any of the
> satellite tracking calculations.
>
> This base time of Nov. 17, 1858 has since been used by TOPS-10, TOPS-20, and
> VAX/VMS. Given this base date, the 100 nanosecond granularity implemented
> within VAX/VMS, and the 63-bit absolute time representation (the sign bit must
> be clear), VMS should have no trouble with time until:
>
> 31-JUL-31086 02:48:05.47
>
> At this time, all clocks and time-keeping operations within VMS will suddenly
> stop, as system time values go negative.
>
> Note that all time display and manipulation routines within VMS allow for
> only 4 digits within the 'YEAR' field. We expect this to be corrected in
> a future release of VAX/VMS sometime prior to 31-DEC-9999.
>
> <NO MORE TEXT>

Fred Zwarts KVI Internet: F.Zw...@KVI.nl
Phone: (+31)50-3633619 Telefax: (+31)50-3634003
X400: C=nl;ADMD=400net;PRMD=surf;O=KVI;S=Zwarts;G=Fred
Zernikelaan 25, 9747 AA Groningen, The Netherlands

[Kevin McQuiggin]

[Wolfram Jahn]

Please read the DECW$CALENDAR help.

Tells you a lot.

--

\/\/olfram/\/\

[Stephen LaBelle - MSCD]

Hi,

Thats the base date on a VMS system.

Steve

[zrep...@cuppa.curtin.edu.au]

In Article <01HXR4XI5...@kopc.hhs.dk>

Arne Vajhoej <AR...@ko.hhs.dk> writes:
>> Does anybody know why the epoch time in VMS runs from midnight,
>> 17 November 1858?

>"Introduction to VMS System Services" section 9.1 says:
> The Smithsonian base date and time for the astronomical calendar

And the TOPS-10 group could remove the line that
said " Just for the 10 at the Smithsonian " One less
monitor feature :)

[Jim DeCamp]

It's called Smithsonian time, and yes it is the epoch for the Modified Julian Day, which is the Julian Day minus 2,400,000.5 days. Back in the days of Sputnik, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, had a 36 bit computer. They wanted to track Sputnik, and other satellites. The decision was made to represent time as an integer since that date, with the upper 18 bits representing the number of days, and the lower 18 bits the fraction of a day. The weight of the LSB would then be 1/262144 days or 86400/262144 ~ .3296 seconds. Digital, based in Maynard, Massachusetts recruited heavily from Cambridge, so somehow, they adopted the same epoch, but not the same representation.

[John Dallman]

In article <bea6103e-99a8-465f...@googlegroups.com>,

james.c...@gmail.com (Jim DeCamp) wrote:

> Digital, based in Maynard, Massachusetts recruited heavily from
> Cambridge, so somehow, they adopted the same epoch, but not the
> same representation.

It's not a terrible epoch. It's before the date of birth of anyone who
was alive when VMS was released: one should not use OS time for that kind
of thing, but that doesn't stop some people from doing it.

John

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2021-03-09 20:02:11 +0000, Jim DeCamp said:

> On Monday, November 27, 1995 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5,
> zrep...@cuppa.curtin.edu.au wrote:

>> ...
> It's called Smithsonian time...

Welcome to Usenet, welcome to the comp.os.vms newsgroup, and welcome to
the archive of newsgroup postings offered via the Google Groups UI.

For those interested, there are various other related discussions of
OpenVMS and time and timekeeping posted here over the years, including
this one written by Stan Rabinowitz:
https://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/decly.htm

Also:
http://hoffmanlabs.com/vmsfaq/vmsfaq_004.html#time1

Also:
wiz_2315 has some additional background, including the 36-bit
timekeeping using two 18-bit hunks.
https://www.digiater.nl/openvms/freeware/v70/ask_the_wizard/

And FWIW, that could-be-culled-from-somebody's-homework-assignment
question you've replied to is from a quarter-century ago.



--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

[Michael Moroney]

If it were up to me, I would have used whatever date the Gregorian
calendar first went into effect somewhere, so that earlier dates, in
fact all valid Gregorian calendar dates, could be represented. But, of
course, it wasn't up to me.

(somewhere = some Catholic country/ies, probably Italy. The Protestant
countries were quite reluctant to implement such popery at first.)

[Rich Alderson]

I'll leave aside that you're followiung up to a post from 1995, and just point
out that DEC used precisely that 18,,18 representation for TOPS-20, on the
PDP-10 architecture, although they inherited it from BBN, who wrote TENEX,
which was the starting point for TOPS-20.

A decade before VMS came along...

--
Rich Alderson ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen

[David Jones]

On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 3:02:13 PM UTC-5, Jim DeCamp wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 1995 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, zrep...@cuppa.curtin.edu.au wrote:
> It's called Smithsonian time, and yes it is the epoch for the Modified Julian Day, which is the Julian Day minus 2,400,000.5 days.

Is that 2400000.5 magic number ensconced in a header file symbol definition anywhere?

[Stephen Hoffman]

It's been a while since I've looked at that code, but I wouldn't expect
to see that value around other than in comments, as it is immaterial to
the process of converting to and from the base date.

Converting from 0 is 17-Nov-1858, and from 17-Nov-1858 produces 0. A
day's accumulated centiseconds gets you 18-Nov-1858, obviously.

That there's a second and earlier date with a nice round offset from
the any base date isn't any more relevant to the conversion process
than would be a nice round offset date after the base date.

Neither the Smithsonian base date nor the Gregorian base date is
anything other than a convenience, particularly given we don't know the
offset from the Big Bang (yet?), and usually wouldn't want to store it
everywhere anyway.

(Discussions of where and of when and of speed and of differing
calendars all inherently involved when converting times and dates are
all hereby ignored, for the purposes of this discussion.)

[VAXman-]

In article <s2aqvh$o7s$1...@dont-email.me>, Stephen Hoffman <seao...@hoffmanlabs.invalid> writes:
>On 2021-03-10 14:21:17 +0000, David Jones said:
>
>> On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 3:02:13 PM UTC-5, Jim DeCamp wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 27, 1995 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5,
>>> zrep...@cuppa.curtin.edu.au wrote:
>>> It's called Smithsonian time, and yes it is the epoch for the Modified
>>> Julian Day, which is the Julian Day minus 2,400,000.5 days.
>>
>> Is that 2400000.5 magic number ensconced in a header file symbol
>> definition anywhere?
>
>It's been a while since I've looked at that code, but I wouldn't expect
>to see that value around other than in comments, as it is immaterial to
>the process of converting to and from the base date.
>
>Converting from 0 is 17-Nov-1858, and from 17-Nov-1858 produces 0. A
>day's accumulated centiseconds gets you 18-Nov-1858, obviously.
>
>That there's a second and earlier date with a nice round offset from
>the any base date isn't any more relevant to the conversion process
>than would be a nice round offset date after the base date.
>
>Neither the Smithsonian base date nor the Gregorian base date is
>anything other than a convenience, particularly given we don't know the
>offset from the Big Bang (yet?), and usually wouldn't want to store it
>everywhere anyway.

That might require implementation of planck-time units and many many
many more bits than current implementations possess. ;)

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

[Dave Froble]

And next we'll be throwing relativistic effects on time into the mix?

Maybe better to keep it simple. If some user needs more, let them
implement it in their apps.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

[gah4]

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 2:18:55 PM UTC-8, Dave Froble wrote:

(snip)

> And next we'll be throwing relativistic effects on time into the mix?

GPS satellites need a general relativity correction to their atomic clocks.

There are now atomic clocks where you can set two on a desk, raise one
one foot (0.3m) and see the difference due to general relativity and the
change in gravity with height.

So, yes, we might.

[Tom Wade]

On 2021-03-09 23:49, Michael Moroney wrote:

> If it were up to me, I would have used whatever date the Gregorian
> calendar first went into effect somewhere, so that earlier dates, in
> fact all valid Gregorian calendar dates, could be represented. But, of
> course, it wasn't up to me.
>
> (somewhere = some Catholic country/ies, probably Italy. The Protestant
> countries were quite reluctant to implement such popery at first.)

It may seem quaint that a sensible measuring reform could generate the
kind of hysterical opposition that the Gregorian Calendar did,
particularly in Britain. They held out for 170 years against what was
perceived as a foreign attempt to foist something alien on them.

The same irrational not-invented-here resistance can be seen today in
the US by those opposing the adoption of the Metric System, despite the
fact that is far more logical and easier to use.

tom dot wade at tomwade dot eu

[Bob Eager]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 14:03:23 +0000, Tom Wade wrote:

> The same irrational not-invented-here resistance can be seen today in
> the US by those opposing the adoption of the Metric System, despite the
> fact that is far more logical and easier to use.

Here in the UK, there are those who thought that Brexit would result in a
return to the imperial system. Despite metrication having occurred some
time earlier.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <s2d7va$1g5b$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Tom Wade

<nos...@void.blackhole.mx> writes:

> > If it were up to me, I would have used whatever date the Gregorian
> > calendar first went into effect somewhere, so that earlier dates, in
> > fact all valid Gregorian calendar dates, could be represented. But, of
> > course, it wasn't up to me.
> >
> > (somewhere = some Catholic country/ies, probably Italy. The Protestant
> > countries were quite reluctant to implement such popery at first.)
>
> It may seem quaint that a sensible measuring reform could generate the
> kind of hysterical opposition that the Gregorian Calendar did,
> particularly in Britain. They held out for 170 years against what was
> perceived as a foreign attempt to foist something alien on them.

Which is why they still use imperial units instead of the metric system.

> The same irrational not-invented-here resistance can be seen today in
> the US by those opposing the adoption of the Metric System, despite the
> fact that is far more logical and easier to use.

The USA is even more recalcitrant here.

[Dave Froble]

There is a major difference.. The Gregorian calendar is somewhat more
accurate. The metric measurement system is no more accurate.

Your argument is the same as "French is a better language than English,
stop using English". It is an opinion. I understand English, I do not
understand or speak French. I understand the English measurement
system, I know how long an inch is without having to think about it. If
someone tells me an object is 2 inches in length, I know about what that
is. If someone tells me an object is 5 centimeters in length, I really
have to think about that for a while.

Why am I irrational if I choose to use something I'm familiar with?

[Dave Froble]

Why is it that you are right and we're wrong?

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 3/11/2021 10:51 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 3/11/2021 9:03 AM, Tom Wade wrote:
>> On 2021-03-09 23:49, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> If it were up to me, I would have used whatever date the Gregorian
>>> calendar first went into effect somewhere, so that earlier dates, in
>>> fact all valid Gregorian calendar dates, could be represented. But, of
>>> course, it wasn't up to me.
>>>
>>> (somewhere = some Catholic country/ies, probably Italy. The Protestant
>>> countries were quite reluctant to implement such popery at first.)
>>
>> It may seem quaint that a sensible measuring reform could generate the
>> kind of hysterical opposition that the Gregorian Calendar did,
>> particularly in Britain. They held out for 170 years against what was
>> perceived as a foreign attempt to foist something alien on them.
>>
>> The same irrational not-invented-here resistance can be seen today in
>> the US by those opposing the adoption of the Metric System, despite the
>> fact that is far more logical and easier to use.
>

> There is a major difference..  The Gregorian calendar is somewhat more
> accurate.  The metric measurement system is no more accurate.
>
> Your argument is the same as "French is a better language than English,
> stop using English".  It is an opinion.  I understand English, I do not
> understand or speak French.  I understand the English measurement
> system, I know how long an inch is without having to think about it.  If
> someone tells me an object is 2 inches in length, I know about what that
> is.  If someone tells me an object is 5 centimeters in length, I really
> have to think about that for a while.
>
> Why am I irrational if I choose to use something I'm familiar with?

The unit itself is just a choice - nothing magic. But it is obvious
beneficial if everybody use the same unit.

The system does matter. There are computational benefits if
the system is well aligned with the number system. And since
we use decimals then something decimal based is easier to
work with.

The imperial units (customary units in US English) are not decimal
based when converting between smaller and bigger units - and there
is also a strong tradition for using fractions that are not decimal
based.

Arne

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2021-03-11 15:54:38 +0000, Dave Froble said:

> On 3/11/2021 9:39 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <s2d7va$1g5b$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Tom Wade
>> <nos...@void.blackhole.mx> writes:
>>> The same irrational not-invented-here resistance can be seen today in
>>> the US by those opposing the adoption of the Metric System, despite the
>>> fact that is far more logical and easier to use.
>>
>> The USA is even more recalcitrant here.
>
> Why is it that you are right and we're wrong?

Metric?

In the US?

It'll happen.

It's already happening.

Far too slowly.

Dragged kicking and screaming and whining and whingeing, for many here
in the US.

Imperial and Customary systems are stupidly complex and error-prone
weights-and-measures schemes.

Stupidly complex? Have a look at which states use which definition for
a foot, and the international foot and the survey foot, and fluid
ounces, and which sort of ounce, and... It gets worse from there.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <s2de9m$hrd$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

<da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> There is a major difference.. The Gregorian calendar is somewhat more
> accurate. The metric measurement system is no more accurate.

True.

> Your argument is the same as "French is a better language than English,
> stop using English".

False.

> It is an opinion. I understand English, I do not
> understand or speak French. I understand the English measurement
> system, I know how long an inch is without having to think about it. If
> someone tells me an object is 2 inches in length, I know about what that
> is. If someone tells me an object is 5 centimeters in length, I really
> have to think about that for a while.
>
> Why am I irrational if I choose to use something I'm familiar with?

It's not irrational, but consider other issues.

First, without looking it up, explain the what a BTU is.

Due to being based on factors of 10, various units have clearer
relations to one another and are easier to calculate.

Most of the world uses it, so it facilitates trade.

Science is based on it.

[Dave Froble]

On 3/11/2021 11:45 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <s2de9m$hrd$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>> There is a major difference.. The Gregorian calendar is somewhat more
>> accurate. The metric measurement system is no more accurate.
>
> True.
>
>> Your argument is the same as "French is a better language than English,
>> stop using English".
>
> False.

How do you declare something "false" and expect to be the final
authority on that?

>> It is an opinion. I understand English, I do not
>> understand or speak French. I understand the English measurement
>> system, I know how long an inch is without having to think about it. If
>> someone tells me an object is 2 inches in length, I know about what that
>> is. If someone tells me an object is 5 centimeters in length, I really
>> have to think about that for a while.
>>
>> Why am I irrational if I choose to use something I'm familiar with?
>
> It's not irrational, but consider other issues.
>
> First, without looking it up, explain the what a BTU is.

It's been a while, but I seem to recall it is the amount of heat
required to raise an amount, I forget the amount, of water one degree
Fahrenheit. I could look it up, but why bother.

What I do seem to have some feeling for is sizing furnaces, and how many
BTUs should be used for a specified area, say, 2000 sq ft.

Oh, darn, there I go again, using those damn imperial measurements. The
thing is, I can function with them. I have no idea what 2000 sq ft
comes out to in millimeters, centimeters, meters, or whatever.

I can function with what I know. I cannot do so well with what I do not
know. Why can't I just use what works? It's not broke, why fix it?

As a point of curiosity, what measurements does the rest of the planet
use for sizing furnaces?

> Due to being based on factors of 10, various units have clearer
> relations to one another and are easier to calculate.

If using slide rules, yes, if using computers which can do whatever
calculations are required, not so much.

> Most of the world uses it, so it facilitates trade.
>
> Science is based on it.

Some scientists may use it, but science is not based upon some numeric
scheme. That claim is beyond absurd.

Do you imagine the universe in general gives a damn about your base 10
numeric system? Not even the computer you're using does so.

[David Jones]

On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:44:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Froble wrote:
> > First, without looking it up, explain the what a BTU is.
> It's been a while, but I seem to recall it is the amount of heat
> required to raise an amount, I forget the amount, of water one degree
> Fahrenheit. I could look it up, but why bother.

I believe it is a pound of water.

>
> What I do seem to have some feeling for is sizing furnaces, and how many
> BTUs should be used for a specified area, say, 2000 sq ft.
>
> Oh, darn, there I go again, using those damn imperial measurements. The
> thing is, I can function with them. I have no idea what 2000 sq ft
> comes out to in millimeters, centimeters, meters, or whatever.
>

And then there is refrigeration/AC, which is traditionally rated in tons (how
many tons of ice per day it can produce). AC is rated by output, but gas
furnaces are rated by the nominal heat potential of the input.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 3/11/2021 12:44 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 3/11/2021 11:45 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <s2de9m$hrd$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
>> <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>> It is an opinion.  I understand English, I do not
>>> understand or speak French.  I understand the English measurement
>>> system, I know how long an inch is without having to think about it.  If
>>> someone tells me an object is 2 inches in length, I know about what that
>>> is.  If someone tells me an object is 5 centimeters in length, I really
>>> have to think about that for a while.
>>>
>>> Why am I irrational if I choose to use something I'm familiar with?
>>
>> It's not irrational, but consider other issues.
>>
>> First, without looking it up, explain the what a BTU is.
>
> It's been a while, but I seem to recall it is the amount of heat
> required to raise an amount, I forget the amount, of water one degree
> Fahrenheit.  I could look it up, but why bother.
>
> What I do seem to have some feeling for is sizing furnaces, and how many
> BTUs should be used for a specified area, say, 2000 sq ft.
>
> Oh, darn, there I go again, using those damn imperial measurements.  The
> thing is, I can function with them.  I have no idea what 2000 sq ft
> comes out to in millimeters, centimeters, meters, or whatever.

It will be square something. Square meters are probably most convenient.

Roughly 180 square meters. Divide by 10 and deduct 10%.

(the "true answer is 185.8)

> I can function with what I know.  I cannot do so well with what I do not
> know.  Why can't I just use what works?  It's not broke, why fix it?

Progress.

Horses worked fine for field work for many years. Most prefer tractors
today.

> As a point of curiosity, what measurements does the rest of the planet
> use for sizing furnaces?

KW as replacement for BTU/hour

>> Due to being based on factors of 10, various units have clearer
>> relations to one another and are easier to calculate.
>
> If using slide rules, yes, if using computers which can do whatever
> calculations are required, not so much.

Even computers.

>> Most of the world uses it, so it facilitates trade.
>>
>> Science is based on it.
>
> Some scientists may use it, but science is not based upon some numeric
> scheme.  That claim is beyond absurd.

Scientific papers are usually required to specify measurements in SI units.

> Do you imagine the universe in general gives a damn about your base 10
> numeric system?  Not even the computer you're using does so.

The internals of computers are mostly two based (exceptions being BCD
and some old IBM FP).

But the interface is very much decimal oriented.

Arne

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <s2dkt4$mcv$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

<da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> On 3/11/2021 11:45 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> > In article <s2de9m$hrd$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> > <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> >
> >> There is a major difference.. The Gregorian calendar is somewhat more
> >> accurate. The metric measurement system is no more accurate.
> >
> > True.
> >
> >> Your argument is the same as "French is a better language than English,
> >> stop using English".
> >
> > False.
>
> How do you declare something "false" and expect to be the final
> authority on that?

Because I'm right.

Note that your claims are just as authoritative.

> As a point of curiosity, what measurements does the rest of the planet
> use for sizing furnaces?

Watts.

> Some scientists may use it, but science is not based upon some numeric
> scheme. That claim is beyond absurd.

I think you know what I meant. Pretending otherwise is absurd.

[Dave Froble]

On 3/11/2021 3:05 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <s2dkt4$mcv$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/11/2021 11:45 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>> In article <s2de9m$hrd$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
>>> <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> There is a major difference.. The Gregorian calendar is somewhat more
>>>> accurate. The metric measurement system is no more accurate.
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>>> Your argument is the same as "French is a better language than English,
>>>> stop using English".
>>>
>>> False.
>>
>> How do you declare something "false" and expect to be the final
>> authority on that?
>
> Because I'm right.

Some people thought Trump was "right".

> Note that your claims are just as authoritative.

If I had actually made any claims ....

>> As a point of curiosity, what measurements does the rest of the planet
>> use for sizing furnaces?
>
> Watts.
>
>> Some scientists may use it, but science is not based upon some numeric
>> scheme. That claim is beyond absurd.
>
> I think you know what I meant. Pretending otherwise is absurd.

You think? I don't think so.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <s2e14s$8vj$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

<da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> On 3/11/2021 3:05 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> > In article <s2dkt4$mcv$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> > <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 3/11/2021 11:45 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> >>> In article <s2de9m$hrd$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> >>> <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> There is a major difference.. The Gregorian calendar is somewhat more
> >>>> accurate. The metric measurement system is no more accurate.
> >>>
> >>> True.
> >>>
> >>>> Your argument is the same as "French is a better language than English,
> >>>> stop using English".
> >>>
> >>> False.
> >>
> >> How do you declare something "false" and expect to be the final
> >> authority on that?
> >
> > Because I'm right.
>
> Some people thought Trump was "right".
>
> > Note that your claims are just as authoritative.
>
> If I had actually made any claims ....

Here's one:

[Dave Froble]

That is not a claim, that is a comment on your argument. I did not
claim either was better, or worse.

[Michael Moroney]

What's funny is some of the imperial units are base 2 underneath.

8 fl oz = 1 cup
2 cups = 1 pint
2 pints = 1 quart
4 quarts = 1 gallon

And there are uncommon names for other binary units, 2 fl oz, 4 fl oz, 2
quarts (other than half gallon) as well as things like hogshead but I
don't remember them.

Personally, I think the metric system would have been more easily
accepted if it didn't try to use completely new definitions for units
like 1/10000 the distance between the North Pole and Equator. Imagine if
they started with "Let's make the liter equal to the quart" and people
would have little problem with a gallon being a quaint name for 4
liters. But it was created by the French and I have no idea what they
used before the metric system.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Well, actually France had what was called a "foot". The problem was that
there were over 300 different length of that "foot" in France alone.

So yes, having one common meter was a *huge* advantage. And still is.
It just happend to become the meter as we know it today.

And part of the success was to *not* try to select one of the 300 old
measurment units and try to replace the other 299 units. It was more
clever to replace all 300 at once. Selecting one of the current systems
would not have been easily accepted by those using the other 299 systems.

And it was from the start 1/10.000.000 of the length from pole to equator.
Today it is defined in other ways.

So the main reason behind the "meter-system" was to unify the measurment
units all over France, not to invent something new just for the sake of it.

Today the world at large would of course benefit from a unified measuremnt
system world-wide. It would simplify world-wide trade a lot.

[Bill Gunshannon]

Go listen to "Heavy Horses" by Jethro Tull. :-)

bill

[Bill Gunshannon]

And lets not forget he cubit.

bill

[Henry Crun]

+1
as in off-the-cuff answer to
"How many inches in a mile" or worse "How many lines in a furlong"
compared to "How mant millimeters in a kilometer"

--
Mike R.
Home: http://alpha.mike-r.com/
QOTD: http://alpha.mike-r.com/qotd.php
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#before
and: http://alpha.mike-r.com/jargon/T/top-post.html
Missile address: N31.7624/E34.9691

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <s2e4i2$18hm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Michael Moroney

<mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> writes:

> Personally, I think the metric system would have been more easily
> accepted if it didn't try to use completely new definitions for units
> like 1/10000 the distance between the North Pole and Equator. Imagine if
> they started with "Let's make the liter equal to the quart" and people
> would have little problem with a gallon being a quaint name for 4
> liters. But it was created by the French and I have no idea what they
> used before the metric system.

Well within the precision needed for an intuitive feel, everyday work,
etc., a liter IS a quart and a meter IS a yard.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <s2e1t7$kli$2...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

> That is not a claim, that is a comment on your argument. I did not
> claim either was better, or worse.

"Your argument is" is quite clearly a claim.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <iavn7h...@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon

<bill.gu...@gmail.com> writes:

> > Horses worked fine for field work for many years. Most prefer tractors
> > today.
>
> Go listen to "Heavy Horses" by Jethro Tull. :-)

A great song. Intentionally romantic, of course.

Units? "18 hands at the shoulder." :-)

Listen to North Sea Oil from the next (studio) album. :-)

[Bill Gunshannon]

I was thinking more along the lines of when the oil barons run dry. :-)

bill

[Tom Wade]

On 2021-03-11 15:51, Dave Froble wrote:

> There is a major difference..  The Gregorian calendar is somewhat more
> accurate.  The metric measurement system is no more accurate.

The Gregorian Calendar does a better job at realigning our dates of the
year with the seasons. The metric system does a better job at
realigning our measurement system with the base of our counting system.
However, the main commonality I was referring to was the hostile and
emotional reaction to both simply because it was a foreign idea.

Consider the first thing that was 'metricated'. It was rolled out in
the US first, and gradually found its way across the world. It was
money. Prior to independence, you would have used the irrational system
of 12 pennies to the shilling and 20 shillings to the pound. The
founding fathers replaced that with a decimal system of 100 cents to the
dollar. So $2.65 and 265c are the same thing, and this brilliant idea
rapidly spread to the rest of the world. Britain and Ireland were the
last holdouts that still used non-decimal units like
pounds-shilling-pence until 1970. Great fun adding costs like #2-11-6 &
#1-3-11 and calculating the change from a #5 note (I remember it well).
The metric system simply applied the American idea to measurement, and
my height is 1.74 m or 174 cm. Simple. And that's before we start
manipulating measurements like 5/16", 3/8" etc compared to whole
millimeter units. Not so much to do with accuracy (although mm are more
precise than 1/16"), more to do with ease of calculation. The key thing
is that we use a decimal base 10 counting system, so it makes sense to
have the measurement system reflect that (of course, if we were to
persuade non-computer people to adopt hexadecimal then the metric system
wouldn't offer much advantages :-) )

> Your argument is the same as "French is a better language than English,
> stop using English".  It is an opinion.  I understand English, I do not
> understand or speak French.

Firstly, human languages are very different from measurement systems.
Learning a new language is very difficult. You can learn metric in 20
minutes. You use your language pretty constantly, so it is far more
important in your daily life than how big an inch or liter is. Lastly,
language contains a huge amount of literature, culture and knowledge.
Losing a language means a great loss of information and heritage. A
measurement system is simply a tool, no more. There is no need to wrap
it in emotional or cultural baggage. If a better tool comes around, why
leave yourself at a disadvantage by refusing to use it?

>  I understand the English measurement
> system, I know how long an inch is without having to think about it.

The important thing here is that you are confusing familiarity with ease
of calculation. Unix users (to keep the topic somewhat relevant to the
list) are quite convinced that 'ls', 'cat' and 'ps -ax' are sensible
commands, and would find "directory", "type" and "show system" alien.
But you can get used to anything quickly. I used to know how big an
inch and foot are because back in the 70s we used them. I became quite
comfortable with metric after a few weeks. More important than knowing
how big an inch or a centimeter is (hint: width of your finger), the
complexities come when you have to perform any measures or computations.
Believe me, your children would wonder how you stuck with something like
that for so long, in the same way that mine do when I describe pounds
shillings and pence.

> Why am I irrational if I choose to use something I'm familiar with?

It's not irrational to use something familiar, it is quite reasonable.
What is irrational is to actively and emotionally oppose something that
is an improvement simply because it comes from somewhere else (not
claiming you in particular are doing this). It would be irrational, for
example, to oppose mixed case filenames in ODS-5 simply because the idea
came from Windows or Unix, and isn't the way things were always done in
VMS. If a proposed change offers benefits, then yes, we should adopt it
irrespective of whose idea it was. If it is not better, then don't.
You can find plenty of Internet sites comparing the benefits of metric
and imperial/colonial units (e.g. www.metric4us.com/why.html). You're
right in that you shouldn't adopt something just because 95% of the
world already has, but it is even worse to refuse to consider it simply
because it comes from somewhere else.

And I haven't even mentioned the loss of the Mars Orbiter ...

Tom Wade

[Bob Eager]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 12:25:14 +0000, Tom Wade wrote:

> Consider the first thing that was 'metricated'. It was rolled out in
> the US first, and gradually found its way across the world. It was
> money. Prior to independence, you would have used the irrational system
> of 12 pennies to the shilling and 20 shillings to the pound. The
> founding fathers replaced that with a decimal system of 100 cents to the
> dollar. So $2.65 and 265c are the same thing, and this brilliant idea
> rapidly spread to the rest of the world. Britain and Ireland were the
> last holdouts that still used non-decimal units like
> pounds-shilling-pence until 1970.

15th February 1971 in the UK; I remember it well.

[Craig A. Berry]

In related news, The Register considers replacing their previous
standard unit of measure (linguine length) with gummy bear height:

<https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/12/gummy_bear_outrage/>

[David Jones]

Even the metric system drew the at time, clocks everywhere still have 24 hour days and 60 minute hours...

In the digital age, we should change our math system from decimal to hexadecimal,

[Craig A. Berry]

On 3/14/21 3:00 PM, David Jones wrote:
> Even the metric system drew the [line] at time, clocks everywhere

> still have 24 hour days and 60 minute hours...

I had a chemistry teacher in high school who advocated for having 10
chrons in a day rather than using hours, and of course you would have
decichrons and so forth for smaller division. I can't remember if he
had a plan for weeks, months and years.

He also drilled into us a lot of conversion factors and would have exam
questions along the lines of "What is the speed of light in furlongs per
fortnight?" There might have been a hint such as the fact that a
furlong is 220 yards. But you would have to know that a yard is 36
inches, a meter 39.37 inches, the speed of light 3 x 10^8 meters per
second, and how to follow the trail of multiple conversions to get to
the answer. Not exactly higher math, but good exercise for getting kids
to be able to navigate the transition to decimal he was hoping for.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2021-03-14, Tom Wade <nos...@void.blackhole.mx> wrote:
>
> Firstly, human languages are very different from measurement systems.
> Learning a new language is very difficult. You can learn metric in 20
> minutes. You use your language pretty constantly, so it is far more
> important in your daily life than how big an inch or liter is. Lastly,
> language contains a huge amount of literature, culture and knowledge.
> Losing a language means a great loss of information and heritage. A
> measurement system is simply a tool, no more. There is no need to wrap
> it in emotional or cultural baggage. If a better tool comes around, why
> leave yourself at a disadvantage by refusing to use it?
>

I get the feeling that even today, there are still those in the US
who regard metric as some kind of a "commie plot". :-) or :-( depending
on your mood.

Of course, here in the UK we are still only half-way there, but that's
still a lot better than the situation in the US.

We still use miles for long distances and our rail network (for example)
is in miles-per-hour instead of kilometres-per-hour unlike the rest of
Europe.

OTOH, pretty much all weights I come across are done in metric instead
of imperial measurements and when I am walking, I plot routes in terms
of kilometres and not miles because of the use of OS maps.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

[John Vottero]

On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-4, osuv...@gmail.com wrote:
> Even the metric system drew the at time, clocks everywhere still have 24 hour days and 60 minute hours...
>
> In the digital age, we should change our math system from decimal to hexadecimal,

It's too bad that humans don't have 16 fingers. Having 10 fingers is the only reason that the decimal system seems natural.

[Michael Moroney]

On 3/14/2021 4:00 PM, David Jones wrote:
> Even the metric system drew the at time, clocks everywhere still have 24 hour days and 60 minute hours...
>
> In the digital age, we should change our math system from decimal to hexadecimal,
>

So you want the US system, at least for liquid volume!

1 gallon = 16 cups
1 cup = 16 tablespoons
(several other powers of 2 units between dram (1/4 tablespoon) and gallon)

:-)

[Bob Eager]

Ah, you're not meant to use thumbs. Or big toes. Then it all works out.