PDA

View Full Version : recording the passage of moments, HOW ?



astromark
2010-Jan-11, 09:44 AM
So lets ask the question; How should we record the moment for accurate recognition. What unit of time could we use ? Can we find a standard that is more consistent than the second minute and hour ? Is it the fact that when doing calculations of time its a little confusing to change the numeric base from units of tens to sixty. Yes that would seem to be the problem. So why not change it. After all we found it easy enough to go metric with our currency back in 1967. Then with metrication we altered the gallon to the litre and pound to kilos... So can a argument be formed for the metric time scale ?

If the standard earth day was divided into 1000 equal parts and each further divided by units of metric... 6am becomes 250. Midday, 12noon becomes 500., and 6pm would be 750... you can further divide all by units of 100 and so on and on we go... All based on the time it takes for planet Earth to rotate once on its axis. Just when you have your head around this...I want to change deg.,of a circle also... not 360 but, 1000. So whats pie now ?
Next please.:) Mark in a very warm Wanganui.

WaxRubiks
2010-Jan-11, 09:53 AM
someone beat ya to it.


New time unit - the .beat
Instead of dividing the virtual and real day into 24 hours and 60 minutes per hour, the Internet Time system divides the day into 1000 ".beats". Each .beat is 1 minute and 26.4 seconds. http://www.timeanddate.com/time/internettime.html

astromark
2010-Jan-11, 06:09 PM
Well that's just dandy... It seems logical and should be used everywhere. We know that will never happen. My only reservation is not with the .beat but, with the seemingly fanatical need to make comparisons. Like when we use our weight or height we seem to still use stone and inches.. we need to not do this.
I never did suggest this idea was mine did I ?
My next issue with what looks like a good solution is this... how do you make time zones easy.?

pzkpfw
2010-Jan-11, 07:16 PM
...I want to change deg.,of a circle also... not 360 but, 1000. So whats pie now ?

Isn't Pi still the same?

Pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter (c = pi * d). Since the units of circumference are the same as diameter (both are length or distance), that doesn't change, no matter what you do with degrees.

(Also, take a look at radians... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian ...having "nice" numbers for degrees-in-a-circle isn't always useful.)

grant hutchison
2010-Jan-11, 09:00 PM
someone beat ya to it.By about two hundred years. :)
The French tried out French Revolutionary Time (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Horloge-republicaine1.jpg) for about six months, 1794-5. Ten hours in the day, a hundred minutes in the hour, one hundred seconds in the minute. It didn't catch on.

Grant Hutchison

DrRocket
2010-Jan-12, 12:26 AM
Isn't Pi still the same?

Pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter (c = pi * d). Since the units of circumference are the same as diameter (both are length or distance), that doesn't change, no matter what you do with degrees.

(Also, take a look at radians... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian ...having "nice" numbers for degrees-in-a-circle isn't always useful.)

Yep.

Neither pi nor any other number has anything to do with the metric system or the base in which numbers are represented by numerals. Numbers arise from the axioms of arithmetic. How they are represented on a piece of paper is a matter of arbitrary convention.

Ditto with "radians". Trigonometric functions can be and are defined as functions of a real viariable via a power series. The term "radian" is simply a name for the argument of that function. It is "degrees" that are arbitrary and unnatural, dependent on a convention.

We already have metric time. -- second, millisecond, nanosecond, picosecond, etc. Most measurements of time in physics and engineering are made with a clock and quoted in seconds. Very seldom do physicists measure time with a calendar. :) Dividing a day into some multiple of ten adds nothing except to make obsolete a lot of clocks.

hhEb09'1
2010-Jan-12, 03:55 AM
Very seldom do physicists measure time with a calendar. :) Dividing a day into some multiple of ten adds nothing except to make obsolete a lot of clocks.Exactly how some people feel about pints :)

Actually, we should be going the other way. Instead of getting rid of base sixty, in minutes and seconds (degrees and hours), we should be converting our counting system to sexigesimal. More natural then. :)

korjik
2010-Jan-12, 04:30 AM
Yep.

Neither pi nor any other number has anything to do with the metric system or the base in which numbers are represented by numerals. Numbers arise from the axioms of arithmetic. How they are represented on a piece of paper is a matter of arbitrary convention.

Ditto with "radians". Trigonometric functions can be and are defined as functions of a real viariable via a power series. The term "radian" is simply a name for the argument of that function. It is "degrees" that are arbitrary and unnatural, dependent on a convention.

We already have metric time. -- second, millisecond, nanosecond, picosecond, etc. Most measurements of time in physics and engineering are made with a clock and quoted in seconds. Very seldom do physicists measure time with a calendar. :) Dividing a day into some multiple of ten adds nothing except to make obsolete a lot of clocks.

And the people who need time units bigger than seconds ususally measure time in millions of years...

:)

ToSeek
2010-Jan-12, 04:58 AM
Yep.

Neither pi nor any other number has anything to do with the metric system or the base in which numbers are represented by numerals. Numbers arise from the axioms of arithmetic.

Still, 11.00100100001111110110101010001000100001011010001 10000100011010011 looks rather different from 3.141592653589793....

astromark
2010-Jan-12, 09:36 AM
Adopting a gruff manor does not invite more good conversation. It stifles it. :silenced: when I opened this thread in 'against the mainstream' it was because I could see it was more than the question that had been started and needed some clarity.This subject was raised in in the first place...not by me., and yes I know we have talked through this before. So I have been redirected to of topic babbling. :shifty: WRONG.
and while I am receptive of all comments I will point out that seconds are not units of the metric... 60 per min. is not deci based...
It was just that, ' a against the mainstream view of how we should or not record the passage of time ' ... and as time is unequivocally linked to space then it is still a subject of astronomical interest to discuss time so kindly reconsider the shuffling about of this subject... My language skills are such that I may be misunderstood. Thats fine. Given an opportunity I will attempt to put wrong any error. Now this is getting silly and is wrecked any enthusiasm I may have had for this subject. :( :cry:Filed---under rubbish.

Strange
2010-Jan-12, 11:45 AM
My next issue with what looks like a good solution is this... how do you make time zones easy.?

I'm not sure you can make them any easier - and I say that as someone who gets hopelessly confused by time differences!

hhEb09'1
2010-Jan-12, 01:43 PM
This subject was raised in in the first place...not by me., and yes I know we have talked through this before. So I have been redirected to of topic babbling. :shifty: WRONG.The thread was moved to OTB because there was no astronomy/science Against The Mainstream theory being proposed. Also, the software won't close the thread after thirty days, so it can be discussed in full.

and while I am receptive of all comments I will point out that seconds are not units of the metric... 60 per min. is not deci based...
Minutes are not a basic metric unit, but seconds certainly are.

Argos
2010-Jan-12, 01:51 PM
If the standard earth day was divided into 1000 equal parts and each further divided by units of metric... .

Remember the Swatch Internet time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time)?

NorthernBoy
2010-Jan-12, 05:07 PM
I'm not sure you can make them any easier - and I say that as someone who gets hopelessly confused by time differences!

A watch with a "GMT hand" is good for this. Mine has a fourth hand that rotates the dial once every 24 hours, and which I constantly leave on GMT. The hour hand is adjusted depending on local time, but I always know GMT at a glance.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jan-12, 07:52 PM
and while I am receptive of all comments I will point out that seconds are not units of the metric... 60 per min. is not deci based...
So? The crucial thing about metric units isn't the 10, it's the 1.

It isn't that the suffixes are decimal, it's that unit's are related with a conversion factor of 1.

Apply 1 Newton of force to 1 kg of mass and it'll accelerate by 1 m/s^2.
Apply 1 Newton of force over a distance of 1 meter and you'll have done 1 joule of work.
Do 1 joule of work per second and you have en effect of 1 Watt, which is also equivalent to what's released in a 1 Ohm resistor with a 1 Ampere current due to a 1 Volt potential difference.

Grey
2010-Jan-12, 10:14 PM
So? The crucial thing about metric units isn't the 10, it's the 1.

It isn't that the suffixes are decimal, it's that unit's are related with a conversion factor of 1.

Apply 1 Newton of force to 1 kg of mass and it'll accelerate by 1 m/s^2.
Apply 1 Newton of force over a distance of 1 meter and you'll have done 1 joule of work.
Do 1 joule of work per second and you have en effect of 1 Watt, which is also equivalent to what's released in a 1 Ohm resistor with a 1 Ampere current due to a 1 Volt potential difference.But that's not particularly unique to the metric system. Apply a 1 lb force to a 1 slug mass, and it will accelerate by 1 ft/s2. Apply a 1 lb force over a distance of 1 ft, and you'll have done 1 foot-pound of work. In many systems, the units for different measurable quantities are defined in terms of some of the other measurable quantities.

astromark
2010-Jan-13, 05:30 AM
and one cube of water is 1 kilo in weight if its 100mm X 100mm and, and... How has any of this impressive mathematical talent have the slightest variance on this subject. of measuring time differently...AND. Please explain where I am wrong in the following...
1000ths and hundredths and even tenths of seconds are defnatly metric... As there is 60 seconds in one minit. That does not fit what I thought metric was. A 60 base is as for minits per hour and seconds per min... Please look at this again, hhEb09'1

astromark
2010-Jan-13, 06:08 AM
[QUOTE=astromark;1658641]So lets ask the question; How should we record the moment for accurate recognition. What unit of time could we use ? Can we find a standard that is more consistent than the second minute and hour ? Is it the fact that when doing calculations of time its a little confusing to change the numeric base from units of tens to sixty. Yes that would seem to be the problem. So why not change it. After all we found it easy enough to go metric with our currency back in 1967. Then with metrication we altered the gallon to the litre and pound to kilos... So can a argument be formed for the metric time scale ? end quote...
just to refresh the topic


My mind has for the most part grasped the concept of a metric based numeric arithmatic.
When I see other good fellows expresing confusion of time zones and calculations of time I quickly saw the fact as I percieve it that a scertain confusion arrises because of the non metric part or elements of the time calculations. For those of you that have a younger and mathmaticle aptitudes above mine. Try calculations at the moter racing track... Its fine until you get to seconds and minits... the deci unit goes asunder. Changing the 10 base number system does your head in unless you have a time calculator.

Jens
2010-Jan-13, 06:18 AM
My next issue with what looks like a good solution is this... how do you make time zones easy.?

The way I see it, there are two solutions. Neither one is very easy, but one is definitely easier than the other.

The first way, the difficult way, is to flatten out the earth. A flat earth wouldn't have time zones.

The easier way is to make everyone live on the same longitude. This is feasible, but might require some trimming of the population. We could have robots go out into the forbidden zones to carry out agriculture and bring back products and stuff.

hhEb09'1
2010-Jan-13, 11:59 AM
and one cube of water is 1 kilo in weight if its 100mm X 100mm and, and... How has any of this impressive mathematical talent have the slightest variance on this subject. of measuring time differently...AND. Please explain where I am wrong in the following...
1000ths and hundredths and even tenths of seconds are defnatly metric... As there is 60 seconds in one minit. That does not fit what I thought metric was. A 60 base is as for minits per hour and seconds per min... Please look at this again, hhEb09'1Sure, no problem! :)



and while I am receptive of all comments I will point out that seconds are not units of the metric... 60 per min. is not deci based...
Minutes are not a basic metric unit, but seconds certainly are.My comment was just about minutes (and hours of course) not being metric. Seconds certainly are.

Dividing the day into intervals divisible by ten still leaves the problem of the division of the year.

Why don't we just use 100 seconds instead of a minute? and 100 of those instead of an hour? I guess that is your ultimate question?

astromark
2010-Jan-13, 06:47 PM
:)lol...Jens has got to win the out of order signe... Great...

and yes that issue of changing the base number is the problem I see. I agree with you hhEb09'1..how did that happen ?

Earths orbital period around Sol is calculated as 365.25 days and those days are not something we can altar. The near as 24 hour rotation of this planet is also not something we should try to altar but, the way we measure that could easily be based on the metric ten. Is there a culture or race that does not use the 24 hour clock ? or 60 as its numeric base for seconds and min's ?