Bryan Parry: "Do you favour a "decimal" time system?"

I've already thought a lot about that although I feel perfectly comfortable with the present time system. It's just that it's not quite logical.

It shouldn't be much of a problem to redefine the second in such way that there are 100 of them in a minute, 100 minutes in an hour and 10 hours in a day.

But then...
10 days in a week ? The weekend would seem kilometres away (grins) on Monday...
100 days in a month ? Hm... A bit long too...

...but it could work.

The only real problem is the number of days in a year. It's simply not workable to switch to a 1000-day or 100-day year since it doesn't match the clock of nature, i.e. the seasons. I guess time just isn't metric.

Indeed, nature is just not metric. And, by the way, what do you mean when you say "not logical"? It seems perfectly logical to me: 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in one hour, 24 hours in one day, 365(.2423...) days in one year.

Although, I *am* serious: can we see if we can create an adequate decimal system of time? Surely, one tenth of a minute, which is 6 seconds, could be called 10 seconds (or 1) and one tenth of that is a "new" second, or something. Anyway, I must dash... discuss later.

We already have invented the Bryan system
which is so decimal I can hardly believe it.
The existing 24, 60, 60 is practically superior
to any other division of the day I can imagine
because one often does want to divide intervals of
time up into thirds and quarters. HOWEVER let us
try to gratify Conrad's sentimental attachment to
the number ten and modify Bryan system to include
decimalized hours and minutes!

Since there are 86400 seconds in an
earth-rotation relative to the sun
("solar day") and since we defined snicker so
18.55 snickers make a second. There are
1602720 snickers in a day.

what this suggests to me is a day of
16 "hours" each of which is 100 thousand snickers.

So each "minute" is a thousand snickers.

Since the rotation of the earth takes 1602720
(instead of exactly 1.6 million) dividing the
day up into 16 hours and each hour into 1000
minutes would make the minute
1001.7 snickers long!

Personally I can stand having an extra 1.7 snickers in a minute. So I would be satisfied with a minute which is 1001.7 snickers.

You can calculate how long this minute would be in conventional seconds if you want: just divide 1001.7 by 18.55. It comes out to exactly 54 conventional seconds. So it is roughly "minute sized".

However the 100 times longer hour is "hour and 1/2 sized"! This would make most professor's lectures
much too long and so might not be acceptable for use
in higher education.

dividing the day up into 16 hours and
each hour up into 100 minutes
would make a minute 1001.7 snickers long.

in the preceding post I accidentally typed
an extra naught and said "1000 minutes"

I trust no one is really serious about modifying
the present clock and calendar! the clock dial
is really beautiful.

It is the only place i can think of where the
visualization of number-relations has become a
kind of artwork. the twelve face probably looks
handsomer than a 10 face or 20 face would and
that is why it has endured. not to trifle with
beauty.

The seven day week arose from the phases of the moon.
We have to show some reverence for, well for several
things like history tradition nature the moon. the moon's appearance divides visually into quarters (new to half, half to full, full to half, half to new). And since a lunar month is about 28 days one gets a 7 day week which also seems to fit menu-planning and shopping for food cycles for whatever reason.

Although one COULD decimalize time and even do so
within the frame of Bryan units, I hardly think it
a good idea and suspect Conrad is kidding.

BTW astronomers have already decimalized time. They use the Julian calendar where everything is days and decimal fractions of days (no weeks, months, years etc)
just a decimal day-count. Correct me if I am wrong.

L

A 28-day month would be a practical improvement. We coud begin each month on Sunday 1st and then when someone says at a committee meeting: "Is everyone free on the 18th next month?", we'd all know it was a Wednesday and our squash night or whatever. I believe there's lobby group in Britain that seriously advocates this


Tony Bennett

Britain seems to be a place where it is
possible to be serious
about serious things

like beauty

I only want to destroy the metric system
which shackles the mind in ugly relation
to nature. I dare not divert thought
to something like a 28 day month.

But it is nevertheless very elegant and I wish those
brave eccentric month-changers the greatest
success.

BTW astronomically speaking the new-moon to
new-moon period that inspired the month is
29.53 days. So a 28 day month would not square
precisely with the phases of the moon. It would
simply be most suitable for squash and committee
meetings. And numerically nice.

So as to leave no doubt: I DON'T advocate decimalizing our time system. I have 2 reasons for that.

1. I feel perfectly comfortable with the present time system.
2. The whole world population uses our time system and the countries that don't use it in foreign trade.

If the whole world would use a decimal time system and Britain wouldn't, I would want switch immediately to that system. Not because I like it but because I think it's better to have "international standards" in some fields.
And of course, the same goes for systems of measurement...

Calender reform is all very interesting, but our system will not slip for about so many god knows thousands of years, and only then by however many seconds it was (20something). In short, our calendar is good enough to see us through to the end of civilisation, however, this is an interesting topic, but I do not take it seriously.

Actually, when this thread started, it rang a bell in my head and I was thinking: "Wait a metric minute, you've heard that before !"

And, Voila ! Here's a link to one site of the "Metric Time Webring" (no kidding!):

http://zapatopi.net/metrictime.html

I haven't read it yet, but it'll sure be interesting.

Cheers,
Ralf

I have seen a site that advocates dividing the day into 100 units (each unit being 0.864 s). This division has many attractions, not least of which is that it would enable a consistent set of metric units to be developed. If we denote these units by the symbol X, then a speed limit with the number 20 would mean 20 m/X (aprox 22 m/s) or 20 km/kX (22 km/ quarter hour).

However, as such a conversion would mean redefining most of our units, including the watt, the joule, the amp, the volt and so on, I do not believe that the benefit gained would justify the cost.

BTW, I believe that during the French Revolution a metric tiem system was used, but it was abandoned because of the ten day week. Furthermore, since the Bible speaks of a 12 hour day and a 12 hour night, the introduction of a decimal-based time would have met fierce opposition.

There would be imho no benefits at all. Metricheads, you must all except that nature isn't decimal and let that be that.

You know, the people on that site, if given the gift of a brain and if they were in positions of power, would be very dangerous...

How can they be dangerous ?
They're advocating an idea, that's all...
Or is everything that questions the status quo dangerous in your eyes ?

Ralf

The issue was not, as you say Ralf, merely "advocating
an idea" but concerned the possible actions of
people in power.

I think Bryan may have been being charming.
Since the idea a group of extreme decimal zealots
coming to power is a mite far-fetched.

Your question (deliberately?) misinterprets or
misconstrues---suggesting that the other person
(Bryan in this case) sees mere advocacy of an idea
as dangerous.

I'm trying to elucidate the notion of
disingenous question.

In this case it hardly seems to matter, your
question simply sounds peculiar, as if you meant it
as a joke. But sometimes deliberate or disingenous
misunderstanding can confuse a discussion.