Re: Metric Time (was Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique))

lee barnes (
12 Oct 1995 13:49:03 GMT

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii wrote:
>In article <>, Fred Read <> writes:
>>Sorry Jason, but you are wrong and Wouter is right.
>>It is correct to say that the [circumference of the earth, the
>>speed of light, the atomic weight of Uranium] is KNOWN very
>>precisely because these are measurable quantities.
>>The metre, however, is a contrived unit of length - an abstract
>>concept, which is DEFININED very, very precisely. You may 'know
>>the metre to a very high precision', but that knowledge is the
>>Fred Read
>>How many people do *you* know with a C function named after them ?
>I mwill say it again- read ANY introductory physics text. But
>you have to get one writtne since 1983, when the convention was
>changed. The speed of light is DEFINED. The meter is what is
>measured. If you don't believe the physics texts, try reading
>part 2 of the August issue of Physics Today (1994 or 1995!).
>This is the buyers guide issue and it has the latest on the
>physical constants in it. Check out the uncertainty of the speed
>of light. It is zero, because it is defined. I can't spell it
>out any clearer for you. Fred and Wouter, you are the ones that
>are wrong. I have provided you with sources for my argument. If
>you still don't agree you had better take the gripe up with the
>people publishing the textbooks and Physics Today and the people
>that are deciding how we do measuring.
>One more time--- the meter is a measured quantity. Got it?

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit