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

Whittet (
13 Oct 1995 01:36:26 GMT

In article <45f0bu$>, says...
> (Whittet) wrote:
>>In article <45ce1j$>, ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.
>de says...
>>>In alt.folklore.computers, (Lon Stowell) wr
>>>> Quick. You are 6 foot 1 inch tall.
>>>I'm not, I'm 1.75 m :-)
>>Interestingly enough if we still used cubits, feet, palms and fingers
>>to measure in, the inch and foot would be easy to make commensurate
>>with the metric system.
>>One finger = 3/4 inch
>>One inch = 25 mm
>>One palm = four fingers = 3 inches = 75 mm
>>One hand = four inches = 100 mm
>>Four palms = one foot = 12 inches = 300 mm
>>Five palms = one cubit = 15 inches = 375 mm
>>Six palms = 1 1/2 feet = 18 inches = 450 mm
>>Seven palms = one Royal cubit = 21 inches = 525 mm
>>You would be exactly 3 1/3 Royal Cubits high
>>we might say you were five feet nine inches tall
>>then you could try and measure up.
>My God! You're right! Any measurement when rounded off to the nearest
>25 mm IS an integer multiple of 25 mm. (I guess that's the Fundamental
>Theorem of Pyramidology isn't it? :) )

The point is that if the meter were defined so that 25 mm = 1 inch
1000 mm would equal 40 inches. Gee, what do you know, it seems the
system was originally set up that way about 5,000 years ago.

At any rate the median of the foots value over the last couple of millenia
seems to be right around 300 mm, so no round off is involved, just a
return to the proper setting after a period of erratic values while people
were busy fixing something which wasn't broken to begin with.

Lets make the meter = 40 inches.

Wouldn't that be a little easier to deal with than multiples of ~39.37 inches?
The correlation points out an obvious correction to the value of the meter
which would make it considerably more useful.

>Ben Buckner