Re: Metric Time (for real this time)
Oz (Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 20 Oct 1995 06:14:04 GMT
ruhl@phoebe.cair.du.edu (Robert A. Uhl) wrote:
>Solomon Taibi <taibi@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>It's worth noting that our present system of measuring
>>time is *already* metric for units smaller than a second
>>and (well, at least base ten) for units larger than a year.
>
> Not metric; base 10. There is a difference.
>
We already have metric time, the second. You can express any
time in seconds.
However as denizens of a planet rotating in about 86.4ks, a
common and convenient local measure is known as a 'day'. Due
to axial tilt there are differences in insolation depending
on how the axis points towards the sun, so giving the well
known local measure of time the 'year' (about 365.25 days or
about 31.5Ms).
The local inhabitants of this planet are descended from
arboreal primates and liked to eat about four times during
daytime so dividing the day into three sections. These later
got divided into two and then two again to give twelve
divisions. The daylight time thus got divided into twelve
sections known as 'hours' (3.6ks), and when night was
included gave a total of 24 hours to a day. This convenient
local time measure fits the orbit and rotation of their
planet as well as the physiological antecedents of its
inhabitants. ;-)
-------------------------------
'Oz "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"
|