Re: Metric Time (was First angle...)

At 08:04 27/03/2001 +0000, you wrote:

>Then why not change time? Aside from days and years, which are fixed by
>astronomical time bases thus far outside our control, the current
>divisions of time are arbitrarily Imperial. Since seconds are normally
>divided in the metric manner (milliseconds, etc.), and periods of years
>are usually gathered up in decimal groups (decades, centuries,
>millennia...), why not establish a consistent metric version of the
>clock! Currently there are 86,400 seconds in a day. If we shorten the
>second up just a little we can squeeze a nice round 100,000 of them in a
>day (I'd wait on that oscilloscope purchase until the new metric models
>come out...). Minutes will be replaced by millidays which have 100
>metric seconds in them (it'll be about 1 minute, 26-3/8 seconds in the
>old Imperial time). Other divisions will be the centiday (14 minutes, 24
>seconds Imperial), and the deciday (144 minutes Imperial). Clocks will
>be simplified considerably. The face will be divided into 10 major
>numbered divisions with 10 smaller tick marks in between. The little
>hand will rotate once a day, the big hand will go around 10 times, and
>chronophiles will demand a second hand as well. I'm no horologist, but
>the gear train has got to be simpler and there'll be no need for AM/PM
>indicators!
>
>Now, about that calendar...

Lengthen the second to around 1.2 Imperial seconds & you can base the
Metric time standard on the Micro-Fortnight. Much more convenient ;-)

Regards,
Tony