Re: The Metric Second Re: Brij Home Page & calculations Re: : ...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Metric Second Re: Brij Home Page & calculations Re: : ...

Karl Palmen

Dear Brij and Calendar People


A quick reply before I go away for a week.


From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Sent: 23 August 2016 17:35
To: [hidden email]
Subject: The Metric Second Re: Brij Home Page & calculations Re: French Republican Equinox Leap Years RE: French Republican Leap Year Compromise? RE: ...



Karl has a reason to question my , 'competence' to Reform the current format of the Gregorian calendar with minimal change(s) per my demonstrated/discussed calculations:

KARL REPLIES:  YES and also the ‘competence’ to estimate the cost of such reforms. Even a small change is costly and will give less value for money.


This brings me back to my 'original & base contribution' - The Metric Second (1973), wherein also I provided concerns like - the grad (calling this a quadrant of 100 degrees metric) linked to the new time interval: The Metric Second i.e. the metric day having 20x100x100=200000 units, via the duration linked to 'tropical year'. 

KAEL REPLIES: The Metric second would be the most expensive part of Brij’s reform, if it were to replace the second, because so many SI units depend on it. If it were instead to supplement the second, it would be wise to give it a different name.


My approach to the Nautical Kilometre, had . also been pointed. Obviously, the Nautical Mile worked to 1852 'metre'!

As far as the "Decimalsatiin of Time of the HOUR", I do not see the difficulty expressed in considering the equation of 25 divisions (Decimal minutes/seconds) = 15 divisions (minutes/seconds) in each QUDRANT of 90* and/or 100 grad; for which conversion does not need a 'super calculator'

KARL REPLIES: It is not the quadrant of 90 degrees or 100 grad that matters here, but the third of a quadrant = 30 degrees or 33 1/3 grad that does matter. It is these divisions that are numbered on a clock face.


- just mental calculations would bridge: MULTIPLY by 5 & DIVIDE by 3;

KARL REPLIES: This is conversion of minutes to Brij’s decimal minutes. The DIVIDE by 3 is not easy to do and would be a considerable burden, which could negate the benefits of decimalisation, whose purpose includes removal of the need to multiply or divide by numbers such as 3.

Also I stated from the hour numbers one has to MULTIPLY by 5 to get the number of minutes:

e.g. if the minute hand is by the 4, it indicates 4*5=20 minutes past the hour.

To get the Brij’s decimal minutes one would have to MULTIPLY by 5 TWICE & DIVIDE by 3, which is equivalent to MULTIPLY by 8 1/3 as I have stated:

e.g. if the minute hand is by the 4, it would be 4*(8 1/3) = 100/3 = 33 1/3 of Brij’s decimal minutes past the hour.


would suffice without changing the face of "clocks/horological instruments", is my view. Horology instruments only need 100 additional graduations along with present 60 graduations (markings for minutes/seconds).

KARL REPLIES: Adding the 100 additional gradations to an existing clock could be more expensive than making a new clock.


NEVER has man ever suggested such 'simplicity' to arrive/achieve Decimalisation for TIME of the HOUR, when linked to HOUR-Angle of 15x24=360-degree circle I.e. As the Earth spins in its axis for determination of Local Time, at ZERO cost 'mentally' by a child of STANDRD Five upwards! Where is he difficulty, I wonder?

Whatever happened to French Republican calendar, now, is history!

My regards, sir(s)

Brij B. VIJ ([hidden email])

Tuesday, 2016 August 23H09:56(decimal)






Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 23, 2016, at 5:02 AM, Karl Palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Brij and Calendar People


The Wikipedia page mentions a 128-year cycle rule for the calendar.


It would drop leap years in years 0, 128, 256 and 384 in the first 500 year while the compromise would have leap years one year earlier and drop leap years in 19, 143, 271 and 395. The dropped leap years for the compromise occur 19, 15, 15 and 11 years later than in the 128-year year cycle.

By a stroke of fortune, conversion between a 128-year cycle based on French republican year numbers and one based on Common Era year numbers would be very simple, because FR year 0 ends in CE year 1792 and 1792=14*128. Therefore every FR year would begin on the same day of every CE year (but not vice versa).



Brij has made two big errors:


Brij’s first big error is that the does not think that the slow change of the duration of the mean tropical year is of consequence to the choice of a leap year rule or that the variation of the length of the tropical depending on its start point is of consequence to the choice of leap year rule.  This is a common error, which has been brought about by the story of the Gregorian reform of the Julian Calendar. Accuracy beyond the Gregorian mean year is a more complicated matter as I show next.


Here are some equinoxes and solstices 400 years apart to show their drift with any calendar jitter:

Sat 1615-03-21 00:07  Mon 1615-06-22 01:05   Wed 1615-09-23 12:33  Tue 1615-12-22 02:11

Fri 2015-03-20 22:45  Sun 2015-06-21 16:38   Wed 2015-09-23 08:20  Tue 2015-12-22 04:48

Fri 2415-03-20 21:29  Sun 2415-06-21 07:58   Wed 2415-09-23 02:56  Tue 2415-12-22 06:36

Fri 2815-03-20 20:11  Sat 2815-06-20 23:09   Tue 2815-09-22 20:29  Tue 2815-12-22 07:39

One can see that although the equinoxes and the June solstice are drifting earlier, the December solstice is drifting later. So making the calendar more accurate is not simple and its desirability for a civil calendar is questionable. Therefore, Brij’s priority of making the calendar mean year very near today’s duration of the mean tropical year is mistaken. In particular, it leads to the choice of a non-decimal Divide-by-Six leap week rule rather than a decimal Divide-by-Five leap week rule.


Brij’s second error is the belief that a conservative change in the calendar or clock would be significantly cheaper than a radical change. Any change no matter how small would need a lot of organisation to bring it about and so would be expensive. A change must bring big benefit to be worthwhile and so needs to be a radical change, anything else is not worth the cost.

Brij’s reorganisation of the months is conservative and so is his decimalisation of time, which preserves the hour.


I think Brij has preserved the hour in his decimal time proposal is that any clock or watch with an hour and minute hand could be continued to be used. However use would be much more complicated, because one would have to multiply by 8 + 1/3 instead of 5 to work out the number of minutes for the minute hand from the hour number. This would make people question the benefit of decimal time and encourage use of digital clocks for which preserving the hour has no cost reduction.


Even if time were decimalised, the second would need to be kept unchanged for physics. Changing it would require numerous other units changed including at least two of the Volt, Amp and Watt and so would be very expensive. Keeping the second unchanged for physics would have a benefit for the decimal time, because it would allow the number of seconds in a decimal time unit to be changed occasionally to take account of changes in earth’s rotation rate. The current practice of using the same units for physical time and time of day is not sustainable even with leap seconds.



A nautical kilometre would be the distance along a meridian in which the latitude changes by one hundredth of a grad, where 400 grads = 360 degrees. For the Paris meridian this would be equal to the original definition of the kilometre. The number of nautical miles in a nautical Kilometre by the original definitions of both is 10,000/(90*60) = 1.815815815815… . Today this has been changed to 1.852.

See for more about the grad and about the nautical mile.







From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]]
Sent: 22 August 2016 17:40
To: Palmen, Karl (STFC,RAL,ISIS); [hidden email]
Subject: Fwd: Brij Home Page & calculations Re: French Republican Equinox Leap Years RE: French Republican Leap Year Compromise? RE: ...


Indeed glad to see a post conecting French Republican calendar with my inputs on 128-year LeapDay compromise getting Mean Year=(365+31/128)=365.2422875 days. 

If the ideas are that old (?), what has been resisting that No Consideration had been given during earlier attempts, say during 1920's.....and later during mid 1950's - to reject attempts in this direction by League of Nations and/or United Nations.

One more point that I observe, where did the French/rest of the intelligentsia fail to bridge "Decimalisation of the HOUR in relation to (Arc-angle) I.e. 'Hour-angle' defy" in arriving at a viable definition for Nautical Kilometre to replace Nautical Mile? Please observe:

24hx100mdx100sd :: 24hx60mx60s can be realized if and only if  'arc-angle' 90*x100'x100" :: 90*60'60" are also merged. This is where the French failed and caused the rejection/failure of French Republican calendar and/or the need for Decimale Time. 

My proposal for the Modified Brij-Gregorian calendar is a step in this direction, to become the Simplest, Surest and Cheapest ever inputs:


Brij Bushan (metric) VIJ

Monday, 2016 August 22H09:66(decimal)


Sent from my iPhone