Has anyone ever tried to use metric time? This being that you divide a day's lenght into 100 parts and call them hours, or centidays, then one of those into 100 parts and call them minutes, or millidays, then one of those into 100 parts and call them seconds or microdays. There could be 100 months (or hektodays) in a year (a megaday), but I don't think you could really change the length of the day or year as they are detirmined by the rotation and revolution of the earth, respectively.

Isn't that what they do on Star Trek? "Star Date 42361.7" I never heard them break it down beyond tenths, though.

I think there were some attempts by the French to introduce metric time when they introduced the rest of the metric system. However, it didn't catch on. People were a little set in their ways, understandably...

Im All For Metric Time... But Im Also. For Setting The Month By The Moon..

Which Yeilds... 13.2 Months Per Year.....

A 28 Day Month.......... 28 Days.. Interesting.. I Would Think.


-mt

Metric time does not seem to be worth the trouble required to change over to it.

Some veriation of the world calendar concept seems like a good idea. This concept is based a World Day which would not be a day of the week and would not belong to any month. It would be called World Day, or Charlie, or New Year Day, or whatever. Most proposals suggest that World Day occurs where New Year Day occurs now.

That leaves 364 days for the rest of the year, making exactly 52 weeks of 7 days each. Some suggest 13 months with 28 days each, which is not a terrible idea. I like the idea of 4 quarters with 91 days each: two 30-day months followed by a 31-day month.

In leap years, there would be another day (Leap Day?) which would be like World Day. It would be neither a day of the week nor belong to any month. Most World calendar proponents place Leap Day 182 days after World Day.

The basic advantage of the World Calendar is that a given date always falls on the same day of the week. With a bit of reassignment of holiday dates, all holidays would fall on a Monday or a Friday, allowing for long weekends.

The most vocal opponents of a World calendar are various fundamental religious groups, who want every 7th day to be Friday or Sunday (?? Any other??). With neither World Day nor Leap Day being assigned a day of the week, most years would be a problem for them.In a Leap Year: If Sunday occurred every 7 days prior to Leap Day, after Leap Day their count would result in Saturday being the 7th day for the rest of the year (The next year, their count would result in Friday being the 7th day).


Similarly, if a regular year worked out okay with Sunday occurring every 7 days, the next year, their 7-day count would come out to Saturday (the following year it would be Friday).

Why ISO (International Orgnaisation of Standerdisation) is not taking up Metric Time concept for Standerdisation?

Can anybody reply ?

P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com

It is my guess that the ISO has been ignoring metric time because adopting it would be an expenisve and time consuming effort with hardly any advantages. There would be fierce rsistance to any change over to metric time.

Think of all the watches & clocks made obsolete. Almost every body would keep and use his/her watch & clocks for years for many years after the official change over.

Think of all the automobiles with clocks on the dashboard. Most would not go to the expense of installing a metric clock.

To conform, every computer program and control chip which needs to keep track of time would have to be modified or replaced. Most would be kept until they stopped functioning.

Switching to a world calendar would be easy compared to the above, and calendars become obsolete every year.

The Japanese used to have 10 hours days, but the fault with their system was that a 'day' was from sun up to sun down, so the length of an hour varied over the year, ie in winter an hour was short, and in summer it was quite long.

They bought into our 12hour system around 1867 when many things in Japan were westernised.

Anyway, the number of days in a year, and hours minutes and seconds make for easier calculations when using time for navigation. going metric would make that harder, and as there is actually no benefit to metric time, why bother?

A project I am working on may relate to this:

I've divided the clockface in a novel way,of course relating to Cydonia,Mars.

I like this subject,explain more so we can learn together.

http://web.1asphost.com/anomalist/Eye%20on%20the%20Money.jpeg

Damn !!!
That 33.3 "Stuff" sure looks like an circumscribed tetrahedron/planar/polar view.
http://www.bob-wonderland.supanet.com/Washington19.jpg
Go figure???
Chorus:
If there's a new way,
I'll be the first in line.
But, it better work this time.

-Megadeth,Song:peace sells,but Who's buying?
From the ALBUM:peace sells,but Who's buyin?('86)

Im All For Metric Time... But Im Also. For Setting The Month By The Moon..

Which Yeilds... 13.2 Months Per Year.....

A 28 Day Month.......... 28 Days.. Interesting.. I Would Think.


-mt I assume that by the moon you mean from full moon to full moon or synodic month. In which case, a month would be 29.531 days long and there would be 12.36 months in a year. Now you are not going to want the months and days to work out evenly( It would be quite messy if the date changed at different parts of the day once a month), So it would be best if we just had 6 29 day months and 6 30 day months. Of course, this still leaves 11 days left over for the year (12 for a leap year.) Now if we don't mind that each year will begin with a different day of the month and in a different month every year, then we're set. ( except for that .031 days a month still unaccounted for which after 32.258 months will accumulate as an extra day. So, every 32 months, we will have to have a "leap month" which will have an extra day added. but then, because that .258 to account for, so we'll remove a day from every 124th month....)

On the other hand, if you are talking sidereal month (fixed star to fixed star) this is 27.46 days long, giving you 13.29 months a year. You'd still have to add and subtract days from the months to keep it in sync with the moon.

Besides that, if you are going to base a month strictly on the moon, it makes more sense to base it on the phases of the moon rather than the moon's position relative to the stars. People are much more aware of the phases of the moon then they are about what position it has in which constellation. (except maybe astrologers, but why should we re-arrange the calendar just for their benefit.)