Metric time

virgin2.0

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
32
I'm curious why time was never metrified. Wouldn't be easier to have 10 long hours in a day instead of 24? It's a nuisance doing interest calculations with the current system but that would change with a metric time system

A new hour = 2.4 old hours
A minute would be 0.01hr (centihour) and would = 14.4 old minutes
a second would be 0.0001hr (idk the prefix) and = 0.864 old seconds
My calculations seem off, I'll check them later
 

am-user

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
2,488
What to do with anything more that 24 hours? a year, a month, a week? how do you propose to metricize these, which are based on natural occurrences?
It does not make sense to change only one part of a measuring system.

How would interest calculations based on 10 hours per day (still ~365.25 days per year), change?
 

Voicy

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
11,565
Why would we want time to be metric (base 10) when metric isn't a world standard?

Some background on why 60/60/24 (I'm sure we all know why 30* days / 12 months / 365.25 days etc.

Without artificial light, humans of this time period regarded sunlit and dark periods as two opposing realms rather than as part of the same day. Without the aid of sundials, dividing the dark interval between sunset and sunrise was more complex than dividing the sunlit period. During the era when sundials were first used, however, Egyptian astronomers also first observed a set of 36 stars that divided the circle of the heavens into equal parts. The passage of night could be marked by the appearance of 18 of these stars, three of which were assigned to each of the two twilight periods when the stars were difficult to view. The period of total darkness was marked by the remaining 12 stars, again resulting in 12 divisions of night (another nod to the duodecimal system). During the New Kingdom (1550 to 1070 B.C.), this measuring system was simplified to use a set of 24 stars, 12 of which marked the passage of the night. The clepsydra, or water clock, was also used to record time during the night, and was perhaps the most accurate timekeeping device of the ancient world. The timepiece--a specimen of which, found at the Temple of Ammon in Karnak, dated back to 1400 B.C.--was a vessel with slanted interior surfaces to allow for decreasing water pressure, inscribed with scales that marked the division of the night into 12 parts during various months.

Once both the light and dark hours were divided into 12 parts, the concept of a 24-hour day was in place. The concept of fixed-length hours, however, did not originate until the Hellenistic period, when Greek astronomers began using such a system for their theoretical calculations. Hipparchus, whose work primarily took place between 147 and 127 B.C., proposed dividing the day into 24 equinoctial hours, based on the 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness observed on equinox days. Despite this suggestion, laypeople continued to use seasonally varying hours for many centuries. (Hours of fixed length became commonplace only after mechanical clocks first appeared in Europe during the 14th century.)

Hipparchus and other Greek astronomers employed astronomical techniques that were previously developed by the Babylonians, who resided in Mesopotamia. The Babylonians made astronomical calculations in the sexagesimal (base 60) system they inherited from the Sumerians, who developed it around 2000 B.C. Although it is unknown why 60 was chosen, it is notably convenient for expressing fractions, since 60 is the smallest number divisible by the first six counting numbers as well as by 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30.

sauce


* I say 30 days as an average, despite the fact that only 1/3rd of the months contain 30 days.
 
Last edited:

TJ99

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
10,737
I'm curious why time was never metrified. Wouldn't be easier to have 10 long hours in a day instead of 24? It's a nuisance doing interest calculations with the current system but that would change with a metric time system

A new hour = 2.4 old hours
A minute would be 0.01hr (centihour) and would = 14.4 old minutes
a second would be 0.0001hr (idk the prefix) and = 0.864 old seconds
My calculations seem off, I'll check them later

You're joking, right? There was a decimal system of time, invented at the same time as the other metric units, in the French revolution. Years were divided into 10 months of 3 weeks each, with each week having 10 days, and so on. Each day had 10 hours, with an hour consisting of 100 minutes and a minute having 100 seconds.

There were some problems and by Napoleon's time they switched back to the old Gregorian calendar.

Article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,995
It may help. As a pilot I often left my log book (logs flying hours) for a while before updating in a rush. I frequently screwed-up the calculations, even though it was trivial arithmetic. This is directly attributable to the lack of metric time.

However, I must confess that time estimation etc. would be much more difficult [for me] with metric time. I suppose I am used to non-metric time.
 

AstroTurf

Lucky Shot
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
30,534
I'm curious why time was never metrified. Wouldn't be easier to have 10 long hours in a day instead of 24? It's a nuisance doing interest calculations with the current system but that would change with a metric time system

A new hour = 2.4 old hours
A minute would be 0.01hr (centihour) and would = 14.4 old minutes
a second would be 0.0001hr (idk the prefix) and = 0.864 old seconds
My calculations seem off, I'll check them later

Get rid of imperial first.
 

Knyro

PhD in Everything
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
29,491

tomato_0020_sauce.jpg



There ya go ;)

The current time system is fine the way it is. Let's rather focus on getting the okes up north to get rid of that retarded daylight savings nonsense.
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,995
Get rid of imperial first.

Hear, hear! The UK is metric because they are not dumb (even the inventors of the imperial system have gone metric). America has been waffling about metrication for a long time. My information is that it was tried once. The government [USA] caved when everyone squealed. It is a hard and painful process and requires political will and the ability to bear the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” from an angry electorate. SA is metric and so is the rest of the world. It’s a rational unit of measurement and America should ‘bite the metrication bullet’. It must be the only non-metric country. Inconvenient (as they are so big). I remember the trauma when SA converted. I was a leading whiner for the status quo. I still think in both systems (pretty mixed-up but I am older and remember imperial). Height I think in ft. & inches, weight in kilograms (sometimes in lbs.), speed in kph. etc. MPH and gallons are simply bizarre (KPH and litres). Tons I need to know metric or otherwise. And so on. By any objective analysis, it is an extremely wise move. My children are totally metric. It has to be done. The longer America delays, the harder it becomes.

IMO America is crippling itself in a dire situation (financial crisis), by remaining imperial. This must impact their exports and imports. An importer needs a new set of tools for equipment issues (cars, etc.) and volume (gallons), weights (lbs. & ozs.), etc. The logistics are horrendous. America is imperial, the world is metric. This would imply a different tool set for American vehicles. If you lose a nut, you can’t delve into the scrap box (which every workshop has) looking for a nut that will fit. It won’t. Spares would be a nightmare (nothing would fit). Exporting other non-metric products will also have a negative impact on the USA. This is just an added burden when the USA is trying to make itself pretty for potential importers of goods. America is out-of-step with the rest of the world (which is metric).

Go metric, for pities sake!
 

Zen17h

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
264
I may be completely wrong here, but doesn't a change in seconds also imply changing several other units as well?

Think of those high school science formulas for electric and movement/mass calculations with time as a variable- either the formulas will have to change to account for the 'new' version of seconds or the derived units themselves have to be changed because they were originally derived from time.

An example of this would be Energy(Joule) equals one unit of power(watt) per time(second)
Either the formula(definition) will need to change or these other units will need to change themselves

Sent from my Nexus One using MyBroadband Android App
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,995
I may be completely wrong here, but doesn't a change in seconds also imply changing several other units as well?

Think of those high school science formulas for electric and movement/mass calculations with time as a variable- either the formulas will have to change to account for the 'new' version of seconds or the derived units themselves have to be changed because they were originally derived from time.

I hadn’t thought of that, but you are right. The ripple effects of metricated time are horrendous. Maybe the best would be to tolerate the existing format and concentrate on the practicalities of the irrational Imperial system. Time is abstract concept anyway (it has no concrete disadvantages), is universally accepted and would be no more than an inconvenience.
 

AstroTurf

Lucky Shot
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
30,534
Hear, hear! The UK is metric because they are not dumb (even the inventors of the imperial system have gone metric). America has been waffling about metrication for a long time. My information is that it was tried once. The government [USA] caved when everyone squealed. It is a hard and painful process and requires political will and the ability to bear the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” from an angry electorate. SA is metric and so is the rest of the world. It’s a rational unit of measurement and America should ‘bite the metrication bullet’. It must be the only non-metric country. Inconvenient (as they are so big). I remember the trauma when SA converted. I was a leading whiner for the status quo. I still think in both systems (pretty mixed-up but I am older and remember imperial). Height I think in ft. & inches, weight in kilograms (sometimes in lbs.), speed in kph. etc. MPH and gallons are simply bizarre (KPH and litres). Tons I need to know metric or otherwise. And so on. By any objective analysis, it is an extremely wise move. My children are totally metric. It has to be done. The longer America delays, the harder it becomes.

IMO America is crippling itself in a dire situation (financial crisis), by remaining imperial. This must impact their exports and imports. An importer needs a new set of tools for equipment issues (cars, etc.) and volume (gallons), weights (lbs. & ozs.), etc. The logistics are horrendous. America is imperial, the world is metric. This would imply a different tool set for American vehicles. If you lose a nut, you can’t delve into the scrap box (which every workshop has) looking for a nut that will fit. It won’t. Spares would be a nightmare (nothing would fit). Exporting other non-metric products will also have a negative impact on the USA. This is just an added burden when the USA is trying to make itself pretty for potential importers of goods. America is out-of-step with the rest of the world (which is metric).

Go metric, for pities sake!

I get mixed stuff from America.
Most of the machinery we get from there now days is metric (using mm's and metric parts/nuts/bolts etc). American Engineers are going metric, it's the general public standing in the way of progress.
As an aside, my 3dscanner only works in imperial but as this is more artsy it matters not.
 

AstroTurf

Lucky Shot
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
30,534
I hadn’t thought of that, but you are right. The ripple effects of metricated time are horrendous. Maybe the best would be to tolerate the existing format and concentrate on the practicalities of the irrational Imperial system. Time is abstract concept anyway (it has no concrete disadvantages), is universally accepted and would be no more than an inconvenience.

Believe it would make it even easier for the average person to understand maths and more advanced science as they will have 1 standard to work on and will not need to do conversions between time and metric numbers :)
 

AstroTurf

Lucky Shot
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
30,534
While we are at it, I think it's time to make a standardised planetary monetary system as well.

And get rid of Fahrenheit FFS.
 

Devill

Damned
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
26,822
Believe it would make it even easier for the average person to understand maths and more advanced science as they will have 1 standard to work on and will not need to do conversions between time and metric numbers :)

I can also see that it would benefit everyone in the long run... BUT hell the growing pains would be VERY bad :(
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,995
I get mixed stuff from America.
Most of the machinery we get from there now days is metric (using mm's and metric parts/nuts/bolts etc). American Engineers are going metric, it's the general public standing in the way of progress.
As an aside, my 3dscanner only works in imperial but as this is more artsy it matters not.

I have also had this experience; a choice of imperial or metric. It is just that I have a (probably irrational) idea that a society used to imperial is going to screw-up any metric requests. And the US is far away from SA, difficult to get mistakes sorted.

Similar to the idea in motor cycles that Honda (4-stroke gurus) would make a, less than optimal, 2-stroke. Similarly, Yamaha (2-stroke gurus) would make a, less than optimal, 4-stroke. Irrational.
 

AstroTurf

Lucky Shot
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
30,534
I have also had this experience; a choice of imperial or metric. It is just that I have a (probably irrational) idea that a society used to imperial is going to screw-up any metric requests. And the US is far away from SA, difficult to get mistakes sorted.

Similar to the idea in motor cycles that Honda (4-stroke gurus) would make a, less than optimal, 2-stroke. Similarly, Yamaha (2-stroke gurus) would make a, less than optimal, 4-stroke. Irrational.

The only issue I have with American Equipment is that it does not take into account SA's horrible electricity.
 
Top