metric system newsgroup call for votes #1

Gene Nygaard wrote:
It would have been better to retain the obsolete
6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition

You could be right. However, that would not be consistent with the
purpose of the law. The purpose is to provide the courts with metric
values for imperial units used in the text of old laws that have not
yet been metricated.

The explanatory notes say:
*******************************************
"Where ... use is made in legislation, or in any deed or document ...
of an imperial unit ... these Regulations provide for its conversion
into the metric equivalent."
*******************************************

On 13 Nov 2003 14:30:33 -0800, (Pat Norton)
wrote:

Gene Nygaard wrote:
It would have been better to retain the obsolete
6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition

You could be right. However, that would not be consistent with the
purpose of the law. The purpose is to provide the courts with metric
values for imperial units used in the text of old laws that have not
yet been metricated.

Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.

Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.

That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units used in
the text of old laws."

So what purpose is served by introducing a new, significantly
different definition? One that still leaves you out of step with the
rest of the world??

And what about that implicit official definition of an hour? That
would result in an extra 3 d 9 h 22 min 5 3/8 seconds every Julian
century. Wreak havoc among the astronomers, I would imagine.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:03:08 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:

On 13 Nov 2003 14:30:33 -0800, (Pat Norton)
wrote:

Gene Nygaard wrote:
It would have been better to retain the obsolete
6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition

You could be right. However, that would not be consistent with the
purpose of the law. The purpose is to provide the courts with metric
values for imperial units used in the text of old laws that have not
yet been metricated.

Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.

Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.

Correction: old law defined the yard as 0.9144 m.

They probably have to call on the common law to get from there to how
long a foot is.

But unless there's something in those powdered wigs that really fries
the brain cells, I think they could handle it, and figure out what a
nautical mile was in terms of the meter under the old law.

Gene

That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units used in
the text of old laws."

So what purpose is served by introducing a new, significantly
different definition? One that still leaves you out of step with the
rest of the world??

And what about that implicit official definition of an hour? That
would result in an extra 3 d 9 h 22 min 5 3/8 seconds every Julian
century. Wreak havoc among the astronomers, I would imagine.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
...
On 13 Nov 2003 14:30:33 -0800, (Pat Norton)
wrote:

Gene Nygaard wrote:
It would have been better to retain the obsolete
6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition

You could be right. However, that would not be consistent with the
purpose of the law. The purpose is to provide the courts with metric
values for imperial units used in the text of old laws that have not
yet been metricated.

Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.

Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.

That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units used in
the text of old laws."

So what purpose is served by introducing a new, significantly
different definition? One that still leaves you out of step with the
rest of the world??

Such denial.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:58:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:51:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
news On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:56:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
.. .
On 12 Nov 2003 13:02:14 -0800, (Pat Norton)
wrote:

Gene Nygaard wrote:
Except for the British, who haven't yet adopted the
international nautical mile.

It depends on your definition of 'adopted'. An old British regional
definition does still exist on paper. It was 6080 ft but was
rounded
off to 1853 m when the law defining British units was updated
(modern
British laws are metric).

If that was in fact a redefinition, it is one of the silliest things
I've ever heard of. It would have been better to retain the
obsolete
6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition

Yes, as *any* redifinition of the units of earth navigation is silly.

How many different nautical miles were there before the First
International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference came up with the
international standard in 1929? Only an idiot like Tarver would think
it would be a good idea if that situation still existed today.

The Nautical mile is the result of a Papal decree and from that
definition
has changed to meet Man's understanding of the Earth's size and shape.
As
with any scientificly based reference and measurement system, the
nautical
mile has evolved as the science has evolved.

Straight from God, eh? Hard to argue with that.

Science of the time of the Papal Decree had estimated the number of statute
miles for the circumfrence of a round earth and the Pope went with the
science of the day. This decree was necessary to locate and register real
property and national boundries.

Are you talking about the papal bull associated with the Treaty of
Tordesillas? By one of the Borgias--Rodrigo Borgia, aka Pope
Alexander VI? Better if he were a French Pope!

So tell me, exactly how many minutes of arc are there in the
Portuguese legoas? Or the Spanish legoas? The units used in that
papal bull and treaty were one or the other of those, and the Italian
league was different from either of those.

The nautical mile was created to make up
for deficiencies in science's understanding of the shape and scope of the
Earth.

Singing a different tune again, I see. That's been happening quite
frequently in this thread. So the nautical mile wasn't really handed
down to us by God through his representative on Earth after all.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:03:08 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:

On 13 Nov 2003 14:30:33 -0800, (Pat Norton)
wrote:

Gene Nygaard wrote:
It would have been better to retain the obsolete
6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition

You could be right. However, that would not be consistent with the
purpose of the law. The purpose is to provide the courts with metric
values for imperial units used in the text of old laws that have not
yet been metricated.

Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.

Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.

Correction: old law defined the yard as 0.9144 m.

They probably have to call on the common law to get from there to how
long a foot is.

Or we could call on the common law for the yard and then Gene would have a
clue why the French wanted metres.

"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:58:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:51:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
news On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:56:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
.. .
On 12 Nov 2003 13:02:14 -0800, (Pat Norton)
wrote:

Gene Nygaard wrote:
Except for the British, who haven't yet adopted the
international nautical mile.

It depends on your definition of 'adopted'. An old British
regional
definition does still exist on paper. It was 6080 ft but was
rounded
off to 1853 m when the law defining British units was updated
(modern
British laws are metric).

If that was in fact a redefinition, it is one of the silliest
things
I've ever heard of. It would have been better to retain the
obsolete
6080 ft definition than to invent a new definition

Yes, as *any* redifinition of the units of earth navigation is
silly.

How many different nautical miles were there before the First
International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference came up with the
international standard in 1929? Only an idiot like Tarver would
think
it would be a good idea if that situation still existed today.

The Nautical mile is the result of a Papal decree and from that
definition
has changed to meet Man's understanding of the Earth's size and shape.
As
with any scientificly based reference and measurement system, the
nautical
mile has evolved as the science has evolved.

Straight from God, eh? Hard to argue with that.

Science of the time of the Papal Decree had estimated the number of
statute
miles for the circumfrence of a round earth and the Pope went with the
science of the day. This decree was necessary to locate and register
real
property and national boundries.

Are you talking about the papal bull associated with the Treaty of
Tordesillas? By one of the Borgias--Rodrigo Borgia, aka Pope
Alexander VI? Better if he were a French Pope!

Funny you should mention the French, being that their love of the metre is
based on their envy of the English yard.

So tell me, exactly how many minutes of arc are there in the
Portuguese legoas? Or the Spanish legoas? The units used in that
papal bull and treaty were one or the other of those, and the Italian
league was different from either of those.

My goodness, when you lose your point, Gene, you really try to change the
subject.

The nautical mile was created to make up
for deficiencies in science's understanding of the shape and scope of the
Earth.

Singing a different tune again, I see. That's been happening quite
frequently in this thread. So the nautical mile wasn't really handed
down to us by God through his representative on Earth after all.

Sure it was and as the Pope was infallable, he was obviously refering to a
nautical mile.

So now, Nygarrd, you have a small amoumt of knowledge to go with your
rediculess ego.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer

Gene Nygaard wrote:
Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.
Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.
That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units
used in the text of old laws."

Yes. But that requires an imperial to imperial conversion. The law is
merely a look up table of imperial to metric conversions.


So what purpose is served by introducing a new,
significantly different definition?

Good question. I don't know. Perhaps the old value was wrong.


One that still leaves you out of step with the
rest of the world??

The UK is in step with the rest of the world because it uses the same
international nautical mile of 1852 m that the US and everybody else
uses. The old unit is listed just in case somebody finds it in an old
piece of text. Their lawyers will not then spend time disputing the
regional effects of non-spherical abberations like we do in this
newsgroup.



And what about that implicit official definition of an hour?

The problem is not the hour. The problem is comparing two imperial to
metric conversion factors that are not as precise as they could be.
This is common in conversion references.

"Pat Norton" wrote in message
...
Gene Nygaard wrote:
Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.
Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.
That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units
used in the text of old laws."

Yes. But that requires an imperial to imperial conversion. The law is
merely a look up table of imperial to metric conversions.

Yep, clueless technocrats with a calculator, but the Earth is still made up
of nautical miles; legally and navigationally.

So what purpose is served by introducing a new,
significantly different definition?

Good question. I don't know. Perhaps the old value was wrong.

The science got better.

One that still leaves you out of step with the
rest of the world??

The UK is in step with the rest of the world because it uses the same
international nautical mile of 1852 m that the US and everybody else
uses. The old unit is listed just in case somebody finds it in an old
piece of text. Their lawyers will not then spend time disputing the
regional effects of non-spherical abberations like we do in this
newsgroup.

Nugaard is just confused.

And what about that implicit official definition of an hour?

The problem is not the hour. The problem is comparing two imperial to
metric conversion factors that are not as precise as they could be.
This is common in conversion references.

The problem is the metre is not applicable to navigation.

On 14 Nov 2003 09:38:09 -0800, (Pat Norton)
wrote:

Gene Nygaard wrote:
Old law defined the Admiralty mile as 6080 ft.
Old law defined the foot as 0.3048 m.
That "provide the courts with metric values for imperial units
used in the text of old laws."

Yes. But that requires an imperial to imperial conversion. The law is
merely a look up table of imperial to metric conversions.


So what purpose is served by introducing a new,
significantly different definition?

Good question. I don't know. Perhaps the old value was wrong.


One that still leaves you out of step with the
rest of the world??

The UK is in step with the rest of the world because it uses the same
international nautical mile of 1852 m that the US and everybody else
uses. The old unit is listed just in case somebody finds it in an old
piece of text. Their lawyers will not then spend time disputing the
regional effects of non-spherical abberations like we do in this
newsgroup.



And what about that implicit official definition of an hour?

The problem is not the hour. The problem is comparing two imperial to
metric conversion factors that are not as precise as they could be.
This is common in conversion references.

So those aren't definitions after all. Okay.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/