Re: WARNING: AMD64 Daylight saving time issue.

From: Mirabilis (Mirabilis_at_nospam.nyet)
Date: 10/29/05 

Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:56:56 GMT

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <djvtlf$qjf$2@anubis.demon.co.uk>, Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
>>js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
>>>In article <djvrhl$q60$1@anubis.demon.co.uk>, Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
>>>
>>>>>While the old British and old German metrics from before 1920 have many
>>>>>different sources and have been artificially brought into some still bad
>>>>>relation, the metric system has the advantage to be related to one single
>>>>>base: the Earth.
>>>>
>>>>Garbage. The measurement of the distance from the equator to the North Pole
>>>>on a line through Paris, that was used as the basis for the metre, was wrong
>>>>anyway.
>>>
>>>This is of course wrong.....
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
>>
>>So, you're telling me that it was possible to measure the distance from the
>>Equator to the North Pole, to the resolution of the wavelength of light,
>>in 1793? Yeah. Right.
>
> You did just prove yourself that your first idea related to the north pole and
> Paris was wrong and that I was right with the circumference of the Earth.
> As you are trying to argue again the proved wrong direction, it looks
> like you are a non-metric fashist.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to argue.

The goal of the astronomers doing the work was to measure
the meridian from Dunkerque through Paris to Barcelona.
They would use this to estimate the arc of the
Earth, North Pole to Equator through Paris. The metre was to
be derived from that, as an impartial standard. It was
to be one/ten-millionth of the distance of the North Pole
to the Equator.

Despite some clever methods of amplifying the precision of
their mechanical measurement instruments, and a hope that
they had a large enough arc that they could compensate for
curvature variations of the Earth, the astronomers were off a bit.
Satellite surveys put the distance from the pole to equator
along that meridien at about 10,002,290 metres.

So ultimately, we end up with an arbitrary metre anyway. They
could have just picked the yard, decimalized it, and derived
the weight and volume measurements from there.

>
> I encourage you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
>

The web page backs this up.

"1791 March 30 — The French National Assembly accepts the
proposal by the French Academy of Sciences that the new
definition for the metre be equal to one ten-millionth of
the length of the earth's meridian along a quadrant
(one-fourth the polar circumference of the earth)."

If anyone is interested in the trials the astronomers went
through, including the dangers of travelling in revolutionary France
on a scientific mission, a lot of this is detailed in
"The Measure of All Things" by Ken Alder.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WARNING: AMD64 Daylight saving time issue.
    ... The measurement of the distance from the equator to the North Pole ... >>on a line through Paris, that was used as the basis for the metre, was wrong ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: Weights & Measures + Temperature
    ... estimate for one ten-millionth of the distance from the Equator to the ... North Pole. ...
    (rec.crafts.brewing)
  • Re: We Went to the Moon on Feet and Inches
    ... >King's thumb. ... Well, the meter is 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the ... >North Pole to the Equator as it passes through the longitude of Paris. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: WARNING: AMD64 Daylight saving time issue.
    ... you're telling me that it was possible to measure the distance from the ... >Equator to the North Pole, to the resolution of the wavelength of light, ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: OG Medal Points
    ... each country performed relative to its "potential". ... measured by its GDP per capita), and by its distance from the equator (as ...
    (rec.sport.soccer)