Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Should we switch to METRIC TIME?
Our present system of basing time on the Sun's position relative to the Earth is hopelessly geocentric. Besides, we've standardized measures of mass, distance, and almost everything else...wouldn't a 10-hour clock make everything much easier?
There are lots of ways of doing it, but the system I propose is:
10 hours per day
10 days per week
10 weeks per month
10 months per year
And a year would still be one trip around the Sun. So dividing 365.24 days x 24 hours into 1000 new days, under the new system, every day would be about 8 and 3/4 hours long, using "old" hours. So the Sun would rise roughly every 3 days. You'd work a day, then have two days off.
This system would eliminate time zones, leap years, daylight savings time, and the two most unpopular months. I propose February and March, because I hate them.
6 Answers
- rolranxLv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
technically the metric unit of time is the second. As such it's perfectly valid to refer to a kilosecond or gigasecond. (even if my spell checker says they aren't real words)
That being said the second, hour, and day measurements are very logical. There is a reason for the 60 second in a minute thing, it has to do with measuring distance traveled around the circumference of the earth. An argument could be made for standardizing our months. Honestly our calendar is rather imperfect. Obviously the main problem is your never be able to get it happen.
I'm still working on getting the US to accept the metric system for basic units like length and weight. I would be happy when we start making fat jokes about women weight 1000 Newtons.
- Frank NLv 71 decade ago
Nice thinking, but keep going, and keep considering the ramifications and the alternatives. Yes, the metric unit of time is the second. But earth's rotational period is not a convenient (or even constant) multiple of the second; earth's revolution period is neither a convenient (or constant) multiple of the second, or of the day. Days and years are both important to humans. The month is very arbitrary, so changing that would cause the least disruption.
Any new system must be of much greater value than the old, or it doesn't justify the cost and pain of transition. Metric linear dimensions have much greater value than redefining the calendar, and we can't even justify conversion to those in all places.
It sounds like your proposed basic unit of time is the earth year. But your milli-year would precess through the circadian rhythm, and the human body is very sensitive to deviations from that rhythm. It would take many generations for humans to adjust to that.
- ?Lv 51 decade ago
"Not only are the trains now running on time, they're running on metric time. Remember this time people, 80 past 2 on April 47th, it's the dawn of a new enlightenment."
- Skinner
- ?Lv 44 years ago
whilst i replaced into in grade college a protracted time in the past, back in the ineffective of night a protracted time, they pronounced we could be employing the metric equipment by employing the time we've been adults. did no longer take place yet. we are slightly sluggish approximately exchange.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No, that would mess up time like hell. Eg, office schedules, do a little research why our current calender was made.
