Good idea LivingDog!
What about this definition?
The number of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy--->1 Sa
The name of the unit would be "Sagan"
The abbreviation would be Sa
...
(Sorry for the lateness of my reply, but)
(I am not getting email updates from the)
(board. Nonetheless, here I go.)
That looks great Dirk, but I would like to leave it as just 'S' b/c a Newton is just 'N'.
So maybe we can make it as you suggested with this amendment:
The number of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy = 1 S
The name of the unit would be "Sagan"
The abbreviation would be S.
We can compare our "familiar" galaxy to the number of stars in other galaxies. As we do with the solar mass, and the astronomical unit, the au.
e.g. the Andromeda galaxy has ~3.3 S., which would be read: "The Andromeda galaxy has approximately three point three Sagan."
Awesome. Let's you and me start a petition. ... how do we do that? :/
8]
Very interesting....!
But I think that the Sagan abbreviation with a single S might be confusing with the time unit "second". The letter S stands for chemical element number 16 as well--->Sulphur. Writing it with a capital letter would not make much difference and therefore still misleading, specially when written. You know that scientist have most of them awful writing skills/handwriting.
I guess, the best idea or the first idea I have is to visit the nearest patent office...Maybe the one in Geneva (Switzerland)!!
'Sa' would be OK. 'Sg' is Seaborgium ( 106 protons ) but as an 'artificial' element doesn't really have an astronomical context to confuse. 'Sag' lacks panache .... you could go for a 'Carl' perhaps? But that might shorten to 'Ca' and confound with Calcium. ( 'Cs' is taken already for Cesium while 'Sn' is Tin )
Mind you, from context we don't generally mistake Celsius for Carbon either.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Good idea LivingDog!
What about this definition?
The number of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy--->1 Sa
The name of the unit would be "Sagan"
The abbreviation would be Sa
...
(Sorry for the lateness of my reply, but)
(I am not getting email updates from the)
(board. Nonetheless, here I go.)
That looks great Dirk, but I would like to leave it as just 'S' b/c a Newton is just 'N'.
So maybe we can make it as you suggested with this amendment:
The number of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy = 1 S
The name of the unit would be "Sagan"
The abbreviation would be S.
We can compare our "familiar" galaxy to the number of stars in other galaxies. As we do with the solar mass, and the astronomical unit, the au.
e.g. the Andromeda galaxy has ~3.3 S., which would be read: "The Andromeda galaxy has approximately three point three Sagan."
Awesome. Let's you and me start a petition. ... how do we do that? :/
8]
Very interesting....!
But I think that the Sagan abbreviation with a single S might be confusing with the time unit "second". The letter S stands for chemical element number 16 as well--->Sulphur. Writing it with a capital letter would not make much difference and therefore still misleading, specially when written. You know that scientist have most of them awful writing skills/handwriting.
I guess, the best idea or the first idea I have is to visit the nearest patent office...Maybe the one in Geneva (Switzerland)!!
From context it would be clear that 3.3 s != 3.3 S also 3.3 S != 3.3 g S. The later being "grams of Sulfur."
Patent office? I thought we should take this to the people who run the SI
units - that scientific committee. This is about a new unit, not a new invention.
-LD
________________________________________ my faith
Good idea LivingDog!
What about this definition?
The number of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy--->1 Sa
The name of the unit would be "Sagan"
The abbreviation would be Sa
...
(Sorry for the lateness of my reply, but)
(I am not getting email updates from the)
(board. Nonetheless, here I go.)
That looks great Dirk, but I would like to leave it as just 'S' b/c a Newton is just 'N'.
So maybe we can make it as you suggested with this amendment:
The number of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy = 1 S
The name of the unit would be "Sagan"
The abbreviation would be S.
We can compare our "familiar" galaxy to the number of stars in other galaxies. As we do with the solar mass, and the astronomical unit, the au.
e.g. the Andromeda galaxy has ~3.3 S., which would be read: "The Andromeda galaxy has approximately three point three Sagan."
Awesome. Let's you and me start a petition. ... how do we do that? :/
8]
Very interesting....!
But I think that the Sagan abbreviation with a single S might be confusing with the time unit "second". The letter S stands for chemical element number 16 as well--->Sulphur. Writing it with a capital letter would not make much difference and therefore still misleading, specially when written. You know that scientist have most of them awful writing skills/handwriting.
I guess, the best idea or the first idea I have is to visit the nearest patent office...Maybe the one in Geneva (Switzerland)!!
From context it would be clear that 3.3 s != 3.3 S also 3.3 S != 3.3 g S. The later being "grams of Sulfur."
Patent office? I thought we should take this to the people who run the SI
units - that scientific committee. This is about a new unit, not a new invention.
[quoting Wikipedia] Three nations have not officially adopted the International System of Units as their primary or sole system of measurement: Burma, Liberia, and the United States.
[/quoting Wikipedia]
I think both navies and airforces/airlines are still using the Imperial system of units. Speed is measured in knots and distance in nautical miles, height in feet. When, after the armistice of 8 September 1943, many Italian pilots had to use the Imperial units instead of the metric units used by the Italian Royal Air Force, many crashes happened.I think the same would happen to airlines. I sometimes wonder how Russians and Americans can use both units systems in the International Space Station. NASA still uses Imperial units.
Tullio
Good idea LivingDog!
What about this definition?
The number of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy--->1 Sa
The name of the unit would be "Sagan"
The abbreviation would be Sa
...
(Sorry for the lateness of my reply, but)
(I am not getting email updates from the)
(board. Nonetheless, here I go.)
That looks great Dirk, but I would like to leave it as just 'S' b/c a Newton is just 'N'.
So maybe we can make it as you suggested with this amendment:
The number of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy = 1 S
The name of the unit would be "Sagan"
The abbreviation would be S.
We can compare our "familiar" galaxy to the number of stars in other galaxies. As we do with the solar mass, and the astronomical unit, the au.
e.g. the Andromeda galaxy has ~3.3 S., which would be read: "The Andromeda galaxy has approximately three point three Sagan."
Awesome. Let's you and me start a petition. ... how do we do that? :/
8]
Very interesting....!
But I think that the Sagan abbreviation with a single S might be confusing with the time unit "second". The letter S stands for chemical element number 16 as well--->Sulphur. Writing it with a capital letter would not make much difference and therefore still misleading, specially when written. You know that scientist have most of them awful writing skills/handwriting.
I guess, the best idea or the first idea I have is to visit the nearest patent office...Maybe the one in Geneva (Switzerland)!!
From context it would be clear that 3.3 s != 3.3 S also 3.3 S != 3.3 g S. The later being "grams of Sulfur."
Patent office? I thought we should take this to the people who run the SI
units - that scientific committee. This is about a new unit, not a new invention.
[quoting Wikipedia] Three nations have not officially adopted the International System of Units as their primary or sole system of measurement: Burma, Liberia, and the United States.
[/quoting Wikipedia]
Besides the US being behind the times (SI-wise) I am disappointed that on this board, you are the only one out of so many members, to take this idea seriously.
I emailed the SI people since my last reply to you and no one has contacted me.
No one listens.
-LD
________________________________________ my faith
Well, do not feel disappointed. There are several reasons why there are so few people actively posting/participating here.
To bring ideas into life is not as easy as it might seem at a first glance: we all know that. Usually besides of a good idea, all the rest is troubles, doubts and a lot of ignorance or lack of good and accurate information.
Most of us (all of us?) have priorities in real life and very few are scientists or qualified people involved in such issues.
If we add up to the list that this endeavor will cost lots of efforts and time and not a single cent income or gain, the interest fades away quite quickly.
I would like to say that you had a nice idea and it might be worth to make a try.
We all know that Carl Sagan was a co-founder of the Planetary Society. Maybe for such tasks it is better to have something like a "big brother" to back the project.
In this society we live in we need us each other. It works so. Independent and solo/single actions are much more unlikely to succeed, unless you have huge fundings available to spend.
Remember what Thomas A.Edison said (something like this):
I found 10.000 ways of how not to do it.
Make your mind up.
The most important thing is to have those ideas, to have imagination.
Real life exists because someone has previously had the idea, more or less!!
Well, do not feel disappointed. There are several reasons why there are so few people actively posting/participating here.
To bring ideas into life is not as easy as it might seem at a first glance: we all know that. Usually besides of a good idea, all the rest is troubles, doubts and a lot of ignorance or lack of good and accurate information.
Most of us (all of us?) have priorities in real life and very few are scientists or qualified people involved in such issues.
If we add up to the list that this endeavor will cost lots of efforts and time and not a single cent income or gain, the interest fades away quite quickly.
I would like to say that you had a nice idea and it might be worth to make a try.
We all know that Carl Sagan was a co-founder of the Planetary Society. Maybe for such tasks it is better to have something like a "big brother" to back the project.
In this society we live in we need us each other. It works so. Independent and solo/single actions are much more unlikely to succeed, unless you have huge fundings available to spend.
Remember what Thomas A.Edison said (something like this):
I found 10.000 ways of how not to do it.
Make your mind up.
The most important thing is to have those ideas, to have imagination.
Real life exists because someone has previously had the idea, more or less!!
I'm going to try and contact his wife (co-author of COSMOS) and the Planetary Society.
Thanks bro'! :)
-LD
________________________________________ my faith
1) if this number (and thus the unit) is needed, then it should be published in a journal by a scientist, and
2) the suggestion was forwarded to the heads of TPS as well as others who knew him.
I didn't realize that my suggestion was emotionally based. Science strives to stay away from such concerns and focuses on what's important to the discipline. So gracious as it was, and as good an idea as it seems, science will have the final word on whether this unit is created. Fair enough.
-LD
________________________________________ my faith
RE: RE: Good idea
)
Very interesting....!
But I think that the Sagan abbreviation with a single S might be confusing with the time unit "second". The letter S stands for chemical element number 16 as well--->Sulphur. Writing it with a capital letter would not make much difference and therefore still misleading, specially when written. You know that scientist have most of them awful writing skills/handwriting.
I guess, the best idea or the first idea I have is to visit the nearest patent office...Maybe the one in Geneva (Switzerland)!!
'Sa' would be OK. 'Sg' is
)
'Sa' would be OK. 'Sg' is Seaborgium ( 106 protons ) but as an 'artificial' element doesn't really have an astronomical context to confuse. 'Sag' lacks panache .... you could go for a 'Carl' perhaps? But that might shorten to 'Ca' and confound with Calcium. ( 'Cs' is taken already for Cesium while 'Sn' is Tin )
Mind you, from context we don't generally mistake Celsius for Carbon either.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: RE: RE: Good idea
)
From context it would be clear that 3.3 s != 3.3 S also 3.3 S != 3.3 g S. The later being "grams of Sulfur."
Patent office? I thought we should take this to the people who run the SI
units - that scientific committee. This is about a new unit, not a new invention.
-LD
________________________________________
my faith
RE: RE: RE: RE: Good
)
[quoting Wikipedia]
Three nations have not officially adopted the International System of Units as their primary or sole system of measurement: Burma, Liberia, and the United States.
[/quoting Wikipedia]
I think both navies and
)
I think both navies and airforces/airlines are still using the Imperial system of units. Speed is measured in knots and distance in nautical miles, height in feet. When, after the armistice of 8 September 1943, many Italian pilots had to use the Imperial units instead of the metric units used by the Italian Royal Air Force, many crashes happened.I think the same would happen to airlines. I sometimes wonder how Russians and Americans can use both units systems in the International Space Station. NASA still uses Imperial units.
Tullio
RE: RE: RE: RE: Quote
)
Besides the US being behind the times (SI-wise) I am disappointed that on this board, you are the only one out of so many members, to take this idea seriously.
I emailed the SI people since my last reply to you and no one has contacted me.
No one listens.
-LD
________________________________________
my faith
Well, do not feel
)
Well, do not feel disappointed. There are several reasons why there are so few people actively posting/participating here.
To bring ideas into life is not as easy as it might seem at a first glance: we all know that. Usually besides of a good idea, all the rest is troubles, doubts and a lot of ignorance or lack of good and accurate information.
Most of us (all of us?) have priorities in real life and very few are scientists or qualified people involved in such issues.
If we add up to the list that this endeavor will cost lots of efforts and time and not a single cent income or gain, the interest fades away quite quickly.
I would like to say that you had a nice idea and it might be worth to make a try.
We all know that Carl Sagan was a co-founder of the Planetary Society. Maybe for such tasks it is better to have something like a "big brother" to back the project.
In this society we live in we need us each other. It works so. Independent and solo/single actions are much more unlikely to succeed, unless you have huge fundings available to spend.
Remember what Thomas A.Edison said (something like this):
I found 10.000 ways of how not to do it.
Make your mind up.
The most important thing is to have those ideas, to have imagination.
Real life exists because someone has previously had the idea, more or less!!
RE: Well, do not feel
)
I'm going to try and contact his wife (co-author of COSMOS) and the Planetary Society.
Thanks bro'! :)
-LD
________________________________________
my faith
I received a reply from
)
I received a reply from TPS:
1) if this number (and thus the unit) is needed, then it should be published in a journal by a scientist, and
2) the suggestion was forwarded to the heads of TPS as well as others who knew him.
I didn't realize that my suggestion was emotionally based. Science strives to stay away from such concerns and focuses on what's important to the discipline. So gracious as it was, and as good an idea as it seems, science will have the final word on whether this unit is created. Fair enough.
-LD
________________________________________
my faith