British traditional is anchored in a system that is better for science than metric.

In the course of discussion J.F. Magana of BIML paid the system a mild compliment recently. After I had clarified some points for him, in partial reply to his objections, he allowed that it was consistent and applicable, or words to that effect. (The International Bureau of Legal Metrology, located near Sacre Coeur on the Montmartre, is a more recent organizational counterpart of the BIPM or International Bureau of Weights and Measures.)

I see no alternative to continuing to hone the system and refine its terminology in an attempt to make it better.

Update of my 29th November post. Several new terms.

Here is the summary:

minute = 54 atomic clock seconds, 1/1600 day
mile = tenmillionth of lightminute
talent = 10^40 hbar minute per sq.mile

The mile and talent have metric equivalents as follows
mile = 1618.88 meter (to verify multiply 54 seconds by the metric speed 29.9792458 meters/second)

talent = 21.73 kilogram (simply work through the definition with whichever metric hbar you prefer, metric comes in several not perfectly consistent versions---differences though are slight)

The mile and talent generate a force unit which in metric terms is 12 newtons (2.7 pound force) and seems best called OCQUE. The plural is ocques. The universal force constant (c^4/G, causes gravity by shaping space) is then 10^43 ocques. For more information about the traditional 2.7 pound ocque unit see Google [ocque oke].

ocque = talent mile per sq. minute, the force required to give unit mass the unit acceleration of one mile a minute per minute.

ocquemile = energy delivered by a mile-long ocque push, 5 food Calories (more precisely 4.7), 20 thousand metric joules.

ocquemile per minute = power unit, about half a horsepower or 360 metric watts.

TO EMBED TRADITIONAL UNITS IN THE SYSTEM


1 talent = 50 lbs. = 1000 ounces

1 mile = 1000 rod = 5000 feet

One gets the metric equivalents that the pound is
0.4346 kilogram, the foot is 32.3776 centimeter,
not terribly different from presentday pound and foot.

The advantage for everyday use is that one continues to visualize and speak in terms of feet and pounds, as well as miles of course---and, one would suppose, in FAMILIAR FRACTIONS of these: 1/4 mile, 3/4 mile, 1/2 foot, 1/4 pound etc.

The advantage for relating to the physical universe is that quite a variety of calculations become effortless due to power-of-ten values of constants:

c = exactly 10^7 mile a minute
hbar = exactly 10^-40 talent sq.mile per minute
mole = exactly 10^23 items
unit charge = exactly 10^23 electrons
eevee = exactly 10^-23 talent sq.mile per sq.minute (the energy unit)
Boltzmann k = exactly 1/100 eevee per grade = exactly 10^-25 energyunit per grade
G = 1.00 x 10^-15 cub.mile/sq.minute per talent

TO RATHER CLOSE APPROXIMATION
avg. orbit speed of earth = 1000 miles a minute
proton mass = 1/13 x 10^-27 talent
proton rest energy = 1/13 x 10^10 eevee
one Celsius degree = 7 milligrade (more prec. 7.06)

FOR ROUGH ESTIMATES
sonic speed above tropopause (cruising alt.) 10 miles a minute
sonic speed at room temp (2.07 grade) 11.2 miles a minute
earth radius = 3940 miles
distance to sun = 93 million miles
mass of sun = 93 x 10^27 talents
halfradius of equal-mass black hole = 0.93 mile
1/2pi of a year = 93 thousand minutes
sun's lightbending parameter = 4 x 0.93 mile
solar constant = 10^7 energyunits per minute per sq.mile
energy density of sunlight = 1 energyunit per cubic mile at earth's distance from sun
pressure of sunlight = 1 forceunit per sq.mile (dark)
average solar photon energy = 1 eevee
average solar photon frequency = 10^17 per minute

In other words a lot of stuff is simple.

If you use a decimal system including mile, foot, pound (in other words) a lot of stuff is clean that is messy and hard to remember in metric---and a several bits of data (with different mantissa's in metric) often condense down to a single mantissa in the nature-based units. (you get a lot of 93 in connection with the sun and a lot of 1/13 in connection with the proton, which makes it easier to remember the whole lot than in the metric case.)


*******a remaining problem with terminology********

There is a problem with what to call 1/100,000 of a mile. It is the width of one's little finger. In metric terms 1.62 centimeters. It has been called a "bone" in several contexts. It is also roughly typical of the width of a toe--not the big toe.

It is a hundredth of a classical pace (1/1000 mile) and a hundredth of the traditional French *brasse*.

It is 5/8 inch. I tried redefining inch and calling this unit inch, but was not happy with the result.

It is 1/20 of the new foot. (1/5000 mile, metric 32.3776 cm)


A person who is 5'10" in old measure turns out to be 5 foot 10 bone in the new units. Or do I say 5 feet 10 toe. In any case it is 5 and 1/2 feet, new measure.

But a person who is 6'5" in old measure turns out to be only six-one. That is 6 foot 1 bone, or 6 foot 1 toe, or 6 and 1/20 feet.

Still some unsureness about how to deal with fractions of a foot.

I recently checked google using "planck length"
and google came back with 6,390 website and page addresses. Posted that info in a now-inactive thread, but will include here since relevant to the the present topic. And don't wish to lose the information.

It's a good idea to use quote marks to narrow it down.
If you just put in [planck length] you get tens of thousands but if you put in ["planck length"] you just get the 6390.

"natural units" 6380
"planck length" 6390
"planck mass" 5030
"planck units" 1470

the number one URL for "planck units" is the Alcyone Systems site of Erik Max Francis. He lays out a complete system of Planck units including many kinds of units for specialized purposes (like illumination and hydraulics etc.) that I would never think of including. It is an attractive site.

My feeling is that it is legitimate for cosmologists and particle theorists and stringtheorists to use 21st century units and also for ordinary people to use them for whatever purpose in real life and it would look bad for someone to be priggish and say no! only qualified experts shall be allowed to use the natural units!

Everybody who uses miles for distance along road is using an unofficial power-of-ten version of planck length---so there is some everyday use already---and then there are all the websites Google finds---and Bryan who sometimes measures with the width of palm with thumb extended (realizing, I think, that it is a poweroften version of planck length)---and Erik Max Francis with his nice clean physicist-style presentation of a planck unit for every imaginable engineering purpose---and the Thomas Bailey site and so on. People rarely use one system of units exclusively (or perhaps they do in Europe?) but natural units seem to be gradually entering the mix.

Two of the world's top metrologists recently proposed to redefine the metric system (to cure various troubles it has and get rid of dependence on the metal kilo) by making hbar exactly (1/2pi)6.62606878 x 10^-34 kilogram sq.meter/second.

Mohr Taylor, IEEE Transactions Instrum. and Meas. April 2001.

This is analogous to the 1983 redef of meter to make c exactly 299792458 meters per second. The same people (the world's ranking metrologists, CODATA etc.) were responsible then.

The improvements make clear the extent to which metric's wanna-be decimal system is obsolete. The emerging set of metric definitions is:

second----defined by atomic clock, approx. 1/86400 of day
meter----exactly 1/299792458 of lightsecond
kilogram----exactly 2pi/662606878 x 10^42 hbar second/sq.meter

We just do the same thing with nicer numbers:

minute----54 atomic clock seconds, approx. 1/1600 day
mile-----exactly 10^-7 of lightminute
talent----exactly 10^40 hbar minute/sq.mile

The Mohr Taylor proposal has not yet been offically adopted although a Resolution 7 preparing the way was passed in the General Conference.
The 1990 Electrical Standards already are based on adopted exact values for both hbar and e (electron charge) and have split off from dependence on metal kilogram. They are the de facto basis of state-of-the-art measurement. So the metal kilo, though still officially the basis, is partly out of the loop in a kind of ambiguous status.

If they drag their feet it will cause them other problems. Approaching situation where we can say "our definitions have precision equal to yours and are in fact the same definitions with nicer numbers". Data automatically interconvertible with no loss of accuracy.

This forum stood idle for several days and many threads may be de facto inactive. I would not like to lose touch with this quote from the oldest written epic on earth, the 12 clay tablets of Gilgamesh, with its reference to the talent mass unit.

(((Come, my friend, I will go over to the forge
and have them cast the weapons in our presence!"
....they went over to the forge....
The craftsmen sat and discussed with one another.
"We should fashion the axe...
The hatchet should he one talent in weight ...
Their swords should be one talent...
Their armor one talent,...")))

This is from the Maureen Gallery Kovacs translation. A fine scholarly one which is, moreover, on line. Stanford U. Press published it, can't remember when, sometime around 1985.

This forging of armor and weapons has to do with an expedition into the forest (guarded by Humbaba the Terrible) to get some timber for the city gates.

((...Should I fall, I will have established my fame...
'It was Gilgamesh who locked in battle with Humbaba the Terrible!'))

http://www.grtbooks.com/epics.asp?idx=0&sub=0

(from this page, please select the Kovacs translation and then, at the Kovacs index, select "tablet 2").

********************************
About the same time as I posted this Gilgamesh thing
Bryan posted an odd coincidence having to do with the British pint. I have not known what to do with this coincidence but find it intriguing here is what he said:

[[A cubic manual foot (13 inches- two "bryans") is equal to a British bushel, 6½ inches, a gallon, and 3.25 a pint (as near as).
That is, the current Britsh pint, gallon and bushel took their shape in the nineteenth century with the Imperial system, however, they appear based off of the older saxon foot that hadn't been used for around 7/800 years. A nice coincidence, I feel.
...Planckian foot, if I recall, is almost exatcly an old French foot- 12.72 inches (20 bones aka one foot, is 12.72440945 inches)]]

Much interesting information has come up and now lies fallow in the inactive threads.

In any case, the mile and talent can not pass from ken as long as we count by tens and know the proportions of nature. They are round multiples of nature's units.

Notice the term "manual foot".
It is 'manual' because twice the 6-inch-plus anglosaxon handspread unit (palmwidth with thumb extended). I believe Bryan coined the term.

Only two traditional names for the manual half-foot exist---the greek *dichas* and the A-S *schaftman*
various spellings in OED. the name 'bryan' seems to work better than either traditional term.

In the present context the terms 'manual foot' and 'manual half-foot' aren't bad either as handles for 1/5000 and 1/10,000 mile----metric equiv. 32.3776 cm and 16.1888 cm.

the most persistent name-quandary is what handle to use for 1/20 of the manual foot. Here's a "footnote" on it from a few posts back:

[[[*****a remaining problem with terminology*****

There is a problem with what to call 1/100,000 of a mile. It is the width of one's little finger. In metric terms 1.62 centimeters. It has been called a "bone" in several contexts. It is also roughly typical of the width of a toe--not the big toe.

It is a hundredth of a classical pace (1/1000 mile) and a hundredth of the traditional French *brasse*.
It is 5/8 inch. I tried redefining inch and calling this unit inch, but was not happy with the result.
It is 1/20 of the new foot. (1/5000 mile, metric 32.3776 cm)....]]]

the word that suggests itself this morning is SCRATCH.
maybe it is just a placeholder, maybe bone would be OK and a placeholder is not needed. A footrule with a score of scratches.
One (5-foot) pace is an hundred scratches.

six-one---one scratch over six feet---same as 6'5" old measure.

don't give them a scratch

american expression, may also be used in uk: to bake from scratch---to prepare something from the basic ingredients rather than from a commercial readymade mix. to bake a cake from scratch means from flour, bakingpower, egg, milk rather than from a cakemix, etc.

alternative suggestions welcome

Can I butt in for a second, please? Why is the BTU, British thermal unit, thermal unit or therm (it's common names) not used instead of the kilocalorie? After, the therm is a suitable size, being, what was is, almost exactly one quarter a kilocalorie. Also, why is the horsepower being (trying to being) killed off? I mean, it is one of the greatest units ever, surely! It is so organic. I mean, Watt actually rigged horses up to bits of machinery to see how many foot-pounds they could pull (or whatever the correct terminology is). And then we have the manpower, which is 0.1 of a horsepower (which is 550lbs per foot or something, as I recall). Splendid, splendid. What I am trying to say, here, is that perhaps we should all remember the truly organic nature of Imperial. In other words... Bring it on (Leonard)- your system kicks serious *profanity removed*

yes horsepower is fine
I remember the delight with which I
learned of James Watt defining it by
trying out actual horses
and how he wanted some standard to rate
he steamengines with
must have been right around 1776
same year as TJ wrote declaration of independence
history is still rather alive in that word horsepower

my choices are limited
it just happens that my three base units
(mile,minute,talent) generate a power unit
which is close to HALF horsepower, metric equiv 363 watts.

this is actually a piece of luck. i'm happy to have
a simple relation to horsepower.

unit speed is mile a minute
an ocque (2.7 pound) force pushing at unit speed delivers half a horsepower.

I would like a name for half a horsepower
(all I have now is "ocquemile a minute")

"Ponypower".

Ralf

btw Leonard, I did not coin the term "manual" foot- I heard it somewhere else when refering to the saxon (and general northern feet). These feet were based off of the two hands, as the man held his scythe (or whatever). However, the souther feet, were actually based off of feet (being shorter, at around 11.something inches).

Pony is good for ocquemile per minute.
danke vielmals

If you come across that again please let me know where.
I get a picture of a shaftment being a handgrasp
and of a two-handed grasp of, say, an ax or mattock, covering about a foot along the handle.
You have really delved into the subject. Write a book or essay sometime on history of british measures
(but advocacy must be restrained during the writing of history essays since it interferes with telling the story in an engaging way imho). Tony also seems really knowledgable. Fascinating trove of lore.

One of the finest moments imho in human history was in 220BC when Aristarchus thought to ask how far away is the sun (in miles or stadia or whatever was common) and figured out how to get a lower bound on it.

(Suddenly a realistic picture of the universe and an idea of the relative sizes of bodies like sun and moon and earth based on evidence, a beginning of so much. Like opening eyes.)

I described his method earlier in "measure of all things" thread. At that point, by counting days from halfmoon to halfmoon I got a lower bound that the sun was 10 times farther than the moon.

Want to repeat if possible this month. The waxing quarter is approaching. If you see an exact halfmoon in the next day or so, please note the time and day.

Then two weeks hence we will keep a lookout for the waning halfmoon and as soon as it is just slightly concave (to make sure we have gone the half cycle) we will, or I will if I remember, note the time and day.

The cycle of phases, new to new, takes 29.5 days which ancient civilizations knew because easy to measure accurately. So half that is 14.75 days.
But it actually takes more than 14.75 to go from waxing halfmoon to waning halfmoon because the sun is a finite distance.

If one can find that it takes NO MORE than 15.75 then one can reckon that the sun is AT LEAST 10 times farther than the moon.

At Aristarchus time, the diameter of the earth was known (in stadia, some practical units, Eratosthenes of Alexandria). But the size of the moon was also estimated in earth diameters by watching eclipses---something Aristarchus did---and so the distance to the moon was something he could estimate. That was his yardstick to reckon the distance and size of the sun.

There is a NASA link with a picture---the diagram that let him estimate the distance to the sun. I put it in that other thread but may fetch it here later.

If we could discover that it takes NO MORE than 15.25 days (better than I did last month) then we could infer that the sun is AT LEAST 20 times as far as moon. That would be twice as good as last month. Don't know if can do it but maybe.

Bad weather set in and I did not see the waxing halfmoon till pacific time Wednesday Dec 11 3 PM which would be 11 Dec 11PM BWMA time. The side was no longer straight but had become slightly convex or so it seemed to me.

Rains have been heavy for some days and there is water in the basement.

British traditional is anchored in a system that is better for science than metric.

Update of earlier post. Several new terms.

Here is the summary:

minute = 54 atomic clock seconds, 1/1600 day
mile = tenmillionth of lightminute
talent = 10^40 hbar minute per sq.mile

The mile and talent have metric equivalents as follows
mile = 1618.88 meter (to verify multiply 54 seconds by the metric speed 29.9792458 meters/second)

talent = 21.73 kilogram (simply work through the definition with whichever metric hbar you prefer, metric comes in several not perfectly consistent versions---differences though are slight)

OCQUE

The mile and talent generate a force unit which in metric terms is 12 newtons (2.7 pound force) and seems best called OCQUE. The plural is ocques. The universal force constant (c^4/G, causes gravity by shaping space) is then 10^43 ocques. For more information about the traditional 2.7 pound ocque unit see Google [ocque oke].

ocque = talent mile per sq. minute, the force required to give unit mass the unit acceleration of one mile a minute per minute.

ocquemile = energy delivered by a mile-long ocque push, 5 food Calories (more precisely 4.7), 20 thousand metric joules.

PONY

ocquemile per minute = power unit, about half a horsepower or 360 metric watts = PONY was suggested as a name.

The BMW Mini S 1.8 engine rated at 145 hp develops 290 ponies.

PINKS

Some subdivision of mile is needed. I am trying to keep the number of unit-names to a bare minimum. A name for 1/100,000 mile---1.61888 cm---is indispensible. Have decided to call it *pink* short for pinkie.

It happens to be the width of my littlefinger at the smaller joint, the joint nearest the nail. Measured the circumference with a strip of paper and it was 5 cm, so inferred width to be 1.6 cm. Probably anyone posting at this site can identify a spot on some finger that is 1.6 cm wide.

The width of the BMW mini is 105 pinks and the wheelbase is 210 pinks.

This is about 1 pace by 2 pace. A twostep roman pace is 100 pinks.

Adults tend to be about 100 pinks tall, women right around 100 and men a few pinks taller like around 110--115. Don't know official figures for average heights.

A cubic pink is 4.2427 cubic centimeter.
The Mini S has a 420 cubic pink engine

The advantage for relating to the physical universe is that quite a variety of calculations become effortless due to power-of-ten values of constants:

c = exactly 10^7 mile a minute
hbar = exactly 10^-40 ocquemile minute
mole = exactly 10^23 items
unit charge = exactly 10^23 electrons
eevee = exactly 10^-23 ocquemile
Boltzmann k = exactly 1/100 eevee per grade = exactly 10^-25 ocquemile per grade
G = 1.00 x 10^-15 cub.mile/sq.minute per talent

TO RATHER CLOSE APPROXIMATION
avg. orbit speed of earth = 1000 miles a minute
proton mass = 1/13 x 10^-27 talent
proton rest energy = 1/13 x 10^10 eevee
one Celsius degree = 7 milligrade (more prec. 7.06)

FOR ROUGH ESTIMATES
sonic speed above tropopause (cruising alt.) 10 miles a minute
sonic speed at room temp (2.07 grade) 11.2 miles a minute
earth radius = 3940 miles
distance to sun = 93 million miles
mass of sun = 93 x 10^27 talents
halfradius of equal-mass black hole = 0.93 mile
1/2pi of a year = 93 thousand minutes
sun's lightbending parameter = 4 x 0.93 mile
solar constant = 10^7 pony per sq.mile
energy density of sunlight = 1 ocquemile per cubic mile at earth's distance from sun
pressure of unreflected sunlight = 1 ocque per sq.mile
average solar photon energy = 1 eevee
average solar photon frequency = 10^17 per minute

In these units several bits of data (with different mantissa's in metric) often condense down to a single mantissa. One gets a lot of 93 in connection with the sun and a lot of 1/13 in connection with the proton, which makes it easier to remember the lot than it would be if the numbers were all different.

Tried recently to boil down the description and arguments concerning talent-mile-minute units for another board with this result.

Metric is an old-fashioned system in which the main conversion factors (linking energy temperature frequency wavelength mass gravitational attraction voltage and so on) are garbage: hard to remember and clumsy to use. It is a botched premature attempt to achieve decimality. Teachers should begin the transition to nature-based units by using humanscale planckian units at the college physics level. Natural laws are easier to assimilate in practice when the constants governing them are powers of ten.

Talent-mile-minute units are a modern system based on assigning exact power-of-ten values to the basic physical constants c, hbar, e, and k. The value of G remains measurable in the system, being approximately a power of ten rather than exactly as the others are. Talent-mile-minute units are defined along the same lines that are emerging within the metric system, but with numbers that are simple to use and remember rather than messy ones.

The Conference (CGPM) that runs the metric system has embarked on a process of modifying the system so that it will be anchored to the deep structure in nature through definitions based on the fundamental constants hbar, the electron charge, and the speed of light. The system will eventually be freed from dependence on human artifacts such as the metal kilo prototype in Paris.

Metric is already anchored (officially as of 1983) to the speed of light and efforts are being made to anchor it to hbar (or as some people say h) the energy-frequency ratio. This is done by assigning messy exact numbers to the constants. The metal kilo in Paris will no longer be needed when hbar has been assigned an exact value. The electrical standards inaugurated in 1990 are already based on an adopted (messy) exact value of the electron charge. This approach is still pending official ratification.

The ugly metric values of the constants, given here in parens, contrasts with their round number values in talent-mile-minute terms:

c = exactly 10^7 mile a minute (metric 299792458)
hbar = exactly 10^-40 ocquemile minute (metric 1.054571...10^-34)
mole = exactly 10^23 items (metric 6.02214... 10^23)
electron charge = exactly 10^-23 units (metric 1.602176...10^-19)
eevee = exactly 10^-23 ocquemile (metric 1.602176...10^-19)
Boltzmann k = exactly 1/100 eevee per grade (metric 8.617342...10^-5)
= exactly 10^-25 ocquemile per grade (metric 1.38065...10^-23)
G = 1.00 x 10^-15 cub.mile/sq.minute per talent (metric 6.673...10^-11)

The clean decimal values of the same list of basic constants is shown with the metric numbers erased:

c = exactly 10^7 mile a minute
hbar = exactly 10^-40 ocquemile minute
mole = exactly 10^23 items
electron charge = exactly 10^-23 units
eevee = exactly 10^-23 ocquemile
Boltzmann k = exactly 1/100 eevee per grade
= exactly 10^-25 ocquemile per grade
G = 1.00 x 10^-15 cub.mile/sq.minute per talent

The mile and talent are classical greco-roman units. The ocque unit force is that required to give unit acceleration to unit mass, that is to acclerate a one talent mass to mile a minute speed in one minute. The metric force unit "newton" is about 1/12 of the ocque force.

Auxilliary units sometimes used: the ocquemile unit energy (4.7 food Calories) of a unit force for unit distance. The corresponding metric energy unit "joule" is about 1/20,000 of an ocquemile. The power unit pony, about half a horsepower, delivers one ocquemile of energy per minute. An auxilliary length unit, pink, is 1/100,000 of a mile or 1.61888 cm and is called pink because typical of the width of the little finger.

An active metric flak calling himself by various names posts references to ARM as "Fascist" and refers to the sign-fixers as "Black Shirts, sorry I mean Yellow Jackets".
Strikes me as somehow resembling the old "APP" and lacking intellectual integrity. The propagandistic use of term Fascist is opposite in meaning since Fascism involves unbounded state power and ARM peacefully resists the intrusion of state power into civil and cultural matters---clearly the david in a very unequal battle with the state goliath. The big lie, using a loaded word opposite to sense, so the guy is obviously trash. But also vicious and full of restless energy.

So I made up this fable, adapting one written by the American writer Thurber in the forties, to try to get the moral situation in focus.

*******

THE FASCIST RABBITS

Some wolves once persuaded the Government to rule against rabbits digging holes.

However the rabbits petitioned that they be allowed to keep their existing holes for a period of time, and this was granted by the State as a concession to the rabbits.

Wishing to expedite the flow of History and bring matters to a happy conclusion, the wolves began to dump rubble into existing burrows. When the rabbits tried to clear out their blocked doorways they were accused of digging fresh burrows, forbidden by law, and arrested.

Still a small band of courageous rabbits persisted in clearing out burrows the wolves filled in, and peacefully endured the legal consequences.

The wolves decided that because they resisted State power the rabbits must be Fascist and often referred to the burrow clearers as "Black Shirts, sorry, I mean Fur Coats".

As soon as everyone was convinced that clearing the filled burrows was Fascist (a term normally associated with exalted State power) the resisters were suppressed by government agents and led to the stewpot in triumph by the wolves.

The Coming of Fat Men from Space

It is written that the earth shall be invaded by hordes of fat men wearing Bermuda shorts and loud Hawaiian shirts.
These fat men venture throughout the Galaxy in search especially greasy Fast Food.

Their home planet is completely flat and is always facing its Sun. When they wish to sleep they put movie magazines over their faces and recline in folding aluminum lawn chairs.

Their planet is deficient in Fast Food, and this is why they periodically swarm into their flying saucers and attack planets like Earth where greasy high-sodium food is more abundant.

This invasion is predicted in the prophetic writings of the Planckian Visionary D. Pinkwater.

The power of sunlight on a square pace of the Fat Man Planet is 3 ponies (you are doubtless familiar with the halfhorsepower "pony" unit of approximately 360 watts.) What is the temperature at the ground?

Answer: Whatever T is, if you square twice and multiply by pi^2 over 60, you must get 3 ponies per sq. pace. Because the planet surface has to be radiating energy away as fast as it is coming in with sunlight. The heat glow power out has to equal the 3 pony per sq.pace sunlight power coming in, for equilibrium.

But that is easy! Temp of planet surface has to be 2.07 grade which is familiar to us as room temperature! Because if you square 2.07 twice and multiply by pi^2/60 you get 3.

The fat men can live outdoors, on beach blankets and folding chairs, because the temperature is always a comfortable 2.07. It is not known how they reproduce, but there is a lot of them. Enough to consume all Earth's frenchfries in less than 48 hours.

****exerpt from Christmas post on another board****

> "Here is a small gift to anyone at the
> board who loves the proportions built into
> nature---it is the fourth-power RADIATION
> constant that relates WARMTH to GLOW: the
> warmer things are the more brightly they
> shine with (usually invisible) heat
> radiance.

> In talent mile you take the temperature---eg
> 3 grade, which is baking oven temp---square
> twice and divide by six (in this case 81 x
> 1/6 = 13.5) and that is the ponies of power
> radiated per sq. pace.

> Outside now the temp is 283 kelvin (10
> celsius) and even though they are cold the
> flagstones of the garden terrace are glowing
> with invisible heat radiance. How brightly?
> Their temp is 2 grade. Square twice to get
> 16, and divide by 6 to get 2.7 ponies per
> square pace. It may surprise you, if you
> convert that to watts (a pony is 360 watts),
> how many watts of infrared even cold things
> radiate."

> The exact constant is (pi^2/60)k^4/hbar^3
> c^2. In talent-mile the constants k,hbar,c
> have exact poweroften values so that the
> radiation law constant is exactly (pi^2/60)
> ponies per sq.pace per quartic grade. The
> (pi^2/60) number that shows up in the
> formula is approx 1/6 so we can square temp
> twice and divide by six and get a close
> approximation to the answer.

> RADIATION LAW COEFFICIENT TURNS OUT TO BE A
> MESS IN METRIC

> To find the metric value of the radiation
> constant from the (pi^2/60)k^4/hbar^3 c^2
> formula
> is messy. One must square c, that is square
> 299792458 meter/second. And one must cube
> hbar, that is cube 1.05457...x10^-34 joule
> second. And one must raise k, that is
> 1.38065...x10^-23 joule/kelvin, to the
> fourth power, and after a lot of calculation
> one gets 5.6704...x10^-8 watts per sq.meter
> per quartic kelvin. The system makes
> something inherently beautiful rather
> off-putting.

> At the moment the square of pi divided by
> 60---pi^2/60---looks a lot better. More like
> what nature would want if she could tell us
> what units and constants to use :-)