Having stated my proposal for universal time as fully as space will permit and given my guess as to the coming cosmic watch, let us in this closing paragraph indulge in a little mental exercise. Suppose we copy the old time lecturer on astronomy and “allow our minds to penetrate into space.” Blessed be his memory, he was a doer of good. How impressive as he repeatedly dropped his wooden pointer, and lo! It always moved straight to the floor; thus triumphantly vindicating universal gravitation!!!

We can think of a time system which would discard months, weeks and days. What is the meaning of the financial almanac in which the days are numbered from 1 to 365 or 366? Simply a step in the right direction, away from the months and weeks, so that the distance between any two dates may be seen at a glance. We would really be better without months and weeks. Now let us consider the year of the seasons as a unit—long since proposed by the astronomers—and divide it into 3,000 chrons. Clocks regulated by star transits, as at present, would divide this decimally, the fourth place being near enough to make the new pendulums of convenient length. This would throw out months, weeks and days, local time and the date line. Each of these chrons would represent the same time in the year, permanently. For example, 464.6731 would mark to a dixmilliemechron (a little more than one second) the point reached in the year; while the date does not, as I have shown in the first chapter. But you still object that this is a great number of figures to use in fixing a point in the year. Let us see what it takes to fix a point in the year now, August 24th, 11-16-32 P. M., New York standard time. A pretty long story, but it does not fix the point of the year even then; for it would require the assistance of an astronomer to fix such a point in any given year, say 1909. But 464.6731 would be eternally right in absolute time of the seasons, and has only one meaning, with no qualifications for any year whatever. I believe the astronomers should use a method something like this. Ah, but there is a difficulty in applying this to the affairs of daily life which looks insurmountable. This is caused by the fact that the day and year are incommeasurable. One of them cannot be exactly expressed in terms of the other. They are like the diagonal and side of a square. The day is now the unit and therefore the year has an interminable fraction; conversely, if we make the year the unit, then the day becomes an endless fraction. This brings us face to face with the local day which we ignored in our scientific year unit. We must regulate our labors, in this world, to day and night and, with the year unit, the chrons would bear no fixed relation to day and night, even for two days in succession. So the year unit and absolute time must be left to the astronomers; but the day unit and the uniform world day of universal time as explained in connection with [Fig. 46] I offer as a practical system.

I am satisfied that all attempts to measure the year and the day by the same time yard stick must fail and keep us in our present confusion. Therefore separate them once for all time. Brought down to its lowest terms my final proposal is:—

To avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, I would advise never counting a unit till it is completed. We do this correctly with our hours, as we understand 24 o'clock to be the same as 0 o'clock. But we do not carry this out logically, for we say 24.30. How can this be so, since there is nothing more than 24 o'clock? It ought to be simply 30 minutes, or 0 hour 30 minutes. How can there be any hour when a new day is only 30 minutes old? This brings up the acrimonious controversy, of some years ago, as to whether there was any “year one.” One side insisted that till one year was completed there could only be months and days. The other side argued that the “year one” commenced at 0 and that the month and date showed how much of it had passed. Test yourself,—is this the year 1909, of which only 8 months have passed; or is it 1909 and 8 months more? Regarding the centuries there appears to be no difference of opinion that 1900 is completed, and that we are in the 20th century. But can you tell whether we are 8 years and 8 months into the 20th century or 9 years and 8 months? It ought to be, logically 1909 years complete and 8 months of the next year, which we must not count till it is completed. Take a carpenter's rule, we say 14 in.—12 in.—34 in., but do not count an inch till we complete it. When the ancients are quoted,—“about the middle of the third hour” there is no mistake, because that means 212 hours since sunrise. If we said the 1909th year that would be definite too, and mean some distance into that year. Popular language states that Greenwich is on the “first meridian”; strictly, it is on the zero meridian, or 0°. These matters are largely academic and I do not look on them as serious subjects of discussion; but they are good thought producers. Bidding you good-bye, for the present, it might be permissible to state that this conversational article on Time was intended to be readable and somewhat instructive; but especially to indicate the infinity of the subject, that thought and investigation might be encouraged.


TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:

Original spelling and grammar have mostly been retained. However, on page 31, “clepsydral” was changed to “clepsydra”.

Figures were moved from within paragraphs to between paragraphs. In addition, some figures were originally out of numerical sequence; they are now in sequence (all but Fig. 46, which does need to be the last illustration).

The transcriber created the cover image, and hereby places it into the public domain.