Our measurement of time is based on the rotation of the earth around the sun and moon around the earth to give years and months.
Would it be of any advantage to have decimal time along the lines of 100 secs to a minute or something like the French suggested a long time ago.
I’m asking because my Dad reckons that the conversion from £/S/d in the UK to decimal coins was just a matter of getting used to and he didn’t notice any difference after a while.
I’m sure there’s a problem somewhere, point it out for me.
This has been discussed many times before on this board, but the bottom line problem is this- there isn’t an easy way to reconcile the length of a day with the length of a year, since there aren’t an integer number of days per year. You can divide up the day into decimal periods, and the year into decimal periods, but you won’t get an even number of day units into year units. I won’t mention the fact that the exact length of the day and year vary 
That’s not to say that there isn’t a better system, but there is a fundamental problem coming up with any simple, all-encompassing scheme given the day/year incongruity.
Arjuna34
The major disadvantage of a non-decimal system is that you have to express a given single quantity in multiple units, i.e. 3’ 10", or 158 lbs, 6 oz. And time/date does have this problem. The problem with your version of metric time is that you can’t solve this by simply changing the number of seconds in a minute to a 100. If you do, you still have to express a time as hours:minutes (where minutes is a fractional value). So now you change the hours to be decimal as well (using either 10 or 100 per day, neither of which is a useful choice in reality). But now a given date will still be mm/dd/yyyy hours. So you really have to convert the date as well. And once you convert the date, you are now moving beyond a simple change that can be easily accepted. Notice that even in England, when they decimalized the pound, the value of the pound itself didn’t change.
I am still wondering why the metric alphabet never caught on …
Joseph Franklin (Dan Akroyd) of the U.S. Council of Standards
and Measurements explains the "Decabet," the new
metric alphabet consisting of 10 letters. "A-B-C
and D, our most popular letters, will remain the
same. E and F, however, will be combined and
graphically simplified to one character. The
groupings G-H-I and L-M-N-O will be condensed
to single letters. (Incidentally, a boon to
those who always thought that L-M-N-O was one letter
anyway.) And finally, the 'trash letters,' or
P-Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y and Z, will be condensed" to
one "easily identifiable dark character."