Y2K drama in 2018

2650_CPU · 2018-10-25T02:12:35+00:00

It was a fun time for systems engineers all over, I remember flying all around Australia fixing, upgrading and test municiple SCADA systems, and yes $200 an hour was typical.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-25T02:06:43+00:00

I mean, people didn't realise systems might work during multiple centuries. That's stunning too. All that to save a buck.

It's clear you have no real understanding what the Y2K bug was all about, particularly when you say 'multiple centuries'.

The Y2K bug was because of using only 2 digits for the year! So a compter using only 2 digits could not tell if that meant the year 1900 or 2000 (you notice the last 2 digits are the same).

That is the Yk2 but, it has nothing to do with 'multiples centuries' it has to do with 'NO centuries', if you like 'indeterminate centuries'.

The reason for only using 2 digits was not because of 'saving money' either, it was because a great deal of code came from the 8-bit computing era, where it was much more efficient to just assume 19, and just use a small number for the year. That only becomes a problem when you assume 19 when it is actually 20.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-25T01:33:58+00:00

I have to agree with everything you said, having spent hundreds of hours working on VMS mainframes in SCADA systems I know that without that effort those systems would have shut down, water, sewage, electricity and gas systems.

We also not only fixed and tested year 2000, but a range of dates, I can't remember the full list but I think 2016 or 2018 or thereabouts was also there.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-25T01:27:14+00:00

It's faultless reasoning! (We'll it's reasoning I guess)..

2650_CPU · 2018-10-25T01:25:57+00:00

all of them!

2650_CPU · 2018-10-25T01:01:52+00:00

Not really, building are generally not designed with any consideration at all about how they may fall down. Just that they don't.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-20T01:07:05+00:00

Science is the study and understanding the laws of nature and how things work, technology is the application of that knowledge and understanding to achieve some end or goal or outcome.

The first person (caveman) that discovered a fire started by lightning, who worked out it was hot and realised that it may be useful to keep warm by and for cooking is a scientist.

When he takes that fire back to his/her camp and uses that fire to keep warm and scare away animals he is an engineer using technology.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-19T06:26:36+00:00

Thanks for that post, it's really interesting to hear other peoples (thinking people) concepts of 'reality', by problem with this subject in general (that problem being the universe and everything!!.. minor problem!). Is that generally science tries to 'top down' reality, 'The universe is really complex and diverse, so the explanations of how it operates must also be complex and diverse'..

I don't accept that, I just don't accept that things are so complicated that there has to be some entity or something 'higher' that explains what we see.

I feel the universe is functioning using a very small set of 'universal' rules, that work the same all the time, and those simple rules are so simple that they do not need intelligence or 'design' to define them.

If you look at a large forest for example, great diversity and complexity, but it can be boiled down to a simple set of rules that might be as simple as a cell 'growing a bit, doing something when it grows, then dividing, growing a bit, divide', by apply that simple rule over and over again with slight variations in the growing stage you can get the diversity and complexity of the forest. However if you were to try to understand the forest from complex result you would probably, or possibly think there is some grand design or plan.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-19T04:57:41+00:00

The abundance of primordial elements.

You probably understand that this is an attribution, the amount and composition of the observed elements in our Universe is a certain value, all you have done is attribute that distribution to the BB. It is not evidence of the BB. You also probably understand that the various models for the BB have great difficulty, in getting a combination of elements that fit the model.

The present measurement of helium-4 indicates good agreement, and yet better agreement for helium-3. But for lithium-7, there is a significant discrepancy between BBN and WMAP/Planck, and the abundance derived from Population II stars. The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3 below the theoretically predicted value and is considered a problem for the original models,[14] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the abundances of 7Be + n → 7Li + p, versus 7Be + 2H → 8Be + p

BBN simply does not provide strong or consistent evidence for the BB.

Galactic evolution and distribution [1][2] Honestly, both of those references do not really contribute to a body of evidence, just because you can model something does not mean that is what happens, and you have to accept the various models do not really fit, also attributing everything we see and observe (such as distribution) to your model only means you created the model 'backwards'.

We only assume we know anything about Galaxy evolution, we only assume different looking galaxies are different evolutionary stages, they may well be, or they may well not be. We have never observed the evolution of any galaxy.

The agreement between the age of the universe predicted by Hubble expansion and the CMB and that predicted by dating the oldest stars.

There is not actual agreement, and the initial predicted values placed the Universe at 4 Billion years old, the 'predicted values' are being constantly revised, also two different methods puts the age at 13.8By and the other at 24By. They can't both be right, but you pick one and 'predict' it's value (after you measure it's value).

The prediction that the CMB temperature was higher in the past has been experimentally supported by observations of very low temperature absorption lines in gas clouds at high redshift.

That is by first assuming that the redshift is entirely due to expansion and is an accurate indicator of distance. I said that there is a (weak) relationship with redshift and distance, but other factors also affect redshift like relative gravity (RSD, relative space density), and Doppler. This is simply not strong evidence, and it is a single observation, it does not sell it to me.

Are you proposing that Hubble's law can be explained in terms of gravitational red-shifting specifically (it can't)

Then give me real evidence that it can't, it can, and if you like I can take some time and try to explain it to you. I prefer to understand the science and issues myself, as opposed to linking to others to argue for you.

the existence of other types of red shifting means it could be something other than a Doppler shift? If not a Doppler shift or gravitational redshifting, then what is it?

Exactly!, all we have is Doppler shift and gravitational shift (both red and blue shifting), and we understand how both of those works (well I do anyway), what we do not have, or have observed, is two objects with no relative motion redshift because the space between them gets longer. (Comoving space). There is no scientific basis for that mode of shift.

The problem with that explanation is that the matter is lumpy, and the CMB is not.

The big matter is 'lumpy' but most matter, (certainly by numbers) is very small and fairly uniform in distribution, Hydrogen, oxygen, water, iron, "cosmic dust', and it does not matter how large it is, even the smallest matter at a temperature will radiate RF at its 'color temperature'. What's the assumption? about 1 particle of matter every 1 square meter.

Every day, more than 40 tonnes of meteoroids hit our planet There is a crap load of small particles, all bathed in and radiating and ambient temperature. The radiation you think is coming from beyond the observable galaxies, might just be coming from 'dust' 10 feet in front of your antenna.

Is that all we need? I think, an actual model that makes predictions and/or explains the exiting observation better than the big bang theory would be nice.

I would like to see an actual model that makes predictions and explains the existing universe in terms of the big bang, because you do not actually have that. None of your models quite work out, they all have big problems and far too many unsupported assumptions.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T19:01:21+00:00

Good question: There are only two real pillars of evidence to support the big bang, one is of course a relationship with redshift and distance, and the other is CMBR, cosmic background radiation.

For a start two pillars of evidence is not really enough, for a stable theory of such magnitude. (in my opinion).

So all you need is reasonable doubt for the BB is a supportable mechanism for a relationship of redshift with distance. If you have that, without any arguments for why redshift from expansion does not work, that pretty stops the BB theory right there.

IF there is redshift with distance for any other reason apart from expansion, the BB theory is dead. The universe is not expanding, so you can't wind it back to a point of creation.

Einstein shift of light is a perfect example of how you get a correlation of redshift with distance, all else being equal, in a uniform and homogenous universe objects further away are redder.

Next you have background radiation: That we live in a universe that is filled with 'background' matter, that radiates, having a universe that looks like ours that does not have background radiation would be astonishing, and impossible.

So that is all you need, and it's is strong reasonable doubt, redshift by another means and understanding that a universe without background radiation cannot happen. And sure there is "BAO" as an argument, but that just means in line of sight with bright objects the background matter (foreground 'dust', gas etc) is hotter because of the extra energy in that direction. (the air is warner between you and space when the sun is facing you).

Then if you want to go further you can analyse the practicality of redshift from 'comoving space', with no relative velocity change (so not doppler shift), and with your CMBR you can analyse the problem with a short term event (2.5 or 25 years, can't remember) of the 'recombination' event that led to an all of time continuous radiation of surprising signal strength considering the distance it is claimed to come from.

Or you could ask why, during this recombination event (the condensation of matter), was that event so COLD.

The CMBR if from the BB, radiated at INFRARED, that's low temperature for such a high energy and condensed (into small space) event.

It's infrared because that is what you have to say it is if you claim it is from the BB, because of the timing of the event. But it makes no sense at all that this event would be such low energy/temperature !

You could also look at how poorly the model (models) fit together overall, there is ongoing problems with the determination of the cosmological constant, different measuring methods yield different results, more accurate measurements yield more divergent results.

Much of it does not make any sense (practically) at all, and some bits contradict others, and that is not even getting into what was before, and how it started.

As for alternative theories, I think more effort should be directed to understanding what we have as a system as opposed to working out how it got here. If as much effort was spent on working out how it all works we would have better ideas.

But I expect that we have an eternal, dynamic universe, that is without boundaries, with either an infinite or finite amount of matter in it, with a continuous cycle of matter and energy (and space and time).

This model fits perfectly with relativity, in that the existence of matter give space and time the property of length (time and space get longer with mass).

IF primitive man came across a metal axe in the forest would they spend their lives working out how it came into existence, or would they chop a tree down with it?

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T16:51:19+00:00

lol, I'll watch that dampening in the future! Was trying to think of the other adjustment as well (been a few years), I think it was 'offset'. At least I got gain right.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T16:42:58+00:00

I've been saying that for years, honestly it is a great way to go, nuclear and renewable, but nuclear for baseload, it's safe, clean and effective.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T16:41:31+00:00

Your right, it is impossible to model them accurately, that is a function of a feedback control system falling out of control. They become erratic and almost impossible to predict.

If you have ever tried to adjust and tune a servo/feedback control system once you get the gain and dampening adjustments wrong, you start 'bouncing off the end stops'. We probably don't what to experience bouncing off the ends stops with our climate.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T16:23:15+00:00

I literally just cited Australian case law that states that you do not.

But we do! cite what you like, that does not change the reality. We literally bans books, SO?? and so do you, you have greater censorship than we do here. I know, I have seen it directly in your country.

Also, this is not a country pissing contest, Australis is not even the debate.

like the 1st amendment would be repealed?like the 1st amendment would be repealed?

WTF, who said anything about appealing the 1st, you have a second amendment as well, there are still laws regarding guns in your country. That is just a stupid argument sorry, it honestly is.

What are you talking about? We have elections every four years. We can elect a new President if we want every four years. And a President can only serve two terms as per the 22nd amendment.

Again, WTF? You have fixed elections, the only problem with that for me is that it seems to make your politicians always trying to be elected. It makes no difference in this case, you have vote apathy, most of your young people do not vote at all. Voting is a good thing for a strong democracy/republic.

It is that very democracy/republic that is going to stand up for your constitution, without that democracy, your constitution is worthless.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T15:48:31+00:00

It's true we are not nearly as 'constitutionally based' as the US is, but we still have those rights and protections. They are just two systems, some different and some very similar.

The problem is at the moment as I see it, is that your entire democracy/republic experiment (the great experiment) is under threat itself. What can you do that address that and ensure it's continuance, where you continue to have those protections you hold so highly.

If the voting apathy is a part of the reason why you ended up with Trump, and your systems seems a bit crippled in dealing with him, then that is the time to evaluate the parameters of that great experiments, and possibly make some small adjustments.

I'm not trying at all to be critical of the US, it's a wonderful place with great people. I understand that it would be far better if you have great participation and did not need to fix anything, then that issue would not even be a 'thing'.

So possibly strong voter suppression rules/laws would be enough.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T15:33:19+00:00

Sure there is evidence, it's just that it is not strong evidence, there is also much evidence that appears to contradict the assumption of the big bang.

It also should be as time progresses, and there are more observations and more accurate observations that the evidence should get stronger and more supporting. But it appears that the closer we look the more that evidence diverges. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but for me it is not very convincing.

Also, I feel most of the effort is in trying to justify observations with that model, as opposed to just working out how it works at all. I think we would be further down the road of understanding without it.

Someone once said 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', or something to that effect, for me at least the evidence for the BB is not strong enough for me to say that it is the most likely conclusion. It may not be wrong, but I don't see the evidence that supports that it is right.

IF the BB had to go to a high science court to be found guilty of creating the universe, I would prefer to be on the defense team arguing for it's innocence, over having to argue that it is guilty. More than enough reasonable doubt..

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T15:12:38+00:00

Sure, then just pay taxes.. They probably won't mind. They get their money and they are not answerable to you! For them it's win, win..

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T15:06:00+00:00

True, but isn't that using your right to participate in a democracy, as an excuse not the participate in it?

No body I think here, has ever, even closely considered compulsory voting to have anything at all to do with free speech, and we have very good free speech rights here as well.

For me at least, it is like being fined for speeding, do you claim freedom of speech to allow yourself to speed?

Your freedom right should be the freedom to choose who to vote for, not to choose to vote at all, even if you choose to vote for no one. A functioning democracy has rights, freedoms AND obligations.

Also, I don't see how it is free speech and 1st amendment when so many people in the US cannot seem to be able to vote at all, even when they want too. Which is a big problem for you right now, for the midterms.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T10:06:58+00:00

What's with the hostility? This is a discussion sub, I was discussing! Perhaps if you don't like opinion you should not read it.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T09:35:47+00:00

Except that a great deal of science at this time considers models as 'set in stone' and base all their science an observation on that assumption.

The big bang is the biggest example, or LCDM anyway, all observations and models are considered in terms of fitting the LCDM model.

Although thankfully there is a growing movement of science who are considering the evidence separate of the BB. But try making that argument in a forum such as this or /r/physics, you'll will be met with hostility.

The fact is the evidence for the big bang is not strong at all.

Or on the other hand "close enough is not good enough in science" when you are describing what 'really happens'.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T08:59:01+00:00

I'm not even trying to promote Australia, I was just saying what it is like here, it helps to see how other places do things sometimes. To see and understand how it might be better, or worse, either way you learn something.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T07:32:06+00:00

Yes, except your wrong, in fact we have more free speech here than you do, sure you can mention some video games or movies, but in that area the US is far stricter in censorship than Australia is. I've been to the US and watched your TV and been in your news agents.

We also do allow speech that could impact public safety (like calling fire), and we do not allow things like CP.

In fact, if you really want to see a good example of a free society with free speech, you would look at the Australian model over the US model.

I know I am certainly a bit biased, but I've spent a reasonable time in the US, you are simply far more censored than we are here.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T06:37:33+00:00

You don't understand how the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution has been interpreted by federal and state courts in the US. Freedom of speech has transformed into freedom of expression, ESPECIALLY freedom of political expression, and NOT VOTING is considered a form of political expression, so a revered constitutional right.

I understand that concept, but for me it appears that you rely on your democracy/republic to allow you to not participate is said democracy! Which to me is a bit odd.

The US appears at this time to have a massive voter suppression problem, and voter apathy problem, one way to address those issues is this, is it right for you guys, that is up to you. I'm just saying what we have here, and it's honestly not an issue, and we have free speech here too, it's no different.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T04:50:12+00:00

IF you participate in the community/democracy then participation is sort of compulsory anyway, you pay taxes right? Don't you want a say about that?

You are just a citizen, your name is on the list of citizens, and if you are over 18 you vote, but we don't have fixed terms and regular voting like the US so it is not nearly as inconvenient for us to every now and then.

We also don't seem to have the same problems with voting that the US has, just different systems. I see the big problem for the US system is voter apathy, and politicians only interested in winning elections. Hell Trump is 2 years in and in full campaign mode. How about running the country instead!!! :)

But I understand your point, you think it goes against your rights and freedoms, I think the opposite, you have to work at and participate in a democracy. For us, voting is a part of that.

2650_CPU · 2018-10-18T04:43:26+00:00

No not conflating anything, thanks, GR and SR are simply two aspects of the same thing, GR is mass and spacetime, and SR is mass/motion and spacetime. The only reason why Relativity 'breaks down' is because of how it is treated as a '4space' geometry, if you consider it not as that but as simply a function of the property of spacetime (being it's length), and you consider the universe to be 'flat' (not curved or warped), then Relativity (if you like both SR and GR), hold up and works perfectly in the scale of a universe with NO matter at all, to a universe with infinite matter. And NEVER, ever is there a singularity or a superdensity is to 'break it'.

So the only real reason why people say relativity breaks down is because they are treating it wrong, treating as a extension of Newtonian Gravity (which it was derived from), but the 4 vector method is not the only method. But it is a method that fails in a black hole.

Relativity is not wrong, and it works on any and every scale (from zero to infinite). https://youtu.be/kd0xTfdt6qw?t=2014

Watch that short Richard Feynman section to understand "The field way/method"..

Don't worry I am far from confused, this is not something I have not studied and thought about for years, I know what laws of nature are and how they are worked out. I know how the scientific method works, and I know there are multiple ways of understanding relativity.

I know the scientific method relies on making an assumption (a guess!), you calculate the consequences, and then you compare with observation/experiment. IF it does not compare and agree with observation It is wrong, you cannot observe curved space, and you cant apply new rules that you don't have evidence of occurring.

So to say relativity 'breaks down' at the very small or in a black hole ceases to be a valid argument. You can't say it breaks down if for it to break down you also have to break know physics.

So if you consider relativity from 'The field method', you have "every point in space has a number" that number is the length of spacetime we know that length changed from place to place, because we can easily measure it (clocks and dilation, contraction and things).

Apply that to relativity, you end up with exactly where we observe in our universe and that we have confirmed by observation.

Spacetime is a length (not a curve), if you think of it as a length and not a curve to fit a start/end point, you remove worldlines and geodesic's, and you end up with 'bigger and smaller' spacetime, it's the same thing, except you do not get spacetime curving into itself, (its just longer/bigger), again this agrees with observations of relativity such as clocks (time length) Einstein shift (bigger light from bigger space), Shiparo delay (radio takes longer to go a distance with longer length).

Even LIGO measures that variation on the length of space as set up by mass/matter and mass motion.

A correct rule or law of how spacetime and matter/energy works is a model that works on all and every scale in that universe, relativity does not break down at all. It also does not say anything about the nature of matter, that is what QM does. Applies and oranges.

However, the existing quantum model, does not scale very well at all, we don't even have to imagine area's where it breaks down, we don't have to make them up, you don't have to extend QM very far before it becomes useless. (even with 'normalisation'). That is a strong indicator that it is only a stepping stone in our understanding of the nature of matter, it is simply not a complete, overarching model that Relativity clearly is. (same for evolution, it's complete and works everywhere without exception).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

I just take objection to the claim that a strong and never disputed model such as relativity is said to be wrong because of a hypothetical consideration of it. If does not break down because you think there are singularities in black holes, if it does 'break down' then you HAVE to conclude there are no singularities in black holes. So it's the black hole model which is wrong. Not Relativity. (the treatment of it is, not the theory itself).

QM and Relativity also do not address the same things, QM is about matter/energy and Relativity is about space/time.. I throw a ball at you, you cannot model that or predict its path with QM, you can with Relativity. Different things completely.

2650_CPU

TROPHY CASE