Guy in Valdosta

[Uncle Al]

This is Mind Boggling

Uncle Al

[moonshadow]

For example, the sun is described as being created on day four. Therefore, "sunset" and "sunrise" stated of days one, two, and three cannot possibly mean a solar day. Moreover, day four would experience a sunset but not necessarily a sunrise. To me this describes a winding-up of the physical world. Perhaps it means that the matter was already distributed as it is, but gravity was slow to exert its effects on all of the solar system. The earth was neither revolving around the sun nor rotating on its axis. So one part of the earth would have sustained life but the other part would not. Then as the earth began revolving and rotating, life would have spread around the globe.

The whole text is interesting but I want to point out this particular quote bubble...

Now I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I wasn't there after all, and am not a religious scholar, nor a physicist. I aim to be religiously spiritually open minded, and this is a very well thought out text, similar to what I've heard other educated Christians speak off. The only issue that could come of this in the realm of scientific measure is what I underlined. That being, what set the Earth in motion?

Because I can tell you that science is going to want more than simply "God" as an answer, especially since they have a pretty good theory going as it is about the formation of the solar system, and what set it in motion.

My question of what set the Earth is motion is not meant to be a religious jab, or sarcastic, rather it's a genuine question to further the discussion.

[VoxClamantis]

The only issue that could come of this in the realm of scientific measure is what I underlined. That being, what set the Earth in motion?

So I called my geologist friend and asked him your question. He says that revolving bodies naturally want to rotate on an axis. This is partly due to the fact that solar satellites (i.e. planets) do not usually have uniform density. One side of the planet can have a different rock substrate or mountains, or water.... So a star's gravity pulls unequally on the planet. This also true of terrestrial satellites (i.e. moons). Also, my pal says that there is a theory that a cosmic object collided with the young earth and added to the rotation. But as the crust cooled and solidified, the magma remains a gyroscopic dynamo with such mass as to make it highly unlikely that it would ever "want" to stop spinning. He then had to abruptly let me go because he had someone looking at his car.

As for a related quandry...what triggered the 'bang'? Well, personally I"m not sold on the bang construct, but I have read the theory (and even seems like I might have once heard a theory of multiple localized bangs, but don't quote me on that). Anyway, Stephen Hawking in his earlier work, A Brief History of Time, denied deity interplay, but his revised edition, A Briefer History of Time, walks that back a bit. There he says that he is convinced that the bang could not have escaped its own forces and he believes it had to be initiated by a deity. But Hawking goes on to view any such deity as a watchmaker who sets things in motion and then observes without interacting. It's definitely a good read and not impossibly dense.

[crfriend]

The thirteen-month lunar calendar would make so much more sense.

It could, save for the fact that the lunar months don't equate well into growing seasons which are fundamental to societal formation. It would make sense for a hunter/gatherer civilisation, but not for an agrarian one. What a complex web we weave.

I suppose we could all run on unix epoch time!

Even I wouldn't try to foist that one off on humanity -- and it was flawed from the get-go and was flawed for several reasons, most of which beggar the imagination in the misuse of the signed [0] 32-bit integer [1] that was picked back in the early '70s when UNIX was forming up. All in all, that would be a bad plan. 64-bit integers [2] are better.

So, over time (pun fully intended) we developed ways of compressing time yet still allowing us to express it precisely in a lossless format.

So maybe it would be better to standardize our date expression as days/year as in 70.2018 or 2018.70 (March 12, 2018)

Here we have the problem of the notion of the "starting time" for years. What do you pick? And why?

The math would disagree with you. Of the 11 theorized dimensions, depth, width, and height formed nearly instantaneously with the bang (assuming we all conceive of an identical bang construct). Time, however, did not form as a dimension until much "later" (but it's hard to say "later" since there was no time prior to the time dimension's existence so it's a paradox that time came into existence both sequentially simultaneously and sequentially later).

There is this, and note that I just tossed that datum out as a hypothetical talking point. Obviously, in a universe of infinite mass compressed into an infinitesimal space time could not exist as we know it, and would be dilating as the thing expanded. But we need something "better" than what we've got at the moment, although it does seem to work moderately well.

The earth was neither revolving around the sun nor rotating on its axis. So one part of the earth would have sustained life but the other part would not. Then as the earth began revolving and rotating, life would have spread around the globe. But even then, the solar day would have been so much longer than 24 hours as it would take a while for the earth's mass to reach its rotational speed.

Modern cosmology tends to disprove this as spinning and accretion seem to be fundamental to the formation of most of the structures we see in the universe today, and our own little backwater solar-system is no exception. The thinking goes that initially the proto-Earth rotated on its axis vastly faster than it does today, and the reason it doesn't now was a cataclysmic impact that spalled the moon off from the proto-Earth. The proximity of the new satellite and it remarkably large mass then slowed the rotational rate of the (still-young) planet to roughly where it is today -- and it's still slowing, mind (that's why we have leap-seconds) as the moon slowly recedes.

All of the above having been said, I still find it moderately offensive that calendars are numbered based on somebody else's pseudo-deity.

Yes, I'm quoting myself in this passage to marvel at how skirts brought us to this tangent. I'm not knocking it; I'm just saying that it's quite amusing.

This is the sort of thing you run into here. Cherish it or revile it, but it happens.


[0] I want to find the guy who defined it as signed and hurt him. That has caused more grief that can be imagined for folks who port software or need to contemplate the fiasco that's coming up in 2038.

[1] Recall that 32-bit hardware -- whilst it existed at the time -- was still a bit rare. The original UNIX host was a PDP-7 -- a 12-bitter with a maximum unsigned integer value of 4096 which is not of much use if one is counting seconds. Later ones were done on 16-bit iron (pdp11s, mainly) where you can get 65,536 as an unsigned integer which is still not all that useful [3] The 32-bitters came later in the form of VAXen and beyond, but by then the signed 32-bit quantity was set in stone.

[2] A 64-bit integer will likely be "good enough" as the clock likely won't run out of bits until the human species is extinct. Good.

[3] OS8 used a three-bit field for storing the year datum on the filesystem. This gave an immediate 8-year problem.

[VoxClamantis]

-. --- / --- -. . / .... .- ... / .- / -.-. .-.. ..- . / .- -... --- ..- - / - .... .. ... / .- -. -.-. .. . -. - / -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - .. -. --. / ... - ..- ..-. ..-. .-.-.-

That's what I got from the before-my-lifetime Unix stuff. LOL. They rest I understood.

As for the agrarian calendar aspect, however, the ancient Maya ran on dual civic and religious calendars, one of which was 20×13=260 and they managed to do ok.

[crfriend]

-. --- / --- -. . / .... .- ... / .- / -.-. .-.. ..- . / .- -... --- ..- - / - .... .. ... / .- -. -.-. .. . -. - / -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - .. -. --. / ... - ..- ..-. ..-. .-.-.-

.-. .- - .... . .-. / -- --- .-. . / - .... .- -. / -.-- --- ..- / -- .. --. .... - / - .... .. -. -.- / .- -. -.. / .. / .- -- / - .... . / --- -. . / .-- .... --- / .- ..- - .... --- .-. . -.. / - .... . / -- --- .-. ... . / .--. .- -.-. -.- . - / .--. .-. --- - --- -.-. --- .-.. / ... .--. . -.-. / - .... .- - / - .... . / .-. ..-. -.-. / . -.. .. - --- .-. / ... .... --- - / -.. --- .-- -. / .. -. / ..-. .- ...- --- ..- .-. / --- ..-. / - .... . / .. -. ..-. .. -. .. - . / -- --- -. -.- . -.-- / .--. .-. --- - --- -.-. --- .-..

That's what I got from the before-my-lifetime Unix stuff. LOL. They rest I understood.

I think we see eye to eye. UNIX is not the be-all and end-all of operating systems.

As for the agrarian calendar aspect, however, the ancient Maya ran on dual civic and religious calendars, one of which was 20×13=260 and they managed to do ok.

The Mayans were also located much closer to the equator than many other cultures. A little bit of slop didn't mean as much. It's an interesting concept, though. Did both calendars run on the same stepping? 260 isn't even close to ~365.249.

[Darryl]

The most interesting attempt to explain things from a human perspective, in my opinion, is "Genesis One" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder with Zola Levitt.

Basically, G-d wrote the formulae, so to speak, into the matrix and BANG!

Best Answer: Matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. But the expansion of the Universe is due to the expansion of *space* itself. And that can happen faster than the speed of light. In fact it did, during a short period called Inflation, very shortly after the Big Bang.

Geologic ages, life assembling itself from the itty-bitty stuff (dust) and growing more complex and larger and so on.

Six days? What's your reference? How about Ground Zero? Time Zero. He states that most sources are agreed we are talking about 6 24-hour days...but how? And how can there be evening and morning? Evening: the root of the word (erev) is chaos, disorder. Morning: the root of the word (boker) is orderly, able to be discerned. Hmmmm. There was chaos and then there was order, higher and higher levels of order (the laws of nature can take a 'tohu va'vohu (an unformed earth) and grow trees.

Can order ever arise from disorder by random process?

Hint 1: Psalm 90:4 "A thousand years in your sight are like a day that passes." Hint 2: 2 Peter 3:8 - "Unto the Lord, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day." As I was reading initially, the thought came to me that I should remember what my instructors in the Advanced Electronics Program harped on all the time when we quoted a reading all by itself - what's your reference? Clue: Einstein.

The almost abstract phraseology "and there was evening and morning" is never repeated in the Hebrew Bible from Adam and Eve onward. Time goes on as "Adam and Eve live 130 years, They are the parents of Seth, who lives 105 years and he is the father of Enosh....and so on. From Adam forward time is human time because with Adam and Eve, the soul of human life is created and planted on the earth.

In the book: The Principles of Physical Cosmology you run across a term - red shift, expansion of the universe, the stretching factor is right in the ballpark of 1 million squared.

Take 15 billion years and divide it by 1 million squared and you'll get about .015 of a year. Multiply that by 365 and you'll get about 6 days. It could be that simple.

For an impartial observer, located at a point outside of space-time: 6 days.

For those of us in the expanding space-time: 15 billion years.

Fascinating.

And while I personally like the idea and think it is at least moving in the right direction and I expect that when the day comes that we find out the answer we'll all do a palm slap to the forehead and say "Dang! It's so simple....."

[Daryl]

UNIX is not the be-all and end-all of operating systems.

Exactly so. VAX/VMS is.

[Daryl]

What can you expect from a country where the week starts on a sunday where most of the world uses a monday as a week starter. ISO has some work to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

My Dutch calendar hangs next to my wife's calendar (gift from a charity) so there is some confusion on the wall.

To be clear when filling out forms and writing cheques, I use the month abbreviated between the day and the year. 11 MAR 2018.

Same here. It is the most efficient form that is easily read by most people and not easily misinterpreted. Most often I use the hyphenated version 11-Mar-2018. I use the "20180311" format for almost everything but paper forms destined to be read by someone else, though: file and folder names, digital objects, etc..

We are terribly confused about this in Canada because the US notation in the slashy style is MM/DD/YYYY whereas the official Canadian standard is the more logical (ie. order-of-significance-based) DD/MM/YYYY. One often has to find an exemplar to know which standard is being used, when the day is less than 13. Such is the influence of the behemoth to the south of us.

Any sane person knows that Sunday is the first day of the week. Who wants to jump right into work at the beginning of each week? Starting and ending each week with a day off just makes sense.

[r.m.anderson]

And so beware the ides of March !
Also be careful of critical detailed professional work done on Mondays and Fridays
- Mondays not quite into it after Sunday's hullabaloo
- Fridays starting the weekend early - this can wait (maybe)

Interesting read 1968:

Chariots of The Gods
by Erich von Däniken

At every revolution of the globe - always something of interest !

[crfriend]

We are terribly confused about this in Canada because the US notation in the slashy style is MM/DD/YYYY whereas the official Canadian standard is the more logical (ie. order-of-significance-based) DD/MM/YYYY. One often has to find an exemplar to know which standard is being used, when the day is less than 13. Such is the influence of the behemoth to the south of us.

The problems that can arise from the DD/MM/YY and MM/DD/YY systems is at the very least confusing and at the worst outright dangerous. One of the two needs to fall out of use. This of course will take YYs if not YYYYs.

The logical way of doing it is to proceed with the highest order of significance first and work downwards to least. Just as 10 > 1, so a year is greater than a month which, in turn, is greater than a day.

Any sane person knows that Sunday is the first day of the week. Who wants to jump right into work at the beginning of each week? Starting and ending each week with a day off just makes sense.

The problem with that is that it deprives us of a full weekend. I'm a Monday guy.

TGIF, and the weekend officially begins with the first quaff of Guinness on Friday afternoon. Then a full weekend of two days' duration. OSIM [0] then arrives and it's back into the rat-race for five days.

UNIX is not the be-all and end-all of operating systems.

Exactly so. VAX/VMS is.

Ahem. RDOS.


[0] Work it out.

[VoxClamantis]

OSIM [0] then arrives and it's back into the rat-race for five days.

[0] Work it out.

Couldn't, so I cheated and asked Google. Nice.

[VoxClamantis]

Such is the influence of the behemoth to the south of us.

Doesn't Canada cover more surface area than the USA, and if so, who is the behemoth of which you speak? But I get what you mean given Canada's population of 30-40 million and the USA's population of 300+ million.

FWIW, I agree, though, that DD/MM/YYYY would make more sense, and I have felt that way ever since my first childhood digital wristwatch that allowed me to change the date order. But I agree more that YYYY-MM-DD makes far more sense (both sequence and sans slashes a.k.a. strokes).

[crfriend]

OSIM [0] then arrives and it's back into the rat-race for five days.
[0] Work it out.

Couldn't, so I cheated and asked Google. Nice.

It's base and coarse: "Oh s..t it's Monday".

[oldsalt1]

won't comment again unless pushed? What is that supposed to mean? Are you that easily manipulated? Are your buttons so sensitive that they are pushed by a gentle breeze? Give me a break. No one asked your opinion and you felt like it was you duty to take me to school, but like a peer who wants to be a teacher but does not want to punch the timeclock to do those lesson plans! The difference between a negative review and constructive criticism is the relationship between the parties. To be constructive, there must some form of rapport between the parties, either by longstanding friendship or by solicitation of the feedback. Neither of those premises existed so no, it was not constructive criticism but rather a disdainfully expressed opinion. And I for one make it a point to own my discourse so I won't color this message with that "constructive criticism" crayon. No, I'm just laying it all out there. As I live in the U.S.A., I believe the First Amendment's freedom of speech trumps all else, and as was once said, I may disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it (attribution disputed, but I choose Voltaire).

If you truly intended your feedback to be friendly, but poorly delivered, demonstrate that by not replying defensively
I haven't read much of this blog before . I don't like to stir up old problems but I must say that I take great umbrage to your comments to sinned. To be blunt who asked you for your comments in the first place.

You came on the café as an all knowing individual whose opinions are beyond reproach and you are unwilling to hear much less accept any comments or criticism from the apparently fashion ignorant individuals that inhabit this café.

Its regretful that we all don't have your superior education and we are only able to return poorly delivered responses.

But I would prefer to listen to the comments from the longstanding members of the café that have to hear the ramblings of some egocentric newbie

Just exercising my First Amendment rights.