RE: A83: (no subject)

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

RE: A83: (no subject)


> That page was very interesting.  It says the Winter Solstice
> is Dec. 25th in
> the Julian calendar, which is obviously different than the Gregorian
> calendar that we use today.
>
> I find it also interesting to note that there was no year 0
> when the dude
> created the calendar because the concept hadn't been invented yet..

Even if the number 0 had existed (if it really did not, which I am not
so certain about) it would not fit under the current system.  The modern
calendar uses ordinal numbers to describe the years, that is, we are
currently living in the 1,999th year and are about to enter the 2,000th.
Since a millenium begins only every 1,000 years it is obvious under this
system that the current millenium includes the year 2000 and that the
new millenium does begin in 2001.

However, though this is true, celebrating the year 2001 is obviously not
as exciting as the year 2000, which not only is nice and even but also
has the much-hyped Y2K issue attached.  That is why most people want to
celebrate the year 2000, and calling it the "millenium" is just
convenient.

In 1900, as a side note, the same controversy came up over whether 1900
or 1901 would be the beginning of the new century.  It's interesting to
note that, unlike today, in 1900 the general population had more respect
for "experts" in a field, so when the knowledgeable experts spoke out
saying that 1901 should be the year to be celebrated the public trusted
them and did indeed celebrate 1901.

A hundred years later, however, things are a bit different.

In hindsight I think better than ordinally naming years would be to
treat them just like our age.  Our ages are not talked about in terms of
what year we are in, but rather in how many years we have completed.
Thus we turn 1 year old a year after birth, and before that we are just
days, weeks, or months old.  This way the date would not be 1999 but
rather 1998 + 11 months and some change.  We have completed 1,998 years
and are in our 1,999th - that's the difference in numbering.  If we
called this year 1998, though, there would be no controversy a year from
now over when the millenium would be, because it would indeed begin at
2000.

--
John Kugelman  jkugelman@mgfairfax.rr.com

I believe we can change anything.
I believe in my dream.
    - Joe Satriani
Follow-Ups: References: