ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Archives :: News :: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant

New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Posted by Nathan on 1 January 2000, 01:00 GMT

Sources at the U.S. Naval Observatory, the official time keepers for the United States of America, were perplexed to see that there was no roll over to the 21st century or the third millennium at 00:00:00 GMT. Insiders speculate that the new millennium was not Y2K compliant. Official statements have not been issued yet, but our sources are confident they can have the problem solved within a year: in time to roll over the century and millennium with 2001.

Okay, you have all heard about Y2K and the millennium. But maybe some of you don't know why people are saying the new millennium doesn't start until 2001.

The year-numbering system the Julian and Gregorian calendars use was invented in A.D. 562 by a Roman monk named Dennis the Short. Now, he obviously didn't have too much going for him as he couldn't come up with a better nickname than "the Short." He decided that, since Luke 3:1 from the Bible stated "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,...the word of God came onto John the son of Zacharias [John the Baptist, who announced the coming of Jesus], and Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age." He knew when the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (an old Roman emperor) was, so he decided that that year was anno Domini 30. That's also why some people complain that the year A.D. 2000 should have been around A.D. 1997 or so.

There are now two reasons that there is no year A.D. 0. The first is logical: if Jesus was born, that is the first year of our Lord or A.D. 1. The year before that was, of course, 1 B.C. The other reason is quite simply common sense: Dennis the Short was a Roman monk, and the Romans had no numeral zero, neither much of a concept of zero at all. So our friend Dennis could not have started at A.D. 0 because for him it could never have existed.

The staff of ticalc.org wishes you a safe and happy new year! :)

Update (Nick): Here's my explanation for exactly why the millennium doesn't start until 2001.
Think back to kindergarden, when you were taught to count numbers. What number did you start with? 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. and so on. You started with 1. Therefore, it's logical to assume the new millennium starts on 2001 as well.
Another way of thinking of it: The Julian calendar was invented by the Romans. As a result, Roman numerals were used to name years for a very long time (they still are in many cases, movies and TV shows instantly come to mind). What's the Roman numeral for zero?

 


The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.


Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
DWedit  Account Info
(Web Page)

If that guy (whatzhisname... oh! JESUS) was born at age 1, then the first year would be 1 AD.

NOW WHO THE HELL IS BORN AT AGE 1?

     1 January 2000, 02:29 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
rabidcow
(Web Page)

1ad was the 1st year of his life.
that year started at birth and ended at his 1st birthday.

     1 January 2000, 05:16 GMT


Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Nathan Walters  Account Info

Actually, scholars think that Jesus was born about 3 bc, so all of us are screwed, huh?

Nathan

     1 January 2000, 17:05 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Chris Remo  Account Info
(Web Page)

I hope my post doesn't go away (not that I care that much), but WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!
Please THINK about things before you post them.
Look, Jesus wasn't born at age 1. He was born at age 0. That was his FIRST YEAR OF LIVING. Hence 1 AD. When you are, say, 18 years old, you are in your 19th year of living, not your 18th. You've already completed 18 years, and are working on your 19th. Jesus, at birth, had already completed 0 years of living (obviously) and was in his 1st.
My post was probably out of line, but you people arguing against the facts need to take some time and logically reason this stuff out...
-chris

     1 January 2000, 07:26 GMT


Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Patrick H
(Web Page)

"NOW WHO THE HELL IS BORN AT AGE 1?"

Dip-shit, you don't know much about other cultures do you. I hate ignorance.

Patrick

     1 January 2000, 19:42 GMT

Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
CrazyBillyO  Account Info
(Web Page)

I was born at age 2 1/2. Go figure.

The millenium doesn't start with 2000, it's 2001, and whoever says otherwise is just... well... WRONG. We started with one, we begin again with 1. Simple as that.

WHAT'S THAT GUY'S NAME? How can you say that about our Lord and savior, the one who DIED FOR YOU? People need to get their priorities straight...

     1 January 2000, 03:14 GMT

Jesus was the original bleeding heart liberal.
SPUI  Account Info

But of course this is all arbitrary anyway - it's just that people like to celebrate the fact that the number times the earth has revolved around the sun since when some historian thought the prophet of Christianity was born is twice the cube of the number of fingers on a normal human minus 1.

And BTW I was LOL at the whatshisname :)

     1 January 2000, 03:46 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Spellbound_Magi  Account Info

Who cares if the millenium starts at year 2000 or 2001, most people are celebrating the new millenuim this year, so I would say the millenium starts year 2000.

sorry if the spelling is bad, I am not the best speller

     1 January 2000, 03:51 GMT


Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Ig0r  Account Info

I don't think that using the thoughts of the masses on this matter as a measure of truth is what we should do. :)

     1 January 2000, 06:58 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Niten  Account Info
(Web Page)

Yeah... ever read 1984? That's kinda scary...

     2 January 2000, 04:50 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Ig0r  Account Info

I think that Brave New World is scarrier in how much of it applies to society today.

     3 January 2000, 17:37 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Spellbound_Magi  Account Info

Who cares if the millenium starts at year 2000 or 2001, most people are celebrating the new millenuim this year, so I would say the millenium starts year 2000.

sorry if the spelling is bad, I am not the best speller

     1 January 2000, 03:51 GMT

Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Chris Remo  Account Info
(Web Page)

Oh, right, of course! By God, you've got it! If MOST people think that it's 2000, not 2001, then it _must_ be right! What have I been thinking?
We should start a "Gravity Does Not Exist" petition. Maybe if enough people sign it, we can change the laws of physics!
-chris

     1 January 2000, 07:29 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
ikecam  Account Info

LOL!

Anouncement: Reality is now a democracy. The next step is to vote that not only is the year 2000 the start of the third millenium, 2001 is the start of fourth millenium, 2002 is a fifth millenium, etc. We can have a new millenium celabration every year!

After that, we can vote that diseases, starvation, and runny noses don't exist. I'm planning on headlining a campaign to make Mars green.

     2 January 2000, 03:30 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Chris Remo  Account Info
(Web Page)

ROFLMFAO!

     2 January 2000, 06:00 GMT


Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Bryan Tran  Account Info

yeah but the millennium is just an idea, the earth is affected by gravity but doesn't care if this revolution is different. the idea of a millennium can be changed if everyone believes it's 2000 not 2001

     1 January 2000, 20:53 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
ikecam  Account Info

But popular belief can't change the fact that it's only been 1999 years since 1 AD.

     2 January 2000, 03:31 GMT


it doesn't matter...
Derek Bodner  Account Info
(Web Page)

...it's been 2003 years since a a.d.

     2 January 2000, 06:48 GMT


Re: it doesn't matter...
ikecam  Account Info

The day Christ was *actually* born (4 BC) isn't really relevent. What matters is that the first year on the calendar system was AD 1.

     3 January 2000, 21:02 GMT


Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
DWedit  Account Info
(Web Page)

Hey! I'm jewish, dammit! You think I worship Jesus?

(well, I'm more atheistic...)

     1 January 2000, 07:46 GMT


Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
David Hess  Account Info

well hopefull someday jesus will be in your life

     1 January 2000, 07:58 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Nick Disabato  Account Info
(Web Page)

I'm agnostic, so that technically means that I'm celebrating year 10,283,485 - since the Universe was created.
The year 2000 is totally irrelevant to me. Oh, and since the universe was created on what people from Earth would consider to be July 16, I celebrate the new year then.

People think I'm weird sometimes.

--BlueCalx

     1 January 2000, 09:04 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Ig0r  Account Info

I think you might be a *little* off, considering that the earth is over four billion years old, and that's nothing compared to the visible universe.
:)

     1 January 2000, 18:22 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Nick Disabato  Account Info
(Web Page)

Oops! That was supposed to be ten billion, not ten million. I'm celebrating the year 10,283,742,485.

Thanks for clearing that up :-)

--BlueCalx

     1 January 2000, 21:00 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
ColdFusion
(Web Page)

That's only the approximate age of this 4 Dimensional space-time Universe. Several physicists believe that this universe is merely the result of the breakdown of a 10 dimensional universe, which existed for who knows how long before that. The quantum leap from the unstable 10 dimensional universe to the current 4 dimensional space-time universe created by the "curling up" of the other 6 dimensions each into a dimension roughly the size of Planck's constant (a _VERY_ small number) cm's big caused the Big Bang which brought about our known universe. Most of the physicists who believe in this theory are String Theory supporters. String Theory is currently held as the best chance at a grand unified theory of the universe which would combine the mathematics of the 4 forces-- the Strong force, the Weak force, the Electromagnetic force, and gravity-- into one theory. Current theories are only capable of combining the mathematics of the first three forces above. Einstein, who developed the theories of Relativity, died in the midst of his quest for this "Grand Unified Theory".
Still other physicists think that is just one of many created by a "bubbling" of universes. I am not currently informed on anything other than the fact that this theory exists.

And one last thing: Time is relative. Relative to whoever decides to define certain words to represent certain distances in "Time" such as seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, and years.
The Chinese do have the same definitions, but a different calendar... they were/are not celebrating a new millenium OR millennium this year, or next. I have not a clue what year it is by the Chinese calendar though. I believe somewhere around 5600 or something like that. (hopefully I am not making a fool of myself on the Chinese thing; I do not claim to be in any way especially learned in Chinese practices)
And most all these definitions are relative to the movement of THIS planet around the sun. A year on Mars is a different length than a year on Earth. If creatures lived on Mars, they wouldn't be celebrating the true Mars millennium(which is NEXT year, if you go by our relative definitions of time and the A.D./B.C. dating system).
Mars's millenium would occur after 2000 Mars years, by the definition of the year of the inhabitants of Mars. Inhabitants of Mars (if there were/are any) might not even consider the year to be the length of time it takes for one complete revolution around the sun. They might think of that as a Pengilud... if they used the English Alphabet... which they almost certainly wouldn't.

So you see people, us humans are not easily capable of understanding that there are things OUTSIDE of human definition, and that what one thing is to a human might not be to something else. This is mostly due to the fact that our interaction has been limited to humans... and other animals which are [mostly] unable to communicate with us. Maybe if we could just figure out how to stabilize a wormhole as a means of traveling through space-time...

"One man's junk is another man's treasure. [One man's year is another creature's day]"

     2 January 2000, 05:11 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
usaar33  Account Info

wow....
i'm confused :)

     2 January 2000, 06:16 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Ig0r  Account Info

You wouldn't be able to transport any sizable object through a very large wormhole; small probes possibly in one a few miles across. :(

     3 January 2000, 17:44 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Erich Oelschlegel  Account Info
(Web Page)

Hmmm, interesting that you used the word, "created," to discuss the universe's origin...makes you think whether you're an agnostic or not.

~ferich

     2 January 2000, 05:31 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
usaar33  Account Info

it really doesn't matter about the word created...
created by a big bang sounds fine to me..

     2 January 2000, 06:18 GMT

1  2  3  4  5  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2011, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer