Re: A83: (no subject)


Re: A83: (no subject)

The only reason why the modern calendar uses the "ordinal numbers" to
describe the years is because the year 0 does not exist and it starts with
1.  That's not the convention we use for our ages, because when people are
born, they are 0 years old, not 1.

Bryan Rabeler

"The last thing we want is a "cover-up."  ...there's no reason to take out
intelligent and purely speculative posts. Even if they're true." - Chris
Dornfeld, 4 November 1998

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kugelman" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 11:10 PM
Subject: 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
> I believe we can change anything.
> I believe in my dream.
>     - Joe Satriani