🚀 go-pugleaf

Stargazer wrote:
> 
> >> For those who feel the next millenium starts with 1-1-2000, a question:
> >> Which millenium are you shortchanging>
> >>     a. The 1st one (the last one?
> >>     b. The current one"
> >>     c. The next one?
> >
> >The answer is "d." -- none of the above. Or, as an alternative, it means
> >"adding" -- rather than "shortchanging" -- years to the the first
> >"century." The key is this: there is no way to scientifically know when
> >the "first" year, century, or  millenium began.
> 
> Yes, of course there is!  You just pick one.  It's arbitrary.
> 
> >If for no other reason than the transition from Julian to Gregorian
> calendars, the first day of
> >the first millenium most certainly did not begin on Jan. 1 of any year
> >currently observed.
> 
> That is not a true statement.  The first day of the first millenium was Jan
> 1, 1A.D.
> 
> >"A.D." is the abbreviation for "anno Domini," which
> >means "in the year of our Lord." However, many religious scholars have
> >concluded that the "A.D." era actually began 4 to 6 years in what is
> >traditionally considered the "B.C." era. By definition, a century is 100
> >years and a millenium 1000 years. However, if Jesus was not born in the
> >year 1 A.D., then the "first century" as currently observed based on the
> >"A.D." convention was over 100 years in duration--and the first millenium
> >consequently was over 1,000 years in duration -- no matter whether 1000 or
> >1001 A.D. is cited as the beginning of the second millenium. A millenium
> >has a beginning and an end, but it is extremely questionable that the A.D.
> >calendar truly began on Jan. 1, 0001. And yet, those who now insist that
> >the 3rd millenium has to begin in the year 2,001 necessarily make that
> >assumption.
> 
> No, sorry that's completely, utterly wrong.  True, it is very likely that
> Jesus was born 3-5 years earlier than it was thought when the calendar was
> set up.  But that doesn't change the calendar or the length of the centuries
> or millenia.  In fact it would be stupid to change the calendar because it
> would royally screw up the history books.  It's important to have a uniform
> system of time.
> 
> >Therefore, proposals to start the next millenium on the first day of the
> >first year of the first decade of the year 2000 have the effect of
> >maintaining the American tradition of celebrating when a new century
> >begins; establishing a rational basis for dealing with a religious-based
> >calendar that has changed in intepretation; and recognizing overwhelming
> >popular opinion in the western world about when the next millenium will
> >begin.
> 
> That's just it -- If I remember correctly "turn of the century" celebration
> didn't start in this country until 1900.  That hardly makes it a tradition.
> 
> >Some would suggest that the beginning of the next millenium is a purely
> >mathematical or scientific issue. I would suggest that it is not. If it
> >is, then what is the "scientific" first day of the week?
> >Why doesn't a clock begin with the first minute of a new day being hour 1?
> 
> Uhhh...for the same reason that a baby is not a one year old until one year
> has passed!
> The day starts at midnight.  At 1:00 a.m. one hour has passed.  (Remember
> that in a 24-hour clock (i.e. military time) midnight is 0:00.
> Unfortunately our clock system was adopted before the concept of zero was
> created.)
> 
I remember midnight as 24:00 hours, not 0.  I can recall
one Sgt of the Guard getting this big lecture about logging
people returning off liberty at 24:15, 24:30, etc, when
they came in late.  Times should have been recorded as
0:15, 0:30 of next date.  

-- 
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory 
beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
                              ~ George Orwell ~

To email replace NOTMYADDRESS with zecaptain.