Finally, a nice, simple, straight to the point answer!!
Now, can you use the same reasoning and explain
the fundamentals of the Mopar Calendar and perhaps
extrapolate a probable date of release for my SBEC.
Ryan K
'99 R/T RC
Shaun.Hendricks@bergenbrunswig.com wrote:
This is precisely the point. Here's a person that thinks that they've got
it all figured out. I'm not going to start a big argument over this, I'll let
the philosophers and scientists hack it out. Mike has eloquently stated one
side of the issue and the "It's our way or no way" viewpoint is common amongst
that side.
My "no year zero or one" is a simple fact: no person living at that time
recorded any year zero or one. To them it was year X of so-in-so's reign or
the 450th year of the cow or whatever. The Gregorian Calendar didn't come
into major play until just prior to the turn of the first millenium.
The other side is this, in a count-down scheme: you do reach zero. In a
count up scheme you reach the next counting digit starting from one. In order
to maintain the correct time flow, year zero must exist just the same as the
year 10 or year 2000 (note: 2 with some ZEROES following it) must exist. So
year "zero" was the year immediately proceeding year one. The year prior to
year zero was year one BC. The usual counter to this argument is that "zero"
technically exists only in infinity as the years are counted "away" from that
point (This is Mike's position). If you accept that argument then you accept
that math fails at that point in time. In our math system you count -1, 0, 1
not -1, 1. If BC = negative numbers and AD= positive numbers then year zero
must have existed.
You may feel free to debate this all you like Mike, you're just not looking
at the other side of the Calendar. I'm not going to put out another post on
this topic so I'll leave with this: I've watched PHD's debate it and read some
interesting things regarding this concept. I admit I'm in the minority, but I
must follow my own logic, the rebel I am.My position:
If we are going to attach numbers to "years" then year 'zero' must've
existed and that is the true starting point of the Millenium. If you want to
get technical, the summer solstace of year zero would've been the exact start
of the Millenium (midpoint of year zero). All we do is tend to slide that
time to the beginning of the "new year" or January first, year one. But
technically, we are celebrating the new year 6 months late, so if people want
to celebrate it during 2000, they're just 6 months early (I like this solution
just for astetics). The Aztec's and the Druids (and many other ancient folk)
had it correct, but what the heck, we're so much smarter than they were.Shaun H.
---original message---
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 12:54:39 -0600
From: Mike Crumley <mcrumley@airmail.net>
Subject: Re: DML: RE:DML Y2K (non-Dak)At 10:14 AM 1/6/99 , you wrote:
> There is a huge debate over this issue:
No there's not. The only debate is among those who either don't know or
won't accept facts.>The simple fact is, there was never a year "0", or a year one.
You're right about no year zero, but no year 1??? Sez who?
> Instead, we have some folks who think they know math telling us that "Year
>1" was the start and therefore 2001 is the new millenium. Excuse me, they're
>saying that we went from 1 BC to 1 AD overnight at some time in the past? No
>year zero? What kind of math is that?It's not math, it's time keeping. It's the same kind of "math" that goes
from 12:59 to 1:00. What, no hour zero?? When somebody asks you to count
to ten, do you start with zero? You're right about the calendar being an
abstract and being whatever we say it is, BUT, it also has to be
standardized. We can't have everyone going around keeping time and date
however they please (I know there are a few exceptions, but most of the
world is standardized). The powers that be have decided that the first year
of the first millennium was year one and therefore, the last year of this
millennium is year 2000. It's more confusing, not as intuitive and not as
easy to manage, but that's the way it is. No debate about it. Those who say
the new millennium starts on 1-1-2000 are wrong.
Mike Crumley 97 V6 Auto
mail to: mcrumley@airmail,net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:11:53 EDT