Then why did they celebrate 2000, not 2001 as the start of the millennium? Doesn't the 2001 date mark the completion of the first year of the millennium?
Many celebrated the new milenium on Jan. 01,2001, 2000 is just a nice round number. A millenium is 1000 years long, the calender started with year 1, not 0, thus we did not complete 1000 years till the end of 1000 AD and we did not complete 2000 years till the end of 2000 AD.
Jan 1 2010 is the first day of the 11th year of this century, it is the start of the second decade now you would say that there was no year zero http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF8P7Rrjkdk 1980 is part of the ’80s and 1990 is part of the ’90s. It makes perfect sense to consider 2010 the start of a new decade. anyway its your own choice, call as you like
~ The Republicans will have only marginal gains if any at all for the midterm elections.....positive events will begin turning in the liberal Democratic direction.
Short explanation The 3rd Millennium starts January 1st, year 2001 NOT year 2000 as many people believe, when using the Gregorian calendar. Year 2000 starts January 1st, year 2000. Longer explanation The reason why the 3rd Millennium / 21st Century starts in 2001 is because there was no year 0 (or AD 0, 0 BC). The year before 1 A.D. is defined as year 1 B.C., so year 0 was skipped. (See below. Therefore, January 1st, year 1 is defined to be the start of the 1st century and the 1st Millennium. Because one Millennium is 1000 years, the first Millennium ends with year 1000. The next (2nd) Millennium starts 1000 years after the first, that is in year 1+1000 = 1001. And the 3rd one starts 1000 years later than the 2nd: 1001+1000 = 2001. The same procedure could be followed for centuries or decades. http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html 1980 is part of the ’80s and 1990 is part of the ’90s. Yes, That makes perfect sense. It makes perfect sense to consider 2010 the start of a new decade. No, that makes absolutely no sense, the math just doesn't work. We did not complete the first decade till the end of year 10 (a decade is 10 years), thus the second decade started in the year 11. We did not complete the first century till the end of year 100 (a century is 100 years), thus the second century started in the year 101. We did not complete the first millennium till the end of year 1000 (a millennium is 1000 years), thus the second millennium started in the year 1001. We did not complete the second millennium till the end of year 2000 (a millennium is 1000 years), thus the third millennium started in the year 2001.
Well that's a nice explanation and all Roman, but I still hate it, and think its bullshit. I'm doing it my way!! If the year before 1 AD was 1BC, then new years of 1BC would have celebrated the last year before Christ, and New Years 1AD would have completed a full year into the new millennium. There is a certain satisfaction that comes from knowing what your doing is wrong and doing anyway because you want to. Everyone should try it now and again.
Yeah, I know it's tough when proof destroys what you always believed, people will find a way to justify that they are right regardless. It's amazing how many people still believe Columbus discovered America, after all it's written in an old book and that's what they have been taught their entire lives. I can give other examples but they'd belong in the P&R forum
Why? Why is January 1st, Year 1, automatically defined to be the start of the first century? Since there is no year zero, aren't the definitions of 1 A.D. and 1 B.C. a little fuzzy anyway, since there is really no year zero for them to reference? I mean, they don't mean what we pretend they mean, because their reference (year 0) doesn't exist, right? So, what if I choose my reference so that the start of the 1st century is defined to be January 1st, Year 1 B.C.? Then, the first decade is from 1 B.C. to 9 A.D. The second decade is from 10 A.D. to 19 A.D. Yes, of course, that would screw up the decade system in B.C., but since that decade has already finished rationalizing when their decades started, they don't care. Besides, the real year is 2763 AUC (Anno Urbis Conditae, from the founding of the city of Rome), the decade already started three years ago. Or two years ago? Wait... "Back in 99 B.C., they used to say, 'this is a very long time ago' " - Robin Williams
In either case 2010 is not the start of a new decade, but by referring to 2010 he was using the Gregorian calender. The real first century occured some 5 billion years ago, but again, this belongs in the P&R forum
Guess I'm confused as well. If there was no year 0-100AD, then why are we in the 21st century and not the 20th? We were in the 20th century in the 1990's. I'm confused....
the first time I realized that was in a Buddhist temple and how they count for Birthdays. We had quite some discussions about that. Buddhism I call the worldly wisdom, or the female principle. As Christians we are taught to cloth ourselves with wisdom.
You now, by the same logic, are you really a year older the day AFTER you were born? So, a child born on January 1, 2010, becomes one year old on January 2, 2011. Correct?
There was no year zero so lets count; calender started in year 1, 1 year later it was year 2, 2 years later it was year 3, 3 years later it was year 4, 4 years later it was year 5, 5 years later it was year 6, 6 years later it was year 7, 7 years later it was year 8, 8 years later it was year 9, 9 years later it was year 10, 10 years or 1 decade later it was year 11. Thus every decade starts in the year x1, Thus every centuray starts in the year x01, Thus every millenium starts in the year x001. Incorrect, a child born on January 1, 2010, becomes one year old on January 1, 2011. but lets look at it this way, a child born on January 1 in the first year of thr Gregorian calender will be 10 years old or 1 decade old on January 1, 11
Really? Then what is 30 B.C. - Before Calendar??? A child born on January 1 2010, is one day old on January 2. Two days old on January 3, etc. Remembering that 2010 is not a leap year, isn't the child 364 days old at midnight January 1, 2011? And the first complete day of the child being two years old, is on January 2, 2011?
I don't like making predictions but I found these fascinating. I think these are very interesting. I don't know anything abt the Nobel Prize for Physics. Your commentary on nuclear fusion energy is fascinating. Man, that would be great if that occurred. Your comments abt events in the Middle East are interesting. (You are obviously a lot closer to it than I as an American am.) Quite a lot of change. and as for these comments by Corwin: LOL. You wish. Ha ha. Whom do you think he will emulate? John Ensign (sex scandal and Payoff scandal) Mark Foley Larry Craig Bill (I like B J's) Clinton David (I like Ho's) Vitter John (what a scum bag) Edwards Mark (what an idiot weeny) Sanford etc. etc. It seems that sex scandals are open territory. Frankly I got this feeling Obama is much more like G W Bush, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan. I don't think any of those guys had a hint of sex scandal once they were married