|
Re: 2000 not a new Millenium
Posted by Jerry Eckert.
Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by New England Prototype/Brooks Automation.
Posted on 12/20/99 1:37 PM MST
In Reply to: 2000 not a new Millenium posted by Raul on 12/20/99 7:05 AM MST:
: There are unending statements from the news media and many other people about how the new millenium is about to start. Can we set the record straight here?
: Since we are to be scientist and engineers we must get are facts straight (more important than perfect spelling or grammer).
: So here are the facts:
: THE YEAR 2000 IS PART OF THE 20TH CENTURY!! THE NEW MILLENIUM DOES NOT START UNTIL 2001!
: Simply put:
: Since we started counting years with 1 and not zero. So in the year 2000, only 1999 years have passed and 2000 years will have passed (and thus the 2nd millenium ends) on 12/31/2000.
I don't disagree with your logic, but it's way more complicated than that.
Numerous changes have been made to the calendar (which is not really THE calendar, as there are still a number of different calendars in use) since 1 AD. With all the adjustments which have been made, it seems fairly safe to say that January 1, 2001 will not be exactly 2000 years (by today's definition) after January 1, 0001
And, if you wish to use the actual birth of Christ as the start of the first millenium rather than the first day of the year 1 AD the situation is even more confusing because the exact year (much less the date) of Christ's birth is not known.
Jerry
__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
|