Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
Re: The Millennium Hoax
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: seaint <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: The Millennium Hoax
- From: Mark Swingle <mswingle(--nospam--at)earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 20:54:42 -0800
- Cc: Mark Swingle <mark.swingle(--nospam--at)dgs.ca.gov>
29 December 1999 Bill Polhemus, I have to disagree with you on this one. On 27 December 1999, You said: <....There was no "year 0" in "Dennis the Short's" calendar. We began counting at 1 A.D. Years 1-1000 were the first millenium A.D....> <....It makes me mad that we have so little education, generally, anymore that we pay more respect to numerology (a superstition) than we do to arithmetic (a science).> I don't agree with your conclusions. I agree with the second statement above, but this does not support your main argument. Arithmetic supports the concept of the year zero, and it is superstition that supports the concept that there was NOT a year zero. When you were born, you were zero years old. A year later, when you were one year old, you were starting your SECOND year. Ten years after you were born, you were ten years old, but you were starting your ELEVENTH year. When my grandfather started his second century on this earth, he was 100 years old. He did not have to wait until he was 101 to celebrate the start of his second century. These are the 1900's, but it is the TWENTIETH century. You also said: <What year, exactly, a babe was born in Bethlehem is of little consequence when you consider that all the recorded events of history for the last 1,500 years have been so recorded with this system of numeration in mind.> The period A.D. is supposed to signify the number of years since Jesus was born. Since we don't know exactly when that was according to ANY calendar, it was arbitrarily chosen. So, when Jesus was one year old, it follows logically that it was the year 1 A.D. If there was no year zero, then it would have been the year 2 A.D. when he turned 1, which makes no sense. Similarly, it is said that he lived to the age of 33. If there IS a year zero, then that was in the year 33 A.D. If there was NOT a year zero, then it would have been the year 34 A.D. when he turned 33, which makes no sense. Now, let's go back to second grade math. That's when I learned the number line. The number line I learned always had a number zero at the center. The reason for this is basic mathematics. When one subtracts -3 from +3, the result should be 6. If you skip the number zero on the number line, the result is 5. Let me put it another way. Plot the number line from -3 to +3. The tick marks should be, in order from left to right, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, and +3. Now let's say a modern, 20th-century mathematician were creating the calendar. I believe s/he would model it after the number line. Then -3 would become 3 B.C, -2 would be 2 B.C., ...., +2 would be 2 A.D. etc. Whether zero is 0 A.D. or 0 B.C is immaterial. We need the year zero so that the number of years from 3 B.C to 3 A.D. is 6, not 5. Check it out for yourself; if there is no year zero, then the number of years from 3 B.C to 3 A.D. would be 5 (try explaining THAT to a 7-year old). On 27 December 1999, J. O. <joprada(--nospam--at)col1.telecom.com.co> said: <Owen Gingerich, astrophical of the Harvard University, commented last january about his investigations, that Dionysius considered the year 0 in his computations. This means, that year 0 was the year 1 B.C., since the romans numbers have not the number zero. This may be true. If a mistake was made, and the year zero was not included, then we can correct that now, but not by calling 2001 the start of the millennium, but simply by adjusting all the B.C dates by one year. If Owen Gingerich is correct, than it supports my argument that Jesus was one year old in the year 1 A.D., not zero years old as you claim. So IF the calendar that was created in the sixth century A.D. happened to forget the year zero, then we could say that Antigone was first performed in the year 440 B.C. instead of 441 B.C. Big deal. Many dates B.C. are not known with that much precision. You said: <The New York Times edition of January 1, 1901, heralded "Twentieth Century Dawns!"> Since when do YOU listen to the New York Times! :-) 1 January 1901 was a time more associated with superstition than with common sense and arithmetic. You said: <How much more advantageous for the hucksters that make up modern society if they can "dupe" the rest of us into this "New Millenium" craze? Sell a lot of Coke, Pepsi, and spark plugs that way!> Did you ever consider that the media has figured all of this out already, and that they realize that the millennium really does end in two days? In closing, I would rather adjust a few history books than throw basic arithmetic out the window in deference to "superstition" and some short guy from the sixth century A.D. As Charles Greenlaw might say, "I have my story figured out, what about the rest of you?" Talk to you next millennium.... Mark Swingle, S.E. Oakland, CA PS by the way, millennium has 2 N's...... :-)
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: The Millennium Hoax
- From: Mark E. Deardorff
- RE: The Millennium Hoax
- Prev by Subject: RE: MicroStation J
- Next by Subject: RE: The Millennium Hoax
- Previous by thread: RE: Single-wall house response by James Allen
- Next by thread: RE: The Millennium Hoax
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]