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]
Measuring the age of a person has
nothing to do with how calendars and
years are counted. This is not a physics
exercise, it is a counting exercise
where years are counted as natural
numbers. There simply was never a year
zero or a year minus zero. You will not
find such a year in any timeline. The
first year was simply year one. This, by
the by, is not a matter of opinion but
of simple observation. Find any
historical scholar on this and you will
find that you are not supported.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Swingle
[mailto:mswingle(--nospam--at)earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 1999
8:55 PM
> To: seaint
> Cc: Mark Swingle
> Subject: Re: The Millennium Hoax
>
>
> 29 December 1999
>
> When you were born, you were zero
years old.  A year later, when you
> were one year old, you were starting
your SECOND year.

This is immaterial. You were less than
one year old during the FIRST year of
your life. You never had a ZEROTH year.

>
> The period A.D. is supposed to signify
the number of years since
> Jesus was born.

Jesus was born, interestingly enough, by
comparative historical records, probably
in 4 BC.

> 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.
>
Again, this is confusing apples and
oranges. Date arithmetic is not based on
a line of integers but on a line of
NATURAL numbers and their negatives.
NATURAL numbers do not include zero.

He would have turned 33 at the end of
the year 33 AD, that is at the beginning
of the year 34 AD. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with this. You just have
to think a little differently, ignore
the ZERO year non-problem, and quit
applying 2nd grade math incorrectly!

Now, if someone was born at 1 BC, at 1
AD he would be 1 - (-1) = 2 years old.
What is possibly so difficult about
this?

Of course, since I came in late on this
thread I may be arguing for no reason at
all.<g> The fact is (and anyone who
agrees with me is correct) that the
millenium will end at midnight on the
last day of the year 2000.

Cordially,

Mark