The ACTUAL turn of the 21st Century is....when???

[Piig]

Greetings all

This is my first post up here, so a big hello to you all!

I have a question that me and my mate were, how shall i say it, "discussing" the other night. The question was, when should we (as in the UK) celebrate the new millennium? My claim, although badly supported, was that the new millennium doesnt begin until 1/1/2001 or 31/12/2000 11.59pm. He claimed that the new millennium started on the 1/1/2000 or the stroke of midnight 31/12/1999.

Who is right please someone?? i am aware there may be mathmatical and scientific arguments to prove both as correct, but who really is right??

Cheers folks.

Oh, and everyone, tell GESH to "get back to work you lazy sod!!!" ta.

[AWB]

Yours is the correct answer. January 1, 2001 at 0000 hours is the first moment of the 21st Century AD, as well as the 3rd Millennium AD.

Reasoning: There was no 0 AD (nor BC). So the first 100 years (1st Century) of the AD era were 1 through 100 inclusive. The 2nd Century AD was 101-200 inclusive. Following this pattern, the 20th Century is the years 1901-2000 inclusive.

Another parallel example: A year is 12 months long. One celebrates the coming of the new year not at the beginning of the 12th month of the old (Dec. 1), but at the end of it (Dec. 31). Similarly, a century is 100 years long. One celebrates the coming of the new century not at the beginning of the 100th year of the old (Jan 1, 2000), but at the end of it (Dec 31, 2000).

Finally, here's a quote from The (London) Times, December 26, 1799:
"We have uniformly rejected all letters and declined all discussion upon the question of when the present century ends, as it is one of the most absurd that can engage the public attention, and we are astonished to find it has been the subject of so much dispute, since it appears plain. The present century will not terminate till January 1, 1801, unless it can be made out that 99 are 100... It is a silly, childish discussion, and only exposes the want of brains of those who maintain a contrary opinion to that we have stated."

[Piig]

Lurrrrrrrrvly mate. Cheers!

[Boris B]

The year 10 A.D. would have been represented at the time as anno domini X, right? How would the year 0 A.D. be represented? There is no zero in the Roman numeral system. It starts at I, so the years likewize start at 1. Thus the first century was only complete at the end of 100 A.D.

[Arnold Winkelried]

And of course, Cecil Adams wrote about this also:

The millennium approacheth. Will it start Jan. 1, 2000, or Jan. 1, 2001? (08-Feb-1974) (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_130.html)

His answer agrees with the other posts, i.e. the 21st century will start on 1 January 2001.

But here's the dissenting point of view: when a friend of mine was telling me about her party plans for 31 December 1999 to mark the end of the century, I pointed out that the 20th century ended on 31 December 2000, not 1999. Her response, quite convincing, was "OK then, you and your other nerd friends can celebrate in 2000, and me and the rest of the world will celebrate in 1999." I was silenced by her logic. ;)

[RM Mentock]

OK, I'm a nerd too. But I've been convinced by the deepnerd evidence that 12/31/99 was the turn of the centuries. Stephen Jay Gould's book Questionning the Millennium also agrees, so you probably should read that if you want to continue the argument with your friend.

In addition, there is reasonable evidence that the person who devised the current calendar (a Catholic--note, this will be important later) thought that Christ was conceived near the start of the year that we call 1BC. To Catholics, this is a more important event than birth (re: abortion debate), and so a claim that the end of the millennium was last year is not as outrageous as it might first appear.

[Johnny L.A.]

Hey Arnold,

I hope there are "real Millennium" parties for the coming of 2001!. My New Year's Night sucked last time!

[AWB]

The monk who figured the basis for the AD/BC system, Dionysius Exiguus, was actually off by about 4 years. So whether or not you take Christ's gestation into effect, right now should really be 2004 or 2005 AD.

A little more food for thought: the 1st Millennium AD was 13 days longer than the 2nd. Why? Because from 1-1000 AD, every 4th year was a leap year. This gives us 365*1000 + 250 = 365,250 days. But the 2nd didn't have October 5-14, 1582, nor February 29, 1700, February 29, 1800, nor February 29, 1900.

[AWB]

Another commentary, from "Star Trek: Voyager", episode "11:59", set at the end of December, 2000

Henry Janeway: Speaking of the modern age... do you have any plans for the Millennium Eve?
Shannon O'Donnell: No different than last year's Millennium Eve: I plan to be asleep.
Henry Janeway: Life of the party.
Shannon O'Donnell: Oh, don't tell me you've bought into all that hypergas.
Henry Janeway: Mm, maybe just a little.
Shannon O'Donnell: Last year, when 2000 arrived, everyone was convinced it was the dawn of a new era. But when the world didn't end, and the flying saucers didn't land, and the Y2K bug didn't turn out a single light bulb, you'd think everybody would've realized it was a number on the calendar. But oh no, they had to listen to all those hucksters who told them the REAL millennium was 2001. So this New Year's Eve will be as boring as last year's.

[Lance Turbo]

I can't friggin' wait for January 1, 2001 for the simple fact that we will finally stop talking about this.

What are the first 10 numbers?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 right?

The second 10 numbers would have to start with 11 right?

It has nothing to do with a year zero. It has nothing to do with the actual year in which Christ was born. It has to do with the way things are counted, and when we count things we start with 1. We started counting years (as we count everything else) with one. Therefore the last year of the first 2000 years is the year 2000.

I have yet to see a convincing argument that would make me believe otherwise. Please tell me what Gould says about this RM Mentock.

[bibliophage]

There is a year zero, sort of. Historians date events based on the assumption that the year that followed 1 BC was AD 1. Astronomers, on the other hand date events based on the assumption that the year that followed -1 was 0, which was followed by +1. If your friendly neighborhood historian tells you there was an elcipse in 4 BC, your friendly neighborhood astronomer will tell you it actually happened in the year -3.

You can have the best of both worlds. You could party with the astronomers last December and with the historians this December. Or you could just go to bed early. Historians and astronomers aren't the greatest revelers around.

[Derleth]

Don't astronomers use Julian Days?

[bibliophage]

Astronomers do use Julian Days (http://pdc.ro.nu/mjd.cgi) (Jan 1, 4713 BC = day 1; May 13, 2000 is 2451678), especially when they need to find the exact number of days between 2 events. But they also sometimes reckon by the year. When they do, it's important to keep track of leap years. With the astronomer's reckoning, -4, -8, -12, etc., are leap years. With the historians' reckoning, 5 BC, 9 BC, 13 BC, etc., are leap years.

[RM Mentock]

I can't friggin' wait for January 1, 2001 for the simple fact that we will finally stop talking about this.


But only for another eighty some years. Cecil wrote his column on the subject in the 1980's right? So did Asimov. Gould's book looks into the attitudes from folk back hundreds of years--even at the last turn of the millennium. He basically says that this discussion is not about an absolute, and I agree with him. Some people choose 12/31/99 out of ignorance, but I don't think you can say that about Gould.

[Lance Turbo]

I can't friggin' wait for January 1, 2001 for the simple fact that we will finally stop talking about this.


But only for another eighty some years.


Thankfully, I'll be dead by then.

Some guy picked an arbitrary rate to start counting time by. I think the date he picked had something to do with Jesus or Jeebus or something. This fact is irrelevant to this discussion. We use that calendar for our timekeeping. (With some corrections along the way.)

Q: How much time has passed since that arbitrary start day?

A: Right now, 1999 years, 5 months, and almost 2 weeks.

The next millennium starts 2000 years after the start date.

In conclusion, celebrate whenever the hell you want. I just celebrated doce de mayo last night.

[Lance Turbo]

RM Mentock says:

Some people choose 12/31/99 out of ignorance, but I don't think you can say that about Gould.


I can't say anything about Gould, because I don't know why he chose 12/31/99 as the last day of the second millennium. Please enlighten me.

[RM Mentock]

This fact is irrelevant to this discussion.

And that, of course, is opinion, not necessarily fact. You're using your definition to support your opinion, other people use their definitions. As much heat as this discussion has generated, there never has been an "official" determination of those definitions. There have been reasonable arguments made on both sides. Anyone who insists on their own opinion to the exclusion of others is making a "religious" argument, not a "science" argument.

For instance, the person who devised the calendar was not starting "time" at 1/1/1AD--he was certainly aware that time extended farther back than that, if only a few thousand years. He was measuring time from an event. Which event? Some people say the event was just an arbitrary point in time, while others say that the event had real religious significance and the devisor's intentions do have relevance. People who get to this point in the argument but still opt for 1/1/1999 surely can't be said to be ignorant.

[Lance Turbo]

RM Mentock,

Are you suggesting that Jesus was born on January 1, 1 BC?

What does Gould have to say about it?

[Jo3sh]

arbitrary


This here is the key word.

Nobody REALLY knows when JC was born, so we could be off by ten or fifteen years, although the most common estimate is four, IIRC.

So, the millenium could have turned several years ago, or still be several away. Hell, it makes just as much sense to me to start counting from my birthday, since any history before then is just hearsay anyway. Or your birthday. Or use the birthday of Elvis or some other notable person in history. At least we seem to have pretty good evidence (film, audio recordings, etc.) that Elvis existed.

Celebrate whenever you want. It's more fun if other people get excited and come to your party, though.

[RM Mentock]

RM Mentock,

Are you suggesting that Jesus was born on January 1, 1 BC?

What does Gould have to say about it?


No, see my post above 05-12-2000 12:38 PM

Gould writes a whole book (small, but whole), which is an incredible thing in itself when you think about it. He comes down on the side of the 1/1/1999 folk.

[maralinn]

I'm a little tired of people saying, or implying, that it was somehow *wrong* to celebrate "the turn of the millennium" on 12-31-99. It's my view that there *was* something to celebrate, and that it can even be called "the turn of the millennium."

It just can't be called "the end of second millennium" or "the beginning of the third millennium." If you had to give it a name, you could call it "the end of the millennium consisting of years that all started with the digit 1" and "the beginning of the millennium consisting of years that will all start with the digit 2."

A millennium is *ANY* period of a 1000 years, and let's face it, what folks were really celebrating was the big rollover of digits.

Sure, they were wrong when they called it the beginning of the 3rd millennium or the end of the 2nd, but they weren't wrong to be celebrating, and they weren't wrong to call it "the turn of the millennium." They just didn't know what millennium was turning. :-)

[Derleth]

Abusus non tollit usum. (L. Misuse does not nullify proper use. This is a legal maxim as well as an argument. How I'm using it is to say that if everyone believes something that's wrong, popular belief does not make it right.) If most people think that the third millenium begins 1/1/00, they're wrong, no matter how loudly they shout. Math isn't a shouting match. Math is logic and reason. Don't call me chauvinist or too intellectual. Don't call me a killjoy. You can get drunk and scream whatever you want whenever you want. But don't try to prove yourself correct by trying to nullify the very thing you want to justify. (If it makes no difference when the third millenium begins anyway, why are you still arguing that it must begin on 1/1/00 because we don't know when Jesus was born anyway? That isn't good logic, and it isn't good debating tools.) It's been proven that 1/1/01 is the real date. You can celebrate the birth of the golden calf tonight if you want to, or get drunk and shout that the third millenium begins next wednesday. I really don't care. But don't try to argue against math with 'what the masses think'.

[Lance Turbo]

Rock on Derleth!

[RM Mentock]

(If it makes no difference when the third millenium begins anyway, why are you still arguing that it must begin on 1/1/00 because we don't know when Jesus was born anyway? That isn't good logic, and it isn't good debating tools.)

Careful there. Good debating tools include many things. That particular argument has been used in this thread against my argument for 1/1/00.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

The 20th Century ends the minute you are issued your rocket belt, ray gun, & robot servant; not one instant before.


Wait by the videophone, & call us when you get yours. :D