history "fixed"

[Elmer_J.Fudd]

Thank God! I was afraid it was just me. Are we the victims of some lame joke?

---

Elmer J. Fudd,
Millionaire.
I own a mansion and a yacht.

[bj0rn]

if you are going to continue on like that, i suggest we move to the pit.

anyway:
this is how the calendar works now:
the current year is the year we are counting. example: the year 1999 isnt over until the moment we say 2000. thats how this mess started, by naming the first year “of our lord jesus christ” as ‘1’ (1 ad). the year before, using the same logic, is ‘1’ before christ (1 bc). its all nice and fluffy.
so why dont we count the days of our lifes like that? why dont we symbolize the minutes like that? what did we change?

basically the differance is:
by the calendar: you start counting on ‘1’ but ‘1’ hasnt really passed until you say ‘2’, since it is the first year.
how we count: you start counting on ‘0’, when you say ‘1’ that means you have finished ‘1’ and from there you proceed to ‘1,1’ and ‘1,2’ etc…

we count the days of our lifes like that too:
1999:12:02, 1999:12:03 etc…

the funny thing is that the first(or last for more people) number, that is the year, isnt counted in the same way as all the other numbers.

so based on the calendar logic, jesus sould be turning 1999 years old this december 25th(debated). then when he turns 1999 years old the calendar changes to 2000. what an odd concept.

before you get all worked up. i KNOW how the calendar works, ive said it in this post, and ive said it before. what i am suggesting is correcting this counting error. i hear ads from all over the world saying; “now there is only one month to a new millenium, dont miss this millenium offer we have!” come on, who is right here and who is wrong?
NOBODY.

how come nobody is doing is wrong?
because if you count to 2000, you have counted 2000 numbers, hence a new thousand is starting the moment you say 2000! not when you say 2001.
by the calendar, the people who count along with that are right that millenium should be 2000/2001.

so the only thing that could be wrong is the calendar! by the logic of counting.

bj0rn

[Just_Ed]

Hmmmm . . .

Last time I checked (admittedly it’s been a long time since I picked up a mathematics text), you had to actually have something before you started counting it. If you have zero items, you ain’t got anything. When the first item comes along, it’s 1.

So let’s see, I have ten apples lined up here . . . or do I?

Let’s count:

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 . . .

WTF??

::: Scratches head, mumbling :::

Damn sure looked like ten.

[system]

Okay, bj0rn, I think I understand what you’re saying. This frightens me but I’m trying to persevere.

You feel that we should retroactively add a year zero into our calendar system. This would mean that the second century would have begun on January 1, 100 AD, and the last day of the twentieth century (and second millennium) will be December 31, 1999. Am I with you so far?

Here’s the problem with this. Literate society has created a huge backlog of work that is based on the current dating system. If we retroactively added a year zero between 1 BC and 1 AD, every printed date since then would now be a year off. A similar problem existed when the more minor change was made from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. The February and October Revolutions of 1917, for example, actually occurred in March and November but Russia hadn’t switched over to the new calendar yet.

As for your idea that Dionysius rewrote the calendar to deflect attention from the Roman Emperors, it’s wrong. The official calendar in use in Roman (and Dionysius’) time was based on the number of years since the city of Rome was founded not the reign of the Emperor.

[bj0rn]

So let’s see, I have ten apples lined up here . . . or do I?

Let’s count:

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 . . .

one who doesnt know how to count eh?

ok, before you start counting apples you have ‘0’ appels!
so when you say ‘1’ you have counted ‘1’ apple. point being that 0-1 is one whole.
then you say ‘2’, point being again that 1-2 is one whole. its one unit.
thats how it goes until you say the number ‘10’, then you have successfully counted ‘10’ appels.

Mike King:

You feel that we should retroactively add a year zero into our calendar system. This would mean that the second century would have begun on January 1, 100 AD, and the last day of the twentieth century (and second millennium) will be December 31, 1999. Am I with you so far?

smack on!

Here’s the problem with this. Literate society has created a huge backlog of work that is based on the current dating system. If we retroactively added a year zero between 1 BC and 1 AD, every printed date since then would now be a year off. A similar problem existed when the more minor change was made from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. The February and October Revolutions of 1917, for example, actually occurred in March and November but Russia hadn’t switched over to the new calendar yet.

lets say i make something, from the start there is something wrong with it, but to the best of the makers knowledge is works perfectly. later it is discovered that it is wrong in some way. do we not fix it? or do we just say; “no, lets keep it like it is, because thats the way it is”.

another thing, i am suggesting that the year 1 bc will be renamed to ‘0’ and the year 2 bc. will be renamed ‘-1’, or effectively 1 bc. that would change nothing of the modern calendar since no date is accurate from that time. its just one year in history that we are ADDING to the calendar, or perhaps more accurately, RENAMING.

As for your idea that Dionysius rewrote the calendar to deflect attention from the Roman Emperors, it’s wrong. The official calendar in use in Roman (and Dionysius’) time was based on the number of years since the city of Rome was founded not
the reign of the Emperor.

true, what would be right to say on the other hand is: “if referring to a date prior to a certain era, they referred to a date in a another era.”
(quoted fromcatholic encyclopedia)

In chronology Dionysius has left his mark conspicuously, for it was he who introduced the use of the Christian Era according to which dates are reckoned from the Incarnation, which he assigned to 25 March, in the year 754 from the foundation of Rome (A. U. C.). By this method of computation he intended to supersede the “Era of Diocletian” previously employed, being unwilling, as he tells us, that the name of an impious persecutor should be thus kept in memory. The Era of the Incarnation, often called the Dionysian Era, was soon much used in Italy and, to some extent, a little later in Spain; during the eighth and ninth centuries it was adopted in England. Charlemagne is said to have been the first Christian ruler to employ it officially. It was not until the tenth century that it was employed in the papal chancery (Lersch, Chronologie, Freiburg, 1899, p. 233).

quoted from roman calendar

Throughout the year, every eighth day was identified as “nundinae” (the ninth day, counting inclusively, as the Romans did, hence the name).

another interesting link the history of the roman calendar

another quote from the catholic calendarcatholic calendar - christian era

<p align=“center”>CHRISTIAN ERA</p>

Foremost among these is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar, or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living. This was introduced about the year 527 by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk resident at Rome, who fixed its starting point in the year 753 from the foundation of Rome, in which year, according to his calculation, the birth of Christ occurred. Making this the year 1 of his era, he counted the years which followed in regular course from it, calling them years “of the Lord”, and we now designate such a date A.D. (i.e. Anno Domini). The year preceding A.D. 1 is called Ante Christum (A.C.) or Before Christ (B.C.). It is to be noted that there is no year O intervening, as some have imagined, between B.C. and A.D. It is supposed by many that the calculation of Dionysius was incorrect, and that the birth of Christ really occurred three years earlier than he placed it, or in the year of Rome 760 which he styles 3 B.C. This, however, is immaterial for the purposes of chronology, the first year of the Christian Era being that fixed, rightly or wrongly, by Dionysius.

thats how it is, lets not fix it because thats the way it is. note though that i suggested the year ‘0’ happened BEFORE the year 1 ad. thus renaming the years before christ. it would be silly to rename the year 1 ad. as 0 ad. that would mean that we would have another year 1999 after this one.

bj0rn

[krish]

Since countries of the world switched to the Gregorian calendar at different times, what happened with all the time discrepancies? Great Britain removed different dates from existence than did Pope Gregory. How much confusion existed before all countries existed?

[bj0rn]

nice krish. that managed to make me confused! in order to reply to that post of yours i would have to guess what you meant by it, but im not going to do that because i might misunderstand you(because im confused).
so i ask: what the … are you talking about when you say:

How much confusion existed before all countries existed?

???

the other comment is interesting, i would like to hear more about that.

bj0rn

[krish]

What I meant to say was, how much confusion was there for countries when not all of the major ones had switched over to the Gregorian calendar?

[bj0rn]

how much did it matter to them? the calendar that is. how much did they use dates?

the modern calendar was made in 500 ad, thus started counting from there. considering that i cant see a problem adding a ‘0’ in there.

when the countries of the world then started using the cristian era calender it was already the year 900 or so, and communication between countries wasnt so much. consider it historically, if two countries communicated in any way it was usually with swords. cant see that dates matter much.
recording history could have been a problem, but historians naturally used the calendar their country used. now those records have been rewritten over the centuries and modified for a new calendar. so naturally years could have been lost there too.
so the years we have been counting are quite accurate from the year 500 ad or so. although historic events before that, and perhaps after that event up until the same calendar is valid in all major countries, are perhaps not accurate.

there couldnt have been to much confusion. i would belive converting a country to a new religion was the confusing part, nationally speaking of course. it must have created some problems for people, but nothing compared to what would happen if we did it now.

bj0rn