Douglips–it’s Douglas Adams and Dave Barry vs. Cecil
Am I the only one here that believes that AD 0 and 1 BC are the same year. And that since, at the time, there was no such thing as a zero year, that it had to be called 1 BC.
Probably not. But this doesn’t make your belief any less silly. 
So, dlv, it is silly to have a difference way of looking at things.
My youngest son will be 19 on Dec. 26th. I can subtract 19 from the year 1999 and determine that he was born in the year 1980.
So, how come when JC goes to AuntiePam on his 19th birthday in year 0019 and announces that he is 19, she makes a quick subtraction (she is a mathematician after all)and goes OH, My God, you were born in NOTHING. We don’t have a zero, go away kid, where’s the punch bowl.
In this case - definitely.
pldennison
Of course there is. It’s covered up by the 12. That’s why, when the hand reaches 10, it’s been ten hours since midnight. Astronomers sometimes do convert BC into negative numbers.
handy
The person who devised the calendar, Dionysius, was Catholic. The Conception was very important concept (ha yourself) to him, and that supposedly occured early in the year 1BC.
dlv
Hmmmmmm.
When they do, do they have ‘year 0’?
Yes or no, please.
You may add Steven Jay Gould to those celebrating the new Millennium 10 days from now. He found the argument “the first century had only 99 years” perfectly (or, as he would say, “maximally”) plausible.
The main reason people view 1/1/00 as the start of the Millennium is that most of us draw an analogy to birthdays (the most intimately familiar series of years), and there is indeed a year “0” in those calculations.
My favorite site to respond to this issue:
http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/node3.html#SECTION003103000000000000000
==========================================
The first millennium started in AD 1, so the millennia are counted in this manner:
1st millennium: 1-1000
2nd millennium: 1001-2000
3rd millennium: 2001-3000
Thus, the 3rd millennium and, similarly, the 21st century start on 1 Jan 2001.
This is the cause of some heated debate, especially since some dictionaries and encyclopaedias say that a century starts in years that end in 00. Furthermore, the change 1999/2000 is obviously much more spectacular than the change 2000/2001.
Let me propose a few compromises:
Any 100-year period is a century. Therefore the period from 23 June 1998 to 22 June 2098 is a century. So please feel free to celebrate the start of a century any day you like!
Although the 20th century started in 1901, the 1900s started in 1900. Similarly, we can celebrate the start of the 2000s in 2000 and the start of the 21st century in 2001.
Finally, let’s take a lesson from history:
When 1899 became 1900 people celebrated the start of a new century.
When 1900 became 1901 people celebrated the start of a new century.
Two parties! Let’s do the same thing again!
========================================
My personal view? The Church Fathers got the date of Christ’s birth wrong. 1/1/00 isn’t 2000 yearas from anything. 1/1/01 isn’t 2000 years from anything, either. All we’re celebrating is a number. And a nice, round “2000” is a way cooler number to be celebrating!
As for why Jan. 1 and not Dec. 25 as the beginning of the year – well, that dates back to Julius Ceasar in 45 BC. In the Catholic church, January 1 is the Feast of the Holy Family, the day Jesus was brought to the Temple (I assume for circumcision) and accepted into the Jewish faith community. For theologians, that was a more important act than simply being born.
To coincide with the pagan festival of Saturnalia and other holidays that competing religions celebrated about the time of the winter solictice.