Last train of the century
Douglas Smith
It's been a busy couple of weeks without a break. I've been working
a steady diet of scoots, interupted by a few days of Pleasant Prairie
coal trains and empty hoppers. I took a Sheboygan coal train up to the
siding at Fonda (just east of the wye at BJ) and parked it there
Christmas Eve. The railroad cabbed us back to Proviso along with the
crew of the following MPRBU. I got home just a little after midnight,
but headed straight for the gas station and a car wash to groom my
little Saturn for the next day's commute. I got up that morning and
opened presents with the wife and kids (got one of those "RoboGrip"
pliers from the kids; works great on loose locomotive mirrors). Then it
was off to Chicago for an afternoon scoot out of the terminal, a
roundtrip to Harvard and then one to Waukegan. Almost the same thing
the next day, except we only went as far as Crystal Lake. I got back in
late the other afternoon and shut off the phone for a few hours. Forgot
to turn it back on and missed a call but was well rested for a coal
train they held until they could reach me. Took a loaded train around
the inside loop at Pleasant Prairie, somewhat of a rare occurance.
Traded whistles with a passing Amtrak Hiawatha (a P42 in the new scheme
with some of those Horizon fleet (?) cars and a "cabbage" F40 on the
rear), plus saw some passing CP freights, one of which had an actual
caboose on the rear, albeit with an EOT. Lined up well for a scoot
extra out of Waukegan this morning, running as MNX4 (MNX-ham and eggs?)
on a local schedule with eight cars and the 144 for power at 0640. We
got downtown about 10 minutes late as it's impossible to maintain that
schedule with so many cars and one engine. Caught the 170 and six cars
for the return trip at 1535 as MNX3. As I passed Lake Street and CY
towers, I called them up and wished them a happy new year and told the
operators I'd see them next century. It began to sink in that this was
my last trip of the 20th Century. Tomorrow will begin the new millenium
and even though the equipment will remain the same and the work will be
identical to the previous, there is somehow still the feeling of change
in the air. I met Terry Brisson on #808 at Highwood, both of us with
larger than usual trains, but meeting at the platform simultaneously. I
joked with him that the meet was a beautiful thing and the last great
act of this century. He laughed at that and wished me a happy new year,
and we parted company, he continuing on to Chicago and I to Waukegan.
We arrived pretty much on time, offloaded our passengers and put the
train away in the yard. As I was cutting out the brakes and putting the
train in standby power, the thought that this was my final run of the
century and even the millenium took hold. Nothing spectacular, just
another train and another crew completing a run. But I made it a point
to retrieve the bulletins from this one because I won't see another run
quite like this one again. Tomorrow will dawn and life will continue
and the railroad will call as usual. But today was kind of special.
Here's hoping that you and yours find faith, hope, and charity in this
time of beginnings.
Smitty
Ed Light
"Douglas Smith" <mus...@execpc.com> wrote
> It's been a busy couple of weeks without a break. I've been working
> a steady diet of scoots, interupted by a few days of Pleasant Prairie
What's a scoot? Thanks
Ed Light
m...@mk.net
Peter Gough
>
> Smitty posts:
>
> Nothing spectacular, just
> another train and another crew completing a run. But I made it a point
> to retrieve the bulletins from this one because I won't see another run
> quite like this one again. Tomorrow will dawn and life will continue
> and the railroad will call as usual. But today was kind of special.
> Here's hoping that you and yours find faith, hope, and charity in this
> time of beginnings.
>
>
Peter Gough in New Brunswick,
Canada
Jason Ciastko
. But I made it a point
> to retrieve the bulletins from this one because I won't see another run
> quite like this one again. Tomorrow will dawn and life will continue
> and the railroad will call as usual. But today was kind of special.
> Here's hoping that you and yours find faith, hope, and charity in this
> time of beginnings.
>
> Smitty
>
Thanks Smitty. A beautiful post. Keep up the good work.
Jason A. Ciastko
South Bend, Indiana
n9...@att.net
A Proud member of The Haggis
Bob Scheurle
taking the whole year off? :-)
--
Bob Scheurle
sche...@z-eclipse-z.net
rsch...@z-avionics-z.itt.com
NJ Association of Railroad Passengers at http://www.nj-arp.org
John Albert
<< It began to sink in that this was my last trip of the 20th Century.
>>
Out of Penn Station (NY), the last scheduled eastbound train of the
century was #178.
Left Penn at 9.41p, arrived New Haven at 11.12p.
Ran that one myself...
- John
HaRRy
misc.transport.rail.americas:
»Out of Penn Station (NY), the last scheduled eastbound train of the
»century was #178.
» Left Penn at 9.41p, arrived New Haven at 11.12p.
» Ran that one myself...
Hmmm. Long run. 366 days on the rails. Sounds like a new hours of service
rule.
Happy New Year! And happy new century in 12 months!
Regards, HaRRy, San Diego
--
(http://communities.prodigy.net/trains/)
Expect a train on any track, at any time, in any direction!
(To e-mail reply change no.spam to home dot com)
Douglas Smith
Were you one year old on the day you were born? :)
Douglas Smith
A scoot is a Chicago area term for commuter train, specifically the C&NW.
Milwaukee Road crews always called theirs "dinkies". I'm not sure about the
CB&Q.
Curt Mc
>
> And Smitty replies:
>
> Were you one year old on the day you were born? :)
>
No, he COMPLETED an entire year before he was one year old...
Likewise, we need to COMPLETE 2000 years (which will occur at 23:59:59
on 12/31/2000) BEFORE we start a new millennium (or century)...
Through your own posting you proved the incorrectness of the widely held
perception that 1/1/2000 was the beginning of a new century and the
third millennium...
All the worlds newspapers heralded the beginning of the 19th century on
1/1/1801.
Likewise, they all heralded the beginning of the 20th century on
1/1/1901.
Thus, if we just started the 21st century on 1/1/2000 then the 20th
century was only 99 years long... Does that make sense? Indeed it does
not...
For the official CORRECT information see the web page of the OFFICIAL
Greenwich timekeepers at:
http://greenwich2001.com/
(and perhaps note the quote from 1799 referring to the "want of
brains"...)
- Curt Mc
Welcoming you to the 2000 Millennial Year - the LAST year of the 20th
Century and the Second Millennium...
David S
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:
>And Smitty replies:
>
> A scoot is a Chicago area term for commuter train, specifically the C&NW.
>Milwaukee Road crews always called theirs "dinkies". I'm not sure about the
>CB&Q.
CB&Q/BN/BNSF(/NAR?) crews have always called them dinkies. OTOH, I always
thought that MILW crews called them scoots, due to the influence of
crossing the C&NW at Western Ave. and serving more or less the same
geographic areas.
I suppose it makes more sense for crews at the same station to use the same
name, but that leaves the mystery of the GM&O "Plug" and PRR "dummy"...
David Streeter "Never pee in the bidet." - D*ve B*rry
--
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8114
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"In a very Christian way, as far as I'm concerned, he can go to Hell."
- Jimmy Carter on Jerry Falwell
David S
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:
>And Smitty replies:
>
> Were you one year old on the day you were born? :)
>
>Bob Scheurle wrote:
>
>> Since the twentieth century doesn't end for another 366 days, are you
>> taking the whole year off? :-)
<Trying to put this slightly less inflammatorily than Curt...>
When we say this is the year 2000, we are not saying that Christ is 2000
years old. We are saying that this is the 2000th year of His existence. So,
He will not have existed for 2000 years until He completes the 2000th year.
If the calendar were based on my birthday, this would be the year 34
because it is the 34th year of my life. This coming December, I will have
lived 34 years and will be 34 years old.
You might also try this url: http://infoplease.lycos.com/ipa/A0192343.html
[Note: to avoid further confusion, my comments above ignore the ~4 year
error made when the current calendar was devised, based on the old Julian
calendar. The third millennium actually started on 1/1/1997.]
Remember, they didn't have a zero back then.
David Streeter "Never pee in the bidet." - D*ve B*rry
--
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8114
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"It's big enough to take care of itself." - Ronald Reagan on the deficit.
Thomas White
David S <daf...@megsinet.net> wrote in message
news:1ha07ssac0abv51sq...@4ax.com...
~~
~~
>
> I suppose it makes more sense for crews at the same station to use the
same
> name, but that leaves the mystery of the GM&O "Plug"
as in tired old horse. We called Wabash 121 the Orland Park commuter the
same thing
TAW
http://www.halcyon.com/tawhite.htm
Wes Leatherock
Can you provide any information to support these statements?
Several newspaper articles discussing this have failed to turn up
any examples.
Incidentally, there were not very many newspapers in the world
on 1/1/1801. They proliferated during the 1800s.
Wes Leatherock
wle...@sandbox.dynip.com
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Curt Mc wrote:
[ ... text deleted ... ]
Justa Lurker
<bcm...@erolsNOSPAMM.com> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
| No, he COMPLETED an entire year before he was one year old...
| Likewise, we need to COMPLETE 2000 years (which will occur at 23:59:59
| on 12/31/2000) BEFORE we start a new millennium (or century)...
Counting from what day? Considering that the year that was set as 1AD
was incorrect by at least four years, I don't see how celebrating the
start 2000th "year of our lord" can't be a millennium.
| All the worlds newspapers heralded the beginning of the 19th century on
| 1/1/1801.
Any references?
| Likewise, they all heralded the beginning of the 20th century on
| 1/1/1901.
Actually the public heralded 1/1/1900 - the government fought for
1/1/1901, and for the next 99 years it didn't matter. Now if it your
personal recollection that the party was ONLY on 1/1/1901 ... :-)
| Thus, if we just started the 21st century on 1/1/2000 then the 20th
| century was only 99 years long... Does that make sense? Indeed it does
| not...
But that assumes that 1901, and 1801, etc. were all accepted as the
turn of their centuries at the time of their turns.
| For the official CORRECT information see the web page of the OFFICIAL
| Greenwich timekeepers at:
| http://greenwich2001.com/
The officials do not control human behavior. You can walk around with
a slide rule if you want, and claim that it is a much better
calculation tool - but you cannot force other humans to use it!
As long as the trains keep running, what does it matter?
JL
Philip Nasadowski
<daf...@megsinet.net> wrote:
> CB&Q/BN/BNSF(/NAR?) crews have always called them dinkies. OTOH, I always
> thought that MILW crews called them scoots, due to the influence of
> crossing the C&NW at Western Ave. and serving more or less the same
> geographic areas.
Interesting.
On the NEC, the only "dinky" I know of is the 1 (or sometimes 2) car train
at Princeton Junction, which shuttles along a 1 or 2 mile single tracked
line. And yes, it's electric :)
As far as scoots, on Long Island, the term is often used to refer to the
short diesel that goes from Ronkonkoma (end of electric territory) to
Yaphank, Medford, Riverhead, Mattictuck, and Greenport. I think last time
I checked it was up to a spectacular 2 trains a day in each direction.
Not a horribly excitingor short trip, last time I was on it was year ago
when it was a GP 38-2, 2 cars (one closed) and an Alco as a power pack (or
was it a GM?). No A/C so the doors were open in the car. Amazingly loud,
and rather slow, but it does get you there. The two European tourists I
was talking to on the train didn't exactly know what to make of it, and
they did mention it was a rather unique experienece!
I believe it has been replaced by a DM-30 and a 1 or 2 car double decker.
Otherwise, commuter trains are just "trains" around here, though sometimes
"electric" or "diesel". I believe in the 30's 40's 50's, Philly area
residents used to refer to PRR commuter trains as "the Paoli local", no
matter where they went.
Bob Scheurle
>Counting from what day? Considering that the year that was set as 1AD
>was incorrect by at least four years, I don't see how celebrating the
>start 2000th "year of our lord" can't be a millennium.
>
>turn of their centuries at the time of their turns.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out:
Year 1 - 100: 1st century 1 - 1000: 1st millennium
101 - 200: 2nd century 1001 - 2000: 2nd millennium
201 - 300: 3rd century 2001 - 3000: 3rd millennium
301 - 400: 4th century
. . .
1701 - 1800: 18th century
1801 - 1900: 19th century
1901 - 2000: 20th century
2001 - 2100: 21st century
2101 - 2200: 22nd century
A baby born in the year 2000 who lives to be 101 years old will have
lived in three centuries: the 20th, 21st, and 22nd.
>The officials do not control human behavior. You can walk around with
>a slide rule if you want, and claim that it is a much better
>calculation tool - but you cannot force other humans to use it!
And if people believe that 'pi' equals 3, does that make it true?
>As long as the trains keep running, what does it matter?
--
Bob Scheurle | "I say, either agree with me or
sche...@z-eclipse-z.net | take a hike! I'm right, period!
rsch...@z-avionics-z.itt.com | End of discussion!"
http://www.eclipse.net/~scheurle | -- Calvin (not Hobbes)
tobias koehler
David S schrieb in Nachricht <57b07sck8lpk64sgv...@4ax.com>...
>When we say this is the year 2000, we are not saying that Christ is 2000
>years old. We are saying that this is the 2000th year of His existence. So,
>He will not have existed for 2000 years until He completes the 2000th year.
Of course he is. I think that most historians believe that Jesus
of Nazareth was born between 7 and 2 "before Christ" ;) So he
has already completed his 2000th year.
But according to other historians, some 200 years in the middle
ages never happened, so we are still well in the 2nd millennium.
Don't take things so seriously. Enjoy our trains. Count hexa-
decimally and don't care for what some dead popes made up ;)
tobias koehler
>Bob Scheurle wrote:
>> Since the twentieth century doesn't end for another 366 days, are you
>> taking the whole year off? :-)
So the Twentieth Century Limited will be replaced by the
Twenty-first Century Unlimited on 31st December 2000? :)
Justa Lurker
<sche...@z-eclipse-z.net> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
| >But that assumes that 1901, and 1801, etc. were all accepted as the
| >turn of their centuries at the time of their turns.
|
| It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out:
We are not looking for rocket scientists. We are looking for the
opinion of the general public AT THE TIME OF THE ROLLOVER.
| >The officials do not control human behavior. You can walk around with
| >a slide rule if you want, and claim that it is a much better
| >calculation tool - but you cannot force other humans to use it!
|
| And if people believe that 'pi' equals 3, does that make it true?
If people believe 'pi' equals 3.1415 and you say it is 3.14159 are
they wrong?
| >As long as the trains keep running, what does it matter?
I do wish you were ranting about trains in the Americas.
JL
Justa Lurker
<tobias....@sgpvt.at> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
| Don't take things so seriously. Enjoy our trains. Count hexa-
| decimally and don't care for what some dead popes made up ;)
Sage advice.
(And I believe that we should keep the name 20th Century Limited as it
reflects the great century that has passed.)
JL
Bob Scheurle
When was the last time the Twentieth Century Limited ran?
Douglas Smith
Not to mention the fact that no self-respecting shepherd would have had his
flocks out in the fields in the middle of winter. Place the actual date
sometime in what is now April and you might have something. And would the
Romans have conducted a census of the empire in the coldest time of the year?
I personally don't think so.
David S wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 17:14:17 -0600, Douglas Smith <mus...@execpc.com>
> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
> everything:
>
> >And Smitty replies:
> >
> > Were you one year old on the day you were born? :)
> >
> >Bob Scheurle wrote:
> >
> >> Since the twentieth century doesn't end for another 366 days, are you
> >> taking the whole year off? :-)
>
> <Trying to put this slightly less inflammatorily than Curt...>
>
> When we say this is the year 2000, we are not saying that Christ is 2000
> years old. We are saying that this is the 2000th year of His existence. So,
> He will not have existed for 2000 years until He completes the 2000th year.
>
Douglas Smith
The officials do not control human behavior. You can walk around with a slide
rule if you want, and claim that it is a much better calculation tool - but
you cannot force other humans to use it!
As long as the trains keep running, what does it matter?
And Smitty replies:
Indeed, sir! And a happy new millenium to you, too!
Merritt D. Mullen
tobias....@sgpvt.at wrote on 1/3/2000 4:54 AM:
>> Bob Scheurle wrote:
>
>>> Since the twentieth century doesn't end for another 366 days, are you
>>> taking the whole year off? :-)
>
> Twenty-first Century Unlimited on 31st December 2000? :)
Why not send a telegram to the New York Central Railroad and ask them? I
believe their offices are at 230 Park Avenue in New York city.
Merritt
Merritt D. Mullen
sche...@z-eclipse-z.net wrote on 1/3/2000 3:26 AM:
> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out:
>
> Year 1 - 100: 1st century 1 - 1000: 1st millennium
> 101 - 200: 2nd century 1001 - 2000: 2nd millennium
> 201 - 300: 3rd century 2001 - 3000: 3rd millennium
> 301 - 400: 4th century
> . . .
> 1701 - 1800: 18th century
> 1801 - 1900: 19th century
> 1901 - 2000: 20th century
> 2001 - 2100: 21st century
> 2101 - 2200: 22nd century
>
> A baby born in the year 2000 who lives to be 101 years old will have
> lived in three centuries: the 20th, 21st, and 22nd.
I've been biting my tongue on the subject, since it is really not railroad
related, and is a silly argument anyway, but I just can't resist any longer.
I'm not exactly a rocket scientist (I am a missile guidance engineer and
sort of a mathematician), but you are making the mistake of assuming that
the beginning of a century (or millennium) is an exact mathematical concept.
The only thing exact about them is that a century must span 100 years and a
millennium, a 1000 years. When a particular century or millennium starts is
strictly a convention defined for the convenience of the user.
If I choose to say the "first" century began at the beginning of the year 1
BC, I am free to do so. By doing that, the first century includes the years
1 BC though 99 AD, the second century would be 1000-1099 AD, and the rest
follows. The point, for effective communication, is to use a convention
that most people accept, and currently it appears to me that most people
accept the idea that named (ie, 19th, 20th, 21st, etc) centuries begin with
year ending in "0" and end with years ending in "9". I believe that was the
convention in 1800 and 1900, as well.
If you claim the definition of the first, second, etc, centuries/millennia
must be defined by beginning with the year of the birth of Christ, then you
run into the problem of knowing how many years ago Christ was born (most
scholars believe the year to be 4 - 7 BC), meaning the 21st century and 3rd
millennium since the birth of Christ began about 1994-1997 (apparently the
world didn't end back then either).
>> The officials do not control human behavior. You can walk around with
>> a slide rule if you want, and claim that it is a much better
>> calculation tool - but you cannot force other humans to use it!
>
> And if people believe that 'pi' equals 3, does that make it true?
Unlike the beginning of centuries, "pi" DOES have an exact mathematical
definition: the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.
That is a mathematical/geometrical fact that can't be modified. And
depending on the degree of accuracy desired, sometimes pi = 3 (speaking as
an engineer, not a mathematician).
>> As long as the trains keep running, what does it matter?
Right. And, of course, the "Y2K" problem has nothing to do with the
definition of when a century or millennium begins or ends.
Merritt
Burridge, Gerard
2000 11:14:22 -0800:
-... The point, for effective communication, is to use a convention
->that most people accept, and currently it appears to me that most
people
->accept the idea that named (ie, 19th, 20th, 21st, etc) centuries
begin with
->year ending in "0" and end with years ending in "9". I believe
that was the
->convention in 1800 and 1900, as well.
Agreed that currently most people have taken up the idea that
centuries begin in years ending in double-0.
However, 1901 WAS accepted and celebrated as the beginning of the 20th
century(check newspaper files). Presumably the Victorians werent in
such a hurry to compress time; in our haste we've managed to cram 100
years into 99. Though all the scare stories might have taken that year
off some peoples lives to balance it out.
==============================================================
Gerry Burridge Y!2K - Making the world safe for anarchy at:
P.O. Box 152 burr...@odyssee.net
Pte. Claire - Dorval, Que.
H9R 4N9 <Old Alcos Never Die, They Just Disappear in Smoke>
---------------------------------------------------------------
HaRRy
<mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
»I'm not exactly a rocket scientist (I am a missile guidance engineer and
»sort of a mathematician), but you are making the mistake of assuming that
»the beginning of a century (or millennium) is an exact mathematical concept.
»The only thing exact about them is that a century must span 100 years and a
»millennium, a 1000 years. When a particular century or millennium starts is
»strictly a convention defined for the convenience of the user.
»
»If I choose to say the "first" century began at the beginning of the year 1
»BC, I am free to do so. By doing that, the first century includes the years
»1 BC though 99 AD, the second century would be 1000-1099 AD, and the rest
»follows. The point, for effective communication, is to use a convention
»that most people accept, and currently it appears to me that most people
»accept the idea that named (ie, 19th, 20th, 21st, etc) centuries begin with
»year ending in "0" and end with years ending in "9". I believe that was the
»convention in 1800 and 1900, as well.
It's not a convention, it's simply a matter of counting.
First definitions: a Century is 100 years and a Millennium is 1000 years (see
any dictionary).
Now, take some coins out of your pocket. Count out 10 of them. Did you start
counting with zero or one? One, of course. Note that very important zero on
attached to the 10th coin of the 10 you counted.
Now count one hundred of them. You'll count 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 97, 98, 99, 100.
There is simply no other rational way to count one hundred coins, or one
hundred objects of any kind -- or one hundred years. And by extension, 1000
years.
The "first century" can only be rationally counted as above, beginning with 1
-- not zero or -1 or any other counting number ("integer" in mathematically
terms) even if some year was assigned the numbers 0 or -1.
And 100 is thus the 100th year and the last year of first century. And by
routine extension, 1000 was the 1000th year of the first millennium. And 2000
the 1000th year of the second millennium. It's simply a matter of counting,
just like the coins in your pocket.
Yes I know, the current year number begins with a "2" and that's massively
different from all those one thousand years before. And in the year 1000, the
year number sudden began with 1 and was 4 digits long, unlike the previous 999
years. That's certain a very good reason for a celebration -- but not the
celebration of the turning of a millennium.
tobias koehler
Bob Scheurle schrieb in Nachricht ...
>When was the last time the Twentieth Century Limited ran?
You mean it didn't run for the whole century? I'm disappointed!
The Orient Express doesn't go to the Orient any more (unless
you count Hungary as Orient, but any Hungarian will prefer to
say that they are part of central Europe), but it is still
operating after more than a hundred years as a night train
Paris - Budapest. Perhaps it will be upgraded to EuroNight
sometime - that's more likely than the extension to Istanbul
(due to all the Balkan conflicts).
Which brings us to the next question: What's the longest-
running "named train"? I don't mean origin to destination, but
how many years ago it was started ;)
tobias
tobias koehler
Douglas Smith schrieb in Nachricht <3870d48a$0$14...@news.execpc.com>...
>Not to mention the fact that no self-respecting shepherd would have had his
>flocks out in the fields in the middle of winter. Place the actual date
>sometime in what is now April and you might have something. And would the
>Romans have conducted a census of the empire in the coldest time of the
year?
>I personally don't think so.
But the Croatians hold their elections in the coldest time of the year,
when many people are in their skiing holidays ;)
Wes Leatherock
> centuries begin in years ending in double-0.
> However, 1901 WAS accepted and celebrated as the beginning of the 20th
> century(check newspaper files).
by Curt Mc, in several newspaper stories discussing this the writer
reports he or she has failed to find any examples after checking
old newspaper files.
Wes Leatherock
wle...@sandbox.dynip.com
Justa Lurker
wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
| It's not a convention, it's simply a matter of counting.
|
| First definitions: a Century is 100 years and a Millennium is 1000 years (see
| any dictionary).
My dictionary has "Any period of 100 years, such as 1620 to 1720."
| Now, take some coins out of your pocket. Count out 10 of them. Did you start
| counting with zero or one? One, of course. Note that very important zero on
| attached to the 10th coin of the 10 you counted.
Mixing definitions of the ordinal and the cardinal which are birds of
a different feather.
| Yes I know, the current year number begins with a "2" and that's massively
| different from all those one thousand years before. And in the year 1000, the
| year number sudden began with 1 and was 4 digits long, unlike the previous 999
| years. That's certain a very good reason for a celebration -- but not the
| celebration of the turning of a millennium.
Do you realize that come February 2nd, we will celebrate the first all
even digit date since year 888? Considering how well things were
counted way back when, this would probably be the first all even digit
date recorded. The last all odd digit date was November 19th, 1999,
the next will be January 1st, 3111 (or November 11th if one pads to
two digit month/days.
Does this have a lot to do with trains? No.
Now if you want to drift into systems that count series starting with
100 numbers vs systems that have the first in a series be 01 that may
actually put us back on topic for the group.
JL
Merritt D. Mullen
rail...@no.spam wrote on 1/3/2000 10:00 PM:
> It's not a convention, it's simply a matter of counting.
Of course it's a matter of counting, you have to count to 100 to complete a
century, and to 1000 to complete a millennium. The point is years have been
occurring since beyond reckoning, so I can choose to start counting where
ever I want. I may decide to say the "first" century had only 99 years (not
that that violates the definition of a century, but because the person that
decided to number the years started with "1" instead of "0", and 1 BC is
really the "0" year). I may decide that the "first" century ran from 7 BC
through 93 AD, since 7 BC is the date astronomers place the conjunction of
planets that heralded the birth of Christ, and so the 3rd millennium of
Christ's birth occured 1 Jan 1994.
Anyway, it really doesn't matter. No matter which way we do it, it doesn't
violate any basic principles of logic or mathematics. That is why it is a
"convention."
Maybe we should give this a rest, at least for the next 100 years.
By the way, someone claims that the last century turnovers were celebrated
in 1801 and 1901 and that this can be proven by newspaper articles of the
time. Just out of curiosity, I would like to see something that
substantiates that.
Merritt
HaRRy
<mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
»The point is years have been
»occurring since beyond reckoning, so I can choose to start counting where
»ever I want.
Sure. You could start with 37 or 492 or 1653 or -942 if you wanted. But
that's simply absurd. As demonstrated, when we count objects, we start at ONE
-- starting anywhere else makes no sense, is illogical.
How many eggs are in your refrigerator (assuming 1 or more)? Did you start
counting at zero?
How many stamps are in the book or sheet you are using to mail bills, letters,
etc.? Did you start counting at anything other than 1?
How many sheets of paper are in your printer? Did you start counting at 0 or
-1 or some other number? Of course not!
Under your "I may start counting where ever I want" thesis, we might as well
celebrate a new millennium every Dec 31, since of course 1000 years has passed
at that point (and 10,000 and 100,000 and a million and several billion for
that matter). A meaningless in almost all cases, of course.
»No matter which way we do it, it doesn't
»violate any basic principles of logic or mathematics. That is why it is a
»"convention."
That's exactly my point. Calling 2000 the first year of the 3rd Millennium of
the Christian Calendar definitely DOES violate the basic principles of logic
and mathematics -- the principles associated with the Counting Numbers.
Socratic Syllogism:
We count things beginning at 1.
Years are things.
Therefore we count years beginning at 1.
QED.
(I knew my BA in Math would come in handy someday. <g>)
Burridge, Gerard
15:14:04 GMT:
->burr...@odyssee.net (Burridge, Gerard) wrote:
->
-> [ ... text deleted ... ]
->
->> Agreed that currently most people have taken up the idea that
->> centuries begin in years ending in double-0.
->
->> However, 1901 WAS accepted and celebrated as the beginning of the
20th
->> century(check newspaper files).
->
-> As I noted in a reply to an earlier assertion to this effect
->by Curt Mc, in several newspaper stories discussing this the writer
->reports he or she has failed to find any examples after checking
->old newspaper files.
You mean the new century was simply ignored, either in 1899-1900 or
1900-1901?
I couldnt find any newspapers myself in the basement going back that
far; I do have at hand the Dec99/Jan00 issue of _The Beaver_ (a
Canadian history magazine).
Essentially, what it comes down to is that while there was some
celebration of the change from the 1800s to the 1900s in 1900, the
beginning of the 20th century was declared and celebrated on Jan 1st,
1901.
Examples of 31Dec00/1Jan01 events:
- Quebec City: 99 gun salute from the Citadel(49 before/50 after
midnight); a Chateau Frontenac turn-of-century banquet featured a
bank of electric lights displaying '1901';
-Toronto: "worshippers packed city churches to welcome new century on
their knees"; bells in city hall tower rang 12 times for midnight and
20 times for the new century.
->
->
->Wes Leatherock
->wle...@sandbox.dynip.com
->
dre
centuries, millenia.
Ask any marathon runner.
I still blame the railroads for standardizing time:-).
dre
1+0. So its entirely possible to have a year 0. We do use negative numbers in
looking at time(ie 500 BC). So on a numbering continuum you must pass through
zero. Unlike money the counting of years hasn't any physical effect only a
psychological effect. By the way you can save money but you really can't "save"
time. You can only use it more efficiently. Here's to a new year, century, and
millenuium 2+000. To keep this on topic I blame the railroads for standardizing
time.
HaRRy wrote:
>
>
> Now, take some coins out of your pocket. Count out 10 of them. Did you start
> counting with zero or one? One, of course. Note that very important zero on
> attached to the 10th coin of the 10 you counted.
>
> Now count one hundred of them. You'll count 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 97, 98, 99, 100.
> There is simply no other rational way to count one hundred coins, or one
> hundred objects of any kind -- or one hundred years. And by extension, 1000
> years.
>
> The "first century" can only be rationally counted as above, beginning with 1
> -- not zero or -1 or any other counting number ("integer" in mathematically
> terms) even if some year was assigned the numbers 0 or -1.
>
> And 100 is thus the 100th year and the last year of first century. And by
> routine extension, 1000 was the 1000th year of the first millennium. And 2000
> the 1000th year of the second millennium. It's simply a matter of counting,
> just like the coins in your pocket.
>
> Yes I know, the current year number begins with a "2" and that's massively
> different from all those one thousand years before. And in the year 1000, the
> year number sudden began with 1 and was 4 digits long, unlike the previous 999
> years. That's certain a very good reason for a celebration -- but not the
> celebration of the turning of a millennium.
>
Douglas Smith
Well, I hope you didn't have too much fun the other night, then. And in a
year's time, you can party hearty and the rest of us will remain none the wiser.
Personally, my wife had to wake me up to watch the ball drop on TV. Such is life
when you work for a railroad.
HaRRy wrote:
Douglas Smith
Yeah, and they're also credited for inventing the necktie! :)
Merritt D. Mullen
rail...@no.spam wrote on 1/4/2000 12:10 PM:
> Socratic Syllogism:
>
> We count things beginning at 1.
>
> Years are things.
>
> Therefore we count years beginning at 1.
A year may be a "thing", but it is not a tangible object, and we can't count
the actual total number of years because we don't know where to start. So,
we start at an arbitrary year that we define as "year 1". I choose to start
counting at the year named "1 BC" rather than the year named "1 AD".
Since the year that was named "1 AD" was not the actual first year, I am not
logically obligated to start counting there. "1 AD" is not the first of a
series of objects, it is simply a name for a point within a series of
objects. It is a numerical definition derived from counting backwards from
some point in time: "I define the year that began 1999 years before 25 Mar
2000 to be the year 1 AD" (the year used to begin on "Our Lady's Day", 9
months before the day defined as the birthday of Christ). So 2000 years
from the beginning of the year 1 AD will occur on 25 Mar 2001 (not 1 Jan
2001). Of course, there is the matter of 11 days adjustment that was made
about 200 years ago that should be taken into account if you insist on
determining the beginning of the 21st century as 2000 years from the
beginning of year 1 AD (I think that would make the beginning or the next
century 11 days earlier by today's calendar, or 14 Mar 2001).
The point is that year counting is arbitrary, subject to the whims of popes,
and adjustments made because a year does not consist of an integer number of
days, so why not pick a nice round number and stick with it? We have been
used to counting 0, 1, 2, etc, for a long time now, so lets just decide from
now on, to start with "zero" years when beginning a new decade, century, or
millennium.
If I count backwards from 1 Jan 2000 for 2000 years, I arrive at 1 Jan of
the year called 1 BC. When I get to 1 Jan of the year called 1 AD, exactly
1 year has passed; 1 Jan of the year 100, 1 century has passed; 1 Jan 1000,
1 millennium has passed, 1 Jan 2000, 2 millennia have passed.
Lets say I have 10 coins and I line them up on the table. I then define the
5th coin as "coin +1", then (without using the concept of zero), the forth
coin in the series is coin -1, the first is coin -4 and the last coin is
coin +6. Now that I have renumbered the coins (just as someone once
renumbered the years) let's recount the number of coins (objects, things).
Hey! I still have 10 coins! Does it make sense to still insist the that
last coin is the 6th coin? It is really the 10th coin with the NAME "+6".
When I said earlier I was an engineer and "sort of" a mathematician, I
should have clarified that my mathematical field was stochastic processes.
Maybe that has something to do with my thinking. :-)
Merritt
HaRRy
misc.transport.rail.americas:
»But when you measure time you start at t=0 seconds, minutes, hours, years,
»centuries, millenia.
»Ask any marathon runner.
Yes, but you count the FIRST second as SECOND NUMBER ONE. And so on. And the
first minute as minute number 1, and the first hour as hour number 1 -- and the
first year as year number 1, and so on.
QED, again.
»I still blame the railroads for standardizing time:-).
Hey, you probably don't like the Greenwich or Naval observatories very much
either, right? :-)
Burridge, Gerard
->Lets say I have 10 coins and I line them up on the table. I then
define the
->5th coin as "coin +1", then (without using the concept of zero),
the forth
->coin in the series is coin -1, the first is coin -4 and the last
coin is
->coin +6. Now that I have renumbered the coins (just as someone
once
->renumbered the years) let's recount the number of coins (objects,
things).
->Hey! I still have 10 coins! Does it make sense to still insist the
that
->last coin is the 6th coin? It is really the 10th coin with the
NAME "+6".
Somehow i doubt that if i set my watch to Central time tonight, and
set it to Atlantic time at lunch tomorrow, that I'll get away with a
six-hour shift.
dre
at T=1.0. The railroads are to blame for everything:-).
David Bromage
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 18:42:57 -0500, dre <du...@telerama.com> wrote in
> misc.transport.rail.americas:
> »But when you measure time you start at t=0 seconds, minutes, hours, years,
> »centuries, millenia.
> »Ask any marathon runner.
> Yes, but you count the FIRST second as SECOND NUMBER ONE. And so on. And the
> first minute as minute number 1, and the first hour as hour number 1 -- and the
> first year as year number 1, and so on.
The talk of using a zero is moot. The concept of a zero was not popular
in Europe in the 6th century when Dionysis Exiguus recalculated the
calendar. You can't simply add a fictional year at the turn of the age
1000+ years later to fit in with modern thinking.
"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."
- The Times, 26th December 1799
Cheers
David
David S
<mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> chose to add this to the great equation of life,
the universe, and everything:
>Since the year that was named "1 AD" was not the actual first year, I am not
>logically obligated to start counting there. "1 AD" is not the first of a
>series of objects, it is simply a name for a point within a series of
>objects.
It was so named with the assumption that it was the first year. It was
several centuries after it was named that it was discovered to be
incorrect, and to this day, no one is sure how incorrect it is, we might as
well leave it alone (not to mention that such a change would be immensely
confusing and doubtlessly challenged in court by atheists claiming it was
government recognition of religion -- and that's only in this country).
(I wonder how that error affects the claim that the world was created in
4004 BC... (for some reason, the figure of September 23, 9 AM sticks in my
head))
David Streeter "Never pee in the bidet." - D*ve B*rry
--
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8114
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"The [hydrogen] bomb's brilliant gleam reminds me of the brilliant shine
Gleam gives to floors. It's a science marvel." - ad in the Pittsburgh
Press, 1954
Greg Ramsey
observatories) agree that the millennium starts in 2001.
Since there are so many reasonable arguments for going both ways, I tend to make my
final decision based on the folks who are charted to make just such decisions.
Now I just have to figure out how to automatically synchronize the Standard clock
for Crystal Springs and Cahuenga Valley RR at Travel Town. :-)
Greg
HaRRy wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 18:42:57 -0500, dre <du...@telerama.com> wrote in
> misc.transport.rail.americas:
>
> »But when you measure time you start at t=0 seconds, minutes, hours, years,
> »centuries, millenia.
> »Ask any marathon runner.
>
> Yes, but you count the FIRST second as SECOND NUMBER ONE. And so on. And the
> first minute as minute number 1, and the first hour as hour number 1 -- and the
> first year as year number 1, and so on.
>
Justa Lurker
<rams...@yahoo.com> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
| And since Harry brings it up, THE authorities in the US and UK
| (their respective observatories) agree that the millennium starts
| in 2001.
|
| http://www.usno.navy.mil/
|
| Since there are so many reasonable arguments for going both ways,
| I tend to make my final decision based on the folks who are charted
| to make just such decisions.
I suppose you believe the government when it comes to Waco, Ruby
Ridge, JFK's Assassination, JFK Jr's 'Accident' and everything else
they tell you too? :-)
It doesn't matter as long as the trains run on time!
JL
Greg Ramsey
No, but then again I don't assume everything they tell me is a evil
conspiracy either. More often, if I believe I'm not being told the whole
truth, I'll more often attribute the reason to something more benign or
often to simple incompetence.
And I can't imagine the most ardent anti-government type could come up
with a plausible conspiracy to claim some evil with the USNOs decision
about the start of the 3rd millennium. :-)
Now back to the ongoing discussion about Amtrak's plan to introduce steam
on the Coast Starlight.
Greg
Merritt D. Mullen
daf...@megsinet.net wrote on 1/5/2000 10:29 PM:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 00:03:09 -0800, "Merritt D. Mullen"
> <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> chose to add this to the great equation of life,
> the universe, and everything:
>
>> Since the year that was named "1 AD" was not the actual first year, I am not
>> logically obligated to start counting there. "1 AD" is not the first of a
>> series of objects, it is simply a name for a point within a series of
>> objects.
>
> It was so named with the assumption that it was the first year.
No, no, no. Everyone, including the inventor of 1 AD, knew it was not the
first year. It was supposed to be the year of Christ's birth. The first
year was supposed to be about 4004 years prior.
> It was
> several centuries after it was named that it was discovered to be
> incorrect, and to this day, no one is sure how incorrect it is, we might as
> well leave it alone (not to mention that such a change would be immensely
> confusing and doubtlessly challenged in court by atheists claiming it was
> government recognition of religion -- and that's only in this country).
In all the discussion of when the century begins, I don't think anyone has
proposed changing the year numbering system. The years are adjusted (in
addition to the use of leap years) periodically (annually) by the use of
leap seconds to keep the clocks and calendars in sync with solar time.
> (I wonder how that error affects the claim that the world was created in
> 4004 BC... (for some reason, the figure of September 23, 9 AM sticks in my
> head))
I believe the creation date of 4004 BC was calculated counting backwards
from the birth of Christ. Therefore if Christ was born in say 7 BC, then
the creation would have been in 4011 BC. I always wondered whether that 9am
time was GMT, EST, or GET (Garden of Eden Time).
Merritt
darka...@my-deja.com
itself -- man made. We as a species are a whole HELL of a lot older than
most believe.
~Darkap0ll0
In article <70d87skm5fogdqo96...@4ax.com>,
David S <daf...@megsinet.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 00:03:09 -0800, "Merritt D. Mullen"
> <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> chose to add this to the great equation of
life,
> the universe, and everything:
>
> >Since the year that was named "1 AD" was not the actual first year, I
am not
> >logically obligated to start counting there. "1 AD" is not the first
of a
> >series of objects, it is simply a name for a point within a series of
> >objects.
>
> It was so named with the assumption that it was the first year. It was
> several centuries after it was named that it was discovered to be
> incorrect, and to this day, no one is sure how incorrect it is, we
might as
> well leave it alone (not to mention that such a change would be
immensely
> confusing and doubtlessly challenged in court by atheists claiming it
was
> government recognition of religion -- and that's only in this
country).
>
> (I wonder how that error affects the claim that the world was created
in
> 4004 BC... (for some reason, the figure of September 23, 9 AM sticks
in my
> head))
>
> David Streeter "Never pee in the bidet." - D*ve B*rry
> --
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8114
> Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
> "The [hydrogen] bomb's brilliant gleam reminds me of the brilliant
shine
> Gleam gives to floors. It's a science marvel." - ad in the Pittsburgh
> Press, 1954
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
HaRRy
misc.transport.rail.americas:
»Sorry Harry but in engineering you count at T=0. Try doing calculus with the limit
»at T=1.0. The railroads are to blame for everything:-).
Calculus was my favorite math topic. But we're COUNTING here 1, 2, 3,... 98,
99, 100...), not taking limits and so on.
Regards, HaRRy, San Diego
--
http://communities.prodigy.net/trains/
Merritt D. Mullen
darka...@my-deja.com wrote on 1/6/2000 10:10 PM:
> Cept that there is over 25,000 years of WATER EROSION on the Sphinx
> itself -- man made. We as a species are a whole HELL of a lot older than
> most believe.
I guess I have to disagree with both statements. I don't think any reliable
authority thinks the Sphinx was built 25,000 years ago. Wouldn't 5000 to
6000 years ago be more like it?
Most people believe the human species is very much more than 25,000 years
old, so I am not sure of the point of your second statement.
Merritt
dre
of this back to railroads:-)!
David S
add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>> I suppose you believe the government when it comes to Waco, Ruby
>> Ridge, JFK's Assassination, JFK Jr's 'Accident' and everything else
>> they tell you too? :-)
>
>No, but then again I don't assume everything they tell me is a evil
>conspiracy either. More often, if I believe I'm not being told the whole
>truth, I'll more often attribute the reason to something more benign or
>often to simple incompetence.
Well said! Thank you.
>And I can't imagine the most ardent anti-government type could come up
>with a plausible conspiracy to claim some evil with the USNOs decision
>about the start of the 3rd millennium. :-)
>
>Now back to the ongoing discussion about Amtrak's plan to introduce steam
>on the Coast Starlight.
4449 or one of the Pacifics? :-)
David Streeter "Never pee in the bidet." - D*ve B*rry
--
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8114
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Unless you and I fornicate in front of everybody, people aren't going to
think we get along." - Barbara Walters to Harry Reasoner
David Bromage
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 20:06:06 GMT, Greg Ramsey <rams...@yahoo.com> chose to
> add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
> >on the Coast Starlight.
> 4449 or one of the Pacifics? :-)
Dwight D. Eisenhower. :)
Cheers
David
David S
<mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> chose to add this to the great equation of life,
the universe, and everything:
>in article 70d87skm5fogdqo96...@4ax.com, David S at
>daf...@megsinet.net wrote on 1/5/2000 10:29 PM:
>
>> It was so named with the assumption that it was the first year.
>
>No, no, no. Everyone, including the inventor of 1 AD, knew it was not the
>first year. It was supposed to be the year of Christ's birth. The first
>year was supposed to be about 4004 years prior.
As I was saying, ... the first year [<implied phrase> of the[1] Lord].
>I believe the creation date of 4004 BC was calculated counting backwards
>from the birth of Christ. Therefore if Christ was born in say 7 BC, then
>the creation would have been in 4011 BC. I always wondered whether that 9am
>time was GMT, EST, or GET (Garden of Eden Time).
My guess would be GET.
[1] Yes, I know the phrase is usually "year of our Lord," but I didn't want
to presume to say that every reader of this ng is Christian (which I highly
doubt they are).
David Streeter "Never pee in the bidet." - D*ve B*rry
--
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8114
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"I think people would be alive today if there was a death penalty."
- Nancy Reagan
Justa Lurker
<daf...@megsinet.net> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
| On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 20:06:06 GMT, Greg Ramsey <rams...@yahoo.com> chose to
| add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
|
| >> Ridge, JFK's Assassination, JFK Jr's 'Accident' and everything else
| >> they tell you too? :-)
| >
| >No, but then again I don't assume everything they tell me is a evil
| >conspiracy either. More often, if I believe I'm not being told the whole
| >truth, I'll more often attribute the reason to something more benign or
| >often to simple incompetence.
|
| Well said! Thank you.
Just don't forget to stop and read the smilies.
JL
Justa Lurker
<daf...@megsinet.net> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
| >No, no, no. Everyone, including the inventor of 1 AD, knew it was not the
| >first year. It was supposed to be the year of Christ's birth. The first
| >year was supposed to be about 4004 years prior.
|
| As I was saying, ... the first year [<implied phrase> of the[1] Lord].
| [1] Yes, I know the phrase is usually "year of our Lord," but I didn't want
| to presume to say that every reader of this ng is Christian (which I highly
| doubt they are).
A.D. is by definition 'the year of our Lord' - which to non-Christians
can be annoying as they are forced to acknowledge that the most common
date scheme on the planet is based on someone they don't believe in.
Almost enough to make them want to write the Muslim or Chinese year on
their cheques! To Christians 'the year of our Lord' can be annoying
as it is too limiting. How can the Alpha and Omega have a birthday
placed within time?
I don't believe or presume that any member of this fine group is a
Christian, although most have been exposed to the belief that He
exists, so their response is not 'who?'. I do believe that members of
this fine group came here to discuss trains and not the century,
millennium, or the precise timing of events outside of our millennium.
In a Christian group, I would confront the century/millennium debate
with the simple question 'is it a salvation issue'? Here I confront
it with 'does it stop the trains from running'? I could care less
what newspapers in 1899/1900/1901 or even the 'media' of today said
about century rollover. I'd rather find out about the trains!
JL
Justa Lurker
<mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
| Most people believe the human species is very much more than 25,000 years
| old,
Most people believe that a new century/millenium has just begun.
It doesn't mean that they are right!
Ever watch 'Family Feud'? "100 people surveyed, top answers on the
board, what is the leading cause of grade crossing deaths."
The 'top answers' on that show are not the truth based on research
(counting deaths) or scientific study (NTSB and other reports), they
are opinions, the thoughts of 100 people.
So although most people believe that the human species is over 25,000
yrs old (assuming that came from a survey) that does not have to be
true. Believing in Santa Clause will not make him come to life,
Virginia. This is the real world.
Believing that all crossing deaths are the fault of the railroad does
not make that true either.
JL
dre
acknowledged. Using your logic we should bring back slavery because of a modern idea
about what sounds good namely freedom.
David Bromage wrote:
> dre (du...@telerama.com) won a Nobel Prize for literature by writing:
> > Yes but we're dealing with a time continuum. You know BC AD so we need a zero.
>
> These days we would add a zero, but when Dionysis renumbered the years
> there was no zero, period. We can't simply add in one to suit some
> incorrect, modern idea about what sounds good.
>
> The 21st century starts in 2001, end of story.
>
> Cheers
> David
Jim_...@chsra.wisc.edunospam
> As demonstrated, when we count objects, we start at ONE
>-- starting anywhere else makes no sense, is illogical.
>That's exactly my point. Calling 2000 the first year of the 3rd Millennium
>of the Christian Calendar definitely DOES violate the basic principles of
>logic and mathematics -- the principles associated with the Counting Numbers.
>Socratic Syllogism:
>
> We count things beginning at 1.
>
> Years are things.
>
> Therefore we count years beginning at 1.
Hmmmm. So during your first year of life, your mother went around telling
everyone that you were "one year old"? I don't think so.
And according to you, the year 1960 would NOT be part of "The Sixties"? Sorry,
can't go there with you either.
>QED.
>
>(I knew my BA in Math would come in handy someday. <g>)
Perhaps not quite yet.
Jim Hill
Madison WI
HaRRy
misc.transport.rail.americas:
»rail...@no.spam (HaRRy) wrote:
»
»> As demonstrated, when we count objects, we start at ONE
»>-- starting anywhere else makes no sense, is illogical.
»
»>That's exactly my point. Calling 2000 the first year of the 3rd Millennium
»>of the Christian Calendar definitely DOES violate the basic principles of
»>logic and mathematics -- the principles associated with the Counting Numbers.
»
»>Socratic Syllogism:
»>
»> We count things beginning at 1.
»>
»> Years are things.
»>
»> Therefore we count years beginning at 1.
»
»Hmmmm. So during your first year of life, your mother went around telling
»everyone that you were "one year old"? I don't think so.
No, she said I was x-months old, in the FIRST year of my life -- not the
ZEROith. But anyway, so what?
»And according to you, the year 1960 would NOT be part of "The Sixties"? Sorry,
»can't go there with you either.
No that's not according to me. In fact I never said that. And it's completely
irrelevant. In fact I agree that 2000 is part of the Naughties -- a name
suggested by my local newspaper, equivalent in usage to "the Sixties".
But AAMOF 1960 was a part of the *6th decade* of the 20th century -- it was the
last year of the 6th decade. 1901...1910, 1911...1920, 1921...1930,
1931...1940, 1941...1950, and finally 1951...1960. But none of this in any way
contradicts that 2001 is the first year of the 3rd thousand-years (millennium)
of the Common Era (a much better name for a calendar which is religiously
meaningless to the vast majority of the world's 6 Billion people). QED.
»>QED.
»>
»>(I knew my BA in Math would come in handy someday. <g>)
»
»Perhaps not quite yet.
And perhaps long ago. <g>
John Albert
the "19th" century ended on December 31st, 1899, and the "20th" century
began on January 1st, 1900.
And - in years to come - I think that most folks living today will - at
least in their memory, if not "in their logic" - perceive that the 20th
century ended on December 31st, 1999, and the 21st began on January 1,
2000...
Cheers!
- John
ELRR co
>> As demonstrated, when we count objects, we start at ONE
>>-- starting anywhere else makes no sense, is illogical.
>
>>That's exactly my point. Calling 2000 the first year of the 3rd Millennium
>>of the Christian Calendar definitely DOES violate the basic principles of
>>logic and mathematics -- the principles associated with the Counting
>Numbers.
>
>>Socratic Syllogism:
>>
>> We count things beginning at 1.
>>
>> Years are things.
>>
>> Therefore we count years beginning at 1.
>
>Hmmmm. So during your first year of life, your mother went around telling
>everyone that you were "one year old"? I don't think so.
>
>Sorry,
>can't go there with you either.
>
>>
>>(I knew my BA in Math would come in handy someday. <g>)
>
>Perhaps not quite yet.
>
>Madison WI
Actually, yes, Centuries and Millenia begin on the 1s not zeros. Decades begin
on the zeros. So, while 1960 is part of the '60s, 2000 is not part of the 3rd
millenium or 21st Century. By the distorted calendar, 2000 is in the 20th
Century and the 2nd millenium.
Although, we actuall have been in the 3rd millenium since around '97, if you
place the dating system on Jesus' actual year of birth, then the system is a
minimum of 4 years off (then compensating for the fact that the millenium would
begin 1 year after the 2000th year following Jesus' birth).
Phil
jim thias
If that were the case, the 1900's would not be referred to as the "20th
Century". In order for that to occur, a "0" starting point in necessary, just
as is the moment you were born. If you lived to be 1950 years old, you would
be living in the 20th century of your life. This remains consistent through
days, years, decades, centuries, etc...
JT
Burridge, Gerard
->>Actually, yes, Centuries and Millenia begin on the 1s not zeros
->If that were the case, the 1900's would not be referred to as the
"20th
->Century". In order for that to occur, a "0" starting point in
necessary, just
->as is the moment you were born. If you lived to be 1950 years old,
you would
->be living in the 20th century of your life. This remains
consistent through
->days, years, decades, centuries, etc...
->JT
Ok, let's go through this again!
~A century as _a period of time_ is indeed 100 years, and no one will
argue against that. It can start anywhere, and end on the same date
100 years later. Today is one century after 2/Feb/1900.
~The so-called Christian calendar has 2 notations: BC and AD, counting
away from one another from where they meet. And where they meet is at
the last second of 1BC and the first second of 1AD. Not a year 0
anywhere to be seen. Add a _century of time_ and the _2nd calendar
century_ begins in the first second of 101AD.
Add _A_ milennium twice and _THE_ 3rd milennium AD begins with the
first second of 2001AD.
Whether or not the calendar was revised or adjusted at different times
in earlier centuries is really irrelevant in determining which year,
between 2000 and 2001, should be the first year of the 3rd Milennium.
As is the fact that 1AD is not the actaul birth year of JC.
Them's entirely different barrels of spikes.
J. A. Mc.
a mouse's tail to post:
>>Actually, yes, Centuries and Millenia begin on the 1s not zeros
>
>If that were the case, the 1900's would not be referred to as the "20th
>Century". In order for that to occur, a "0" starting point in necessary, just
>as is the moment you were born. If you lived to be 1950 years old, you would
>be living in the 20th century of your life. This remains consistent through
>days, years, decades, centuries, etc...
>
>JT
You're confusing the concept of the 00 year as FINISHING the century
and the 01 - 99 years as being IN the century.
The 20th Century runs from 1901 to 2000 (not the similarity of the
most significant digits); the 1900's ran from 1900 to 1999.
The 3rd Millennium begins 01/01/2001 as does the 21st Century. The
2000's began last Jan 1.
J. A. Mc.
starts at 21! To paraphrase: "That many people are stupid about a base
ten system 0-9 is the problem" ... we don't COUNT objects from"0" ! !
! ! ! ! ! See below for my standing offer.
Thanks for the 'birth' example that proves my point. You don't COUNT a
year until it has been completed. That's the reasoning behind PEOPLE
saying "My baby is five months old". Thus the 2nd Millennium is NOT
finished until Dec. 31, 2000! From your own example you know this, yet
you fall for the media hype!
We 'western' folks DO understand the concept of "0" - it means a LACK
of an item. HINT: There was NO year "0" ! Calendar counting as used by
most countries - even many 'eastern' ones go directly from 1 BCE to 1
CE (or for the religious - 1 BC to 1 AD).
That my young friend IS the difference in the nomenclature regarding
decades, centuries and millennia.
Anytime you'd like change for a 'decade' bill - I'll be happy to
oblige in your terms ... 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 - there you go!
Yes, I see a "10" available - I just typed it!
Apparently you haven't yet experienced more sophisticaed equipment,
but there are keyboards that will give you "00" and "000" in single
keys! Does this indicate that there is a greater "000" than "0" - or
is it a lesser "0"? Having or lacking a key on a mechanical device is
not tantamount to acquiescing that counting begins with "0".
On Wed, 02 Feb 2000 18:08:46 -0500, dre <du...@telerama.com> tweaked a
mouse's tail to post:
>The twenties start at 20. At birth you are zero,or 0(actually 0+9+- months). One
>1 year later your one or 1. That many people are stupid about a base ten system
>0-9 is the problem. There are ten digits but you western folks don't like the
>concept of 0 or zero. Look on your keyboard to the right. Do you see a number 10
>or ten available? Next marathon you start at -30.00 minutes and you'll probably
>win.
Justa Lurker
wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
| Thanks for the 'birth' example that proves my point. You don't COUNT a
| year until it has been completed. That's the reasoning behind PEOPLE
| saying "My baby is five months old". Thus the 2nd Millennium is NOT
| finished until Dec. 31, 2000! From your own example you know this, yet
| you fall for the media hype!
Actually I told people I was thirty four for six months before my
birthday. I haven't decided when to tell people when I am 35.
| Anytime you'd like change for a 'decade' bill - I'll be happy to
| oblige in your terms ... 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 - there you go!
As long as you hand me a bill when you say zero. : )
JL
dre
using your logic its really Sunday + 30 seconds.
J. A. Mc. wrote:
> As you said - the TWENTIES start at 20, however the THIRD DECADE
> starts at 21! To paraphrase: "That many people are stupid about a base
> ten system 0-9 is the problem" ... we don't COUNT objects from"0" ! !
> ! ! ! ! ! See below for my standing offer.
>
> Thanks for the 'birth' example that proves my point. You don't COUNT a
> year until it has been completed. That's the reasoning behind PEOPLE
> saying "My baby is five months old". Thus the 2nd Millennium is NOT
> finished until Dec. 31, 2000! From your own example you know this, yet
> you fall for the media hype!
>
That there is no zero year is just a fabrication devised by mathematically challenge
academics. As far as calenders are concerned, the jews and chinese are in the 5000's.
>
> We 'western' folks DO understand the concept of "0" - it means a LACK
> of an item. HINT: There was NO year "0" ! Calendar counting as used by
> most countries - even many 'eastern' ones go directly from 1 BCE to 1
> CE (or for the religious - 1 BC to 1 AD).
>
> That my young friend IS the difference in the nomenclature regarding
> decades, centuries and millennia.
>
> Anytime you'd like change for a 'decade' bill - I'll be happy to
> oblige in your terms ... 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 - there you go!
>
jim thias
>>>Thanks for the 'birth' example that proves my point. You don't COUNT a year
until it has been completed. That's the reasoning behind PEOPLE
saying "My baby is five months old". Thus the 2nd Millennium is NOTfinished
until Dec. 31, 2000!<<<
You are contradicting yourself. At the completion of the baby's FIRST year, it
is "1". If it completed 2000 years, it would be "2000", not 2001. Working on
this prinicple, once the baby turned 1, it began working on the 2nd year of
it's life. Hence, we would say that baby was living in it's "2nd Year". That
factor remains constant over years, decades, centuries, etc. Hence, it the
baby was 1950 years old, it would be living in the 20th century of its life.
On its 2000nth birthday, it would have COMPLETED 2000 years. Just as we have
just done.
People like to think that we start counting with one, not zero. Well, that's
fine and dandy, but TIME starts with zero, not one.
You can't call the 1900's the "20th Century" without there being a zero
starting point. Why is it SO hard for people to grasp this mathematical
concept without being brainwashed into believe there was some idiot in the past
who started a calendar year at 1?
JT
jim thias
BRAVO!!!! This is the best line I've read to date to refute those "2001'ers!"
Thank you.
JT
Burridge, Gerard
...
->You can't call the 1900's the "20th Century" without there being a
zero
->starting point. Why is it SO hard for people to grasp this
mathematical
->concept without being brainwashed into believe there was some idiot
in the past
->who started a calendar year at 1?
->
->JT
Why cant you grasp the difference between a calendar(passage of time)
and arithmetic?
Consider this:
As of today, we start a new calendar, with all dates starting from
now. Today is _the_ FIRST day _of_ the FIRST month _of_ the FIRST
year: 1/1/1. (1/1/0 would be nonsensical, just as starting each month
with day 0 would be.Or do your calendars have the first date as 0 each
month?)
Add one year(arithmetic) to get 1/1/2 -- ONE year has passed; add 2000
years to get 1/1/2001.
John C. Lotz
jtm...@aol.combomeal (jim thias) writes:
|>
|> You can't call the 1900's the "20th Century" without there being a zero
<snip>
The 1900's and the 20th century are NOT the same. (At least to my thinking.)
The 1900's would last from 1900-1999. The 20th century lasts
from 1901-2000. How could it be the 20th centrury without the digits
"20" being used somewhere!
John
Rai Fenton
arithmetic. The first millennium and first century started at the
beginning of year 1 AD, hence the third millennium and twenty-first
century start 2000 years later at the beginning of 2001 AD. Also, it
was made quite clear at the beginning of the 20th century that this
began at the start of 1901 AD.
It appears to me that this rumour about the new millennium starting a
year early has been put around by the gullible media listening to a
combination of bozos who cannot do simple arithmetic in cahoots with a
load of smart alecs who wanted to cash in on the millennium a year
early. Mark my words, they soon be saying that they have made a
"mistake" so that they can cash in on the new millennium a second time.
Anyway, let's get back to a more enjoyable subject, i.e. trains!
Rai Fenton
Justa Lurker
(Burridge, Gerard) wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
| Why cant you grasp the difference between a calendar(passage of time)
| and arithmetic?
Why do you care enough to write? Does it bother you that much that
someone is posting an idea that you don't agree with? Is it important
enough to continue this off topic thread? You must think so.
| Consider this:
| As of today, we start a new calendar, with all dates starting from
| now. Today is _the_ FIRST day _of_ the FIRST month _of_ the FIRST
| year: 1/1/1. (1/1/0 would be nonsensical, just as starting each month
You started at birth - 00 years.
| with day 0 would be.Or do your calendars have the first date as 0 each
| month?)
Well if a new calendar was started today we could do as we pleased.
Just figure out some way to put 365.25ish days in the year to stop
season drift, divide the months however we want.
We could call the first month Bob and the second Gerald.
JL
J. A. Mc.
a mouse's tail to post:
>J.A. wrote:
>
>>>>Thanks for the 'birth' example that proves my point. You don't COUNT a year
>until it has been completed. That's the reasoning behind PEOPLE
>saying "My baby is five months old". Thus the 2nd Millennium is NOTfinished
>until Dec. 31, 2000!<<<
>
>You are contradicting yourself. At the completion of the baby's FIRST year, it
>is "1". If it completed 2000 years, it would be "2000", not 2001.
No contradiction - YOU just agreed (oce again) with and paraphrased
my statement yourself. The baby IS "1" at the END of its first year of
life. The baby would be 2000 at the END of its 2000th year of life!
Hence, likewise, the 2nd millennium ENDS at the _end_ of year 2000,
not with 1999. Simple!
> Working on
>this prinicple, once the baby turned 1, it began working on the 2nd year of
>it's life. Hence, we would say that baby was living in it's "2nd Year". That
>factor remains constant over years, decades, centuries, etc. Hence, it the
>baby was 1950 years old, it would be living in the 20th century of its life.
>On its 2000nth birthday, it would have COMPLETED 2000 years. Just as we have
>just done.
We haven't COMPLETED 2000 years until Dec. 31, 2000! Just as you have
said with the baby example.
The calendar year is named as the current year we are living IN, not
the number of previously COMPLETED years. The first year was "1", when
we lived through all the days of that year we had completed i year,
and began the second year - "2".
>
>People like to think that we start counting with one, not zero. Well, that's
>fine and dandy, but TIME starts with zero, not one.
Time may, the calendar is an artificial counting system invented by
humans and may start with any number they choose to utilize.
>You can't call the 1900's the "20th Century" without there being a zero
>starting point.
all but the year 1900 is in the 20th century - the year 1900 is the
last yeqar of the 19th century.
>Why is it SO hard for people to grasp this mathematical
>concept without being brainwashed into believe there was some idiot in the past
>who started a calendar year at 1?
Perhaps because they do not understand the syntactical differences
between "the 1900's" and "20th Century"?
Perhaps because neither you nor I were there to verify that the
changeover from continuous counting - as in the Jewish, Chineese, etc.
calendars was done by naming the FIRST year of the CE counting as the
first year eg, "1" ????
>
>JT
dre
2000, we will END the first year of the 21st century! Please get back to trains.
David Bromage
No we didn't. The 21st Century does not start until 2001. Anybody who says
otherwise simply can't count.
The Royel Observatory, Greenwich, is by definition the institution which
sets the world standard for time.
When do the 3rd Millennium and the 21st Century start?
A millennium is an interval of 1000 years and a century is an interval
of 100 years. In the Gregorian Calendar, which we use, there is no
year zero and the sequence of years near the start runs as follows;
..., 3BC, 2BC, 1BC, 1AD, 2AD, ...
Because there is no year zero, the first year of the calendar ends at
the end of the year named 1AD. By a similar argument 100 years will
only have elapsed at the end of the year 100AD. Since 2000AD is the
2,000th year of the Christian calendar, it will be the last year of
the Second Millennium. So the 3rd Millennium and the 21st Century will
begin at the same moment, namely zero hours UTC (commonly known as
GMT) on January 1st 2001.
We have received a great deal of e-mail regarding the start of the
21st Century. It is interesting to note that this is not the first
time that this controversy has arisen. The Times must have received
many letters towards the end of 1799, since its editors felt moved to
make the following comments about the beginning of the 19th Century:
"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"
The Times, 26 December 1799
(http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/leaflets/new_mill.html)
The US Naval Observatory sets the US standard for time.
When Is the New Millennium?
mil*len*ni*um \ \ n, pl -nia or -niums: a period of 1000 years
The end of the second millennium and the beginning of the third will
be reached on January 1, 2001. This date is based on the now globally
recognized Gregorian calendar, the initial epoch of which was
established by the sixth-century scholar Dionysius Exiguus, who was
compiling a table of dates of Easter. Rather than starting with the
year zero, years in this calendar begin with the date January 1, 1
Anno Domini (AD). Consequently, the Third Millennium does not begin
until January 1, 2001 AD.
(http://www.usno.navy.mil/millennium/whenIs.html)
Are you saying that the two institutions which set the world standards for
time are both wrong?
Cheers
David
Rai Fenton
21st Century starts on January 1st 2001, i.e. 100 years after the
declared start of the 20th Century. If you want to get back to trains
then stop stirring the pot!
In article <389F45AA...@telerama.com>, dre <du...@telerama.com>
writes
J. A. Mc.
mouse's tail to post:
>On January 1, 2000, we STARTED the first year of the 21st century. On December 31,
>2000, we will END the first year of the 21st century!
No we did not.
>Please get back to trains.
... and have a happy cornfield meet because some person can't tell
what day it is. <G>
Douglas Smith
It's like this: those of us who think that the millenium doesn't begin until
01/01/01 can party hearty this coming New Year's with the remainder of us being none
the wiser. And the former are more than welcome to think of the rest of us as idiots,
should they so desire. In the meantime, to borrow a line from William Shatner, "Get a
life!"
dre wrote:
> On January 1, 2000, we STARTED the first year of the 21st century. On December 31,
> 2000, we will END the first year of the 21st century! Please get back to trains.
>
> J. A. Mc. wrote:
>
> > On 05 Feb 2000 17:15:09 GMT, jtm...@aol.combomeal (jim thias) tweaked
> > a mouse's tail to post:
> >
dre
the Roman Catholic church a few years to get back to Gaileo telling him that
he was right. As far a Christ's birth, most newborns start at time = zero(exit
from the vagina). (What's a zero between stuffy English aristocratic losers)
So, if you want to side with some dim wits from a few centuries back, please
feel free. Just don't use this base 2( that is 1+0 or binary system) or even
a decade system( that is 0-9) format to tell me about it.
David Bromage wrote:
> dre (du...@telerama.com) won a Nobel Prize for literature by writing:
> > On January 1, 2000, we STARTED the first year of the 21st century.
>
dre
head. If you want to use a base 11 system in leui of the base ten system we have feel
free. But at least acknowledge that JChrist's birthday should be year zero not 1.
Besides historical evidence shows that historians to have been 3-5 years off in their
estimate. So party hearty any new years from 2000-2006. ciao
ohara
Are you really ignorant? How can you talk about trains, when you
do not even know how the world functions? I am little tired by
people such as you. I don't know who brought up this
conversation, but I can state that you are misinformed and surely
lack the proper consideration for the rights of other people to
conduct their conversations.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Burridge, Gerard
->Not some much "get a life" but stamp out mathematical ignorance
where it rears its ugly
->head. If you want to use a base 11 system in leui of the base ten
system we have feel
->free. But at least acknowledge that JChrist's birthday should be
year zero not 1.
->Besides historical evidence shows that historians to have been 3-5
years off in their
->estimate. So party hearty any new years from 2000-2006. ciao
Zero is a nullity. When a time machine is invented, good luck trying
to go back to year 0.
Point zero might be a different story, if you could actually reference
it -- the machine would probably go "Huh?", since it is the imaginary
point between 1BC and 1AD. Of course you wouldnt be there long even if
it worked, as in the blink of an eye you would be in year one(of any
method of recording time, be it the Western calendar or the beginning
of the universe).
BTW, havent heard anyone argue that BC starts with year 0 yet...
==============================================================
Gerry Burridge Making the world safe for anarchy at:
David Bromage
> Are you really ignorant? How can you talk about trains, when you
> do not even know how the world functions?
Railways and time have always been linked. When travel times between
locations were reduced from days and weeks to mere hours, more accurate
time was required. Railways in Britain adopted Greenwich Mean Time as
railway time a few decades before it was adopted as the world standard
Universal Time. Railways adopted standard time long before armies ever
did.
Cheers
David
David Bromage
> Zero is a nullity. When a time machine is invented, good luck trying
> to go back to year 0.
> Point zero might be a different story, if you could actually reference
> it
Point zero is theoretically a singularity of time between 1 BC and 1AD. it
would last less than a femtosecond.
> BTW, havent heard anyone argue that BC starts with year 0 yet...
Maybe it starts with -0? :)
Cheers
David