Which Decade are we in ?
*Less*
I think we are still in the first Decade after the Year 2000
I recall in Jan.1/2000 some were claiming it 21st Century.
Thanks
*Less*
Internet Highway Traveler
In light of the fact that there was no 0 AD, 2010 is the last year of the
first decade of the 21st century.
HTH!
IHT
"*Less*" <*le...@home.busy*> wrote in message
news:1Sc0n.1464$ZB2....@newsfe13.iad...
*Less*
Hello IHT.
Thanks for Your reply, I see it exactly the same way.
The following Link is trying to confuse me and it not even April fool yet.
See for yourself:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100102/world/us_twins_two_decades
*Less*
"Internet Highway Traveler" <Internet.Hig...@Invalid.Invalid>
wrote in message..
*Less*
"lugnut" <lug...@roadkill.net> wrote in message
news:efu3k51bktdr8r7jg...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:09:22 -0500, "Internet Highway
> Traveler" <Internet.Hig...@Invalid.Invalid> wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>In light of the fact that there was no 0 AD, 2010 is the last year of
>>the
>>first decade of the 21st century.
<snip>
>
> I think it has something to do with the new math wherein
> they start counting with "0" instead of "1". This is a
> method commonly used by those in middle age to be a bit
> younger than they are delaying each birthday by a year. For
> those using regular old fashioned math, this would be the
> 10th or last year of the first decade of the century.
>
> Lugnut
Thanks for sharing, I am for the Old Fashion math.
I wonder how the rest of the World are doing with math.
Decade Translations
decade in Afrikaans is dekade
decade in Dutch is decennium
decade in German is Dekade, Jahrzehnt, Dekade
decade in Italian is decennio
*Less*
Mike Easter
> Happy new Year to everyone!
You are correct. Monday - today - is the first day of the ISO year
which is based on weeks which iso weeks start on Monday. 2009 had what
some people call a 'leap week' which is the 53rd week of the year. 2009
ran from 2008 Dec 29 to 2009 Jan 3, including the leap week.
> I think we are still in the first Decade after the Year 2000
It depends on how you want to talk about the decades. You can have any
kind of decade you want to have. Currently a lot of people are talking
about the 'aughties' (or noughties) which was the decade which just
finished of the years starting with '0x', 2000-2009. I don't know what
you call the decade 2010-2019. I understand about twenties thru'
nineties. I'll have to go look that tensies/teensies thing up.
> I recall in Jan.1/2000 some were claiming it 21st Century.
Well, you can have more than one kind of century just like you can have
more than one kind of decade. A century is 100 years. Group them up
any way you like.
--
Mike Easter
Aardvark
Second decade starts next Jan 1.
--
Las autoridades sanitarias advierten:
Fumar perjudica gravemente su salud
y la de los que están a su alrededor
Aardvark
Second decade starts next Jan 1.
*Less*
"Mike Easter" <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote in message ..
> *Less* wrote:
>> Happy new Year to everyone!
>
> You are correct. Monday - today - is the first day of the ISO year
> which is based on weeks which iso weeks start on Monday. 2009 had what
> some people call a 'leap week' which is the 53rd week of the year. 2009
> ran from 2008 Dec 29 to 2009 Jan 3, including the leap week.
Hello Mike,
Sorry I am not so familiar with the ISO Year, all I recall when I was
working
our paycheque was biweekly, and in certain Month not so often
we were getting 3 Paycheques instead of two.
>
>> I think we are still in the first Decade after the Year 2000
>
> It depends on how you want to talk about the decades. You can have any
> kind of decade you want to have. Currently a lot of people are talking
> about the 'aughties' (or noughties) which was the decade which just
> finished of the years starting with '0x', 2000-2009. I don't know what
> you call the decade 2010-2019. I understand about twenties thru'
> nineties. I'll have to go look that tensies/teensies thing up.
The way I see a Decade is a period of measure for Time in Years starting
A.D. January 1st.
Our present Calendar.
Decade comes fron the Greek word "Dekade" meaning 10. "I am not Greek"
2000 : by 10 =200.0 Decades, 2009 :by 10 =200.9 Decades, 2010 : by 10 =
201.0 Decades.
>
>> I recall in Jan.1/2000 some were claiming it 21st Century.
>
> Well, you can have more than one kind of century just like you can have
> more than one kind of decade. A century is 100 years. Group them up
> any way you like.
Yes I agree with You fully we can pick any period of time since A.D. day
one, or before A.D.
and use to mark Historical and Event Periods, in Decades, Centuries, or
Millenniums.
I wish we would be in the 1960sties and not in the 2010tennies that would
make me
feel younger.
Nice to talk to You again,
Thanks for sharing on the Subject.
*Less*
-
> Mike Easter
*Less*
"Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message ..
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:01:27 -0600, *Less* wrote:
>
>> Happy new Year to everyone!
>>
>> I think we are still in the first Decade after the Year 2000 I recall
>> in
>> Jan.1/2000 some were claiming it 21st Century.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> *Less*
>
> Second decade starts next Jan 1.
I see it exactly the same way, some Media like to mess it up like the one
here: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100102/world/us_twins_two_decades
Yes the second Decade of the 21st Century will start Jan. 1st. 2011
Thanks for sharing,
*Less*
OG
"*Less*" <*le...@home.busy*> wrote in message
news:1Sc0n.1464$ZB2....@newsfe13.iad...
>
> I think we are still in the first Decade after the Year 2000
> I recall in Jan.1/2000 some were claiming it 21st Century.
>
That may be true, but the 'noughties' included year 2000, just as the
twenties will include 2020.
The names of the decades don't overlap with the formal definition of "the
X-th decade of the century".
I'm not sure we really know how to name the decade between the 'noughties'
and the 'twenties'.
Mike Easter
> I'm not sure we really know how to name the decade between the
> 'noughties' and the 'twenties'.
Apparently some have called it the 'teens' in the last century, but that
doesn't seem like an accurate term to me - this year isn't a teen, next
year won't be a teen, the year after that won't be a teen, according to
our language.
Maybe whatever turns up next will turn out to be worse than aughties or
noughties.
If we use some other language for the numbers (that works) then the
discrepancy of the various languages for ten, eleven, and twelve won't
be a problem.
In Esperanto they all start with dek -- we could call 2010-2019 the
'dekkies'. The Esperanto fans would love that.
--
Mike Easter
philo
I don't care WTF anyone says
but the year before the year ONE
was the year ZERO
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> *Less* wrote:
>> I think we are still in the first Decade after the Year 2000
>> I recall in Jan.1/2000 some were claiming it 21st Century.
>
> I don't care WTF anyone says
> but the year before the year ONE
> was the year ZERO
I think it was the year 1 BC. So there!
--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
philo
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 19:54:27 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I think it was the year 1 BC. So there!
>
> checks?
I think so
I bought some rare coins dated 455 BC
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> Evan Platt wrote:
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>> I think it was the year 1 BC. So there!
>>
>> So when people wrote checks back then, did they write BC on the
>> checks?
>
> I think so
No, they didn't have to write the date. Checks were pre-chiseled then.
> I bought some rare coins dated 455 BC
I was born in 29 BC. I'd show you my birth certificate, but the papyrus
is too crumbly to scan.
Mike Easter
> I don't care WTF anyone says
>
> but the year before the year ONE
>
>
> was the year ZERO
The Anno Domini system of numbering the years started in the 6th
century, so during all of those hundreds of years (before that AD
system), including the 'theoretical' or arbitrary year one, that
numbering system didn't exist.
So, the transition went from such as the Diocletian year of 247 to the
Anno Domini year of 532.
There have been a lot of calendar reforms since 532 AD, which time was
using the Julian calendar, such as the signficant Gregorian calendar
which was adopted by various countries at different times spanning from
the 16th century to the 20th century.
Those various calendar reforms didn't (arbitrarily) create a year zero
either, and the calendars which existed before then didn't even do zero,
nor did a lot of number systems of those ages.
Think of Roman numerals if it helps. How would you write the year zero?
--
Mike Easter
philo
The inability of a numbering system to express the zeroth year is not
evidence that it did not exist.
How would one express "pi" in Roman Numerals?
Aardvark
XXII/VII ?
--
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> philo wrote:
>>
>>> I don't care WTF anyone says
>>>
>>> but the year before the year ONE
>>>
>>>
>>> was the year ZERO
>>
>> The Anno Domini system
>> Those various calendar reforms didn't (arbitrarily) create a year zero
>> either,
> The inability of a numbering system to express the zeroth year is not
> evidence that it did not exist.
>
> How would one express "pi" in Roman Numerals?
We could do it pictorially/graphically. Draw a circle with a diameter
and label the diameter I and label the circumference with the pi symbol.
OTOH, putting on my pro-year-zero hat...
The most modern calendar standard 'reform' is the ISO 8601 system,
specifically ISO 8601:2004, which is a standard I favor. Among other
things it specifies that Jan 4 be written 2010.01.04, which is a logical
construction.
The ISO 8601:2400 system says that there is a year zero, and so do a few
other calendar systems.
--
Mike Easter
Mike Easter
> Jan 4 be written 2010.01.04,
Oops. I meant to say 2010-01-04
I got my punctuation wrong.
--
Mike Easter
philo
22/7 ths is only a rough approximation to make calculations easy
back in the old days
oh,,,but maybe you are right
it is the old days
or at least it was ...a long time ago!
philo
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> Jan 4 be written 2010.01.04,
>
> Oops. I meant to say 2010-01-04
>
> I got my punctuation wrong.
>
>
I would not have know the difference
I really like the idea of year zero
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> I got my punctuation wrong.
> I really like the idea of year zero
Then tell 'em you are an ISO-man, not a simple/primitive anno dominian
or (just) a gregorian.
--
Mike Easter
philo
I'll have to remember that the next time someone asks me my age
Mike Easter
You mean...
If someone asks your age, you are going to explain why the Anno Domini
system lacks a year zero and/but the ISO system has one?
Is that anything like if someone asks what time it is, telling them how
to build a watch?
--
Mike Easter
philo
Never thought of that
but another one I'll have to remember
the next time someone asks me what time it is
of course I don't know how to build a watch
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> Is that anything like if someone asks what time it is, telling them
>> how to build a watch?
> of course I don't know how to build a watch
Fortunately, it is a lot easier than it used to be.
Not so long ago, one had to figure out how to get a pendulum and a
useful escapement into a little bitty wrist clock.
Then they started using a tuning fork; remember the sound of an Accutron?
But now all you need is a quartz crystal and some electronics and you
are good to go.
Fortunately, such as the Omega people are still into figuring out better
and better ways to construct little pendulums (rather balance wheel and
spring) and now even a clever coaxial escapement.
Naturally it costs a lot more to do it that modernized old fashioned way.
--
Mike Easter
The Chief Instigator
>
>> *Less* wrote:
>>> I think we are still in the first Decade after the Year 2000
>>> I recall in Jan.1/2000 some were claiming it 21st Century.
>>
>> I don't care WTF anyone says
>> but the year before the year ONE
>> was the year ZERO
>
> I think it was the year 1 BC. So there!
We don't need a calendar sucking up to religions...the year before 1 CE
(Common Era) was 1 BCE (before common era).
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Abbotsford 4, Houston 3 (OT, January 3)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, January 6 at Texas, 7:35
Aardvark
Sounds like a great way to avoid giving an answer. Women 'of a certain
age' would use that all the time.
philo
I think building a sun dial would be a lot easier
at night...no problem
just shine a light on it
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> Not so long ago, one had to figure out how to get a pendulum and a
>> useful escapement into a little bitty wrist clock.
> I think building a sun dial would be a lot easier
I don't know about that; there are some very very complicated sundials.
Here are some pics of one I like at the U. of Wisconsin - River Falls
http://uwrf.edu/sundial/images.php
Some other pages at that site tell about how to read it and how and why
it was designed and how accurate it is.
> at night...no problem
>
> just shine a light on it
Yeah. Well...
--
Mike Easter
pimpom
> Happy new Year to everyone!
>
> I recall in Jan.1/2000 some were claiming it 21st Century.
>
I've been following this thread, but there's one factor that no
one seems to have brought up.
(To me, it would seem appropriate to call the year of Christ's
birth year 0 and have the AD era start from the next year, but
convention has long precluded that option. In any case, this is
not the point I want to bring up).
Let's disregard any religious bias and accept that most modern
calendars are based on the supposed date of Christ's birth. Now,
since Christmas Day falls near the very end of the calendar year,
is the A.D. era calculated as starting from the year that
includes the first Christmas or did it start from the following
year?
DevilsPGD
<pim...@invalid.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>Let's disregard any religious bias and accept that most modern
>calendars are based on the supposed date of Christ's birth. Now,
>since Christmas Day falls near the very end of the calendar year,
>is the A.D. era calculated as starting from the year that
>includes the first Christmas or did it start from the following
>year?
In other words, just make up whatever you want and go from there.
:)
Cat_in_awe
Except by analyzing scriptures and astronomical facts (and the astrological
significances which were almost certainly the 'Star of Bethlehem') Christ
was born in 4BC in the spring.
Mike Easter
> (To me, it would seem appropriate to call the year of Christ's
> birth year 0
But that didn't happen.
> and have the AD era start from the next year, but
> convention has long precluded that option. In any case, this is
> not the point I want to bring up).
Good.
> Let's disregard any religious bias
... but you are talking completely about religious stuff. Specifically
Christian religious stuff. Your entire content and question is based on
religious bias. A lot of countries and religions and nonreligions
'chose' to go along with the Christian Gregorian calendar simply because
it was better to have a common calendar than not rather than because
they wanted to 'believe in' a calendar should be based on when some
crazy Jewish reformer was born.
> and accept that most modern
> calendars are based on the supposed date of Christ's birth.
Most calendars are Gregorian which spun off Julian which spun off Roman.
> Now,
> since Christmas Day falls near the very end of the calendar year,
... which is because of Christian calendar makers wanting there to be a
holy day 'holiday' corresponding to pre-existing pagan or multitheistic
celebrations, such as those associated with the winter solstice, not
because it is near the 'end of the year'. That fact has no relevance.
> is the A.D. era calculated as starting from the year that
> includes the first Christmas or did it start from the following
> year?
The first Christmas? Are you trying to make the first Dec 25 mark
something that has to do with Christ's birth? If there were a Jesus, he
wasn't born in the middle of winter.
--
Mike Easter
DevilsPGD
<rl31...@excite.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>Except by analyzing scriptures and astronomical facts (and the astrological
>significances which were almost certainly the 'Star of Bethlehem') Christ
>was born in 4BC in the spring.
Sure, but this is what happens when you base a calendar on a fairytale.
pimpom
Mike, are you deliberately misunderstanding me? My question had
nothing to do with whether Christ was actually born on Dec 25 or
whether he even existed.
The question, rather, is about when the year 1 AD falls in
relation to the _SUPPOSED_ date and year of Christ's birth. It
makes no difference whether one believes Christ was the son of
God, a con man, a human religious nut or a complete fabrication.
The fact, like it or not, is that our calendar system is based on
the *supposed* time of Christ's birth.
Tremella Concinnus Xylosoxidans Deltavirus
news:7qkcrg...@mid.individual.net:
>> is the A.D. era calculated as starting from the year that includes the
>> first Christmas or did it start from the following year?
>
> The first Christmas? Are you trying to make the first Dec 25 mark
> something that has to do with Christ's birth? If there were a Jesus, he
> wasn't born in the middle of winter.
<indicates up>
And there you have him, folks. A true complete and utter fuckwit in the
mould of Bullis.
--
A test sig
pimpom
> pimpom wrote:
>>
>> Let's disregard any religious bias and accept that most modern
>> calendars are based on the supposed date of Christ's birth.
>> Now,
>> since Christmas Day falls near the very end of the calendar
>> year,
>> is the A.D. era calculated as starting from the year that
>> includes the first Christmas or did it start from the
>> following
>> year?
>
> Except by analyzing scriptures and astronomical facts (and the
> astrological significances which were almost certainly the
> 'Star of
> Bethlehem') Christ was born in 4BC in the spring.
I read about this somewhere decades ago. It's the result of
relatively modern research. However, my question was not when
Christ was actually born (or if he even really existed), but how
those who devised the modern calendar started counting the years
of the AD era in relation to what they believed at the time to be
the time of Christ's birth. In short, was Christ believed to be
born near the end of 1 A.D. or the year before 1 A.D.?
Arny Krueger
<tubby....@alabama.grossly-fat.skid-row-bum> wrote in
message
news:9FD61304...@ape-like-honeyseed-rogue.co.chad
Idiots all!
Sorry
"Mike Easter" <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote in message
news:7qkcrg...@mid.individual.net...
And those winter and summer solstices do not correspond to the actual facts
of the longest or the shortest day: the solstice is in June 21/22 and
December 21/22 and the longest/shortest days are in July 21/22 and January
21/22.
--
A life story: http://tinyurl.com/y8fcpmp
pimpom
having someone keep harping on how superior Linux is.
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> pimpom wrote:
>>> and accept that most modern
>>> calendars are based on the supposed date of Christ's birth.
Not the date. An arbitrary year guesstimated (or arbitrarily
designated) as Christ's.
Most evolving calendars evolved off pre-existing ones, to fix something.
Roman calendar to Julian to Gregorian over millenia. Other calendars
were also extant.
The Anno Domini system began in the 5th century. The Gregorian began
for some in the 16th century, for others not until the 20th.
> Mike, are you deliberately misunderstanding me?
I am not understanding you. But not so deliberately.
> My question had
> nothing to do with whether Christ was actually born on Dec 25 or
> whether he even existed.
It seemed to me that your question, which I don't yet understand well
what it was, was based on the birthdate of Jesus, as in a day. It isn't
even accurate as to the year.
Would you care to restate your question in such a way that I am likely
to understand it better?
> The question, rather, is about when the year 1 AD falls in
> relation to the _SUPPOSED_ date and year of Christ's birth.
As someone else said, some investigators believe that using the current
AD Gregorian calendar which has no year zero, that Jesus was born in the
spring 4 BCE.
There is a big problem in that there is no 'genuine' documentation
(except for such as Christian works of myth) that such a person was ever
born, much when that was.
> It
> makes no difference whether one believes Christ was the son of
> God, a con man, a human religious nut or a complete fabrication.
>
> The fact, like it or not, is that our calendar system is based on
> the *supposed* time of Christ's birth.
You said time; but you should mean 'approximate year/decade'. The AD
system started in the 5th century. Not only was that a long time after
Jesus was alledgedly/apparently born, but its timing documentation was
also influenced by a lot of unreliable research and myth building.
Whenever Christian scholars are constructing something which is supposed
to be both scientific and religious, conflicts are going to arise
between dogma and the accuracy of truth.
--
Mike Easter
Mike Easter
> Except by analyzing scriptures and astronomical facts (and the astrological
> significances which were almost certainly the 'Star of Bethlehem') Christ
> was born in 4BC in the spring.
Except that that is playing scientific astronomy games with religious
stories. The Christian Bible is not an accurate and/or historical
reference source.
That reminds me of a recent article^1 talking about Australian
aborigines' dream stories about a star falling to earth.
As a result of the stories/lore, an investigator researched for evidence
of a significant meteor strike and found it.
There was a big writeup^1 about how the aborigine stories integrated
with or predicted or aided the science and evidence.
Except that the meteor crater was determined to be millions of years
old, older than any humans could have observed.
^1 http://snipr.com/tztyn Aboriginal folklore leads to meteorite crater
--
Mike Easter
pimpom
OK, let me try again. To avoid too much interleaving which can be
difficult to follow, allow me to put it all together here.
1. I'm not concerned with whether Christ was the son of God, an
ordinary human being or even whether he existed at all.
2. I'm not concerned with how accurate Christ's supposed
time-date-year of birth is. It could be off by a millenium and it
wouldn't make a difference as far as my question was concerned.
This is why I kept using the term "supposed".
3. I'm not concerned with when or by whom the calendar was
devised, how it evolved, or from which previous calendars. It
could be handed to us by someone from the future travelling back
to our time and it wouldn't make a difference as far as my
question was concerned.
4. However accurate or inaccurate the designated year of Christ's
birth may be, my question is simply this: Was that designated
year 1 AD or the year before it (i.e., 1 BC)?
I have not done any extensive research on the matter, but what I
*have* read are not as unambiguous as I would like. Two examples:
1. Wikipedia: "The calendar era to which they refer is based on
the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of
Jesus, with AD denoting years after the start of this epoch, and
BC denoting years before the start of this epoch." Note the word
"after".
2. www.thefreedictionary.com says "A.D., AD (indicating years
numbered from the supposed year of the birth of Christ)". Note
the word "from". This seems to indicate that the supposed year of
Christ's birth is counted as 1 AD. But then the accompanying
thesaurus says "A.D. - in the Christian era; used before dates
after the supposed year Christ was born". This implies that
Christ was supposed to be born the year before 1 AD.
DevilsPGD
<pim...@invalid.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>The question, rather, is about when the year 1 AD falls in
>relation to the _SUPPOSED_ date and year of Christ's birth. It
>makes no difference whether one believes Christ was the son of
>God, a con man, a human religious nut or a complete fabrication.
>
>The fact, like it or not, is that our calendar system is based on
>the *supposed* time of Christ's birth.
Right -- But you're trying to work out the finer details of a fairytail.
I'm not sure there is a right answer within the mythology and there
certainly isn't one in reality.
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter
> OK, let me try again. To avoid too much interleaving which can be
> difficult to follow, allow me to put it all together here.
> 4. However accurate or inaccurate the designated year of Christ's
> birth may be, my question is simply this: Was that designated
> year 1 AD or the year before it (i.e., 1 BC)?
A completely 'arbitrary' numbering system was adopted, explained below.
Its year 1 was chosen arbitrarily to be somewhere around the time of
Christ's birth - the arbitrary numberer not actually knowing exactly
when that was, also explained below.
But it has been 'ordained' that religiously speaking, year 1 Christ was
born. Not actually factually.
> I have not done any extensive research on the matter, but what I
> *have* read are not as unambiguous as I would like. Two examples:
>
> 1. Wikipedia: "The calendar era to which they refer is based on
> the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of
> Jesus, with AD denoting years after the start of this epoch, and
> BC denoting years before the start of this epoch." Note the word
> "after".
The reason that sounds ambiguous is because it is an arbitrary and
inexact scheme as described below.
> 2. www.thefreedictionary.com says "A.D., AD (indicating years
> numbered from the supposed year of the birth of Christ)". Note
> the word "from". This seems to indicate that the supposed year of
> Christ's birth is counted as 1 AD.
Correct -- given that the concept is 'sorta'.
> But then the accompanying
> thesaurus says "A.D. - in the Christian era; used before dates
> after the supposed year Christ was born". This implies that
> Christ was supposed to be born the year before 1 AD.
I don't interpret those words as meaningfully different than above.
OK. Now my longer-winded version.
My understanding is that in the 6th century the monk Dionysius Exiguus,
using the then current Julian year calendar which year number was
Diocletian 247 was tasked to compile a set of dates for Easter, which
was the most important and 'complicated' date for any calendarist to derive.
All of the hairy calendar work which went on contracted for the church
was based on the problems of calculating when Easter should be. The
requirements were that any calendar which date it was going to use
should be a calendar which did not advance or regress its dates
according to the solar year, and that the timing of Easter satisfy
various religious calendars which were based on lunar cycles and lunar
years and timing, that is, according to the moon's behavior.
Thus the Easter 'scheduling' paradox was that of reconciling lunar years
and solar years and also with a coherent calendar. Anyone who has
studied trying to construct lunisolar calendars realizes what a problem
that is.
The solar year is 365 and a fraction solar days. 12 lunar months are
not so different from a solar year, being about 354 and a fraction days.
But, still, you can see the problem of reconciling lunar years with
solar years and reconciling dates for something like Easter which is
supposed to be related to a particular moon's relationship to the
equinox; the equinox being a solar year issue and full moons being a
lunar cycle issue.
The resolutions of the problems of a decent calendar in the 6th century
was the Julian calendar - but its dates for Easter over years needed to
be reconciled with the lunar conditions, ie requirements. The Julian
calendar was designed to have months and days per month and days per
year all come out 'right' in terms of not having a progression of years
cause the same date to go moving around according to the solar year's
conditions. The Julian didn't actually deal with the moon at all; nor
does our current Gregorian.
Dionysius the monk did not like Diocletian, who was an anti-Christian
tyrant. So, when he devised his table of 95 Easter dates, he did not
want to give the years the numbering system of Diocletian, so he
numbered the years based on when he figgered Jesus was born, which was a
rough estimate by him, considering the lack of accurate data even today
which Jesus birthdate data was even worse then.
Dionysius used some convoluted logic to decide how he was going to
number his new yearly Easter numbering system; and clearly he did not
realize how fixated later clerics were going to be about being in charge
of the entire year numbering system and being able to 'dominate' the
world with a Christian idea.
He was the first to do it. Later on the adoption of his numbering
system was 'forced' on others by the influences of significant Christian
factors.
We still use the complex religious rules for determining the date of
Easter, which is a mixture of science and pseudoscience which is based
on creating artificial definitions which are contentious, such as the
Pachal full moon or the ecclesiastical new moon.
How absurd.
--
Mike Easter
Mike Easter
> pimpom wrote:
>> Mike Easter
>> I have not done any extensive research on the matter, but what I
>> *have* read are not as unambiguous as I would like. Two examples:
> Dionysius used some convoluted logic to decide how he was going to
> number his new yearly Easter numbering system;
Here's a similar example I did - arbitrarily created - myself.
In about 1988, I decided that I wanted to 'construct' my own calendar
system. I wanted the system to be able to express any date with 3
alphanumeric characters, 0-9 a-z (case insensitive). I also wanted the
dates to sort themselves alphabetically, which means that the numbers
come before the letters.
So, I arbitrarily decided that time would start in 1980 and that there
would be no month or day zero, ie that the months and days would be
numbered as usual ie today is 17 (of this year), except that of course
the tenth month would have the number 'a' and the 20th day of the month
would have the number 'k'. And so forth.
That worked perfectly well for its purpose and I adapted to it easily.
That was fine and would have worked until I ran out of alphabet in about
2016. But by about year 2006 or so, I decided that it was time to
upgrade my scheme. There wasn't any danger of my using any of the same
old dates I was using back in the 80s, because I was no longer using any
materials which I had created back in that era. So, the new version
calendecimal system was based on the year 2000 being the year 0 instead
of 1980. That is the scheme I use now.
There is a similar and supplemental scheme which tells the time, hour,
and two minute interval in 2 alphanumeric chars.
My point about that is that Dionysius did the same thing, just about as
casually and arbitrarily. Eventually Christians took his arbitrary
designation seriously. But it doesn't really matter, as it is all
arbitrary anyway.
It seems that you are taking it too seriously. It isn't real. It is
arbitrary.
--
Mike Easter
skeeter
"Mike Easter" <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote in message
> pimpom wrote:
>> Mike Easter
>
>>> We still use the complex religious rules for determining the date of
> Easter, which is a mixture of science and pseudoscience which is based on
> creating artificial definitions which are contentious, such as the Pachal
> full moon or the ecclesiastical new moon.
>
> How absurd.
>
>
> --
> Mike Easter
so is your name *really* easter?
Mike Easter
> calendecimal system was based on the year 2000 being the year 0 instead
> of 1980. That is the scheme I use now.
ie today is a17, tomorrow is a18. Today being my localtime which is 7
hours west of UTC.
--
Mike Easter
Mike Easter
>
> "Mike Easter"
>>>> We still use the complex religious rules for determining the date of
>> Easter, which is a mixture of science and pseudoscience which is based
>> on creating artificial definitions which are contentious, such as the
>> Pachal full moon or the ecclesiastical new moon.
>>
>> How absurd.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Easter
>
> so is your name *really* easter?
... or is it really 'My keister'?
If it weren't for the stigma of my bleeding palms, I could be more sure.
--
Mike Easter