Where you surprised by this? | |||
| Yes, I didn't know this was true | 8 | 38.10% | |
| No, I already knew it | 12 | 57.14% | |
| See results | 1 | 4.76% | |
| Total: | 21 | ||
| FallingTitan said: 1st Century: 0001-0100 YEAR 2nd Century: 0101-0200 YEAR ... ... ...
So if its year 155 you are in the 2nd century. sounds confusing but its not really. |
Yeah, had I been a little faster with log-ins, I would have said that... Stupid C Cleaner...
| Conina said: I blame the church. Why was the first year Jesus was born year 1 anno domini instead of year 0 anno domini? |
Also, from what I've read wasn't Jesus actually born in 4BC?
| RolStoppable said: Hold on a second. How can the first part be correct? When a new century starts in 2001, then a new millenium also starts in 2001. After all, a millenium is exactly ten centuries, so it has to align with them. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium
Ok, so now I'm confused. Some say it should be celebrating in 2000, others say 2001.
Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).
It's just math, really. Year "one" covers everything from the smallest fraction you can devise of past "0" and only really completes its year the imperceptible moment that signals the transition from 1 to 2. Think .999999 and 1, except for the sake of things being easy 1 represented that fractional number the whole year (so that we can say it is 1983 instead of 1982 67/365) and so "2" picks up the moment you actually finally complete "1" but have only made the smallest possible progress into "2".... lol
To put that in century terms, when it hits "100" you're really only, say, 99 1/365 through the century.
barneystinson69 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium Ok, so now I'm confused. Some say it should be celebrating in 2000, others say 2001. |
If the Gregorian calendar had startet at zero (January 1st, year 0), then January 1st, year 1000 and 2000 would have been the correct dates for the millennia.
But unfortunately the Gregorian calendar had startet at one (January 1st, year 1). Therefore January 1st, year 1001 and 2001 would have been the correct dates for the millennia.
Officialy OP is right but in general people count the year 2000 as 21st century. Historians somehow java a problem a year 0000 could exist.
Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar
Conina said:
If the Gregorian calendar had startet at zero (January 1st, year 0), then January 1st, year 1000 and 2000 would have been the correct dates for the millennia. But unfortunately the Gregorian calendar had startet at one (January 1st, year 1). Therefore January 1st, year 1001 and 2001 would have been the correct dates for the millennia. |
The problem is also that the Gregorian calendar actually started in 1582, which changed the Julian calendar. According to this site, apparently the Julian calendar was actually introduced in 45BC, so 1001 would not be the start of a new millennium.
https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/julian-calendar.html
because it's cooler to celebrate the big number changing. 2000 is a cooler year to celebrate than 2001.
I am Iron Man
barneystinson69 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium Ok, so now I'm confused. Some say it should be celebrating in 2000, others say 2001. |
The millenium started on the 1st of January 2001, but I guess '2000' sounded better for the celebrations.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
