Re: 4GT/Millenium Trains and the DKT's, DKM's

["Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au>]

I'd say that firmly decides and ends the discussion.

"David Bromage" <dbromage@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in message news:MGwy5.26$%
> Tezza (tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au) wrote:
> > "Barry Campbell" <campblbm@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:Phny5.1174>
> > >
> > > If the first century (and millenium) started in year zero, which it
> > > logically must have, then the second millenium must have ended at the
end
> > of
> > > the year 1999.
>
> > Except that the first year of course was the year 1, not 0.
>
> Correct. Remember that we use a calendar invented by Julius Caeser, albeit
> modified slightly by Pope Gregory VIII. The Romans didn't even have a
> concept of a zero, let alone a numeral to describe it. When Dionysius
> Exiguus renumbered the years in 523, the concept of 0 being a number of
> equal standing to "real" numbers was still not popular. That is why there
> was no year 0.
>
> The standard for time on this planet is defined by the Royal Observatory,
> Greenwich. http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/leaflets/new_mill.html
>
> If you want a second opinion,
http://www.usno.navy.mil/millennium/whenIs.shtml
>
> The fact that some people simply can't count is nothing new.
>
> "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