Can I post a bike question in here?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
ClichéGuevara

ClichéGuevara

Legendary Member
That's not quite right - when counting in tens of years, the next decade starts at the end of the tenth year, not the ninth as everybody seemed to think in 1999.

I think the problem is part caused by applying a metric system for millenia when the rest of the days months hours etc are just squished in where they fit in a none systematic way. I mean, the Romans caused us to call the tenth month eight, the twelfth month ten etc. I reckon we should have a whole new system, based on colour. Proper colour mind, none of these hues, tints or shades.
 

IDMark2

Dodgy Aerial
Location
On the Roof
That's not quite right - when counting in tens of years, the next decade starts at the end of the tenth year, not the ninth as everybody seemed to think in 1999
That's not quite right...
Sorry, I haven't got anything to add, I just wanted to sound all knowledgeable. :giggle:
 

MontyVeda

a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
Tried a similar "we didn't have a year zero", got shot down because I wasn't there!
You wasn't 'shot down'... I was just pointing out that it's all made up after the event. the year 'dot' (whether you call it one or zero) is quite meaningless... especially since it turns out that Jesus (who's birth marks the year 'dot'), was born before 2BC. :smile:
 
OP
OP
ClichéGuevara

ClichéGuevara

Legendary Member
You wasn't 'shot down'... I was just pointing out that it's all made up after the event. the year 'dot' (whether you call it one or zero) is quite meaningless... especially since it turns out that Jesus (who's birth marks the year 'dot'), was born before 2BC. :smile:

As he was born again, wouldn't they use the average?
 

buggi

Bird Saviour
Location
Solihull
That's not quite right - when counting in tens of years, the next decade starts at the end of the tenth year, not the ninth as everybody seemed to think in 1999.
I see where you're coming from but if you were born on 1st January 2000 you would be in your fist year until 2001, then you would them become one year old. Doesn't mean you didn't exist in 2000. Likewise, you would become 10 on 1 Jan 2010 when you would enter your next decade. When you get to 2010 you have done ten years and your are in your 11th year. It's like the fact we are in the 21st century even though the year is 2015. 0001AD is one year AFTER Christ descended, not the year he descended. the year he descended was 0000 and that is where we have measured time from. Therefore the millennium year 2000. In 2015 we have already had 2015 years since Christ and we are in the 2016th year. I think that is how it works.
 

classic33

Leg End Member
I see where you're coming from but if you were born on 1st January 2000 you would be in your fist year until 2001, then you would them become one year old. Doesn't mean you didn't exist in 2000. Likewise, you would become 10 on 1 Jan 2010 when you would enter your next decade. When you get to 2010 you have done ten years and your are in your 11th year. It's like the fact we are in the 21st century even though the year is 2015. 0001AD is one year AFTER Christ descended, not the year he descended. the year he descended was 0000 and that is where we have measured time from. Therefore the millennium year 2000. In 2015 we have already had 2015 years since Christ and we are in the 2016th year. I think that is how it works.
The two are at odds with one another though!
 

classic33

Leg End Member
It's just getting too bloody complicated now.
Use your origional argument, zero when born(no zero year), and it works.
 

Tin Pot

Guru
You wasn't 'shot down'... I was just pointing out that it's all made up after the event. the year 'dot' (whether you call it one or zero) is quite meaningless... especially since it turns out that Jesus (who's birth marks the year 'dot'), was born before 2BC. :smile:

6BC actually, according to the Pope Emeritus.
 
Top Bottom