Miata Mailing List: January 2000, Message #82

sponsored by

At 1/1/2000 07:10 PM , Ron Wyett wrote:
>I will refrase my statement:
>
>I suggest we petition the Royal Observatory......

That may work.  But I seriously doubt it.

>Then tell me why so many people feel that the Millennium should have started
>today?

Hype.... just a lot of hype because the numbers change.  It **looks** 
different.  Why does everybody go bonkers when the odometer rolls over to 
100000.  It's a milestone and it looks different.  To me, making it to the 
next year is a milestone, whether it be 1999, 2000 or 2001. That, coupled 
with the Y2K bugs, the media (yes, I blame them mostly) lumped everything 
together.  People accepted it that way because it is easy to accept and 
really doesn't make one bit of difference in the giant scheme of 
things.  And if Peter Jenkins says so, it must be so.  (Notice Ted Koppel 
(sp?) didn't say so. <g>)

>However if you had read and understood my suggestions, you would see that
>this argument is irrelevant as there are only insignificant differences
>between the Gregorian and the Ronian Calendar:
>
>1.  The dates between BC1 and 1AD.  Tell me:  under Gregorian Calendar, what
>is the date of birth of a person born on June 6 between BC1 and 1AD?

If you interpolate the Gregorian calender, using integers only as years 
then 1 BC would be -1. The end of 1BC would then be 12/31/-1 and the 
following day would be 1/1/1. There is no time between the ending of 1 BC 
and the beginning of 1 AD.

>The Royal Observatory has it in their power to modify the existing calendar
>if they so wish.  The question is:  do they maintain a confusing calendar or
>make an easy and logical modification.

That's where you and I disagree. To me, the Gregorian calendar is not 
confusing and makes perfect sense to have things start with a ONE, not a 
ZERO number.

>I am familiar with all of the auguments you have presented.  Unfortunately,
>none of them directly address my proposal.  I am interested in finding
>reasons why my proposed changes would not improve the calendar, or would
>create more confusion than the existing calendar creates.

It would create more confusion only because it is _change_. Not that what 
your proposing isn't logical and would even have a very good chance at 
working, just that human nature is opposed to change.  That's one of the 
reasons (supposedly) that Gregory didn't make any major modifications to 
the Julian calendar.  At least he didn't arbitrarily add months and take 
away days from poor little February like his predecessors. :)

>Sincerely and Respectfully Yours

And likewise.

HNY, NHM (if you wish)


Paul and the Splendidly Striped Screamer
(mailto:williamp@bit-net.com)
homepage: http://www.bit-net.com/~williamp/
hometown: Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA
Never drive any faster than your guardian angel can fly.