Why isn't the Millennium date December 25, 2000?

[Fredrick]

Okay, it is an old topic, but since it sometimes comes back to mind I felt like sharing it and see what you think/what responses I'd get.

I am bothered by the fact that science has placed the Millennium date at January first 2001. Okay, it is a clear sign that I should 'get a life' but I guess putting it out here also acknowledges the fact that I am embracing myself with all my quirks and quacks.

It is not that I múst place the Millennium date at January first 2000 to feel good, it is just not satisfying to think that scientists are not looking at this Millennium thing from the best scientific and most logical angle.

This is my thought: the Christian calendar is based on the birth of Christ, and though from a scientific point of view most people agree that that wasn't December 25th, officially that is the date of his birth. The Millennium date should therefore be: December 25, 2000, not January first of 2000 nor January first of 2001.

Subsequently, the Millennium year would be 2000 (because December 25th falls in that year) and the beginning of the Millennium year would then be January first 2000. The catholic church celebrated the 2000th year from December 25th 1999 to December 25th 2000. It appears that they were right on the mark. Celebrating my 45th years on this Earth starts at my 44th birthday and ends on my 45th birthday.

Believe it or not, but the official date of birth for Christ and the reason of the Christian calendar is December 25 of the year minus 1. Since officially there is no year zero (why not I wonder?) Christ was born before the calendar started that is based on his birth. Were scientists involved who disliked the idea of a year zero (while everyone I know had a first year in which we were zero years old). Or was it the church who wanted to put the Christ in a special spot and made him look different from other people by not have him be zero years old? Nevertheless, this doesn't change the Millennium date, because that would always be exactly a thousand-fold years after his birth.

Yes, yes, I know: I should get a life, but what do you think is the best basis of logic to this Millennium question: go with the currently established scientific flow, go with the popular flow of seeing a date flip from 1999 to 2000 and celebrate that fact, or go with the flow that the calendar is based on an event that is and isn't the beginning of the calendar?

 

[Janus]

While if you are going to use the actual date of Chirst's birth, then the Millenium ended in in the spring of 1997, since most historians agree that Christ would actually have been born in that itme of 4 BC. The Dec 25th date was chosen to coincide with the winter soltice. (By the way, New Years used to be celebrated on April 1.)

If you want to go official, then the Millenium started on January 1, 1 AD and ended at Midnight Dec 31, 2000 according to the calendar we use. Now you may want to argue that it should've started on a different day, or that it should've contained a year "0", but the truth of the matter is that it doesn't.

 

[Icebreaker]

Don't get too worked up about the calendar. It's pretty much there because people are too lazy to switch to a more neutral and scientific dating system.

 

[franznietzsche]

This has to be the most random thread ever. Its four years later. This debate should be four years dead and gone.

 

[tribdog]

This has to be the most random thread ever. Its four years later. This debate should be four years dead and gone.

yeah, quite living in the past. let's talk about important issues. Who do you think is cuter Bo or Luke?

 

[franznietzsche]

yeah, quite living in the past. let's talk about important issues. Who do you think is cuter Bo or Luke?

definitely Marsha.

 

[JasonRox]

Christ was not born on December 25th and that date was solely chosen so Christian would have an easier time converting certain religious.

It's quite sad that a special date was chosen for conversion purposes.

 

[Evo]

Here is a good link if you want an explanation of the current calendar dating.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/y2000rt.HTM

 

[FulhamFan3]

Not only was there no year zero but there was no year 100, 150, 200 or anything else until the year 325 when they decided to set the year to the birth of christ. These scholars were pretty much guessing within +/- 4 years so I'm perfectly comfortable saying the millenium ended on dec. 31 1999.

 

[Smurf]

duck everyone, I've got another pet peeve coming on

[assume loud dominating voice]
It's NOT CALLED THE "CHIRSTIAN CALENDAR" it's the bloody "GREGORIAN CALENDAR"
...
god damnit!
read about it

 

[franznietzsche]

duck everyone, I've got another pet peeve coming on

[assume loud dominating voice]
It's NOT CALLED THE "CHIRSTIAN CALENDAR" it's the bloody "GREGORIAN CALENDAR"
...
god damnit!
read about it

You expect anyone to know that in this society?

Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segment is all i should need to point you to. Now go.

 

[tribdog]

who the hell is Greg?

 

[franznietzsche]

who the hell is Greg?

Either a) Greg Bernhardt
or b) The guy the gregorian calendar is named after: Pope Gregory XIII

 

[JasonRox]

Either a) Greg Bernhardt
or b) The guy the gregorian calendar is named after: Pope Gregory XIII

It's actually a French person who created the modern calendar.

Why does everything have to involve Christ? I personally think he's not the most important person, or in fact I don't think he comes close to the most important person. He was a good man who loved life and shared it with everyone. People still do that today and we aren't on our knees praying to them.

Who shall we pick?

 

[franznietzsche]

It's actually a French person who created the modern calendar.

Why does everything have to involve Christ? I personally think he's not the most important person, or in fact I don't think he comes close to the most important person. He was a good man who loved life and shared it with everyone. People still do that today and we aren't on our knees praying to them.

Who shall we pick?

i didn't say who created it, i said the guy it was named for, the ruling pope at the time.

 

[JasonRox]

i didn't say who created it, i said the guy it was named for, the ruling pope at the time.

A French person who named it after the Pope.

 

[franznietzsche]

A French person who named it after the Pope.

Still named after the pope, as i said.

 

[Fredrick]

Many thanks

Wow,

What a wonderful bunch of responses. Some quite testy - correct that, most quite testy. Maybe I should have waited a few more years before I posed this question. It almost feels like 1999.

The Christian calendar is the calendar in use by Christians; it is also in use by others who do not prescribe to the Christian faith, but it is not in use all over the world. You are correct that Gregorius (Pope Gregory XIII) improved the calendar set up by Julius Caesar who - I belief - also based it on a calendar that was in use already by others. Anyhow, the name tag is just a tag.

I placed this question in the 'Logic' section and expected answers based on logic. Thanks, guys.

 

[Moonbear]

This whole thread raises the question: why does it matter? The calendar is based on an arbitrarily chosen date. So, it's the second millenium of Christianity (maybe we should wait until 2033 give or take a few years, since the death of Christ is more significant in Christianity than his birth), but other religions are further along than that (what year is it in the Jewish calendar and the Chinese calendar?, humans have been around even longer than that, and the Earth even longer than that. If you were in any doubt, I hope you celebrated both 2000 and 2001. Me, I'm just looking forward to celebrating 2006.

 

[Fredrick]

The name game

This whole thread raises the question: why does it matter?

It does and it doesn't matter. I guess just like the guys correcting me on the Christian calendar we all want words to mean something specific and find agreement on the facts we use daily. Most people say that Mount Everest is the highest mountain on Earth while a few others say that a mostly unknown mountain in South-America is the highest mountain. There is space to argue, to investigate and to wonder.

How correct is the information I hear everyday? Should we be aware that information is just that, a chosen meaning that -in general- is accepted by everyone, but which meaning may be off. How do scientists use language, how do ordinary people use language? Is there a difference?

Anyhow, I was looking around the threads in PhysicsForums and saw the Logic thread. I wanted to know what kind of responses I would get about this issue. So far, a few responses were a direct answer to my question. Others ignored the question. It has been interesting.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, since it got moved to General Discussion, I'm afraid logical answers are out of the question. I didn't realize the question was moved here from somewhere else (well, I did before I replied, but not until you mentioned it today), or that you were looking for a different type of response. Since it's such an old question that's been pretty played out, and it really won't be relevant again until well past our lifetimes, it's hard to get a serious discussion going on it.

There is definitely a different use of language between scientists and the lay public. That's by necessity. What seems warm and fuzzy and comfortable to the average person may not fit a rigorous enough definition to scientists. We have to be more precise because of what we do and what we expect to achieve. Many misconceptions in teaching science arise because of these different "languages" or definitions. That aspect of your question is an important observation to note.

 

[Gokul43201]

General Discussion is all about picking on little points that are really not the crux of the issue.

For instance, you mentioned that :

Most people say that Mount Everest is the highest mountain on Earth while a few others say that a mostly unknown mountain in South-America is the highest mountain.

I've never heard of this, and find it a little shocking that I could not have. Can you give me a link. The only debate I am aware of (and it's hardly a debate) is between Everest and Mauna Kea (which is the tallest mountain, not the highest). They keep jabbering at each other.

Fred, your original question has been answered by Janus, has it not ? 'Cause then it's okay if we use this thread to generally shoot the breeze.

 

[Moonbear]

General I've never heard of this, and find it a little shocking that I could not have. Can you give me a link. The only debate I am aware of (and it's hardly a debate) is between Everest and Mauna Kea (which is the tallest mountain, not the highest). They keep jabbering at each other.

I've never heard of another mountain either. Though, that seems easy enough to resolve. Either it's the highest or it isn't. Someone can measure it. The highest mountain in South America is in Argentina, and there's a long list of Tibetan and Nepalese (as well as other) mountains ahead of it. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001771.html

 

[Evo]

Most people say that Mount Everest is the highest mountain on Earth while a few others say that a mostly unknown mountain in South-America is the highest mountain.

If you want to get picky. I read this a while back.

What is the highest continental mountain in the world?
Mt. Everest, in Tibet and Nepal. It is 29,028 feet high.

What is the tallest oceanic mountain in the world?
Mauna Kea, on the island of Hawaii. It rises 33,476 feet off the ocean floor.

http://wtsmith.com/rt/webactbadge/geologist.html

 

[Gokul43201]

I know that Aconcagua is the highest in South America (<7000m), but I think Fredrick is referring to some mysterious other mountain, known perhaps, only to an isolated Inca clan that live in a secret dwelling beneath the highest lake in the world.

 

[Evo]

I know that Aconcagua is the highest in South America (<7000m), but I think Fredrick is referring to some mysterious other mountain, known perhaps, only to an isolated Inca clan that live in a secret dwelling beneath the highest lake in the world.

Oh, well, I knew that.

 

[franznietzsche]

This whole thread raises the question: why does it matter? The calendar is based on an arbitrarily chosen date. So, it's the second millenium of Christianity (maybe we should wait until 2033 give or take a few years, since the death of Christ is more significant in Christianity than his birth), but other religions are further along than that (what year is it in the Jewish calendar and the Chinese calendar?, humans have been around even longer than that, and the Earth even longer than that. If you were in any doubt, I hope you celebrated both 2000 and 2001. Me, I'm just looking forward to celebrating 2006.

one year at a time eh?

I'll celebrate come 2012 or so, when i'll be just about finished with the PhD and on my way to post doc.

 

[Fredrick]

In Equator

Okay,

I am satisfied with the answers that I got.

Which mountain exactly I do not know. I believe it is not even the Aconcagua. But this is how it is measured: it is measured from the center point of earth, not from the water level. With the Earth being more pear shaped, this mountain in South America has the longest radius, if you will, that is running from the center to the outside of our planet.

 

[Gokul43201]

Which mountain exactly I do not know. I believe it is not even the Aconcagua. But this is how it is measured: it is measured from the center point of earth, not from the water level. With the Earth being more pear shaped, this mountain in South America has the longest radius, if you will, that is running from the center to the outside of our planet.

Ooh brilliant ! Never thought of that angle !

 

[tribdog]

Anyhow, I was looking around the threads in PhysicsForums and saw the Logic thread. I wanted to know what kind of responses I would get about this issue. So far, a few responses were a direct answer to my question. Others ignored the question. It has been interesting.

I want to know who the hell gave a direct answer. You know the rules people!
and everyone knows the tallest mountain is Mt. Baldy. You just have to get rid of all the dirt around it to see.

 

[lektor]

Greg Bernhardt?

 

[Integral]

Why would you think that a millennium is only 999 yrs long? Shouldn't it be 1000? Also, after living my entire life in 19XX and calling it the 20th century why can't I have even 1 year where that name makes some sense? Finally in 2000 I actually felt like I was in the 20th century, now you tell me that it you want that year to be in the 21st century, is there no Justus in the world, can nothing ever make sense?

 

[Mk]

At first I thought he was talking poopy, but it turned out yeah, he's right, there does exist Mount Chimborazo, that has the farthest point from the Earth's COM.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/BeataUnke.shtml

"Mountains are generally measured from sea level, in which case Mount Everest (29,028 feet; 8,848 meters) is king."
8,848 m (Everest)
"Hawaii's Mauna Kea, though, rises an astonishing 33,476 feet (10,203 meters) from the depths of the Pacific Ocean floor. Measuring from base to peak, Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain on earth."
10,203 m (Mauna Kea)
"A third way to determine the world's highest mountain is to measure the distance from the center of the Earth to the peak. Using this method, Chimborazo in the Andes triumphs. Although it stands but 20,561 feet (6,267 meters) above sea level, its peak is the farthest from the Earth's center."
6,267 m (Chimborazo)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Chimborazo

The mountain's claim to fame relies on a peculiarity of the Earth's diameter at the equator. Since the Earth bulges at the equator and Chimborazo is just one degree south, this means the summit of Chimborazo is the furthest point from the center of the Earth. However, since the elevations of mountains are given in relation to mean sea level, Everest (8,850 m; 29,035 feet) is given the glory of highest point on Earth.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1086384.htm

Back in the 17th and 18th Century, it was thought that a certain Mount Chimborazo, an extinct snow-capped volcano in Ecuador, was the highest point on Earth, at 6,310 metres above sea level. In 1852, the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India measured that a certain mountain with the name of Peak XV was the tallest at 8,840 metres. The British gave it the name of Everest in 1865, after Sir George Everest, who was the British Surveyor General from 1830-1843, even though the local Tibetans and Nepalese had already given the mountain some perfectly decent names (Chomolungma or Mother Goddess of the Land by the Tibetans, and Sagarmatha by the Nepalese).

The height of Mt. Everest was adjusted to 8,848 metres in 1955, and then to 8,850 metres in 1999, after a team of nine climbers used state-of-the-art satellite measuring devices on the summit. All of these heights are measured above sea level, or where the local sea level would be, if a mountain was not there.

So let's look at Mt Chimborazo, which was once thought to be the tallest mountain on Earth. It was first climbed by Edward Whymper in 1880.

The reason that Mt. Everest is not the highest point on Earth is that the Earth spins - and this spin makes the whole planet bulge outwards at the equator.

Mt. Chimborazo is about 1.5° from the equator, while Mt. Everest is a lot further around the curve of the Earth at 28°. So even though Mt. Chimborazo is about 2,540 metres closer to sea level than Mt Everest, it is about 2,202 metres further away from the centre of the Earth. If this were better known, perhaps the achievements of the Conqueror of Chimborazo, Edward Whymper, would have made more of a bang. (In fact, there are three other peaks (Huascaran, Cotopaxi and Kilimanjaro) that are also "higher" than Everest.)

But Everest is still the highest mountain above sea level. So, by the end of 2001, some 1,314 people had reached the summit, and 167 people had died trying. If you have $US 65,000, and are physically fit, you can try to reach the peak. But if you don't have that kind of money to blow, you can console yourself with the knowledge that they're all climbing the wrong mountain anyway. On the other hand, Mt Everest is growing at 4 mm each year as India rams into Tibet, so all the wealthy people have to do is wait another half-million years...