Comic Genesis Forums

MixedMyth wrote: Oh well. Every year in spring some of my pagan friends celebrate Samhain, some parts of which they invite anyone to celebrate.

.. every SPRING? Heh... Ostara is in April and starts spring; Beltane is in May. Midsummer is in June and marks the start of Summer. Samhain is in October... definately not spring. I think your friends are yanking your chain.

I think we should make a holiday called "I Win Day" where everybody gets ONE thing that they want. It's kind of like an extra birthday on steroids!

I want icons!

Dan Nicholls wrote:

christwriter wrote: ...one year because the math system the Catholic Church was using didn't have zero.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Having a year 0 is like having a birthday for a 0 year old.

It's called being born. Isn't that a birthday?

*puts on teacher's hat*

Ok. You know a numberline, right? It goes ...-3,-2,-1,0, 1, 2, 3... about like that, right?

Well, our Gregorian Monk (Greg) wanted to put the years on a Number Line...a fairly regular occurance, I believe. Every rular wanted the honor of being able to set time by his birthday. He wanted to establish a sort of time-line number line. These are the years BEFORE Christ, these are the years AFTER Christ, and this year, year zero, was when Jesus didn't have 365 days to his name. 0 years old means 0 years after the birth...which is certainly true when the baby is only three days old. (Three days sence birth).

However, Greg did not have zero. He did not have negative numbers, even though establishing BC and AD (I dont' have to be Politically Correct. I hate being Politically Correct. Being Politically Correct is like having a creative lobotomy.) was basically saying "1BC is -1 years before Christ. 1AD is +1 years after Christ." The Catholic Church got their mathmatic system from the Romans, who got theirs from the Greeks, who HATED zero. Math was literally a religion back then (So was vegatariansim and hating beans, but that's another story) and Zero screwed it up. Zero also screwed up the Catholic Church's faulty science system (Also another story)

So, yeah. it goes from 1BC (-1) to 1AD (+1) without a zero. But when YOU count, do you go -3, -2, -1, 1, 2, 3... or do you have a zero in there? And there WOULD be a zero...the time span between the last year without Christ and the first year with him.

Without it, you've lost one year. Greg is already one year off in his counting system (so 2001 was 2000 years after Greg's start date but four-five years after the birth of Christ) and he still has to preform the bad math that sets the calindar off.

History and math are fasinating, aren't they?

(rkolter--that's why I know about Samhain and the other Pagan holidays...one of the things I like to study are myths...mostly the Greecian, but I'm working my way west. History, man. History. It rocks, and if you read enough books about the same thing, you can get an almost accurate picture of what REALLY happened.)

CW

christwriter wrote: (rkolter--that's why I know about Samhain and the other Pagan holidays...one of the things I like to study are myths...mostly the Greecian, but I'm working my way west. History, man. History. It rocks, and if you read enough books about the same thing, you can get an almost accurate picture of what REALLY happened.)

CW

*would make a comment about irony but decides it might be best to resist. But couldn't resist to urge to let people know she had something to say at least*

Okay, now CW, the teacher's hat is not the pointy one.

The day of your birth is the basis for all other anniversaries of it (what we term birthdays). Think about this logically. Your birth is not year zero, but day one. The center of the number line, the zero, is your day of birth. However, there is a distinction (important difference) between numbers on a number line and years. Years mark the passing of a cycle (be it lunar or solar or whatever one wants to base their reference on). You count up to it. A number line is more akin to seconds or days, but even then. In short, when counting up the year, we do not say 'happy January 0th!'

Let's say I agree to give you twenty bucks. If I start counting at 0, you will be screwed right out of a dollar. Rather, my level or repayment starts at zero, but zero is never something I attain in giving you. That's why I think it's more appropriate (not necessarily the only way, time of all things is relative, numbers are mere numbers) to go from year one to year one. You have an instant that is 'zero', but not a year. You have the time before Christ is in the world and the time after, you do not have a middle time. Adding the year zero would mean saying 'It's been three years since Bob was born, but by three I mean two sets of 365 days...'


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway, used to argue about this with the guy that wrote Triangle & Robert all the time. I'm not as attached to this as I am to the millenium starting at 2001. Yes, I am der nErD.

Dan Nicholls wrote:Okay, now CW, the teacher's hat is not the pointy one.

The day of your birth is the basis for all other anniversaries of it (what we term birthdays). Think about this logically. Your birth is not year zero, but day one. The center of the number line, the zero, is your day of birth. However, there is a distinction (important difference) between numbers on a number line and years. Years mark the passing of a cycle (be it lunar or solar or whatever one wants to base their reference on). You count up to it. A number line is more akin to seconds or days, but even then. In short, when counting up the year, we do not say 'happy January 0th!'

Actually, the first day of your birth is year 0, day 1. We just say 'He's one day old' because it's simpler. There should most definately be a year 0. HAD there been a year zero, then year 2000 would legitimately have been the milestone of "2000 years AD". Instead, 2001 was that year, because they chose to start counting at year 1.

I agree you have the time before Christ and the time after, and there isn't a middle-time, however year 0 isn't a middle time. Year 0 is the time from 0 years, 0 days, 0 minutes, 1 second through 0 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 seconds (those who know the earth's year is actually 365.24 days, don't write in... I know).

Right now it's year 2004. That is... 2003 years, and several days, AD. We're basically claiming credit for several months that haven't happened yet. We measure our ages based on time that has passed, and our calendar year based on time that will pass.

IE:

A newborn child is 35 days old. Actually, he's zero years and 35 days old. He doesn't become 1 year old until he's lived outside the womb for one year. We don't say, "he's one year old, and by that I mean, 35 days into being 1 year old."

However, that's -exactly- what we do for years.

On January 1st, a new year, 2004, was born. Although named 2004, the year is actually only 2003 + 1 day.

The calendar did NOT have a year zero. But it absolutely should have. It would have made more sense.

Agreed for the most part, except in the following.

When you say 'year 0 and 35 days', you're effectively saying, this is the 35th day of his first year. He has not yet reached the completion of that year. You are counting up, not operating in a year of zero. The idea basically presumes a 0year0month0day date from which to count, but the fact remains that there is counting-upward happening.

The effect is this: if we say that the timeline needs a zero, then every year and month logically needs a zero date. That, however, is contrary to the nature of the calendar. There is the first second of January is still January 1st, it's part of a cycle. Cycles make up the calendar, and cycles don't come in zeroes. A year is simply a compilation (or completion) of months, days, seconds. There was an instant, a glimpse infinitely shorter than a second, seperating AD/BC (or CE/BCE), and that is the zero date, but not a part of the zero year.

This is, admittedly, largely an issue of semantics, the birthday analogy can be turned either way. (I bow with great deference to your exposition of the yearling.) Basically, it boils down to this: After 365 calendar days after the marked birth of Christ, either one year had passed or the year 0 had passed. (Your argument says both is true. Again, it's reasonable with qualifications, I just think year 1 is more fitting.) That is, the calendar system is end-minded, zero denotes 'null'...we cannot pursue null in time.

The calindar doesn't have a day zero because it isn't BUILT to have a day zero. The English/Roman calindar that we use came from a system that did not agree with having any mention of infinity or the void. Believing that there was nothing anywhere was considered a heritical thought just after the Reformation and was enough to have someone burned at the stake.

However, the Mayans had a calindar that began with 0. Their system began with year zip, day zip, hour zip and moment zip. So their system is, by our currant system of mathmatics, mathmatically correct. Our system is not by the standards of math

One-half is not one. One half a year is not one year.

If you REALLY want to start splitting hairs, every human being on the planet is nine months older than thier birthdates. The zero moment was the moment of conception. The SECOND conception happened, for a single instant something that had never before existed, existed. A second later, it had existed for one second. Another second later, it had existed for two. And so on.

Think of it, not as a count-up, but as a count down and it ought to make more sence. When you are counting down to a moment, do you go 3, 2, go? Or is it 3, 2, 1, GO? GO is zero. 321 are the count of seconds until zero...until GO. And after the count down, you start counting up again.

CW

KittyKatBlack wrote:

christwriter wrote: (rkolter--that's why I know about Samhain and the other Pagan holidays...one of the things I like to study are myths...mostly the Greecian, but I'm working my way west. History, man. History. It rocks, and if you read enough books about the same thing, you can get an almost accurate picture of what REALLY happened.)

CW

*would make a comment about irony but decides it might be best to resist. But couldn't resist to urge to let people know she had something to say at least*

Like myths aren't a part of history? I am absolutely sure that you will find the whole econimies of an area driven by a single religious belief...wanna calculate the cost of building stone in ancient Egypt and the importance of stone masons, just because the preists said the preservation of a body is key to eternal life?

CW

christwriter wrote:

KittyKatBlack wrote:

christwriter wrote: (rkolter--that's why I know about Samhain and the other Pagan holidays...one of the things I like to study are myths...mostly the Greecian, but I'm working my way west. History, man. History. It rocks, and if you read enough books about the same thing, you can get an almost accurate picture of what REALLY happened.)

CW

*would make a comment about irony but decides it might be best to resist. But couldn't resist to urge to let people know she had something to say at least*

Like myths aren't a part of history? I am absolutely sure that you will find the whole econimies of an area driven by a single religious belief...wanna calculate the cost of building stone in ancient Egypt and the importance of stone masons, just because the preists said the preservation of a body is key to eternal life?

CW

I was talking about the fact that you'll readily believe the teachings in some book of unknown origin, but have no problems in dismissing other people's beliefs as 'myths'. I wasn't trying to be mean or obnoxious, I just have a thing about people who say one thing, and then do something else. Not trying to get on your case or anything. It's just in my nature to notice things like this.

Nearly none of what you said related to what I said...

christwriter wrote: Think of it, not as a count-up, but as a count down and it ought to make more sence. When you are counting down to a moment, do you go 3, 2, go? Or is it 3, 2, 1, GO? GO is zero. 321 are the count of seconds until zero...until GO. And after the count down, you start counting up again.

Seconds, yes. Please split the seconds so as to make a definitive seperation between 60 seconds and 0 seconds of the next minute. The seperation is cognitional only. You do not stop counting at 59 seconds, nor at 59.99999. The fulfillment of the second/minute leads directly into the beginning of the next specifically because splitting time is an arbitrary, impossible event. There is no seperation between the fulfillment of one and the start of another.

The thing is, AD/BC (CE/BCE) were split into two ages. Insisting that because of the numberline there must be a year zero misses the point of even the number line. The number line is split between negative and positive. One side is negative, the other positive, and always going towards 1. The inclusion of negative years means a year 0 is superfluous. 1 BC (year -1) proceeds to the zero event. After the zero event, things proceed to 1AD (year 1). A year zero necessitates a time between ages.

Think of a number line. You're proceeding from -1 to 0, you hit zero. Are you negative or positive? Neither. However, everything moving past that is positive... In short, 0 is a placeholder. Of its own statement ('i am nothing'), the number makes its own existence transitory. Zero was a blip in time, a switch from one phase to another--as it is in a number line. A year is not the number itself, but the progression of space(time) to that analogous number. However, should a number be nothing but the switching point from one era (+/-) to another, you either need no year allotted to it, or two years allotted to it. That is, the zero, the switch, is an infinitely small/timeless bit of space-time that is an instance, not a year--everything up to that point is BC, everything after AD. So, if you put 0 in AD then you would need one in BC, for 0 is neither. The culmination of it is this: years/recorded time is said in fraction. I say 2004 because I am fractionally realizing 2004. I am at March, 19, 2004, which is literally a fractional accounting of the year. (The 19th subsection of the 3rd section of 2004.)

And, as I've said, neither is out&out wrong. But, if you we are to speak of a year zero, we would have to mark it '2002 and March, 19 of the next year' (which effectively is just March, 19, 2003) in order to be totally logically consistent. It's merely a way of talking about things, mostly. My point is that not having a year zero is just as valid. I see it as more fitting, but not the only way for the marking of time to work.

rkolter wrote:

MixedMyth wrote: Oh well. Every year in spring some of my pagan friends celebrate Samhain, some parts of which they invite anyone to celebrate.

.. every SPRING? Heh... Ostara is in April and starts spring; Beltane is in May. Midsummer is in June and marks the start of Summer. Samhain is in October... definately not spring. I think your friends are yanking your chain.

Either that or mixed myth lives in the southern hemisphere... think laterally.

Living in the southern hemisphere confuses all the pagan holidays, do you go by the seasonal values they represent or the traditional dates? Within the southern hemisphere hallowe'en is on the 31st of october, or the middle of spring. Those who follow paganism with a european origin may assosciate this with samhain despite it being in the wrong season.

Damn hemisphericcentric people in the bloody northern part of the world... {grumble}

Interestingly enough, the Chinese count a person as being a year old when they're born in order to acknowledge the time spent in utero.

--Sij

*Gives everybody 0$ for their efforts.*

Anyways it's a lot like argue between C/C++ style arrays (that go from 0 to size-1) and Pascal style arrays (usualy go from 1 to size).
Pascal is used to teach kids. Everybody uses C now.

IMHO, thime should be measured in days since the relase of LotR.
And there would be year 0.

Actually, the code for my calendar uses that system (almost- for the starting date is took the day I redesigned my page), I found it easier to calculate from Y-M-D into "the days count", and back, rather than try to take lenghts of the months (including 29 days Februaries) into account.

Luprand wrote:Interestingly enough, the Chinese count a person as being a year old when they're born in order to acknowledge the time spent in utero.

--Sij

Thanks for making me a year older! Legal drinking age here I come!!

Matt Lim wrote:

Luprand wrote:Interestingly enough, the Chinese count a person as being a year old when they're born in order to acknowledge the time spent in utero.

--Sij

Thanks for making me a year older! Legal drinking age here I come!!

Sweet, wonder if the doorman will accept that explanation...

KittyKatBlack wrote: I was talking about the fact that you'll readily believe the teachings in some book of unknown origin, but have no problems in dismissing other people's beliefs as 'myths'. I wasn't trying to be mean or obnoxious, I just have a thing about people who say one thing, and then do something else. Not trying to get on your case or anything. It's just in my nature to notice things like this.

Ok. I did not know that was what I was doing. Helenistic mythology is something that fasinates me, but I have never thought of it as more than a good set of stories. Not to hurt anyone's feelings. I never let the ideas cross. So if I did hurt anyone, I am sorry.

However, I don't think the book comes first in belief. Certainly doesn't in mine. God does. It sounds completely stupid and brainless, but it's true. It would hurt, but I could probably survive life without the book. I could not survive life without God.

That's it.

CW

christwriter wrote:(I dont' have to be Politically Correct. I hate being Politically Correct. Being Politically Correct is like having a creative lobotomy.)

Political correctness, like anything else, can be taken too far and can be destructive and limiting. But sometimes it has it's place, and I believe this is one of those cases. I don't think we should be basing time on some guy who one group of people thinks was the son of god, no matter how cool he may have been. This isn't meant to diminish the importance of the man in your life or anyone else's, but to me he was little more than a great man in history, certainly not someone who everyone of all religions and philosophies should center our concept of time around. It'd be stupid to change the number at this point, but we can change what it means.

Teacher - "Alright, Calvin, let's hear your report on the founding of our country."

Calvin - "Our great country of the United States of America was founded sometime around 200 B.C..."

Teacher - "200 B.C.!? What are you talking about?"

Calvin - "B.C. - Before Calvin."

*Calvin sitting in the corner with a dunce hat on* - "Well that's what's important!"

-Calvin & Hobbes