Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: New Year (Read 5327 times) previous topic - next topic

New Year

A happy final year of the millenium to all Noteworthy friends - May the music be with you !

Richard

Re: New Year

Reply #1 –
Happy New Year to you too, Richard, and to everyone else.

Had an interesting thought (totally off-topic) that with all the interest in the numeric significance of the year 2000, if you look at it numerologically, 2000 is a "2" year, which is no big deal. The year 1999, however, is a "1" year, which to numerologists signifies new beginnings, letting the past be the past, and looking to the future.

Nice thought, even if (like me) you don't put much stock in numerology per se.

Fred

Re: New Year

Reply #2 –
Happy new year to every nwc user.
There is a common error that is often made:
Every decade, century and millenium begins with 1!
1-10 is the first decade,...(it would not be a decade {10 years} otherwise!)
1-100 is the first century, ...(it would not be a century {100 years} otherwise!)
1-1000 is the first millenium,...(it would not be a millenium {1000 years} otherwise)
So the first year of the next millenium is the year 2001,
what means:
2000 belongs to the old millenium: This is the final year
of the millenium.
(The often mentioned 00-millenium problem is not a millenium - changing problem but a "carry over" problem of a definition of year numbers of some programmers.)

Re: New Year

Reply #3 –
Thx Chris for that explanation I had no time to make earlier :-)
All this just because after the "-1" year, was the year number 1... There is no year number zero, and that's the reason why.
Anyway, what is funny is that Jesus-Christ (our reference in counting years), should have his birth in 6 before JC, according to the most recent research... :-)

Anyway, happy new year to you all,
Bonne année et bonnsanté à tous !

NWCly yours,
MAD

Re: New Year

Reply #4 –
That's true, Marsu,
it mainly depends on our christian roots (gregorian calend.)
Think of the moslems: The islamic calender is totally different from our (anno - domine) one, because their mounths are defined to be shorter (abt. 29 days, according to the earth moons phase), and the time of year "zero" is different from the christian version.
In other words: Our millenium - changing means nothing to their calender and to all possible other existing calenders in the world.

Happy New Year to all readers.

Chris

Re: New Year

Reply #5 –
I forgot:
The correct spelling is:
millennium (not millenium, lat.: mille + annus)
and calendar (not calender)

Bye,
Chris

Re: New Year

Reply #6 –
The chronology of the life of Jesus is, so far as I can
tell, still open to question. Jack Finegan's "Handbook of
Biblical Chronology", published last year, argued for a
2/1 B.C. birthdate. The main sticking point with this is
the death of Herod the Great, which is usually fixed in
4 B.C. by a complex catenation of astronomical and other
synchronisms. (Finegan argues that Herod actually died in
1 B.C., which is a new and so-far very-much-a-minority
viewpoint.)

(The crucifixion is just as obscure. Only the years 27, 29,
30, and 33 can possibly fit the astronomic data.
(Astronomers disagree about some of those years.)

Re: New Year

Reply #7 –
Yes indeed, only the Christian calendar is involved with the Western 'New Year'. Nevertheless, I won't be seen near an airport (or in an aeroplane) approaching and for some time after midnight on December 31st. 1999. And I'm going to lay in a stock of canned food, bottled water and camping gas!

Compliments of the Season to all - Peter.

Re: New Year

Reply #8 –
how do i get the moon phase

Re: New Year

Reply #9 –
Sorry, this feature is not currently supported. ;-)
 

Re: New Year

Reply #10 –
Moon phase? See the thread regarding "Moonlight Sonata."