The New Millennium
Comments


I think you'll find
these interesting. They are
well thought out and
positive, for the most part.
A couple 'o goofy ones mixed in
too.



While searching for an easy way to explain why the Millenium starts in 2001, I came across your page on the internet. Fantastic. Kudos to you!

I am into a particular wedding message board on AOL and so many people are excited about having a "Millenium" wedding in the year 2000. I laugh at them but they tell me I am wrong and they don't seem to understand why I am not wrong. May I have permission to use your link so these people can learn to count? Your entire website is fabulous. I have friends who LOVE Babylon 5 (even though I've never seen it, I hear it's good). I personally get a kick out of MST3000. Your wide range of interest made for a fun trip to your site.

Many blessings for a wonderful life. By the way, you have a beautiful family.

Man, You are so scattered, that's hard to believe. You really think the whole planet is wrong, while you're right.Go back to grade 1.

Can you please explain the new millenium starting in 2001 in a different way than you have? I can't quite understand it as is. Don't you count the time from 0 through 1 as the first year, and in so doing, doesn't the tenth year mark the end of the first decade? I have wasted two hours thinking about this and still am not sure. Please help me understand. I feel dumb not knowing for sure.

Thankyou, that helps alot. Happy New Year!

Hi Keith, glad you like the trip, yes we know the Millennium starts in 2001 but do you think New Year's Eve 2000 will be half as exciting or hyped as 1999? Probably not!--

my husband would like to know if there is a name for the second and the third millennium? Thought you may know. By the way you are dead accurate - the new (3rd) millennium doesn't start until Jan 1st 2001. and the way the media are talking you would think this was the only time ever we (not literally us - but the human race) had ever seen 1000 yrs. Do you know what year this is in the Hebrew Calendar? is it not nearly 6000?

Hi Keith, I was looking the net up for some support in the matter, when the new millennium starts. I am glad I got around your page, as I am relieved, that I am not the only one believing like you. By the way, I am XXXXXX from Stuttgart / Germany and I enjoyed visiting your Page. I got to like to check Linux out , now that you are so positive about it.
Danke schoen

Dr. Brown I would just like to say thankyou for breaking down the true new millenium date. My father and I got into a huge debate over it and it looks like he was right all along. However, it seems as if the whole world,or atleast most of it, is mislead about this. It kind of makes you think how gullable people as a whole can be, like you said, all you need to know is ow to count, which you think we could do, right. I now cant stop myself from correcting people, but love doing it. Thanks again.

A pleased student

For those who believe that it begins on Jan. 1, 2000, we will hold an event to offer opportunity for change. For those who believe that it occurs on Jan. 1, 2001, we will hold another event for the same purpose. But thanks for the information. Hope you come for one or both times. Good luck and stay in touch.
From the Red Rocks,

This fascination with the year 2000 for all the wrong reasons has been bugging me for more than a year. Mr. Clinton even called his address last night the last one of the millenium.

2000 has a lot of things that can be correctly said for it. Signature year of both the second millenium and of the 20th Century. Year of the Y2K bug(s). End of a century of radical change: technology, politics, geography, geology, rapid communication..... Lots of things to celebrate.

And then celebrate the new millenium in 2001 (not just a book/movie as you say).

The make a fast buck people missed the chance to make two.

XXXXXXXX, middle school science and math (maybe that's why I am irritated ... we are turning out too many graduates who can't count!)

I really enjoyed your explanation of when the new decade/century/millennium begins... I agree with you 100%!

The reason I am writing to you is that I was spelling millennium the same way you are, with 1 N. Guess what... according to my dictionary there are 2 N's in millennium.

So, now that we are straightening out the world on when the true millennium starts, how about we get people to spell millennium correctly too?!?

Thank you for the breath of fresh air called common sense when debating the millennium. I have tried to explain it to my peers but they always stare at me as if I am a heretic ( if only they knew what heretic meant).

best regards

I am glad to see someone put something out there on the subject. I thought it was odd all of these company's started the millennium campain now. Oh well Marketing guy's. Nice site I liked that you linked it to the Royal Greenwich Observatory. Kind of hard to argue with that. Have a good one.

thank you!!! thank you!!!

i was in a bookstore tonight and there was a book co-authored by peter jennings talking about the greatest events of the 20th century-i quickly went to the end of the book to read about clinton's impeachment and there wasn't a thing about it-i was shocked-peter, maybe you should wait until its over before writing about it??!! and "saving private ryan" and "the thin red line" didnt even make the list of the century's greatest films that came out last year so how good could they really be?

im sick to death of all the bullshit about this being the last year of the century and millennium-thanks for clearing it up- didnt seinfeld have an episode about newman's millennium party?

This e-mail is not here to tell you that I want to send money, beer, or have your child. I jjust want to thank you soooooo much for stating the obvious! (Obvious to me, maybe not to other people.) I have been trying for the past two years to convince my classmates and my teachers that the new millenium begins in 2001! It makes sense in my mind, just not in theirs! Anyway, I was at a search engine (dogpile.com to be exact) and I came across your page discussing the millenium. I was searching for a page that would give me concrete evidence on the subject because I am having a debate with one of my fellow classmates on Tuesday to try and convince the class when it begins. He says it begins in 2000! What a lunatic, anyway I want to thank you for your page because it has given me a very simple way to begin my argument. E-mail me back at xxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx if you want to, if you don't then...oh well. Anyway, thanks again.

Year 1 of a child's life is that time during which his age is measured in months. We put the number 1 a year after his birth. At that time he begins to live his second year, though he won't be 2 until he's lived it. Therefore, when the calender turns to 2000, we are really in our 2001st year, are we not? What's so confusing about that?

This would make sense, I guess, if there was no world prior to the calendar. When did the 20th century officially begin? I haven't been able to find that on the net as every way I've phrased my query results in many findings that don't fit what I'm looking for.

Seems to me, however, that following your logic allthe years begining with 19 would be the 19th century, but just like the child's age, the 1900's were the 20th century. When we hit 2000, we'll begin the 21st century. We did change centuries before, must have some record of the official changing.

All this is a bit strange, isn't it?

I understand the point that there was no 0 between BC and AD. However, there appears to be far more than a year between the change. This is also a bit debated, but seems there was 20 years or so between.

Guess that I just sort of assume the zero without it being stated, like the assumed subject in some sentences. Know you shouldn't ever assume anything. There, I, am the assumed subject of that sentence.

At any rate, if back then someone started by putting a 1 as the beginning point, you are correct. My problem is that I cannot think of any place in human endeavors where we start counting that way.

If you count the dollars in your wallet, you never say zero, but you don't say 1 until you've got that 1 out of the pile and into your hand. Seems to me that all counting begins with an assumed but unspoken zero as a starting point. Obviously, no one here today was there when this 

My sources on the span between bc and ad are some serious religious
people I know.  That doesn't mean they know what they're talking about,
but they all seem to agree on a time spann of several years.

Incidentally, on the upcoming computer problem we hear so much about,
I'm not so sure this problem will surface in the year 2000.  Seems to me
computers got started in the '50's.  Never had 00 entered, so this may
not confuse them.  When someone enters 56, we'll have a repeat.  That
might be when the confusion starts.  Won't it be weird if there is no
problem in 2000, everyone breathes a big sigh of relief and then in
another 56 years all hell breaks lose?

Keith Brown wrote:
> 
> > I understand the point that there was no 0 between BC and AD.  However,
> > there appears to be far more than a year between the change. This is
> > also a bit debated, but seems there was 20 years or so between.
> 
>    My information says that there was no time lag between BC and AD. Do
> you have a reference to another opinion on this?
> 
> > At any rate, if back then someone started by putting a 1 as the
> > beginning point, you are correct.  My problem is that I cannot think of
> > any place in human endeavors where we start counting that way.
> >
> > If you count the dollars in your wallet, you never say zero, but you
> > don't say 1 until you've got that 1 out of the pile and into your hand.
> > Seems to me that all counting begins with an assumed but unspoken zero
> > as a starting point.  Obviously, no one here today was there when this
> > calendar started, and I suspect records are a lot less than precise.
> > Therefore, we have to either assume that they started with 1 or they
> > started with 0, even though it wasn't mentioned.  Maybe there's
> > something you count without starting with an assumed 0.  I can't think
> > of anything.
> 
>    Yes. That someone was a monk by the name of Dionysius Exiguus (means
> 'Denis the small' by the way) in the 6th century AD. He is the person who
> put together the current Gregorian calendar. He, and everyone else
> at the time, had no concept of zero or negative numbers and so started
> counting at 1. Zero and negative numbers didn't come into common use until
> 1000 years afterwards.
> 
>    When you count the dollars you count 'one' *after* the dollar is out of
> the pile and into your hand. Same with dollar number two, three, four ....
> 2000. I guess a dollar in the hand is worth two in the bush! This is the
> equivalent of saying that one year has passed since the calendar's
> beginning on Jan 1, 2 AD. Similarly, 2000 years will have passed *after*
> the year 2000 is over.


I think I understand your point, but have come to the same conclusion I came to with daylight savings time--let's set the clocks on the half hour in between and leave it there. In this case, let's celebrate the mill... in june.

So we start a calendar with January 1, 0001. This goes through Dec. 31, 0001 (000 has no real meaning her, except that we are currently in 4 digits) This tells us that we are in the 1st day of the 1st month of year 1. through Dec/ 31. which tells us we are in the 31st day of the 12th month of year 1. Perhaps this will help explain to others. Perhaps one day we'll meet.

Couldn't resist sending a short email. With respect, I think you're mistaken about the new millenium. The new millenium begins between 1999 and 2000.

A final note:
 
Your 2000/2001 point of view assumes that an incorrect retrospective calculation was made. Don't be distracted by the idea of "no year zero". Think about a "point zero" and assume a normal counting method from there. There's no evidence or argument for an alternative calculation method. I agree that this error has been made by others, but it doesn't mean we have to duplicate it. Seems like this is a good time to get it right.
 
Regards and thanks for your worthy (but somewhat mistaken!) point of view.
(Editor's note: can you spot the falicy here?)

Hi Keith,

Thanks for your message. I became interested one day when a good friend of mine took what I think should be called the hardline view - it's simply 2000/2001 and anyone who doesn't see it can't count. My response was that it's more complex than it first appears. The point of my earlier email was to make the point that two, quite legitimate ways exist to solve the question. The fact that I come down on the 1999/2000 side of the discussion is of little importance. I'm glad that someone else has taken the time to research and write the attached analysis - I couldn't have put it better myself. Interested to hear your response to it. It's rather long, but I promise it's worth the read. Please tell me what you think.

Dear Dr. Wiles: (Who?? Not me!)
Thank you for your letter in February about the celebration of the Millennium a year early. If you read our front page article on January 1, 1999, you saw our discussion of when the date really comes and when the poulace will celebrate it.

Unfortunately, despite all of the reasons and rationale behind 2001, Americans and other peoples throughout the world have chosen December 31, 1999 as THE date to recognize the millennium.

I hope that you also saw our second Millennium Tennessee Timescapes which was published on February 28. The fourth page in the section discussion the various calendars as did the January 1 article.

It's always a pleasure to read a letter from someone who knows what he or she is talking about. Please keep reading the News-Sentinel.

i still dont beleive it, but everybody has an opinion.

Hi, How I stumbled across your millenium page, I still don't know. Perhaps you can clear something up - why do we start "counting" at year 1? Wouldn't it be "more correct" to start "counting" / "measuring" at zero? For example, someone isn't "one" year old until you've celebrated your first birthday - after "one year". Upon your 366th day you are then in your 2nd year - probably why so many people are likening the first day of 2000 to the beginning of 3rd millenium.

I'm assuming that the answers to this are probably in your file - guess I should read more, but who's got time for that right? Wasn't the calender "adjusted" by some scholar a while ago too? Guess I should follow your links to the observatories. So don't consider this a flame - just some guy wondering out loud...

Thought you might like a copy of the most recent exchange between myself and the friend of mine I mentioned last email. Feedback welcome!
 
XXXXXXXXX
 
 
Scotty,

1.  "Most experts" and, indeed Peter Meyer himself, agree that for adherents of the Christian  (ie Anno Domini) calendar, the millenium begins on 1 Jan 2000. Quote: "So for Christians - or at least, for all who adhere to the Christian system of numbering years - the answer is clear: The new millennium begins on 1st January 2001 A.D."
 
He also says: "But this article does show that anyone who prefers to think of the year 2000 as the first year of the new millennium has perfectly sound reasons for doing so, ..." So, let's get on with the debate.

2.  The Christian system of numbering years has been in common use and unchanged for more than 1400 years.
 
The 10 day correction aside, this is substantially correct, but it is also a digression. The discussion is about millenia, and if (as I assert) it's an error, it's still an error after 1400 years.

3.  By adopting the astronomical system of numbering  years the conventions of the AD system no longer apply.  Adherents are  free to choose any date as the commencement of the millenium.  Celebrating the millenium on 31 Dec 99 is as valid as a year (or 27 or 212) later.  Th only authority cited by Peter Meyer, namely the US Naval Observatory, chooses to maintain the conventions of the Anno Domini system when applying the astronomical system to the millenium question. The commencement of  the use of the astronomical system and whether it has any relevance outside the astronomical community is not stated.
 
You have your facts right, however I'm not sure how this helps your point. I don't adopt the system. On one side we have the US Naval Observatory, and on the other the astronomical system of numbering years created in recognition of the intial AD dating error. So what do we have? Overwhelming proof of an error (what's called the Out By One error by computer programmers), and an authority which says it doesn't matter. 1999/2000 adherents do not require reference to the astronomical calendar - it simply proves that an error exists, and not your point or mine either way.

For my part, Peter Meyer successfully relegates the 31 Dec 99ers to a minority fringe group, even though that may not have been his intention.
 
 
My dear friend, I'm delighted to have heard your closing arguments.
 
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what exactly are we here to decide? The dates in question, both of them, will soon come and go regardless of the courtroom antics of my learned friend here.
 
We're here to determine WHICH IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE DATE TO CELEBRATE THE NEW MILLENIUM? Let's begin slowly and carefully. Focus your mind on the question: Are there two legitimate positions or only one? Are the 1999/2000 just flat-earthers or do they have a point, whatever you may finally conclude about how worthwhile the point is? I suggest that there are clearly two. No doubt about it, the AD system started the clock running at 1AD. That means you pass the 2000 year mark between 2000 and 2001. There's the first position. On the other hand, we know that this was an error - of sorts. The astromical calendar demonstrates what sort of error it was. The Out By One error. You and I all start counting from a base of zero, not a base of one. So - before we go on - let's just agree on this one small point: The existance of an error - or whatever you want to call it - means that there are two legitimate points of view to consider, whatever their respective merits.
 
What is the fair way to judge the merits of these two positions? Are we to measure them by weight of numbers? If as I suggest, an error was made in the first place, does it really prove anything just because many people duplicate and proclaim the same error? But it's been the same error for 1400 years they would cry! Are we to weight these two points of view on the basis of dogma? It's just THE WAY IT IS, you fool. Or, as I put it to you, are we here to ask the question: WHICH IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE DATE TO CELEBRATE THE NEW MILLENIUM, THE COMING OF 2000 or 2001?That's the question. That's why we're here today.
 
You've worked hard listenening to my learned friend, and you're tired, so I'll keep it short.
 
The only reason that this whole question arises is that we - as 10 fingered fine people - count in 10s. We're superstitious about numbers. We also like to celebrate numbers. We especially like it when a zero is involved. We've all been to a 40th, a 50th, or a 60th birthday party at least once. We've all watched while our car odometer clicks over to the 10.000, 20.000 or 30.000 mark. We celebrate 10s, and 100s and 1000s. That's why we're here today - not 6, 15 or 26 years ago. It's beacuse the calendar is clicking around to 2000. Not even my friend here would dispute that.
 
Two points of view exist. We've got that far. An error was made, and even if we disagree on the exact nature of this error, we all agree that the AD calendar count started from 1AD, and skipped Day 1 AD, Day 2 AD. It just rocketed ahead from 1 AD. And we have our human condition - we have 10 fingers - and we like zeros. We celebrate them.
 
It's time to line up our decades, centuries and millenia. No one would dispute that 1990 is part of the 90s. So is 2000 also part of the 90s? No my friends say, the decades and centuries (and millenia) are OUT BY ONE. I agree. Out by one.
 
People will indeed celebrate at the turn of 2000. The echos of the champagne corks popping on January 1 2000 will drown out the faint cheers in 2001. That's why we have the right - and the responsibility - to say: IT'S THE YEAR 2000 AND IT'S A NEW MILLENIUM! From now on you may declare with certainty: Decades, centuries and millenia line up. You decide. It happens when you say it happens. That's the point. Don't let the error-mongers put you off.
 
With respect and affection, I retire.
 
Julian


The year 0 did not exist, therefore why does the year 2000 exist.Is the year 2000 the in last decade of the 20 th century, or is it in the first decade of the 21st?
Now the last decade of the 20th century is the 90's,if 2000 is in the 20c,then it is also the final year of the decade known as the 90's! (Editor's note: quite correct, goofy as it sounds!)
I am confused professor.! according to your logic the year 2000 does not exist,because the year 0 did not exist. The millenium starts in the year 2000,! because that is the only logical place for the year 2000!

(Editor's note: uh .. ya. I think his logic doesn't exist!)