New Decade?

BigRedB2 said:
i owe it all to wiki. beats the hell out of having to drive all the way to Sky's house with a trunk load of encyclopedia britanicas just to prove a point!!!
Click to expand...
or a case of beer!!:beer::beer::beer:
 
nah...save the beer for after the debate...otherwise it turns a debate into a tussle.
 
Dylan W. said:
Between Skihi and Big red...you 2 are amongst the best debators I have ever seen.
You guys are the masters of the art.
Heres to you 2...The MASTERBATORS!:beer:
Click to expand...

That's MASTERDEBATORS.

Master-baters are good buddies to have when you go fishing.
 
John B. said:
If starting at 1/1/1 is moronic why isn't 1/1/0 moronic. At least 1/1/1 is a consistant idea. A true starting from zero idea means the beginning would have been dated 0/0/0. The following day would've been 0/1/0.......0/31/0, 1/1/0....all the way to 12/31/0, then 1/1/1.
Or is that really over thinking it?
Click to expand...

yep.

Walk into Best Buy and purchase a cheap radio that comes iwth a 90 day warranty.
Then ask the clerk how many years it is good for.
The answer will not be 1.

Find a lady who has an infant child. Ask her how old her child is. The answer - will be less than 1 year.

You're right, there is no real "zero", 0 is a placeholder to mean nothing, and in true life you never actually have nothing, just things that are really close to it.
But we can, and do, have thing that come in units less than 1.
This is amaller units are for, to fill in the space.

The argument that "we must start counting with 1" is inane b/c it is based on some standard unit being also the minimum size and nothing existing less than that... which is incorrect.
 
1/1/1 Was the first January of the first year.
A year is 365 days.(roughly)
All 365 days are part of that year 1.

10/11/1 was the first October 11

12/25/1 was the first Christmas, by the way did you now that Wal Mart opened at midnight on 11/24/1 and sold hay $.0025....it was a hoot to watch all those people cutting their pennies into quarters.....
 
the probably is that you guys are trying to count from beginning forward when your calendar was devised from present (in 1582) back.

Time is all in your perception of it and cannot actually be perfectly mathematically quantified, you just percieve that it can.
 
RatLabGuy said:
You're right, there is no real "zero", 0 is a placeholder to mean nothing, and in true life you never actually have nothing, just things that are really close to it.
But we can, and do, have thing that come in units less than 1.
This is amaller units are for, to fill in the space.
The argument that "we must start counting with 1" is inane b/c it is based on some standard unit being also the minimum size and nothing existing less than that... which is incorrect.
Click to expand...


i agree..i think. im starting to get lost in all this now.

Time is not a measurement of large or small. year one was not the beggining, just an agreed point in time. we have a quantity before 1 in the case of time. it was 1 BC. not -1AD.

there were decades before 1AD
 
Sky..you are not wrong in thinking that a decade is ten years and in theory if you count from year 1 until today...technically the "new" decade doesnt start til next year.

However, the calendar is not an exact science and ithas been socially excepted since the beginning of it existance as being imperfect. The hebrew had "extra" months they would add on in case the roads were bad, they lived within these extra months until the roads dried and they could get to town to celebrate their sabbaths.

You are arguing from a numerical/mathematical point of view and i understand what you mean. i will agree that mathematically, we have not started the new decade.

We have, however reached what society percieves as the new decade.
 
Back
Top