| Blogs > DarkPlasmaBall |
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45167 Posts
On March 02 2016 01:51 OtherWorld wrote: Every calendar is a social construct, so who cares if we made a mistake I think Dingodile means as far as maintaining the level of reliability and accuracy that our calendar is supposed to maintain. If we say it's accurate, then we shouldn't be making unaccounted mistakes. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 02 2016 03:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think Dingodile means as far as maintaining the level of reliability and accuracy that our calendar is supposed to maintain. If we say it's accurate, then we shouldn't be making unaccounted mistakes. Yes, but if we made a mistake and we're in fact in 2017, no one knows it and everyone agrees that we're in 2016, thus the reality is that we're in 2016 and not in 2017. See where I'm going? d: | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45167 Posts
On March 02 2016 04:10 OtherWorld wrote: Yes, but if we made a mistake and we're in fact in 2017, no one knows it and everyone agrees that we're in 2016, thus the reality is that we're in 2016 and not in 2017. See where I'm going? d: Well that's not "the reality". We're just misinformed lol. Facts are facts, regardless of whether or not we understand or believe them  To use a calendar analogy: Some people argue that 2001 is the start of the new millennium, not 2000. This is because our calendar starts at 1, not at 0, and so a millennium would be 1-1000 and then 1001-2000, meaning that 2001 would signify the beginning of the third millennium A.D. Similarly, 1901 would be the start of a new century, 2011 would be the start of a new decade, etc. As far as I'm aware, this is mathematically sound and the reality is that 2000 wasn't the beginning of a new millennium according to the beginning of our calendar/ A.D.. A lot of people thinking it was doesn't change that fact. However, most people see the changing of a digit (tens' digit, hundreds' digit, thousands' digit, etc.) as the visual factor that acknowledges a new millennium/ century/ decade, and so it's easier for people to recognize. I guess one way to reconcile this is to just pretend that the first decade A.D. had only 9 years, the first century A.D., had only 99 years, and the first millennium A.D. had only 999 years; this way, the later groups wouldn't be off. But whatever lol. It's not that important in the long run. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 02 2016 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Well that's not "the reality". We're just misinformed lol. Facts are facts, regardless of whether or not we understand or believe them To use a calendar analogy: Some people argue that 2001 is the start of the new millennium, not 2000. This is because our calendar starts at 1, not at 0, and so a millennium would be 1-1000 and then 1001-2000, meaning that 2001 would signify the beginning of the third millennium A.D. Similarly, 1901 would be the start of a new century, 2011 would be the start of a new decade, etc. As far as I'm aware, this is mathematically sound and the reality is that 2000 wasn't the beginning of a new millennium according to the beginning of our calendar/ A.D.. A lot of people thinking it was doesn't change that fact. However, most people see the changing of a digit (tens' digit, hundreds' digit, thousands' digit, etc.) as the visual factor that acknowledges a new millennium/ century/ decade, and so it's easier for people to recognize. I guess one way to reconcile this is to just pretend that the first decade A.D. had only 9 years, the first century A.D., had only 99 years, and the first millennium A.D. had only 999 years; this way, the later groups wouldn't be off. But whatever lol. It's not that important in the long run. So you do not believe that perception is reality? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45167 Posts
On March 02 2016 05:36 OtherWorld wrote: So you do not believe that perception is reality? I don't wish to have a semantics argument between truth and Truth right now  | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 02 2016 06:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I don't wish to have a semantics argument between truth and Truth right now I can understand that a mathematician is not amused by semantics, so I'll respect that (; | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On March 02 2016 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Well that's not "the reality". We're just misinformed lol. Facts are facts, regardless of whether or not we understand or believe them To use a calendar analogy: Some people argue that 2001 is the start of the new millennium, not 2000. This is because our calendar starts at 1, not at 0, and so a millennium would be 1-1000 and then 1001-2000, meaning that 2001 would signify the beginning of the third millennium A.D. Similarly, 1901 would be the start of a new century, 2011 would be the start of a new decade, etc. As far as I'm aware, this is mathematically sound and the reality is that 2000 wasn't the beginning of a new millennium according to the beginning of our calendar/ A.D.. A lot of people thinking it was doesn't change that fact. However, most people see the changing of a digit (tens' digit, hundreds' digit, thousands' digit, etc.) as the visual factor that acknowledges a new millennium/ century/ decade, and so it's easier for people to recognize. I guess one way to reconcile this is to just pretend that the first decade A.D. had only 9 years, the first century A.D., had only 99 years, and the first millennium A.D. had only 999 years; this way, the later groups wouldn't be off. But whatever lol. It's not that important in the long run. I don't understand what you guys mean with "actually 2017". We are pretty certain that we have kept track of the years since the calendar was introduced in 1500-whatever I think? So whatever happened before that doesn't matter, they defined that year to be the year 1500-whatever in that calendar, so that is accurate by definition. Then they based that on the birth of Jesus, which may have been off by a bit, but that doesn't change the fact that they defined that year to be what it is. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45167 Posts
On March 02 2016 06:49 OtherWorld wrote: I can understand that a mathematician is not amused by semantics, so I'll respect that (; Hahahaha thank you <3 On March 02 2016 07:31 Cascade wrote: I don't understand what you guys mean with "actually 2017". We are pretty certain that we have kept track of the years since the calendar was introduced in 1500-whatever I think? So whatever happened before that doesn't matter, they defined that year to be the year 1500-whatever in that calendar, so that is accurate by definition. Then they based that on the birth of Jesus, which may have been off by a bit, but that doesn't change the fact that they defined that year to be what it is. I 100% agree with you. | ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
decade uses 0 - 9 such as 01.01.1930 - 31.12.1939 (1930s) | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45167 Posts
 | ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
On March 02 2016 20:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Except for the first decade/ century/ millennium A.D., which started at 1 and not 0 wikipedia says I am right unless I can't follow you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45167 Posts
On March 02 2016 21:31 Dingodile wrote: wikipedia says I am right unless I can't follow you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century I'm not disagreeing with you on what a decade or century or millennium is, but if you go far enough back to the beginning of A.D., at some point one has to concede that one decade/ century/ millennium has either 9 or 99 or 999 years, not the correct 10 or 100 or 1000 (although all the others have the correct number of years). And that's because there's no Year 0. There's no 0 A.D. To get to the 2000s as a millennium (2000-2999), you need to have had the 1000s as a millennium (1000-1999). Before that was only 999 years in A.D. though... 1-999, not 0-999. The first millennium A.D. wasn't a millennium; it was 999 years. Same goes with how the first decade A.D. is 1-9 (not 0-9), and the first century A.D. was 1-99 (not 0-99). If you pick any decade or century A.D. and work backwards (counting by tens or hundreds), you'll see that the first decade or century has one fewer year in it. We don't really care about the misnomer of saying first decade/ century A.D., but it's mathematically true. | ||
|
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
Besides just having a winter when our calendar says it's summer? In other words, would there be any consequences on normal life or for physicists, astronomers,... | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On March 02 2016 23:22 B-royal wrote: Are there any far reaching consequences of letting our calendar get out of sync with the earth's revolution around the sun? Besides just having a winter when our calendar says it's summer? In other words, would there be any consequences on normal life or for physicists, astronomers,... Having winter when the calendar says summer is the only effect. Which yes, would give consequences for astronomers (physicists probably less so) that can see some objects better in summer/winter when the earth is on the right side of the sun. Astronomers almost for sure would adopt their own proper calendar. Otherwise... yeah kindof big cultural changes with holidays, when people travel where, xmas beach and so on. WHich in turn would affect companies that are related to those things. But well, no otherwise I don't see any major affects, apart from the inconvenience.. I mean... let's face it, people wouild just start using a new calendar that is synced. They start talking about 3 months after midwinter and so on. So all in all, it'd be mainly inconvenient and stupid. Possibly some costs involved as by-product of the inconvenience, and the scientific community would almost for sure adopt their own more logical standard. So like the imperial units in other words. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 IndyStarCraft StarCraft: Brood War 333Rex  130ProTech128 CosmosSc2   114SKillous  74BRAT_OK  60UpATreeSC 45Vindicta 23White-Ra 20DivinesiaTV  11Stormgate Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games FrodaN1386 Beastyqt727 B2W.Neo535 Lowko408 hungrybox373 KnowMe245 Liquid`Hasu235 Liquid`VortiX135 Fuzer 93QueenE88 XaKoH 69Trikslyr68 Organizations StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
|
EPT
