Family & Relationships5 mins ago
The missing year????
It is well documented that 'officially' the twentieth century started at midnight December 31st 1900, and therefore one second after this time we were in the new century.
I have seen several written sources including diaries, journals and quiz books that all confirm this to be true.
It is also well known that 'officially' the twenty first century started at midnight December 31st 1999.
My question is; why did the twentieth century only contain 99 years 'officially'??
I have seen several written sources including diaries, journals and quiz books that all confirm this to be true.
It is also well known that 'officially' the twenty first century started at midnight December 31st 1999.
My question is; why did the twentieth century only contain 99 years 'officially'??
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jackholl0. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Because all the world governments are thick and don't know the basic meaning of words! Also as 2000 started with a different number, everyone assumed that that was the start of the century. I did explain this to my friends, but not many were convinced due to the 'government/media line'. Sad isn't it.
The start of any year is January 1st so it follows that a new century also begins on January 1st. The confusion about the first year of a new century arises because there was no Year Zero. If you count the first hundred years as being the First Century, it begins in 1 AD and ends in 100 AD. The Second Century started in 101 AD and ended in AD 200. You can see that each Century begins wi a "1" and ends wi "00" so the Twentieth Century had 100 years as had the previous Centuries.
Octavius.
Thank you for your comments. Your first paragraph reflects my point entirely i.e the end of any century/millennium must end in a zero.
The 'official' discrepancy comes when you consider that the whole world, governments, heads of state,religions et al celebrated the start of the most recent new century and millennium at midnight December 31st 1999.........a whole year early. You would of course remember the parties and international events that took place to mark the occasion!!
The year 2000 was not the start of the 21st century, it was the last year of the 20th century. We can at least agree on that.
Thank you for your comments. Your first paragraph reflects my point entirely i.e the end of any century/millennium must end in a zero.
The 'official' discrepancy comes when you consider that the whole world, governments, heads of state,religions et al celebrated the start of the most recent new century and millennium at midnight December 31st 1999.........a whole year early. You would of course remember the parties and international events that took place to mark the occasion!!
The year 2000 was not the start of the 21st century, it was the last year of the 20th century. We can at least agree on that.
You mean that the arrival of the new �millennium� was celebrated at the end of 1999? Well yes I see your point, but I think this had more to do with the fact that starting our year with a 2 instead of a 1, which was the case for the best part of a thousand years if worth celebrating, along with the tenuous furore about our IT systems going kaput.
Whether we incorrectly called the beginning of the year 2,000 as the start of the new millennium or the 21st century, rather than at the end of it appear more to do with peoples perception and (mis)understanding rather than any �official� party line.
In any event, the �lost year� is merely in peoples� misconception of timeline. In reality there is no lost year. But since none (or very few) of us have ever experienced the turn of a century or a millennium it would be a little pedantic and pointless to explain unless they ask, or correct them when they make a statement.
Whether we incorrectly called the beginning of the year 2,000 as the start of the new millennium or the 21st century, rather than at the end of it appear more to do with peoples perception and (mis)understanding rather than any �official� party line.
In any event, the �lost year� is merely in peoples� misconception of timeline. In reality there is no lost year. But since none (or very few) of us have ever experienced the turn of a century or a millennium it would be a little pedantic and pointless to explain unless they ask, or correct them when they make a statement.
jackhollO, the date you give was not "officially" the start of the 21st Century: it was merely the popular choice.
At the time, I had correspondences with everyone concerned: the Greenwich observatory at Cambridge and Hawaii; Whitaker's Almanack and so on, all of whom (naturally) agreed on the correct date. I even got my local Trading Standards Officer to order the removal of adverts from a well-known Sunday newspaper which was promising "millennium" adventures during late Dec 1999/early Jan 2000. I could not achieve the same with the Royal Mint which was dishonestly selling 1999 coins as "the last of the 20th Century" because the Mint is a government agency and not subject to the retailing laws.
The government itself (several departments) cheerfully admitted that it knew that the new Century and Millennium did not start until Jan 1 2001 but that it was going along with "what the people wanted".
So much for "education, education, education"!
At the time, I had correspondences with everyone concerned: the Greenwich observatory at Cambridge and Hawaii; Whitaker's Almanack and so on, all of whom (naturally) agreed on the correct date. I even got my local Trading Standards Officer to order the removal of adverts from a well-known Sunday newspaper which was promising "millennium" adventures during late Dec 1999/early Jan 2000. I could not achieve the same with the Royal Mint which was dishonestly selling 1999 coins as "the last of the 20th Century" because the Mint is a government agency and not subject to the retailing laws.
The government itself (several departments) cheerfully admitted that it knew that the new Century and Millennium did not start until Jan 1 2001 but that it was going along with "what the people wanted".
So much for "education, education, education"!
Here's a different school of thought that explains some of the confusion. I'm not saying it's right or wrong.
Did the century start at year 1 or year 0?
If a cricketer starts to run towards the stumps he has started a run, (from 0 runs) and only gets a run when it's complete.
Similarly, the thought is that there was indeed a year 0, and that year 1 began at one second into Jan 1st in year 0 and ended at midnight on Dec 31st.
Therefore when midnight Dec 31st 1999 came around, 2000 years had been almost completed, and when Jan 1 2000 struck the 2001st year began.
That would place the millenium celebrations exactly where they were.
Did the century start at year 1 or year 0?
If a cricketer starts to run towards the stumps he has started a run, (from 0 runs) and only gets a run when it's complete.
Similarly, the thought is that there was indeed a year 0, and that year 1 began at one second into Jan 1st in year 0 and ended at midnight on Dec 31st.
Therefore when midnight Dec 31st 1999 came around, 2000 years had been almost completed, and when Jan 1 2000 struck the 2001st year began.
That would place the millenium celebrations exactly where they were.
Whickerman, no, there wasn't a Year 0. Counting starts atzero but not withzero.
A batsman starts with 0 runs and, at the end of his first run, he has scored 1, not zero. At the end of his 99th run he starts on his 100th, but he has not reached a century until he has completed that 100th run.
Similarly our calendar started at zero but the first second, minute, hour and day were the first second, minute, hour and day of the 1st Century. That century was not complete until the end of its 100th year.
I'm amazed that this tedious "argument" still continues.
A batsman starts with 0 runs and, at the end of his first run, he has scored 1, not zero. At the end of his 99th run he starts on his 100th, but he has not reached a century until he has completed that 100th run.
Similarly our calendar started at zero but the first second, minute, hour and day were the first second, minute, hour and day of the 1st Century. That century was not complete until the end of its 100th year.
I'm amazed that this tedious "argument" still continues.
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News14 mins ago
