It's amazing that we still hold on to so many pagan celebrations. But, then
too, I enjoy them all! :)

Explain to me again, what bunnies have to do with Easter? :)

The partiers up on campus (from when I was in school) all went into
advertising, so let's blame it all on their literacy! heh

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

Didn't the ?Roman's? add in days to the calendar along the way when it
started to get abit out of whack(and didn't someone add in a whole month
somewhere along the line?) ? So isn't the whole idea of counting out exactly
2000 years somewhat flawed to start with? I'm sure I read somewhere that if
you take into account for the extra days etc that have been added in there's
about six years difference...

Stephen & Tara
ste### [at] lexiconnetnospam
"All that glitters has a high refractive index."



Bob Hughes wrote in message <36E32879.8E78F7AB@aol.com>...
>Umm... there is no year 0 A.D. ;]
>Reason the year 2001 is actually 2000 years since year 1. And no, second
>1 of minute 1 of hour 1 of day 1 of year 1 does not have a whole zero
>year hiding in there somewhere. Goes immediately to year 1 B.C.
>according to Greg. Let's blame him if anyone.
>You do realize that zeroes weren't even in use in the ancient
>civilization, right? Invented by mathematicians I believe. Okay, let's
>blame them instead.
>Oh, and Happy New Year 2000! just in case I miss it later.
>
>
>Alan Kong wrote:
>>
>>   We've already got more than two thousand years of human history under
our
>> belts, Ken. The clock started tickin' before the year 0 A.D.
>>
>
>--
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
>  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
> mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote in message <36e36363.0@news.povray.org>...
>It's amazing that we still hold on to so many pagan celebrations. But, then
>too, I enjoy them all! :)
>
>Explain to me again, what bunnies have to do with Easter? :)
>


Easter == christian replacement of old pagan "beginning of the year/coming
of spring" celebrations, everything becomes fertile again -> bunny ==
fertility symbol (same goes for eggs), tadaa!


oh hell, you most probably knew that and in answering I just showed myself
as the tongue-in-the-cheek type, so:


[COMMAND: delete previous message from memory]
[PROCESSING................... brz!]


:-)

Joh.

Post a reply to this message

Andrew Cocker wrote in message <36e304dc.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>Ken wrote in message <36E### [at] pacbellnet>...
>
>> It's human nature to do so. You can't take that away from us.
>
>
>Well then, I guess I'm inhuman. And I don't think that the human race has
got a great deal
>to be proud of, except it's ability to paper over the cracks. Seriously
though, I realise
>I have a particularly warped view when compared to that of the masses, but
Y2K is really
>just another day like any other. Being totally non-religious also, I can't
celebrate for
>those reasons either. Please don't think I begrudge anyone the right to
have a good time
>and rejoice in being alive. You just dont need an excuse to do so.
>


I agree that you don't need an excuse to party, rejoice, whatever.
The thing is: To do so, you need a certain state of mind (ever felt like
partying while standing in the rain, waiting for the bus at 7:00 am? hmmm,
probably, if you just spotted your new girlfriend coming your way ;-)
And for most people it is a lot easier to reach that "party-state" together
with many others: If everyone is in a festive mood, it's just simpler to
join.
And: For most people it is also a lot more fun to party together with as
many others as possible. The 2000-shift is just a very convenient signal to
coordinate the partying all over the globe :-)

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen Brooker wrote in message <36e36973.0@news.povray.org>...
>Didn't the ?Roman's? add in days to the calendar along the way when it
>started to get abit out of whack

Yep, Julius Caesar (-> Julian Calendar)

(and didn't someone add in a whole month
>somewhere along the line?)

Yep, Pope Gregor (-> Gergorian Calendar)

>So isn't the whole idea of counting out exactly
>2000 years somewhat flawed to start with?

Nope, because:

The year is defined as the time the earth needs to complete one circle
around the sun (nowadays it is a bit more complicated though ;-)
It is *not* defined as being 365 days long (or whatever number).
The additional days were added for exactly this reason, because the time
around the sun is not 365 days but 365-point-something (go look it up
yourself ;-)

So, given that Jesus was really born on Dec. 24th, 1 A.D., and given that
the number of days added by first the Julian Calendar and then the Gergorian
Calendar was exact, then at New Year 2000, exactly 1999 years A.D. will have
passed: That means: 1999 complete circles of the earth around the sun, which
is not 1999*365 days, but 1999*365-point-something days.

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

Johannes Hubert wrote in message <36e3a732.0@news.povray.org>...
>Stephen Brooker wrote in message <36e36973.0@news.povray.org>...
>>Didn't the ?Roman's? add in days to the calendar along the way when it
>>started to get abit out of whack
>
>Yep, Julius Caesar (-> Julian Calendar)
>

Accumulating inaccuracies of the Julian calendar meant that by 1582 the
vernal equinox was actually occuring on March 11.

>(and didn't someone add in a whole month
>>somewhere along the line?)
>
>Yep, Pope Gregor (-> Gergorian Calendar)
>


Yes, on October 4, 1582, Pope Gregory XIII ordained that the next day would
be October 15th. American colonists steadfastly refused to go along, simply
because the reform had come from Rome. Well, scholars and politicians got
together in 1752 and considered it time for the colonies to catch up. So,
when George Washington was just a wee lad, his birthday moved from February
11, 1731 (Old Calendar) to February 22, 1732 (New Calendar).

>>So isn't the whole idea of counting out exactly
>>2000 years somewhat flawed to start with?
>
>Nope, because:
>
>The year is defined as the time the earth needs to complete one circle
>around the sun (nowadays it is a bit more complicated though ;-)
>It is *not* defined as being 365 days long (or whatever number).
>The additional days were added for exactly this reason, because the time
>around the sun is not 365 days but 365-point-something (go look it up
>yourself ;-)
>

I think it is cyclical, and changes over time, so that the period of measure
would determine the result? I know that the orbital path changes in
dimension as a function of time, due to gyroscopic precession. Supposedly,
every 11,500 years the earth will experience severe weather imbalances and
mass extinctions. PANIC! :)

Please keep that out of the media (heh).

Well, these two points of change (Julian and Gregorian) do not begin to
describe the numerous corrections of the calendar overall. Regardless how
you look a it, the date of 'the birth' is best guess only. Even Eastern
Orthodox today still disagree with Rome, and have held onto the Julian
calendar. So, not even all Christians agree upon the date.

Unfortunately, the same can be said for Passover, which was purposely
'redefined' by Rome to fall always on a Sunday. Traditionally, the Jewish
method was to follow the lunar calendar, which gave no such assurance. The
passover was generally determined by calculations of the Jewish high council
known as "Sanhedrin."

And which day is it, precisely, that is the seventh day? :)

I say we party both years of the 'New Miliienium.'

The purpose of this post is intended as motivation/inspiration to the
calendar/clock themes so prevalent in 'images.binaries' these days. If
someone finds a way to tie all of these details into a single scene, I would
like to see it. ;)

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

Arrgg...

You just let worms out again :-(((


Dave Helfrich wrote:
> 
> Here's a logo I made in POV-Ray for my new web page...
> (http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/israel/351)
> I've decided to start a crusade to remind everyone in the world that the
> year 2000 does not signify the start of the new millennium.  The new
> millenium doesn't start until January 1, 2001.  This millennium ends
> December 31, 2000.

Arrgg...
You just let worms out again :-(((

Please don't start again discussion about it! Don't You have enough from
povray.general thread "Happy Newyear"?

Post a reply to this message

Well, I guess I can happily say I learnt something new today :)...



Stephen Brooker
ste### [at] lexiconnetnospam

Post a reply to this message

>Arrgg...
>You just let worms out again :-(((
>
>Please don't start again discussion about it! Don't You have enough from
>povray.general thread "Happy Newyear"?

What worms?

Should I be ashamed of the fact that I don't read povray.general very much?
No I didn't see the thread.  Maybe I should go look?

Dave

Post a reply to this message

Dave Helfrich wrote:
> 
> >Arrgg...
> >You just let worms out again :-(((
> >
> >Please don't start again discussion about it! Don't You have enough from
> >povray.general thread "Happy Newyear"?
> 
> What worms?
>
> Should I be ashamed of the fact that I don't read povray.general very much?
> No I didn't see the thread.  Maybe I should go look?
> 
> Dave
Sorry, nothing personal, this prayer was addressed to whole group(I
should have written you instead of You, if You understand, what I mean).
I'd like to see more discussion about pictures, discussion about Y2K
seems to be quite OT.
Sorry again, if You feel offended, seems like I had tough day, when I
wrote it.

Post a reply to this message