Whoa! The Julian Calendar is always ahead of the Gregorian Calendar?

originally posted by: carpooler
I hate to rain on this parade, but if you count from 43 B.C. to the present, you will be one entire year ahead of 2016 A.D. This occurs because the Romans never had a year zero. One B.C. is followed by One A.D. Go to some Indian sites where they are calculating the coming Golden Age in the Kali Yuga epoch. They put ( + 1 ) in between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. Their calendars are much, much older, than either the Julian or the Gregorian.

Again, neither the Julian nor Gregorian Calendar were in use in BC; both began counting in AD. Therefore, it's meaningless to say that they diverged due to there being no "year zero" on those calendars. Nostradamus did all of his counting of future years in AD, so he didn't need to think about year zero.

By the way, if we do use the Julian or Gregorian calendar to count backward to BC, it would be correct not to include a year zero, because year zero never happened. You can't count that year as anything. Someone who lived from 1 BC to 1 AD would have lived for one year, not two, because "year zero" never happened.

originally posted by: Box of Rain
Someone who lived from 1 BC to 1 AD would have lived for one year, not two, because "year zero" never happened.

Yes, in effect there is a "point Zero", at the midnight between the two years.
A.D.1 means "the first twelve months after Jesus was born" (notionally), and 1 B.C. means "the first twelve months before Jesus was born".
So a "Year Zero" is not necessary in the system, and I always get irritated by those who suggest it was a "mistake" not to have one.

One of my WSU Profs got into this in his lectures. If you counted from 43 B.C. to today's date in Roman Numerals, you would be correct. But changing from BC to AD, lost us an entire year. Both the Indian sites "Kali Yuga's golden age calendar", and my first hand experiences, shows what my old Prof. was speaking on. There really is a missing year between the year 1 B.C. which counts backwards in time, 1 B.C. is preceded by 2 B.C., ect. and the A.D. datings which count forwards; as 1 A.D. which is followed by 2 A.D. ect. And who says that Nosty used only A.D. datings. If he used a Jewish calendar, then he was correct to postulate a year 1999, which is our Dec. 31st. of 2000 A.D. I put the "ghost" year as 2000 A.D. while the Indians put it in between 1 B.C.and 1 A.D., in parenthesis.
What I didn't get into in the first post, is that July 13th, 2001, is on both Tokyo and Salon, Provence, time, but it was still early in the evening of the Twelfth of July, here in the Pacific Time Zone. I"m big on the Legend of Anagrams, and I used the Attack on Pearl Harbor as a verb. "Pearl Harbored". This generates "torpedoed too early". If the Nineteen Hijackers had went a day later, then the wife of the White House Councilor, Ted Olsen, would have already been in California, as well as those Navy Seals, whom she alerted to the real destination of the hijacked airliner, after her cell phone call to her husband, in the White House. They took his cell phone directly into the Situation Room while she was still able to speak, from the rear of the plane. Both Pearl Harbor attacks originated in Tokyo, and both flubbed, in their execution. Maybe the real question is who named the Japanese chem and bio weapon lab, Unit 731, in the first place, back before WWII? I wrote in an earlier post, "Was the Big Apple Isoruku'd on 9 - 11, 2001"? Because this is the story of those 47 Ronin, writ very large indeed.

originally posted by: carpooler
One of my WSU Profs got into this in his lectures. If you counted from 43 B.C. to today's date in Roman Numerals, you would be correct. But changing from BC to AD, lost us an entire year.

In that case, he was a professor who was failing to understand something (perhaps it was out of his field).
This is the point I was trying to explain in the post above yours;

There is no year betwen A.D.1 and 1 B.C.
In effect there is a "point Zero", at the midnight between the two years.
A.D.1 means "the first twelve months after the moment when Jesus was born" (notionally), and 1 B.C. means "the first twelve months before the moment when Jesus was born".

a reply to: carpooler

It's simple.

If the first year of the Kali Yuga calendar (Kali Yuga year 1) happened in 3102 BC when using a Gregorian calendar, then 1 BC Gregorain would be Kali Yuga year 3102. The following Kali Yuga year would be 3103, which equates to 1 AD on the Gregorian calendar (because there was not time that could be called "Gregorian year zero").

So only one year has actually passed on the Kali Yuga Calendar, but because of the quirk of math that results from the missing zero, it appears (but only appears if you are not careful doing the math and think that there is a year zero) that 2 years pass on the Gregorian (1 BC to "year zero" to 1 AD). But only one year actually passes because there is no such thing as Gregorian year zero.

The "+1" used by the Kali Yuga to convert to Gregorian BC is only needed for math purposes, and doesn't actually mean that the Gregorian Calendar has some missing year that never got counted.

Do tell; Those Indian sites explain this better. So go find one and read it carefully. The math won't add up unless you insert an extra year into our A. D. system. The ancient Indian calendars don't have our A. D.'s hiccup.

Do tell; Those Indian sites explain this better. So go find one and read it carefully. The math won't add up unless you insert an extra year into our A. D. system. The ancient Indian calendars don't have our A. D.'s hiccup.

Do tell; Those Indian sites explain this better. So go find one and read it carefully. The math won't add up unless you insert an extra year into our A. D. system. The ancient Indian calendars don't have our A. D.'s hiccup.

Do tell; Those Indian sites explain this better. So go find one and read it carefully. The math won't add up unless you insert an extra year into our A. D. system. The ancient Indian calendars don't have our A. D.'s hiccup.

originally posted by: carpooler
Do tell; Those Indian sites explain this better. So go find one and read it carefully. The math won't add up unless you insert an extra year into our A. D. system. The ancient Indian calendars don't have our A. D.'s hiccup.

Right. But the only time you need to worry about that "+1" is when you are trying to covert the Julian or Gregorian "BC and AD" calendars with a calendar that does not differentiate BC and AD (such as the Kali Yuga).

So it's only a math issue when doing the conversion, and NOT a problem with the calendar itself. The BC and AD calendars are perfectly fine as is, as long as you realized that the year that immediately follows 1 BC is called 1 AD.

Therefore, we end up with 3102 (Kali Yuga) as being 1 BC, and 3103 being 1 AD. So only one year passes between 3102 and 3103 Kali Yuga, just like only one year passes between 1 BC and 1 AD Gregorian/Julian. You can't apply "number-line math" to trying to count from 1 BC to 1 AD on the Gregorian/Julian Calendars because number line math would want to count a "zero" in between "negative one" (1 BC) and "positive one" (1 AD) -- but there was no year "zero" to count, so the number-line math doesn't work.