In between 3000 BC 1400 AD

[Occcams5]

What year would be between 3000 BC 1400 AD

[iNow]

All of them?

If you mean EXACTLY in the middle, you’ll need to do some basic math 

[zapatos]

In which calendar system? Gregorian? Hindu? Some other?

[Occcams5]

Basically what year would ecactly be in the middle of 3400 years ?

[QuantumT]

9 minutes ago, Occcams5 said:

Basically what year would ecactly be in the middle of 3400 years ?

There's 4,400 years between 3,000 BC and 1,400 AD. The middle would be approximately the year 800 BC

[zapatos]

Quote

 

Basically what year would ecactly be in the middle of 3400 years ?

Depends.

The definition of a 'year' can represent the orbital period of a planetary body, an approximation of the number of days in Earth's orbital period, or 31,557,600 seconds in a Julian year.

And let's not forget academic years, fiscal years, etc.

Are you starting from the beginning of the first year to the end of the last year?

Are we counting days, so that we have to include leap years?

Are we using one calendar over another?

If you are not going to be any more precise in your question then you can pick either of the two years surrounding the time that equally divides your total. 

Edited November 12, 2020 by zapatos

[Janus]

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

There's 4,400 years between 3,000 BC and 1,400 AD. The middle would be approximately the year 800 BC

4399 years.  As there is no year 0, there is only 1 year between the start of 1 BC and 1 AD, and between the start of 1AD and the start of 1400 AD, there are just 1399 full years.

Edited November 12, 2020 by Janus
coorection of typo

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

1399 years.  As there is no year 0, there is only 1 year between the start of 1 BC and 1 AD, and between the start of 1AD and the start of 1400 AD, there are just 1399 full years.

In the Gregorian calendar...

[Janus]

33 minutes ago, zapatos said:

In the Gregorian calendar...

I went back and corrected the typo, that 1339  years should have be 4399 years . The Gregorian calendar wasn't introduced until 1582, so it wouldn't have been in effect over this time period.

But even if you take the difference between 1399 Julian years and 1399 Gregorian years, it only works out to be  ~34 days.

 

[zapatos]

41 minutes ago, Janus said:

But even if you take the difference between 1399 Julian years and 1399 Gregorian years, it only works out to be  ~34 days.

 

The Hindu calendar has a year zero.

[Occcams5]

I did the math and came to 700 BC

[michel123456]

7 hours ago, Occcams5 said:

I did the math and came to 700 BC

4399 years/2 = 2199.5 before 1400

1400 minus 2199.5 gives -799.5 minus year zero thus 800.5 BC

Or 3000 minus 2199.5 = 800.5 BC

 

And FYI (from http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS.html )

[Janus]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

The Hindu calendar has a year zero.

But since the OP specifically used "BC" and "AD", which are not used in the Hindu calendar, that is not relevant here.

[Bartholomew Jones]

On 11/11/2020 at 7:09 PM, Occcams5 said:

What year would be between 3000 BC 1400 AD

Unless we know the definite number of solar years there's no answer.

[Bartholomew Jones]

Do we really even know the speed of light?  How can we?  A projectile diminishes in velocity perpetually as it approaches a terminal point, correct?

It also must of necessity arc, yes?

Somebody said curiosity killed the cat.  Then they said, how curious was the cat?

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Do we really even know the speed of light?  

This site may be a bit advanced for you.

[Bartholomew Jones]

I know.  It's a theory.  Theories are stated as fact.  That's science.

It's an explanation, right?  Not an answer.

No, it's just that a theory to me goes like this: "it seems..."  But science people (pardon if I seem to use a slur) say it like this: "such is the case."  That bothers me somewhat; actually a lot.  But I can't abandon science because regardless, I always say, science (in its purity) is one very useful way of looking at nature.

[MigL]

"Such is the case" that this is a Science Forum, and "it seems" that your post is derailing this thread.
Please post this kind of crap as a separate topic, in the Speculation forum, where it can be properly ( and easily ) debunked for lack of evidence and general ignorance.

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

No, it's just that a theory to me goes like this: "it seems..."  But science people (pardon if I seem to use a slur) say it like this: "such is the case."  That bothers me somewhat; actually a lot. 

Are you planning anything for Christmas?

Or is that silly because it merely "seems" like it will turn up in 2 or 3 weeks' time?

[Bartholomew Jones]

With due respect you're missing my point, which is incidental anyway.  A theory to me should go like this: "this seems to always lead to this..."  I'm not saying that everything that sounds like "this seems to lead to this..." is a theory.  It's the converse, the former, that should always hold true, it seems to me.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Do we really even know the speed of light?  How can we?  A projectile diminishes in velocity perpetually as it approaches a terminal point, correct?

It also must of necessity arc, yes?

Somebody said curiosity killed the cat.  Then they said, how curious was the cat?

If it were a measured value, it will be measured to some level of certainty. The arc of the path is something that can be quantified and accounted for. (c is now a defined value, so these uncertainties show up in measurements that depend on c)

As far as "A projectile diminishes in velocity perpetually as it approaches a terminal point" goes, I can't figure out what you mean. Do you have an example?

[Bartholomew Jones]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

If it were a measured value, it will be measured to some level of certainty. The arc of the path is something that can be quantified and accounted for. (c is now a defined value, so these uncertainties show up in measurements that depend on c)

As far as "A projectile diminishes in velocity perpetually as it approaches a terminal point" goes, I can't figure out what you mean. Do you have an example?

Yeah, you shoot an arrow from a bow.  The velocity constantly diminishes, correct?  But then with gravity it accelerates, so it's negative.  With a beam or a bead of light it would seem to have to diminish.  It seems the velocity of light can't be constant.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Yeah, you shoot an arrow from a bow.  The velocity constantly diminishes, correct?  But then with gravity it accelerates, so it's negative.  With a beam or a bead of light it would seem to have to diminish. 

Light doesn't suffer from air resistance in the same way as an arrow. The speed is constant for light, even in a medium (and in this case, a sparse medium).

The deflection of light by a body as massive as the sun is hard to measure (~1.75 arc seconds for grazing incidence). The deflection by the earth is proportionally smaller. An arrow spends a lot more time in flight, so the cumulative effects would be expected to be larger (even before accounting for the difference between Newtonian gravity and general relativity predictions of the deflection of light) 

 

17 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

It seems the velocity of light can't be constant.

 Yes, well there's rather more to it than your not-very-rigorous analysis uncovers.

Light waves having to travel at c is a discovery of electrodynamics which would be a good place to start — if you've studied electrodynamics.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Light doesn't suffer from air resistance in the same way as an arrow. The speed is constant for light, even in a medium (and in this case, a sparse medium).

The deflection of light by a body as massive as the sun is hard to measure (~1.75 arc seconds for grazing incidence). The deflection by the earth is proportionally smaller. An arrow spends a lot more time in flight, so the cumulative effects would be expected to be larger (even before accounting for the difference between Newtonian gravity and general relativity predictions of the deflection of light) 

 

 Yes, well there's rather more to it than your not-very-rigorous analysis uncovers.

Light waves having to travel at c is a discovery of electrodynamics which would be a good place to start — if you've studied electrodynamics.

 

I can't afford too thorough a scientific study.  I'm a strong believer that you may only, always ever have a partial set of all the relevant facts; which necessitates (for example a mother's) intuitive judgment.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I can't afford too thorough a scientific study.  I'm a strong believer that you may only, always ever have a partial set of all the relevant facts; which necessitates (for example a mother's) intuitive judgment.

That's not going to mix too well with physics, which may or may not follow one's intuition, and benefits from having more facts at one's disposal. It's certainly not a justification for pontificating on topics you haven't studied. It's a justification for asking questions and learning. (and free scientific resources for learning are available, should you choose to avail yourself of them)