2010 was the start of the new decade

2010 is the start of the new decade.
Some people do not relaise this because of two errors.
1. The concept of zero only developed in the ninth century in India. So year one bc was counted as what was in reality year 0.
2. I think some people are confused as they cannot understand why counting would start from 0 instead of 1.
The year some do not realize this as they are focused by the anachronistic errors of those Gregorian calender. The concept of zero developed in the ninth century so they did not have a year zero, Yet the term, BC means before Christ. How can Jesus have been born in a year before Christ. The year 1 bc should be renamed as year zero. As it was not before Christ. It was the year Christ was born.
I am fed up with this new argument that the year 2000 was not the start of the new millennium and that the year 2010 was not the start of the new decade.
I think some people are confused as they cannot understand why counting would start from 0 instead of 1. They think that 10 is the last year of the decade. As they think people count from 1 to 10. In reality all counting is done from 0 to 9. You do not start with nothing and say you are starting from 1. When starting from nothing you start at 0. OK so some point out that in the Greogrian calender there is no year zero just a year 1 bc followed by AD 1. But according to this Jesus was born in Year bc 1. Which means that according to their own logic Jesus was born in the the year 1 Before Christ. Well how does that make sense. All that shows is they were confused as in those days they did not have a zero. The concept of zero was only created
The fact is the year 2010 is the first year of the new decade.
When people are born they are 0 years old by day two they are o years and one day old. So history started at year o. You start counting from 0 not 1.
Everything is counted from zero not one. When you count money, you count from 0 not one. If you see only half a pence you count only half a pence not 1 and a half pence.
You do not say we have no money until we have 1 pence. The counting started at 0 pence and moved up to half a pence. The same with years. The new decade starts at year 0 because there have been o full years of the decade. At the end of the first year there has been 1 full year so year one of the decade.

The year one is not when time is counted from. Time is counted from year 0.
The first decade started off at year 0. By the second day it was still year 0. Year 1 January the first was one full year.
When you say your first decade of life that is 0 - 9. When you reach 10 that is the start of a new decade starting with the second
http://isleofmanhouses.blogspot.com/
OK so some claim there was no year zero. So technically that means history started at year one in the Gregorian calender. So my theory is wrong at first glance. But surely that is because the greogrian cleander is counting year zero as 1bc, simply because they did not know about the concept of zero.
So all we have to do is recognize 1 bc was year zero. But only because According to some studies year 1 bc was followed by year 1 AD there was no year zero. Yet we know better than that the Pope should say year 1 BC was year 0. Incarnation of Jesus (conception on late March and birth on late December), as assigned by Dionysius Exiguus in his anno Domini era according to most scholars (Dionysius used the word "incarnation", but it is not known whether he meant conception or birth). However, at least one scholar thinks Dionysius placed the incarnation of Jesus in the next year, AD 1. Most modern scholars do not consider Dionysius' calculations authoritative, placing the event several years earlier (see Chronology of Jesus).
Anno Domini (abbreviated as AD or A.D., sometimes found in the irregular form Anno Domine) and Before Christ (abbreviated as BC or B.C.) are designations used to number years in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. The calendar era to which they refer is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus, with AD denoting years after the start of this epoch, and BC denoting years before the start of this epoch. There is no year zero in this scheme, so the year AD 1 immediately follows the year 1 BC.
But they were wrong too.
Dionysius is best-known as the inventor of the Anno Domini era, which is used to number the years of both the Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar. He used it to identify the several Easters in his Easter table, but did not use it to date any historical event. When he devised his table, Julian calendar years were identified by naming the consuls who held office that year — he himself stated that the "present year" was "the consulship of Probus Junior [Flavius Probus]", which he also stated was 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ". How he arrived at that number is unknown. He invented a new system of numbering years to replace the Diocletian years that had been used in an old Easter table because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians. The Anno Domini era became dominant in Western Europe only after it was used by the Venerable Bede to date the events in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, completed in 731.
The guy who invented the numbering idea specifically said this was years from the birth of jesus. Plus as the whole numbering system is made up. What should happen is 1 bc should be reognised as year 1 as according to the books jesus was born in 1 bc. Which means it was year 0. So what is the greogrian calemnder makers

By the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, the Babylonian mathematics had a sophisticated sexagesimal positional numeral system. The lack of a positional value (or zero) was indicated by a space between sexagesimal numerals. By 300 BCE, a punctuation symbol (two slanted wedges) was co-opted as a placeholder in the same Babylonian system. In a tablet unearthed at Kish (dating from about 700 BCE), the scribe Bêl-bân-aplu wrote his zeros with three hooks, rather than two slanted wedges.

The Babylonian placeholder was not a true zero because it was not used alone. Nor was it used at the end of a number. Thus numbers like 2 and 120 (2×60), 3 and 180 (3×60), 4 and 240 (4×60), looked the same because the larger numbers lacked a final sexagesimal placeholder. Only context could differentiate them.

Records show that the ancient Greeks seemed unsure about the status of zero as a number. They asked themselves, "How can nothing be something?", leading to philosophical and, by the Medieval period, religious arguments about the nature and existence of zero and the vacuum. The paradoxes of Zeno of Elea depend in large part on the uncertain interpretation of zero.

The concept of zero as a number and not merely a symbol for separation is attributed to India where by the 9th century CE practical calculations were carried out using zero, which was treated like any other number, even in case of division. The Indian scholar Pingala (circa 5th-2nd century BCE) used binary numbers in the form of short and long syllables (the latter equal in length to two short syllables), making it similar to Morse code. He and his contemporary Indian scholars used the Sanskrit word śūnya to refer to zero o.