Talk:11th millennium and beyond

For a July 2005 discussion to delete this article see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/14th millenium AD and beyond

References

I am recovering the references wrongly dismissed as spam. I initially rejected all of these astronomical events because the standard equations used to generate them, such as those in Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus, are invalid beyond about the year 6000, especially when the moon is involved. But after reading Simultaneous transits of Mercury and Venus I was reassured that the author, Marco Peuschel, was aware of the limitations of the "simple" computing methods and used methods that were reasonably accurate in this future realm. Of prime importance was the collaboration of Meeus and Vitagliano in writing the scholarly paper Simultaneous Transits. Thus these links are necessary in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and are bona fide references. However, the original number of links was excessive, so I am reducing them to the minimum needed, and placing them in a References section (not in an External links section). — Joe Kress 6 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

Fine by me (I was the one who deleted them), and I'm sorry I didn't had the idea to do just so. Well... I can't understand German so I couldn't check its quality but thats no excuse. --Nabla 2005-07-07 04:01:26 (UTC)

PS: I think there is no need to say that «These are true references, not just tangentially related external links.». At I would believe they are references since they are properly placed as such. --Nabla 2005-07-07 04:04:45 (UTC)

I added the reference qualifier because I was concerned that someone may change these references to external links, but I can probably prevent that as long as I monitor it. I do not like to include foreign language references, except when they are the only ones available. But the article by Meeus and Vitagliano is in English, and is not too technical. — Joe Kress 7 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

I understood that. But now I think they are just perfect! -Nabla 2005-07-07 16:14:40 (UTC)

Cosmological events

How about

5,000,000,000 Earth's present orbit expected to be swallowed by Sun. ??????? Majority of stars extinguished. ??????? Protons decay....

etc. 03:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

and dont forget about the fate of the moon, and other of earth's satelites!!! just sayin... Masterhand10^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

um?

Is there an outlet somewhere for people who don't beleive in this sort of thing? I mean the idea that the sun will expand, and star sa dn other stuff, is based on the ridiculous notion that the universe is billions of years old, some people know better that to take that kind of crackpot bull at face value--~~--03:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)~

• What are you talking about?

The outlet for that can be found at http://chat.aol.com/  freshgavin TALK   06:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You must be one of those believing that God created everything last week? Norum (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I must agree, this doesn't sound like crap.--207.68.234.177 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

End of the world

The end of the world is in the year 6,000,000,000? I had better get my will in order...! The "end of the world" Will NEVER happen. Sorry, I couldn't resist. BevanFindlay 03:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't bother with your will. The paper it's written on shall be consumed in an instant by the intolerable heat of the ever-expanding and hellish furnace that used to be our beloved sun. And don't expect the ozone layer to save your will, for it too will be consumed as a trifle. On the plus side, you won't have to pay for a cremation.  ;->

--L. 19:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.65.50 (talk • contribs)

I'm sure paying for your cremation is the last thing on all dead peoples minds.

Tommyhaych 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1. ~700,000,000 (seven hundred million): The Earth's oceans start to evaporate and the Earth becomes uninhabitable. [1] Future civilization may avoid this by using advanced technology to manually move the Earth further away from the Sun (or entirely leave Earth altogether in a mass exodus to other habitable planets or on space colonies).
2. ~3,000,000,000 (three billion): The Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way Galaxy are predicted to collide (they may merge and become one larger galaxy, but only a small percentage of stars will actually collide with other stars mostly because of the vastness of space).
3. ~5,000,000,000 (five billion): The Sun becomes a red giant and all life on Earth, possibly Earth itself, is destroyed, barring unforeseen circumstances, unless advanced technology can prevent this.
4. ~7,000,000,000 (seven billion): The Sun becomes a white dwarf about the size of the Earth.
5. ~1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion): The Sun becomes a black dwarf.
6. ~1,000,000,000,000,000 (one quadrillion): The Big Freeze according to many cosmologists. Intelligent life existing then may flee to other universes, as suggested by the physicist Michio Kaku.

That blew....now I am sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.245.183 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers?

You're joking right? The Future is Wild is going to be spoiled? A documentary, spoiled? The world will end in approximately 5-6 billion years time? That's a spoiler?

Who says Wikipedia has no sense of humour? The only possible spoiler I can see would be the Babylon 5 reference and as that doesn't really affect the main show, it probably won't spoil much. The others are simply time location details and the entire premise of Red Dwarf is based upon what's shown here, so it's as much a spoiler as saying "Star Trek is set in space." Is there a need for this that I've missed? - Hayter 12:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

6-7 billion years time (about, I'm guessing-Give or take 2 billion)Year 2144 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Andromeda and Milky Way collision

Added the scientific prediction of when the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies will collide and topped the Science Fiction mini section to the link to the actual Official Timeline of fictional future events

I applaud that edit. But I don't think it goes far enough; we should move all the fictional section to the Timeline of fictional future events and just link to that from here. Or maybe there's something about wikipedia standards that says differently, but I don't know about. (Okay there's lots of wikipedia standards I don't know about, but I continue working on that project. :-) --L. 19:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.65.50 (talk • contribs)

All the numbers in the date are the same

"(May 5, 5555 does not work, because it is actully 05/05/5555 05:55 AM 55 seconds"

Why would there actually be zeroes in the date? 64.194.45.67 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Because many software implementations of calendars and clocks display a two-digit date and month (MM/DD/YYYY or DD/MM/YYYY depending on locale) regardless of whether two digits are actually necessary. Ubernostrum 06:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, that's more of a glitch than a dating convention. Furthermore, it's a relatively recent phenomenon that came with the Information Age (in the past, unnecessary zeroes would have never or very rarely used in the date). As this is an arbitrary coincidence of minimal significance and not a notable event that will happen in 10,000 years, I have removed it. --shadow box 20:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Falsity in the article

While many will view this as nitpicking, I think that this counts as a separate occurance:

There has been a time since November 11th, 1,111 at 11:11 AM when it was all one number: November 11th, 1,111 at 11:11 PM. Same goes for the thng that we'll have to wait until 111,111 for this to happen, it occurs twice in one day. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess I missed the note - but still, why does it have to be military time? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people in other countries use 24 hour time. - andypham3000

It's called a palindrome, of a special class, I can't remember the name. Just for curiosity's sake, in February 20th, 2002 at 20:02 PM (Read "20/02/2002 20:02" on DD/MM/YYYY) it also happened, but it was a normal palindrome, because it had more than one number on it. It's not anything of big importance, just a funny thing to notice (: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.182.161 (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

cmon!

700,000,000 (seven hundred million): The Earth's oceans start to evaporate and the Earth becomes uninhabitable. [1] Future civilization may avoid this by using advanced technology to move the Earth further away from the Sun (or entirely leave Earth altogether in a mass exodus to other habitable planets or on space colonies). 3,000,000,000 (three billion): The Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way Galaxy are predicted to collide (they may merge and become one larger galaxy, but only a small percentage of stars will actually collide with other stars mostly because of the vastness of space). 5,000,000,000 (five billion): The Sun becomes a red giant and all life on Earth, possibly Earth itself, is destroyed, barring unforeseen circumstances, unless advanced technology can prevent this. 7,000,000,000 (seven billion): The Sun becomes a white dwarf about the size of the Earth. 1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion): The Sun becomes a black dwarf. 1,000,000,000,000,000 (one quadrillion): The Big Freeze according to many cosmologists. Intelligent life existing then may flee to other universes, as suggested by the physicist Michio Kaku. 10¹⁰⁰ (one googol): If the theory of black hole evaporation is correct, it is predicted by many astronomers that all the black holes in our universe will evaporate by around this year.

Look at the source, copyright '97. This is totaly wrong, there is no REAL proof to back this up, i say DELETE it. This crap makes wikipedia look stupid.

I can make the same stuff up too, 1 quadbillion, trillion years from now, the universe will start again.

If I don't see this gone soon, ill get rid of it myself.

Colinstu 18:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy if it were moved to a separate article with a more speculative tag, but I don't see any reason why we should't quote that source, or The Five Ages of the Universe (ISBN 0684865769) for general speculation of future events. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's pretty standard physics taught in universities across the world. See almost any pop sci book by authors like Stephen Hawking or Michio Kaku for examples.

The beauty about this article is that the article is about the very distant future. Therefore, everything written down in this article has a chance of being true. Therefore, I believe that the article should stay. PhiEaglesfan712 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In 700,000,000,000 the earth will be ruled by ponies.Trust me, its science.--207.68.234.177 (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Similar occurrence" ?

Is this an error for "Simultaneous occurrence"? --User:Jim Henry 67.33.165.114 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Go ahead and fix it. If someone has access to a source with another meaning, they'll revert. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Events after 1,000,000

The section on the Events after 1,000,000 is biased toward the Big Bang model. It is uncertain whether these events will occur (or when) but this article states it like the absolute truth. Don't forget to include the cyclic model as well. --Ineffable3000 07:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are entirely too many cosmological models; there is no reason to include the cyclic model, plasma cosmology models, or any other theories that are not generally accepted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are three models that are equally accepted nowadays though: flat universe, closed universe, and open universe. Each one of them should be accounted for in the prediction. --Ineffable3000 04:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dune

I'm moving this entry regarding Dune here until its year can be verified. The year specified must be in the AD or CE era, otherwise it does not belong in the article.

• 10,191: House Atreides moves to Arrakis, the planet known as Dune, marking the first book, Dune, in Frank Herbert's famous six book science fiction series. Note: The years used in the Dune series are not AD, but from a far-off date in the future, the time when the machine empire collapses.

— Joe Kress 20:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dune references in this article have been removed citing this section of the Talk page as justification. However, the timeline that was referenced ([1]) does offer a point of conversion to AD/CE. Namely, 11000 BG (Before Guild) is approximately 2000 CE. One user decided to add the event of the forming of the Spacing Guild (the reference point of the Dune dating system) as 13000 CE in this article. It was deleted at least once on the claim that it was not using AD/CE, but the website referenced seems to indicate that 13000 CE would indeed be the correct year using the conversion previously stated. I do not believe the formation of a fictional organization is notable enough to include, but it was deleted with the wrong justification. What would be more appropriate would be including an item stating that the events of Dune, the best-known of the novels, taking place in the 24th millennium (10191 AG [After Guild] + 13000 BG). --Palpatine 00:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

POV Concerns

I took a shot at rectifying the POV concerns in the After 1,000,000 section. The section now acknowledges that things that far away are too speculative to predict. (I.e., you shouldn't plan your day around the listed events.) Anyone with alternative predictions can simply add them to the list, preferably with sources.

If the next person here agrees, please remove the POV tag. Thanks much! -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Events after 1,000,000; sources

I think most of them are in the article Ultimate fate of the universe or in 1 E19 s and more, and are probably sourced there. Wouldn't it be better to leave the section in with a {{cite-section}} tag? It certainly doesn't fall into WP:BLP (!). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ice Age?

There is an assertion of an ice age around the year 17000 or 18000, with nothing to back it up. I have therefore deleted it until we can get some kind of, well, evidence. Yahnatan 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop making these sad space events articles!

This article made me sad since people that are born in year 1,000,000 will get hurt so so so so so badly if im one of them! So delete articles like this (and this one too) and don't make these articles anymore!

Did you just say 'people that are born in the year 1,000,000 will get hurt so so so so so badly if im one of them'? You do realize you'll be dead, right? Parodist —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

Maybe human beings will be extinct by that time! (I'm NOT trying to make you more sad!) 124.190.60.171 12:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, its a theory, it might not even happen (although unlikley) anyways, they won't feel pain really, because they will simply perish, not gory torn apart andypham3000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.58.32 (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting and hilerious, but the most sad article is the year 10k problem --62.31.182.173 (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I say keep these because I love these kind of articles because they make me enthaustic about the future of our universe User:Agent008 Tuesday 25th March 2008 AD,12:18 AM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.219.222 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

None of you know that any of this gloom and doom will happen. By the time it does, if we are still here, (Stop counting us out) we will have the means to sustain ourselves. I recently watched a show that said even in the very last years of the universe future civilizations will still be able to live. That includes us. We just can't know because it's so far away. The predictions we make seem to always be negative. Never once is there a mention of any positive things that will happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If predictions are correct the world will end much earlier.--207.68.234.177 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

I just requested page protection successfully because anons were changing the dates. Just thought I'd document this here. --Thinboy00 @288, i.e. 05:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

≈

Should the "~"s be changed to "≈"s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novjunulo (talk • contribs) 11:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sun becomes a Black Dwarf in 17 billion years?

The Wikipedia article says that the Sun will become a black dwarf in about 10^37 years so I will change it to 10^37 years. 17 billion years is ridiculously too short. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm reverting as the 10³⁷ isn't supported by any references whereas the 17 Billion does (with [2]. Wikipedia is not a valid reference and the 10³⁷ in that article seems to be the hypothetical proton lifetime.

The reference says...In another 5 billion years, the Sun will have used up all the hydrogen in its core, then it says, The Sun will only spend one billion years as a red giant, then it says "It may take 10 billion years, but our Sun will reach the end of the line and quietly become a black dwarf." now there are some transitions from one to the other so we add an round up to nearest billion 5+1+10 rounded up is 17 billion. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be changed to a trillion years? I've seen references that state that it may take as long as a trillion years before the Sun because a complete black dwarf. 17 billion does seem too short a time from the articles I've read. Voortle (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008

I've changed it to a trillion years (UTC) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22a+trillion+years%22+%22black+dwarf%22&btnG=Google+Search On contrast, I can't find anywhere an article which states the Sun will be a black dwarf in 17 billion years http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2217+billion+years%22+%22black+dwarf%22&btnG=Search Voortle (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is NOT a reference !. Please give me a reference that says trllion years for our Sun i.e. the shinny thing that you see when you look up. Not *any* old star. Stars have a huge variety of lifespans. Some are in the millions of years, some are billions and some are trillions. E.g. 1st google link [3] talks about stars, 2nd link [4] isn't reliable and (if you read that) conjectures a phase that is different from the one we're talking about, 3rd link [5] points out your problem "A small red dwarf may live for a trillion years. A smaller to average star like our sun will live about 10 billion years. The very large and massive stars may only live 10 million years.", (4th link broken), then 5th link [6] says "It takes billions of years for white dwarfs to cool, but eventually they do, moving ever down and to the right on the HR diagram. Their fate is to end up as cold, dense, lonely chunks of matter: black dwarfs.". Please READ the actual links you provide and find a reference that SUPPORTS what you say. I have explained where the 17 billion comes from and you will not google for that as it is made up of the remaining life + red giant phase etc. This is like if I say that my car has 6 months left on the warranty and you google for the car+6 month warranty and don't get any hits. Ttiotsw (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How about 17,000,000,000,000 years then.It this 17 billion? User:Agent008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, no thats 17 Trillion (short scale). 17 Billion (short scale) would be 17,000,000,000. Wikipedia uses short scale unless otherwise noted. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful anyway to mention a specific date for our sun to turn into a black dwarf, because there is no formal definition of the difference between a white and a black dwarf. A white dwarf just gradually cools down, and is called black as soon as it is 'cold'. But when exactly is it cold? At 1000 K, 100 K or just 10 K? Furthermore, at this date (if there is life around then) nobody will notice any difference, while the transformation from red giant to white dwarf is quite an event. 130.89.172.147 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, WP:CRYSTAL

I think this doesn't belong, I think it ought to go to afd.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Book title

Could I use this article's title for my book? Sir aaron sama girl (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Titles are difficult to copyright. I don't think there's any serious objection, unless you use the material without properly attributing it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kardashev and Dyson

• ~11200: Humanity will have achieved Type III civilization under the Kardashev scale according to physicist Freeman Dyson.

Source? I doubt that Dyson is counting on FTL, which would be needed to reach Type III so soon. Type II is much more plausible. — Also: Type III civilization redirects to Kardashev scale (likewise I, II, IV, 1, 2, 3, 4). —Tamfang (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)