Talk:11th millennium and beyond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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.

[edit] 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?

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

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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] ≈

Should the "~"s be changed to "≈"s?

11:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)