This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)~
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)
hahaha. to answer your question...NO - there is NO accepted outlet for your religious jargon. good riddance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.206.89 ( talk • contribs) 07:41, June 4, 2010
All of you, chill out. There's a disclaimer on the page anyway. And an "outlet" is unecessary. This is an encyclopedia that includes articles that provide information on theories, ideas, proven facts, and people. Similarly, the hostility is unecessary. People can think what they wish. Some religions do teach that the universe began with a Big Bang and is expanding, some don't. But this article is for helping people learn about beliefs about the universe for their own personal purposes or for educational purposes. Not to offer "knowledge." Because, for those of you who get what I mean, what is certainty? And therefore what is knowledge? So cut the nonsense and focus on bettering the article itself, not criticising it or its critics or having the eternal science vs. theology vs. scientific theology argument. It gets us nowhere, but distracts from the basic errors throughout the site. At least write some argument for the correct usage of the semi-colon. -- DMP47 ( talk) 01:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
--L. 19:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC) — [ Unsigned comment added by 69.17.65.50 ( talk • contribs).]
That blew....now I am sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.245.183 ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 July 2006
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
"(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
WP:CRYSTAL Hotaru 16:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purple Saturn (sailormoon) ( talk • contribs)
Is this an error for "Simultaneous occurrence"? -- User:Jim Henry 67.33.165.114 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I just requested page protection successfully because anons were changing the dates. Just thought I'd document this here. -- Thin boy 00 @288, i.e. 05:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Should the "~"s be changed to "≈"s? — [ Unsigned comment added by Novjunulo ( talk • contribs).] 11:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think this doesn't belong, I think it ought to go to afd.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 14:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Could I use this article's title for my book? Sir aaron sama girl ( talk) 21:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
So umm what happens after the last year? Does the whole cycle start over and earth reforms and we don't remember any of the current world
202.180.112.229 ( talk) 09:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 03:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
How about naming this page 1 E19 s and beyond?
The table is for durations of time, not specific points in time. So beyond may be misleading, I don't know... Whatever happens in terms of renaming, ALL references must be similarily updated to avoid double redirects... Egil 11:25 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)
Also, although here pretty clear, in general beyond might be ambiguous because it depends on direction: it can mean more or less (what means 1 sec and beyond?). - Patrick 11:51 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)
Wouldn't 1 E19 s and longer be more correct in relation to duration? -- 212.105.25.105 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you think 1 E19 s and up sounds appropriate? - WadeSimMiser 00:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
About black holes decaying due to Hawking radiation: an article on astronomy in a (german) copy of Scientific American I own, written by Lawrence M. Krauss and Glenn D. Starkmann (both from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland), states that this is only due to happen at ~1098 years, not 1064. Does anyone have references that would support either estimate? -- Schnee 01:14, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Not sure where the figure 10^10^26 for decay to iron comes from. I believe the correct value is the far more modest 10^1500. Will change if no one has a credible source for the larger value. (Also, I hadn't seen the 10^10^76, but I think black hole talk is still mostly speculation.) Mentioning this is contingent on no proton decay might be important too. -- VV 09:49, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Since this page deals with the projected state of the physical universe, perhaps removal of points referencing non-physical entities adds to the article's legitimacy [i.e. "According to the traditional Vedic time of Hinduism, this is the lifetime of Brahma"]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.194.138 ( talk) 05:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, (10^10)^76 is the time in which a supermassive black hole evaporates in Hawking radiation, i.e. after that time there is no material left in the universe.
Be careful with powers of powers, (10^10)^76 = 10^760 and not 10^(10^76).
Ahh, stupid error :( Shouldn't edit tired... Jyril 17:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What does "time until positrons and electrons form positronium" mean? Positronium decays with a half-life about 10^-7 seconds.
Is not the physicist referenced at 10^1500 years, 10^several million million million years, and in the external links section, named Freeman Dyson, and not Dyson Freeman? Justin Z 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
took me a few mins to think about the last number, it nearly drove me mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.83.77 ( talk) 01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Under 'See Also', the link to the article about Asimov's fictional story seems not-quite relevant. 97.73.64.148 ( talk) 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Has it been proven (not just believed by a vast majority of scientists, but PROVEN that the entire time the universe will be before it ceases to exist is finite?? 66.245.23.71 00:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Confused: At 10^64 and 10^100 years we have black holes decaying by the Hawking process, but at (10^10^26) years we have matter collapsing into black holes again. Wouldn't these black holes again decay? Once and for all -- is the end state of the universe one big black hole (all the black holes merge) or uniform low-energy photons ( Heat death of the universe)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.57.245.11 ( talk • contribs) 5 December 2004.
First, the currently existing solar black holes will evaporate. Then the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies will evaporate. Eventually, if the universe doesn't expand too quickly, all the remaining "loose" matter in the universe will collapse again to form a new "universal black hole". You're right, though--this final black hole would evaporate too, eventually, leaving nothing but photons and perhaps a quantity of matter too small to reach critical mass (which might or might not undergo proton decay). But the hypothetical eventual existance of a universal black hole is dependent on the dark energy being too small to prevent the collapse of the matter, but large enough to prevent the collapse of the universe. -- 71.146.104.66 01:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That's simply untrue:
iron-54 is stable. Some sources quote a lower limit on the order of 1022.5 years, but that's not an estimated half-life. In fact, it's consistent with stability.
—
Herbee 06:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If true, that claim would be unverifyable and thus unencyclopedic. But the very next paragraph mentions a longer timespan (10^10^10^10^10^1.1 years), which immediately falsifies this silly claim.
—
Herbee 06:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the merge proposals here to avoid cluttering the article.- Wikianon ( talk) 22:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
you can see for yourself the many differences here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/universe.html click on the link in this link that says launch interactive. nova predicts galaxies will recede beyond the cosmic light horizon 100 trillion years in the future, whereas this article says 3 trillion. nova also predicts star formation will continue well after 10^14 years (which is the time this article predicts it will cease.) there are also many other conflicts in its predictions with this article. its estimate for proton decay is also later and its predication of what will remain forever in the universe are different. it says positrons, neutrinos and photos of enormous length will remain forever. I'm not sure if its estimates are so much farther in the future because its predications are based on a flat universe rather than an open one (of course an open one is more likely), but perhaps someone should contact Nova to clarify where they get their sources. If they're wrong they should correct it on their website, if this article is wrong someone should correct it here. but sources for this article seem a bit outdated.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.170.104 ( talk) 10:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of this list seems tenuous at best. How could planets and stars be flung from their orbits after all stars have faded away, and how could they decay by gravitational radiation when they're already gone? How could galaxies still exist almost 1030 years after all stars have burned out? Why should all matter become 56Fe? This is not the most stable isotope. You state that at 1064 years "black holes" will have evaporated--this should be changed to small black holes, since as stated it is soon contradicted at 10100 years. How can tunneling effects possibly turn all matter into liquid, or indeed cause any permanent change? Why should all matter collapse into black holes at a time 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,900 orders of magnitude greater than when all supermassive black holes are gone? This seems patently absurd. How the hell could new black holes form in an expanding, starless, black-holeless universe? Also, why would this time have any practicle meaning in a theory of physics that has difficulty determining what will happen in billions of years, let alone the high orders of magnitude uesd in other clames (up to 101500 even!!) But when the order of magnitude is so large it's written in scienitific notation, you clearly have problems.
The final entry is "infinity years," which not only makes no sense (as written, infinity is not a number but a limit. Using an infinity that actually is a number, like c, wouldn't make things any better either). Then the actual entry itself says the universe will probably end in a heat death, but this clearly contradicts the obscenely humongous entry before it stating a time the whole universe will end up as black holes. Further, it discusses what might happen after heat death, specifically possibly a collapse. A universe cannot collapse after a heat death, or else it would not be a heat death. There is also no mention of the fact that all experimental evidence points against such a collapse. Further, how could a collapse occur infinitely in the future (or techincally as stated, after infinity years into the future)?
There are also a number of straight-up incorrect numbers, as mentioned elsewhere in the talk, and only 2 sources sited, one of which is 30 years old (which is another reason I don't trust the 1010^76 number).
In conclusion, unless somebody can completely overhaul this article, I think it should be heavily tagged as inaccurate, unverified, improbable, and inconsistent. Since it's a brief, relatively uninformative article anyways, perhaps it should just be deleted. Eebster the Great ( talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
i agree. this article contradicts itself and is highly inaccurate but i don't think it should be erased. nova has a similar article about the fate of the universe on a very long time scale here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/universe.html. the dates are very different and I contacted nova to see where they got their sources for the article, but no reply as of yet. if the sources are less outdated this article should be changed to be consistent with these sources.
I am just wondering if stars are gone in 100-200 trillion years how can planets deatttach from them in 10^15(one Quadrillion) years? Does this make sense? Please let me know? Another thing is that if stars cease forming in 100 trillion years why would it take an additional 100 trillion years for those stars to burn out if the longest stars can only exist for 14 trillion years? If stellar formation stops in 100 trillion years and stars can exist for no more than 14 trillion years how do they exist for another 100 trillion years? Please let me know. Thank You Maldek ( talk) 08:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
If stellar formation stops in 10-100 trillion years how can the last star remain for 200 trillion years if the longest star has a maximum life of 14 trillion years? Where are the sources for this information? There are way too many inconsistiences and errors and nobody is responding to me, so I will just fix the article myself, if somebody is interested contact me and please help. Maldek ( talk) 01:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is the official source for the large numbers I use in this page
http://www.polytope.net/hedrondude/illion.htm
Hope you enjoy. Thank You.
Maldek (
talk) 04:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Justification of Large Number Names
Okay just got the message and was asked to justify the use of large number names. Thank you very much for notifying me. First of all you may be right that using exponents is a better way of representing relativiely large numbers. The point is I am still keeping the exponents in there so that everyone can easily refer to it but in addition I am giving scientific names in addition. Numbers up to 10^3003 (One Millillion) are commonly used. Above One Millillion are names of numbers that are not commonly used as you may have seen in the source I gave you. Up to a Millillion (10^3003) you will find everywhere but numbers above that can still be found in many places but they may not be listed in encyclopedias. The point is I am not taking away the exponets and I am not listing any names of numbers above 10^3003, heck not even close to 10^3003. I just felt I should add something to it. Another thing is that I think exponents do confuse people. The thing is that before I started editing this article I was confused because of so many inconsistencies within the article. As you can see I have added many questions on the discussion page in an attempt to understand these apparent inconsistencies. After a while none of my questions were answered so I did extensive research on the subject matter to find out the truth. After a few weeks I got the answers to my questions. I have already discussed all of the changes on the talk page but for those weeks nobody was interested in this article or what I had to say, so I took it upon myself to improve this article. As I just mentioned I have notifed this on the discussion page. I do understand that there are no quotes in the article supplied by me, but that is because I do not know how to put quotes in the article. I mean I know how to do it, but I don’t know how to do it without it appearing in the article, you know like how to do foot note style. Anyways in my original edits whenever I used a new piece of information I wrote down the URL of the website in the edit summary on the bottom of every Wikipedia summary. I would really appreciate it if I could find out how to do footnotes, but you can always look at the source found it my edits that I included when I first supplied new information. Another thing you might be interested in knowing is that I also had to change lot of the content of the articles because I understand Wikipedia does not tolerate plagiarism. The sad thing is that plagiarism of this article and 1 E19 s and more have both been plagiarized. Before I started editing these two articles both of them were exact copies of articles on the internet. I had to change them so they that they were not plagiarized. Here are the URL’s of the two plagiarized articles. This is the original article plagiarized by the Wikipedia article Heat death of the Universe http://www.tripatlas.com/Heat_death_of_the_universe
You should look at this site and compare this article with this Wikipedia article before I ever started editing this article. What you will notice is that it is exactly same word for word. Even the pictures are all the same, except for one picture of an asteroid that was taken off a couple months ago. But if you go back even further you will see that the asteroid was also originally there in this article. As you can see this source is not even listed as a source even though it was copied word for word. In fact it was never listed word for word and this deceit has been going on for many years. The fact that this Wikipedia article is plagiarized and had many inconsistencies is why I had to change it. I do not know how to do footnotes but I will post all of my sources on the discussion page and explain my edits. Thank you for informing me and just in case you are interested I will show you the article that 1 E19 s and more plagiarized. It is listed below. http://www.openencyclopedia.net/index.php/1_E19_s_and_more
I stumbled upon these two articles while I was extensively researching in search of the truth. Thank you once again and if you have any questions please ask. Maldek (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1_E19_s_and_more"
{{reflist}}
to the end of the article. Then, whenever you want to insert a footnote, use the <ref>
and </ref>
tags to surround the footnote text. For example, if you wanted to say that 2+2=4 and credit this fact to the January 3, 2005 issue of Science, p. 183, write: 2+2=4<ref>p. 183, ''Science'', January 3, 2005.</ref>
.Justification of Large Number Names
Okay just got the message and was asked to justify the use of large number names. Thank you very much for notifying me. First of all you may be right that using exponents is a better way of representing relativiely large numbers. The point is I am still keeping the exponents in there so that everyone can easily refer to it but in addition I am giving scientific names in addition. Numbers up to 10^3003 (One Millillion) are commonly used. Above One Millillion are names of numbers that are not commonly used as you may have seen in the source I gave you. Up to a Millillion (10^3003) you will find everywhere but numbers above that can still be found in many places but they may not be listed in encyclopedias. The point is I am not taking away the exponets and I am not listing any names of numbers above 10^3003, heck not even close to 10^3003. I just felt I should add something to it. Another thing is that I think exponents do confuse people. The thing is that before I started editing this article I was confused because of so many inconsistencies within the article. As you can see I have added many questions on the discussion page in an attempt to understand these apparent inconsistencies. After a while none of my questions were answered so I did extensive research on the subject matter to find out the truth. After a few weeks I got the answers to my questions. I have already discussed all of the changes on the talk page but for those weeks nobody was interested in this article or what I had to say, so I took it upon myself to improve this article. As I just mentioned I have notifed this on the discussion page. I do understand that there are no quotes in the article supplied by me, but that is because I do not know how to put quotes in the article. I mean I know how to do it, but I don’t know how to do it without it appearing in the article, you know like how to do foot note style. Anyways in my original edits whenever I used a new piece of information I wrote down the URL of the website in the edit summary on the bottom of every Wikipedia summary. I would really appreciate it if I could find out how to do footnotes, but you can always look at the source found it my edits that I included when I first supplied new information. Another thing you might be interested in knowing is that I also had to change lot of the content of the articles because I understand Wikipedia does not tolerate plagiarism. The sad thing is that plagiarism of this article and 1 E19 s and more have both been plagiarized. Before I started editing these two articles both of them were exact copies of articles on the internet. I had to change them so they that they were not plagiarized. Here are the URL’s of the two plagiarized articles. This is the original article plagiarized by the Wikipedia article Heat death of the Universe http://www.tripatlas.com/Heat_death_of_the_universe
You should look at this site and compare this article with this Wikipedia article before I ever started editing this article. What you will notice is that it is exactly same word for word. Even the pictures are all the same, except for one picture of an asteroid that was taken off a couple months ago. But if you go back even further you will see that the asteroid was also originally there in this article. As you can see this source is not even listed as a source even though it was copied word for word. In fact it was never listed word for word and this deceit has been going on for many years. The fact that this Wikipedia article is plagiarized and had many inconsistencies is why I had to change it. I do not know how to do footnotes but I will post all of my sources on the discussion page and explain my edits. Thank you for informing me and just in case you are interested I will show you the article that 1 E19 s and more plagiarized. It is listed below. http://www.openencyclopedia.net/index.php/1_E19_s_and_more
I stumbled upon these two articles while I was extensively researching in search of the truth.
Thank you once again and if you have any questions please ask.
Maldek (
talk) 19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the Earth's fate is well-settled; a 2008 paper argues that it probably will be destroyed, while a 1993 paper argues that it will survive, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if further work (if anyone does it) turns up new effects that will change the picture yet again. Since these models can never really be tested observationally and the topic really isn't relevant to this page anyway, I changed the wording ( diff) to simply allow either possibility, with a link to Formation and evolution of the Solar System, which is the proper place to address all possibilities in detail. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)