Talk:Timeline of the far future

SNAP-10A

An entry dated to 2965 for the SNAP-10A needs some debate, as it is an imprecise date that could fall in either the 30th century or the beginning of this article's scope. Regardless of where it is placed, the date should be listed as "late 30th/early 31st century". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

"Years from now" problem

As I have already addressed in the article, the date for something to occur is estimated from when the prediction takes place. In other words... if someone in 1900 predicted that in 2100 we would have flying cars then the article shouldn't read "200" under "years from now". When possible we should try to mention the predicted or estimated dates in CE rather than years from "now" which is forever changing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I want to clarify that this should be for events due to occur within the next 10,000 years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

We can implement a "Date/Years from now" if there is enough precision. This would be the case for Gamma Cephei becoming the next north star, which will happen c. 4000 AD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Example: Completion of the Zeitpyramide

Markup	Result
{{round|{{sum|-{{currentyear}}|3183}}|0}}	1,157
{{round|{{sum|-{{currentyear}}|3183}}|-1}}	1,160
{{round|{{sum|-{{currentyear}}|3183}}|-2}}	1,200
{{round|{{sum|-{{currentyear}}|3183}}|-3}}	1,000

Rough amounts would be good for approximate dates, whilst more precise numbers would be good for more specific dates. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

For the record...

The reason the final addendum mentions string theory is because the string theory landscape of physical laws creates a total of $10^{10^{10^{7}}}$ possible universes, which is also functionally zero when multiplied by $10^{10^{10^{56}}}$. Serendi^podous 09:49, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Greenberg (1987)

This source is universally regarded as unreliable in the Americanist linguistic community. Glottochronology is widely considered deprecated in linguistics, and so the line According to the glottochronology linguistic model of Morris Swadesh, future languages should retain just one out of every 100 "core vocabulary" words on their Swadesh list compared to that of their current progenitors. should be removed. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The out of date tag

This is the article under discussion. Since I know nothing about statistical modelling, I will need to pass this to someone else. Serendi^podous 13:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Habitable zone of the red giant Sun's Solar System

The source claiming that Titan may be habitable when the Sun becomes a red giant does not specifically reference the tip of the red-giant branch (RGB). It only mentions a few hundred million years in the RGB in general, not the tip. The event at 7.59 billion years from now is specifically about Earth's potential engulfment, which occurs almost immediately (at this timescale) before the tip of the RGB, not the RGB in general. Schröder & Smith (2008), the very source where the 7.59 billion years for the Sun to potentially engulf Earth is derived from, mentions that the habitable zone at the tip of the RGB will range from 49.4 AU to 71.4 AU, well beyond the orbit of Saturn.

While the 7.59 Gyr (billion years) from now timeframe for Earth's engulfment mentioned by Schröder & Smith is technically slightly before the tip of the RGB, it also mentions that the Sun's current age is 4.58 Gyr and the Sun will reach the tip of the RGB at the age of 12.17 Gyr. The difference between them is 7.59 Gyr, so according to Schröder & Smith (2008), the tip of the RGB and Earth's engulfment (the time mentioned in the article) are both 7.59 Gyr, as the time between them is negligible at this timescale. Therefore, Schröder & Smith's habitable zone specifically refers to timeframe mentioned in the article (which also cites it), and it is more recent. Therefore, it should be used for the red giant Sun's habitable zone. User20260525 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

OK. Could you do that plese? Serendi^podous 09:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I already made the change, and this comment was to ensure it is not quickly reverted. User20260525 (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The galaxy collision

I've been avoiding adding the more recent date for the andromeda milky way collision, because it makes no claim of when they will collide, only when they won't. The authors weren't interested in any time beyond 10 billion years, so it's impossible to say when the two galaxies would merge. Serendi^podous 09:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Good point, but we are highly uncertain about the exact times of many events in this article, so it is impossible to pinpoint precise times for them. For example, while this article claims that the Sun will reach the tip of the RGB 7.59 billion years from now, this article (https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2023/06/aa45860-23.pdf) puts the Sun's tip-RGB time at 7.94 billion years from now (assuming the Sun is 4.58 billion years old). Schröder & Smith (2008) give precisely 7.59 billion years, so it is a slightly different case from this one, but variance between articles still means that we are uncertain of when the Sun will reach the tip of the RGB. Therefore, according to precedent in this article, it is okay to insert events without knowing a precise time for their occurrence. The time of 50% occurrence probability is also a good benchmark for event insertion, as it is the median time of an event's occurrence.

Most importantly, though, this article should be factually accurate and up to date. Millions of people have likely read this article, including many who have shared content using its information. If they see it claiming that the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy are certain to collide in 4 billion years, they will remember and potentially share this outdated information, which is not good for science. User20260525 (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Unacknowledged Repetitions

Reading the first table from start to finish, the oceans never stop evaporating, and the Earth/Moon is destroyed like three times. Bluegates11 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

These are all uncertain, and alternate events are included to account for those uncertainties. Serendi^podous 21:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but the article should reflect that. The different estimates come from different sources, so something among the lines of "According to Bob McCosmologist et al., by this date the Earth..." etc.

I don't know if that is the best idea, but I've got nothing else. As it is, it just reads like a disjointed collection of randomly-pulled dates (which, to be fair, that it is). Bluegates11 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, predictions should be attributed if there are conflicting predictions. Speaking of which, there's a new estimate for the maximum lifetime of Earth's biosphere:

Haqq‐Misra, Jacob; Wolf, Eric (16 June 2026). "Maximum Lifetime of the Vegetative Biosphere". Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 131 (11). doi:10.1029/2025JD045586.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Added. Serendi^podous 13:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)