Talk:Detailed logarithmic timeline

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Early Triassic#Smithian-Spathian extinction|Smithian-Spathian extinction]] The anchor (#Smithian-Spathian extinction) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I'm

I'm working from my long timeline and trying to choose the least controversial items, but edits are welcome. --robotwisdom 3 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

Great list. Where is that long timeline? DirkvdM 07:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping up to date

I guess as each year goes by, the events near the boundaries of the last few rows will have to be reevaluated, and moved up the chart.—GraemeMcRae^talk 16:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the years for clarity, plus a commented-out note that this was done in 2005. This should be adapted once a year. The problem is that one needs to know the exact years for events to determine whether they need to be moved up a step. Maybe those could be added too, also commented-out, so only editors will see it - specifically the ones who do the above, so they can more easily check that while they're at it. DirkvdM 07:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there doesn't seem to be an order in the events mentioned. Neither alphabetically (which would be stupid), nor by importance or chronologically. By importance would be rather logical, although that has the risk of pov. So chronological seems to make most sense. DirkvdM 07:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I try to put things more or less in chronological order. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US bias

As is so often the case in the English Wikipedia (not surprising considering where most editors must live), there is a strong US bias in the events. Such as listing several US presidents and the San Francisco earthquake, but leaving out the Republic of China. That must be one of the major changes in world history - the end of the millennia old sequence of empires in the biggest and historically most significant country in the world. I've added that. Removing items might however upset some people, so I'll first wait for any reactions to this. How many events should be listed per 'era' anyway? DirkvdM 07:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logartihmic list of linear timelines

I found this article while looking for something different, but similar. A list of timelines which scale up/down with a factor ten. So the first one would cover the last 10 billion years, the second one the last billion years, then the last 100 million years, etc, to the last year (after that it would become a newspaper - which would still make sense, just not in this format). The first list does not cover the Big Bang, but when, and even if, that happened is uncertain, so it could be mentioned separately at the beginning, outside the lists. Each list itself would however be linear. So there would be 11 lists. The first one would be a bit boring (just the creation of the Solar system and the first life). The second one would look like something this (mya = million years ago):

1 bya first multicellular organisms

900 mya

800 mya

700 mya

600 mya first animals

500 mya first fish

400 mya first landlife

300 mya pangea

200 mya first mammals

100 mya extinction dinosaurs

This list is based on the Timeline of evolution. And there are many other timelines, but no general ones. So, basically, what I want is a combined timeline of all the existing ones (and then some, I suppose). The third timeline would be for the last 100 milion years. Of course, there could also be such lists for periods that do not end in the present. Maybe 400-500 mya would be interresting (life creeping on land). This would then go on a separate page. Of course, this could theoretically lead to an exponential explosion of timelines, but not all would be interresting enough.

Basically, this is just a different presentation of what's on this page, just more easily readable for someone who doesn't grasp logarithms (and at the same time clarifying that). And it has a much greater potential for expansion.

Does something like this already exist and if not, what should it be called? DirkvdM 08:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US bias

There is still a US bias in the last few decades. -- Beland 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

updating

if you're going to keep updating the table, you need to be aware that events will migrate up in the table. It won't do to stuff an ever expanding period of time into the last row. By the nature of a logarithmic timeline, the last row covers the shortest period (say, one year). The second-but-last row, if we're going to stick with the unintuitive 10^0.1, will then be 1.26 years. This is supposed to be a logarithmic timescale, so it should be done properly (or not at all). --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be done dynamically. Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. Konli17 (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 876

there is no concensus on a formation date for this star. see Gliese 876 , Correia, A. C. M.; Couetdic, J.; Laskar, J.; Bonfils, X.; Mayor, M.; Bertaux, J.-L.; Bouchy, F.; Delfosse, X.; Forveille, T.; Lovis, C.; Pepe, F.; Perrier, C.; Queloz, D.; Udry, S. (2010). "The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets. XIX. Characterization and dynamics of the GJ 876 planetary system". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 511: A21. arXiv:1001.4774. Bibcode:2010A&A...511A..21C. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912700. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), Saffe, C.; Gómez, M.; Chavero, C. (2005). "On the Ages of Exoplanet Host Stars". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 443 (2): 609–626. Bibcode:2005A&A...443..609S. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053452. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Zeimusu | Talk page 23:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Way

I removed an entry in the 2.5Ga-2Ga section stating that the Milky Way was created by the collision of 2 galaxies. The reference was an article about the Milky Way colliding with another galaxy 2Ga ago, NOT about the Milky Way being created then.... according to Wikipedia's Milky Way page, the oldest star in the Milky Way is 13Ga old and the galactic disk is 8.8Ga old... if we want a Milky Way creation event in the timeline, then it should be either of these 2 events, not a collision 2Ga ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobus2 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the wording. The oldest star by the way may be older than the galaxy. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valsequillo Basin and Cactus Hill

User Dougweller has removed the mentions of the Valsequillo Basin "footprints" and the Cactus Hill artefacts. I think we should leave them in. In the case of the "footprints", we say "possible human footprints". This doesn't mean that they are definitely footprints. But it does direct people to the subject so they can try to evaluate it for themselves. In the case of Cactus Hill, the artefacts exist. I don't understand Dougweller's comment. In any case, I don't think the few words on these two subjects are worth an "edit war" and using up Wikimedia's disk space by creating more and more old versions, just because we don't agree about whether to let people know about these possible signs of mankind's presence in America or to keep the people ignorant! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, and I should have mentioned this, is why include it at all? How does it compare with the other entries? I'm not sure it does - it would if it were agreed to be the earliest archaeological site in America, but is it? The other was the source, which was not a scientific one and put forward a pov not accepted by archaeologists.

The problem with the alleged footprints is both that it doesn't say the earliest sign of humans, and that you are ignoring the fact that the latest scientific report says they are not footprints. Given this, it clearly shouldn't be in the timeline. And you really shouldn't insult other editors, please read WP:AGF. And this article is not here to show possible signs of mankind's presence in America, other articles do that job. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for Future Events

March 16, 2880, there is a 1:300 chance of the asteroid [(29075) 1950 DA] impacting Earth. Which at a little over a kilometre in diameter, would not be a good day. Worth noting.

As a geologist, I'm a little suspicious of putting the "land too hot for life" entry in the 1Gy and greater band ; It could be significantly earlier (there are complex feedbacks between surface temperature and the greenhouse effect of water vapour). Aidan Karley (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New idea: 10 – 100 Ya: ¹³⁰
Te decays away. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring

@Gob Lofa: You say we need to discuss my modification. I'm simply carrying out the restructuring that you started. What do you suggest? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way it looks. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gob Lofa: Well, you changed the break points for the first few billion years, but you didn't do it for the rest, so it wasn't consistent. I actually think it's better the way you started to do it. I had been thinking for the last couple years that it would be good to put the break points in between the R10 Renard numbers. That way, if we have a date for something such as "1 million years ago", we don't have to decide whether to put it in the slot "1 Ma to 900 ka" or "1.26 Ma to 1 Ma", we can just put it in the slot "1.1 Ma to 900 ka". I also discovered yesterday that the rounded R20 Renard numbers are nicer -- you don't have 1.26, or 6.3 anymore.

So now, after my edit, the whole thing is nice and neat and consistent.

By the way, what do you mean by "true north discovered"? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the concept of true north was discovered for the first time, in China if memory serves. That's not a bad point about break points, but I was horrified that you'd lumped the whole of the last 5.5 years in together. The year is our basic unit here. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gob Lofa: All right, I'll break up the last 5.5 years again. I thought it was easier to lump them because there wouldn't be as much material in each slot. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you end with a year like I did? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gob Lofa: The trouble is that to maintain the systematic logarithmic structure, the breaks would have to be at 5.5, 4.5, 3.5, 2.8, 2.2, 1.8, 1.4, 1.1, and 0.9 years. In any case, we have to lump the most recent events into one group (as you have also done) or else we will have an infinite number of slots. So I thought the best would be to lump the last 5.5 years. That way we wouldn't have to deal with fractions of a year. Then, when you objected to that, I split it up, going down to the 2.2 year break. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it. The last unit should be a whole year, covering the last year. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gob Lofa: So how do we make it logarithmic for the last 7 years? Or should we just abandon the logarithmic aspect for the last 7 years and put seven separate years? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We start at the bottom, rather than the top. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gob Lofa: Can you explain? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last entry covers one year, the last year. The second last one, a slightly longer period. And so on. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gob Lofa: But the lengths of time from break points until now is meant to change logarithmically. (That's how it is in the rest of this table.) The ratio of one length to the next is 10^0.1, which is about 1.26. So if we put a break at 1 year ago, then the previous break should be at 1.26 years ago (only 0.26 years earlier), and the one before that at 1.6 years ago (giving a slot of 1.6 minus 1.26 or 0.34 years), and before that at 2 years ago, then 2.5 years ago, et cetera. You see the problem? It would be too hard to do and too hard to maintain (since the break points would change from month to month). Besides, it wouldn't mesh correctly with the time intervals before that (like 9 to 7, 11 to 9, ...). That's why I proposed to lump the last 5.5 years, or the last 7 years. That way we wouldn't have to start splitting years into pieces. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be at 2.26 years ago. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gob Lofa: What would be at 2.26 years ago? The next-to-last break point? No, because the breakpoints themselves start 1.26 times further back in time for each interval backward.

Basic'ly, you can't do a logarithmic timeline in a consistent way all the way up to the present moment, because the logarithm of zero is minus infinity, so it would take an infinite number of intervals. We either have to totally ignore everything that has happened in the most recent so-many years (such as 5 years), or we have to lump everything in the most recent past into one exceptional slot. In order to be consistent, we need to continue putting the break points at numbers of years in the past that are numbers from the set 11, 14, 18, 22, 28, 35, 45, 55, 7, and 9, multiplied by powers of 10.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the next-to-last break point would be at 2.26 years (1 + 1.26), the one before at 3.86 etc. I've no intention of going smaller than one year, the last year, as years are the unit we're using here. We don't have to do either of the things you suggest with my way. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gob Lofa: But I've already explained why that's not good. What do you say about what I said? The way it is now, after you have reverted my edit, the last 16 years are not logarithmic. (And the earlier part is messy and inconsistent.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explained where? Gob Lofa (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ @Eric Kvaalen:. I wouldn't expect anymore objections to your restructuring. Gob Lofa has been indefinitely banned for being a sockpuppet of a highly disruptive editor. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Detailed logarithmic timeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308021341/http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/logarithmic.html to http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/logarithmic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human Bias

Human bias towards end of the chart. Why? Things still happen outside human political/religious/human bubble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:1:111:4449:F9DB:73EA:3BCC (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: External link to Deletionpedia

For context, here's a timeline of events:

December 21, 2019: Eric Kvaalen introduces the entry In general, protests of 2019. with "protests of 2019" linking to the Wikipedia article Protests of 2019.
June 15, 2020: Spartaz deletes the Protests of 2019 article following a deletion discussion and delinks "protests of 2019" afterwards.
August 19, 2020: Eric Kvaalen introduces an external link to Protests of 2019's entry on Deletionpedia.
July 18, 2021: Kuru removes the link.
July 21, 2021: Eric Kvaalen restores the link.
July 22, 2021: Ionmars10 removes the link.
July 31, 2021: Eric Kvaalen restores the link again.
November 28, 2021: Kuru removes the link again.
December 27, 2021: Eric Kvaalen restores the link again.
April 9, 2022: I start editing the article to expand the Future table.
April 23, 2022: Kuru removes the link again.
July 27, 2022: Eric Kvaalen restores the link again.
July 30, 2022: I remove the link.
August 4, 2022: Eric Kvaalen restores the link again.

The discussion I wish to start here concerns the "protests of 2019" entry and whether or not it should contain the aforementioned Deletionpedia link. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protests of 2019 do not appear to be one connected event. If Eric wants to highlight a protest in its own right, that would be a different discussion. CurryCity (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there should not be a link to Deletionpedia. What this timeline shows is one editor repeatedly restoring a link removed by multiple other editors, without even mentioning it in his otherwise informative edit summaries. This hidden note is rather peculiar, too. The reason the article was deleted was that the community discussion determined that it did not belong on Wikipedia, which in itself means that we don't "want to give people access to the article". There is no possible policy-compliant reason to have such a link, and the consensus against it is clear. --bonadea contributions talk 14:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subparts

Is it okay if we put each table inside a label you an close. This way would be easier to navigate this article Ericulture (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having the same idea in my head, but for images. While text can be ignored, some people may not be comfortable with having certain pictures in their peripheral vision while reading the text next to them. They would either have to try to manually cover those images with their hands as they scroll through, try to read articles in the editor, or try an existing image-hiding method that may be as tricky to set up as assembling furniture. In this case, it would be convenient to give readers the ability to manually collapse individual images from the get-go. If that is implemented, the ^[hide] button should be on top of each image so readers aren't forced to see the entirety of each one before they can hide it from themselves. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Future table

Partial sample – up to 55 ka

Time interval	Event
0 – 7 years (2023–2030)	Planned launch of Nova-C. Planned launch of Psyche. Next Pakistani general election, if not sooner. 2023 Polish parliamentary election, if not sooner. Next Bangladeshi general election, if not sooner. Expected establishment of the East African Confederation. Planned launches of Aditya-L1, SLIM, and XRISM. Bulgaria expected to adopt the euro. 2024 Finnish presidential election. 2024 Indonesian general election. Planned maiden voyage of the Dream Chaser. Planned launch of Türksat 6A. 2024 Russian presidential election. Planned launch of EarthCARE. Next Indian general election, if not sooner. Planned launch of NASA's Artemis 2. Proposed launch of the CNSA's Interstellar Express. Planned launch of NASA's SPHEREx probe. 2024 Mexican presidential election. 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris. The Vera C. Rubin Observatory sees first light. Planned launch of the MMX space probe. Planned launch of the Europa Clipper. 2024 Uruguayan general election. 2024 United States presidential election. Planned launch of the SMILE spacecraft. #dearMoon project proposal. Planned launches of Biomass, Boeing Starliner-1, FIRE and Luna 26. Planned launch of the IMAP. Planned launches of the Solar Cruiser, SWFO-L1, and the Lunar Trailblazer. Expo 2025 in Osaka, Japan. 2025 Polish presidential election. Planned launch of Luna 27. Planned launch of Spektr-UV. Proposed launch of the Trident spacecraft, assuming no delays. Next Israeli legislative election, if not sooner. Planned launches of Artemis 3, ALTIUS, Chang'e 6, FLEX, LUPEX, and Tianwen-2. Proposed launches of ISOCHRON and the Moon Diver. ITER expected to be completed. Kazakhstan gradually transitions to the Latin alphabet. 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy. 2026 FIFA World Cup in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. 250th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence. Proposed launch of the MUSE mission, assuming no delays. Planned launches of Chang'e 7, FORUM, NEO Surveyor, and PLATO. Proposed launches of Icebreaker Life and Laplace-P. Scheduled launch of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, if not sooner. Planned launch of NASA's Dragonfly. Asteroid (137108) 1999 AN₁₀ passes within 388,960 km (0.0026 AU) of Earth. Planned launches of NASA's Artemis 4 and Artemis 5 and Roscosmos' Luna 28. Anticipated release of the autopsy report for Elvis Presley and the FBI archived records of Martin Luther King Jr. USS Enterprise (CVN-80) to be commissioned. Expected first light of the Thirty Meter Telescope and the Extremely Large Telescope. Independence of Bougainville. Planned launch of Artemis 4. 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. Asteroid (35396) 1997 XF₁₁ passes 930,000 km (0.0062 AU) from the Earth. Romania expected to adopt the euro. Scheduled establishment of the African Monetary Union. Planned launches of Artemis 5, LiteBIRD, Rosalind Franklin. Proposed launch of the Io Volcano Observer. Planned launch of NASA's DAVINCI. Proposed launch of Tianwen-4. Planned launch of Venera-D. The digital time capsule "A Message from Earth" reaches Gliese 581 c. Planned launches of ARIEL and the Comet Interceptor. Expected first light of the Giant Magellan Telescope. Expected completion of Masdar City. Planned launch of Spektr-M. Suggested launch of OCEANUS.
7 – 9 years (2030–2032)	Planned deorbit of the International Space Station. Planned launch of VERITAS. 2032 Summer Olympics in Brisbane, Australia. Proposed launch of the THESEUS space telescope.
9 – 11 years (2033–2035)	Proposed launch of Neptune Odyssey. Proposed launch of the ODINUS mission. Near-Earth object 2002 AY1 makes a close approach to Earth. ITER expected to achieve full fusion. Planned launch of the Athena telescope. Expected completion of the International Lunar Research Station.
11 – 14 years (2035–2038)	Proposed launch of Interstellar Probe, assuming no delays. Planned launch of the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). Year 2038 problem.
14 – 18 years (2038–2042)	Proposed launch of Zephyr. The Antarctic treaty is scheduled to come under review. A Nickelodeon time capsule, sealed in April 1992, is expected to be opened.
18 – 22 years (2042–2046)
22 – 28 years (2046–2052)	The "one country, two systems" agreements for Hong Kong and Macau expire. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty is scheduled to come up for review. Scheduled completion of the Belt and Road Initiative. The Three-North Shelter Forest Program is expected to be completed. The B-52 Bomber is set to be retired from service.
28 – 35 years (2052–2059)	Cosmic Call 1 reaches 15 Sagittae. The Teen Age Message reaches HD 76151, 37 Geminorum, HD 126053, and HD 193664.
35 – 45 years (2059–2069)	Halley's comet is expected to be visible for the first time since the perihelion was last reached in 1986. The Singapore-Malaysia Water Agreement expires. Venus occults Jupiter. Mercury occults Neptune. One of four time capsules at the Helium Centennial Time Columns Monument is scheduled to be opened.
45 – 55 years (2069–2079)	On January 1, 2073, assuming no further extensions to the term of copyrights, all media published before 1978 is set to fall into the public domain in the United States; works published after 1977 will generally fall into the public domain after 70 years post mortem auctoris. For computer software using unsigned 16-bit binary day counts and an epoch of 1 January 1900, the counts will overflow after 65,536 (216) days.
55 – 70 years (2079–2094)	Insect Magicicada broods X (17-year) and XIX (13-year) will emerge simultaneously for the first time since 1868. The 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund is set to expire. Mercury transits Jupiter.
70 – 90 years (2094–2114)	The difference between the Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar reaches 14 days. The jacket Jackie Kennedy wore on the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated cannot be displayed in public until 2103. Year 2106 problem.
90 – 110 years (2114–2134)	Scheduled release of 100 Years. The first book from the Future Library project is planned to be published.
110 – 140 years (2134–2164)	All Bitcoins are expected to be mined.
140 – 180 years (2164–2204)	The asteroid 101955 Bennu has a 1-in-2,700 chance of impacting Earth.
180 – 220 years (2204–2244)	Pluto will be closer to the Sun than Neptune. Year 6000 on the Hebrew calendar.
220 – 280 years (2244–2304)	Return of the Great Comet of 1861.
280 – 350 years (2304–2374)
350 – 450 years (2374–2474)
450 – 550 years (2474–2574)
550 – 700 years (2574–2724)	The 639-year-long performance of As Slow as Possible (begun in 2001) is scheduled to finish.
700 – 900 years (2724–2924)	1950 DA has a 1 in 8,300 (0.012%) chance of colliding with the Earth.
900 – 1.1 ka (2924–3124)	The last time capsule out of four at the Helium Centennial Time Columns Monument is scheduled to be opened. The Longplayer composition is set to finish.
1.1 – 1.4 ka (3124–3424)	Completion of the Time Pyramid in Wemding, Germany. Gamma Cephei replaces Polaris as the North Star.
1.4 – 1.8 ka (3424–3824)
1.8 – 2.2 ka (3824–4224)
2.2 – 2.8 ka (4224–4824)
2.8 – 3.5 ka (4824–5524)
3.5 – 4.5 ka (5524–6524)
4.5 – 5.5 ka (6524–7524)	The Westinghouse Time Capsules from the years 1939 and 1964 are scheduled to be opened. The last Expo '70 Time Capsule from the year 1970, buried under a monument near Osaka Castle, Japan is scheduled to be opened.
5.5 – 7 ka (7524–9024)	Opening of the Crypt of Civilization.
7 – 9 ka (9024–11,024)
9 – 11 ka	Antares likely goes supernova.
11 – 14 ka	Vega becomes the northern pole star. North celestial pole moves far from present North Star, causing summer and winter to occur on opposite sides of Earth's orbit and summer and winter constellations to switch.
14 – 18 ka
18 – 22 ka
22 – 28 ka	The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone returns to normal levels of radiation. The Arecibo message reaches its destination.
28 – 35 ka
35 – 45 ka	Ross 248 passes within 3.024 light-years of Earth, becoming the closest star to the Sun.
45 – 55 ka	Expected descent of the KEO time capsule, assuming it is launched. The length of the day increases by one SI second.

Would it be acceptable for the table in the article's Future section to be edited to follow the Renard algorithm (like the tables for the past) or would it be better for it to stay in its current form? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is better if we stay with a base 10 log as the future always has less information as the past. Ericulture (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]