Talk:Terasecond and longer

(Rated List-class, Low-importance)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

List

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brahma lives for 311 trillion, 40 billion years[edit]

Here are my sources for Brahma's 311 trillion, 40 billion year lifespan. I have many sources but if you would like more I could get thousands more just ask. Thank You.

http://vedabase.net/bg/8/17/en1

http://hinduism.iskcon.com/concepts/111.htm

http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=printkshow&kid=910

http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1997_12/0006.html

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Hindu_units_of_measurement

http://www.experiencefestival.com/kalki-avatara

http://www.utahkrishnas.com/main/page.asp?id=999

http://www.holloworbs.com/daitya.htm

http://www.experiencefestival.com/years

http://www.deepmusic.org/essence.htm

http://namahatta.org/en/node/6996

http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/8/17/en1

http://www.krishna.org/sudarsana/archive/mail/msg00008.html

http://www.krishna.org/sudarsana/archive/mail/msg00005.html

http://experiencefestival.com/treta_yuga/page/2

http://experiencefestival.com/yuga/page/2

http://www.newtalavana.org/bhaktivrksha/week-35.htm

http://members.fortunecity.com/bala595/hindu.htm

http://www.yoga-philosophy.com/eng/kala.htm

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/soph/sopsml05.htm

http://www.theosophy.com/theos-talk/200607/tt00447.html

http://www.theosophy.com/theos-talk/200212/tt00702.html Maldek (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There are four problems;

firstly (the obvious) is that isn't the end of Brahmā but just one instantiation. After another delay Brahmā is back, thus it isn't an end at all.
The other is that the sources you list (the "shotgun" approach to sources which you have done many times before I might add) feel dubious in that they repeat the same number so it appears to be magic pixie dust. The Theosophical Society is probably the more reliable of the lot but be nice to have one source that we can trust in that it provides strong evidence that the number is true.
Also the list is in order of magnitude so should be after the 200 Trillion date not stuck at the top.
The real problem though is that Brahmā is part of a mythology and so is supernatural. It doesn't follow clearly that supernatural claims should be intermingled with conjectured natural phenomena.

There are three approachs;

- we adopt a form of NOMA (NOnoverlapping MAgisteria) and do not bother placing Brahmā here as it isn't relevant to the facts and reality of the Universe or

-we place Brahmā here but in separate list.

-Alternatively we ignore NOMA (which I do not like anyway) and simply demand that the figure can be shown how it can be falsified; if falsifiability cannot be shown then it's no different from any fictional number that people invent and need not be in this list. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OK Got rid of this fiction. It's been tagged for a year. The above so-called references are crap. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Got rid of it again. Please provide here a reference we can use. I'm not interested in trawling through a hundred and one fan-sites for Brahma. I want to see a scientific paper from a reliable source that claims this. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And AGAIN. Just after one reference, please. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Big bang[edit]

OK, I've been racking my head about this for a while now, and I'm not sure which way to go. The rule I established for the timespan articles, to keep them from getting too big, was *only fixed timespans*, ie, only timespans with a beginning and an end. The age of the universe, of course, doesn't have an end, so technically it shouldn't be here. On the other hand, there are timespans that are so vast it doesn't really matter if you say they have an end or not. I'm thinking of adding some of them from the timeline of the far future. Serendi ^podous 08:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Maya reference[edit]

If we should include made up fantasy things such as what "is believed to be a cycle of the universe", whatever that means, why not just call 5000 trillion years the lifetime of the average unicorn and include that as well?

This article contains a number of religious references, such as the lifetime of Brahma. They are just as "made up" as the Maya glyph. This is not a scientific article; it is a list of exceptionally long discrete periods of time. All that is required for addition is that it be longer than 32,000 years, have a fixed beginning and end, and not be fictional (Far future in science fiction and popular culture is there for that). Koba stela 1 is very real, and it is an actual timespan, and various archaeologists have speculated as to what it means. It has every right to be on this list. Serendi ^podous 13:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Anh Duc Wiki -3

Saturday, June 13, 2020