Talk:Heat death of the universe

message: Statement: "Jupiter, for instance, is still too hot for life to arise there for thousands of years, while the Moon is already too cold." Intuitively this seems wrong, as the writer says 'thousands of years'. This implies that in at least 99,999 years the planet Juipter will be at a good temperature for life. Given astronomical time scales I doubt this. The writer should probably have said, "Hundreds of thousands (of years)" or, more likely "millions", possibly billions. Or, if the writer is unsure, they should not mention a time scale. There is a formula given for the cooling of Juipter in the following paper. But accurate appraisal is beyond me.
https://www.tcd.ie/Physics/people/Peter.Gallagher/lectures/PY4A03/pdfs/PY4A03_lecture10n11_ineriors.ppt.pdf 
Brn wk48 (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a historic view from 1777. --mfb (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement about rate of cooling of the planet Jupiter 

message: I don’t know enough about the subject to edit it myself, but I’m hoping an expert can take a look at it and confirm I’m not just nuts. As far as I’m aware, the heat death of the universe doesn’t involve baryons becoming infinitely hot and then everything suddenly “poofs” into the universe’s “original state of heat death.” Only to repeat again every... 13.8 billion years? What? These sections seem to contradict the rest of the article, the “ultimate fate of the universe” page, and the laws of physics. And it looks like the sources are cherry-picked (e.g., the author picked out “augment” at the beginning in order to say that gravity “augments” heat in the universe while ignoring the next word is “diffuse”). It points to one article that says the universe is heating up, but unless something real wild has happened in physics recently, I don’t think this describes heat death.
2601:19C:4600:D10:FCBD:E785:27C0:77C1 (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was vandalized by one user, it was now reverted to the last version before that. --mfb (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro and “Concept” sections appear to be very wrong (and poorly sourced.) 

message: Even if well sourced, the new edits have turned this page into a Big Trip page, which is a completely different thing from heat death and more related to Big Rip. It is also a heavily speculative scenario which finds almost no echo in the scientific mainstream / consensus, which makes me wonder whether it should be included on Wikipedia. 
But as it stands now, this page has nothing to do with heat death = “Lord Kelvin’s theory of entropic exhaustion and cease of entropy production, no residual Helmholtz free energy”.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.80.223 (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, reverted and I contacted the user. --mfb (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, watch the recent changes (Nov 2022): it is now a Big Trip page 

message: User Heatlife is filling this site with incoherent nonsense and pseudoscience. Many has reverted his changes but he keeps reverting them back. Looking back, this page had the same problem a year ago, when Vortex3211 (currently blocked) posted the same nonsense Heatlife is posting. Other accounts that are likely the same person are Oranjelo100, Dlku4d and Antichristos based on their editing pattern on this page. 176.72.172.76 (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by ban evader 

message: Under the "Time frame for heat death" section, it originally said this:
(references from before the last two sentences are removed for brevity)
On 16 July 2023, the bottom paragraph and its three references were removed without an explanation.
On 4 November 2023, I noticed and put it back, with the edit summary "Revert unexplained reference & material removal from ~4 months ago".
On 20 November 2023, it was removed again by the same user, with the edit summary "This evidence might not valid or no longer valid, and It's also might be a false argument."
Is there a good reason to remove these references? "May or may not be no longer valid" is extremely vague, and even if a dissenting source exists, it should be added to the section instead of the existing sources removed.
If no objections, I will double-revert the removal in 7 days. Zowayix001 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting the removal and putting back the aforementioned two sentences. Zowayix001 (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

text: That information is no longer valid because it might have been debunked or some other changes that broke it down. LongnamXL35 (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwarranted removal of references