Talk:Outer space
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space exploration. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. See also our assessed articles. |
Assessment: |
| Start Class | ||
| Top Importance | ||
Shouldn't the possiblity of Creationism be included? I mean, it makes it sound like the Big Bang is 100% assured of a thing. Not that I'm religious, but I'm speaking on behalf of those who are, and to keep Wikipedia an unbiased place. Also... why is this page so short? --CrazyCasey 17:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Religion doesn't belong in this article. Religious views can be applied to everything, doesn't mean we should list them in every article. It's not a matter of bias, but of Undue_weight. With the way outer space is related to physics and astronomy (specially the cosmology which we discuss), utilizing anything but a scientific tone would be giving whatever other view undue weight in the article. Star Ghost 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Please leave my "See also" to the Karman line in: I was trying to search on the no-accent name and missed because the link was re-labeled with the accents. I will propose a rename on the page. -- Fplay 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
If I explode then will blood come from my eyes? What if the pressure was removed very slowly, from 100 kPa at a rate of say 1 kPa a minute and supposing I had breathing equipment? --Username132 00:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the density of air in outer space?
- 0gm-3?
There isn't air in outerspace... --CrazyCasey 17:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe he meant matter? There are a few lonely atoms wandering around. I remember seeing this kind of statistics in some physics book. Star Ghost 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Conflict with religion
I don't think this section is relevant, does anyone protest it's removal?
[edit] Link Removal
I have removed the links to website in anther language for 2 reasons. One is they were the same site. Second, they were in another language. More appropriate to be placed in that wiki's language site.
Also, please sign all comments with 4 ~'s statsone 15:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has a terrible bias towards Evolution and its many unproven theorys and dating methods. As usual this has a terrible effect on readers as more and more people begin to accept these things as fact when any knowlegable evolutionist knows they are NOT facts at all. There is plenty of science that is real fact and disproves the whole "really old earth" theory. "Zealotii 09:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)"
[edit] In space on the Moon?
Is one in space when on the Moon? I'd say one isn't in space when on a celestial body. Although of course there are border cases, like being on a asteroid. And on Earth you enter space when the air gets too thin, but on the Moon there is no atmosphere. Or is that not the criterium? DirkvdM 07:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The answer would depend on the audience. I, for example would think "in space" means in freefall and outside the atmosphere of any nearby planets, but I think the Man on the Bondi Tram would think that "space" is anywhere beyond Earth, or altenatively, anywhere where a space suit was needed. (days after writing I noticed I didn't sign this) --Polysylabic Pseudonym 04:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vacuum
The_monkeyhate, do you have any grounds for your assertion that unprotected humans would freeze in milliseconds in space? It's flatly contradicted by the NASA doc cited. SeanWillard 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Their orbits never "decay" because there is almost no matter there to exert frictional drag.
I would like to change "Their orbits never "decay" because there is almost no matter there to exert frictional drag." to "Their orbits never "decay" because the pull of the earth's gravity is canceled by the centrifugal force of their tangential velocity"
