Talk:Space

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Space article.

Contents

[edit] Other Important Articles of Discussion

There is no proof that this information is valid. This website could say, "Corn Snakes can not survive in the wild but can breathe under water and fly", and no one would question them. So who's to believe them? Now, I'm not saying that I believe that accusation personally, but just making a point. Is there any validation that i=this website is for real? I haven't found any, and have come to the conclusion that I shall not. Is there anyone who believes they have found proof? Just asking. November 1st, 2006

-Arguments For the above-



[edit] This dose not the scientific term for space.

Musician - Multi instrumentalist (Space - Jason Robert Smith) b. Australia March 31 1975. Brisbane. Former guitarist, songwriter and founding member of the rock/metal band Memento. Debut 'beginnings' released on Sony Music / Columbia Records 2003.

[edit] space in Geography

I suggest an entry that defines space as geographers may see it. There is excellent work on space by Geographers (Kant was a geographer as well) that define space in many ways. There are various perspectives, by marxists, humanist marxists, etc. I of course don't think I have the knowledge to do this, but perhaps someone?

[edit] Split the article?

Is there a good reason why these several articles should be kept on one page, or should they be split off, so that this can be a proper disambiguation page? --Smack (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

why does it say pokemon at the bottom?

Because a vandal put it there. I took it back out. --Smack (talk) 05:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to construe silence as consent and begin work. --Smack (talk) 02:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, really. Sometime. --Smack (talk) 5 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
This already is a disambig page, in what way would you be splitting it up? Steve block 5 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
It's an overgrown monstrosity of a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation instructs,
Sections on one page: Several small articles of just a paragraph or so each can co-exist on a single page, separated by headings. Although this is a disambiguation page, the disambiguation notice should not be put here as the page doesn't link to other articles with similar title. But as each section grows, there comes a point where each meaning must have a page of its own.
This article contains seven splittable sections, which IMHO is a little more than "several". Also, most of them are more than a paragraph. --Smack (talk) 6 July 2005 05:45 (UTC)
Yes, but the article is an article as well as a disambiguation page. There already is a proper disambig page at space (disambiguation). This page is serving to discuss all those aspects of the same concept, that of space, whilst pointing people to articles which define those aspects better, much like an article on England would link to articles on the History of England whilst still containing an overview of that subject. Since all these paragraphs explore the same concept, it makes sense to hold them on one page so as to better inform readers and to better present an overview of all the diffrent topics in which space, the concept, is important. See, for example, the page Time. We should not get so sidetracked into viewing this page as a disambiguation page that we also forget it is an article page. Steve block 6 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)
Yes, Steve block's reminder about there already being a disambig page for space is an important one. User:Smack might also want to read the VfD discussion that lead to the creation of this page. -Splash 6 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)
Steve block said that this is a disambiguation page. He did not refer to the actual disambiguation page, which I hadn't noticed before. Now that I know about its existence, I see that neither page links to the other as prominently as it ought to. Also, several of the sections of this article should be trimmed to summaries and the bulk of the content moved elsewhere. --Smack (talk) 7 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)
I thought the fact that I mentioned the space (disambiguation) page in the section below would have made a further mention redundant. I apologise for that assumption, and for calling this page a disambiguation page, which was somewhat ambiguous and based upon a false assumption. Please could you explain how this article should link to the disambiguation page beyond the way it does now, as specified in the disambiguation page. I also don't see the need for a link to this page from the space disambiguation page, since this is the only page that links there. I doubt very much someone will search for this page under the phrase space (dismbiguation). I also strongly disagree that any sections of this article need to be moved elsewhere until they have been further expanded upon on this page, to the point that they outgrow this page. In fact, most of the concepts on this page are explained in greater detail within other pages. Which sections do you believe need to be split and expanded? Steve block 7 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)
← Carriage return

I think that the link to the disambig should be bolded. The only section that IMO clearly needs to be split off is the philosophy one, but a case could be made for all of them except math and astronomy. --Smack (talk) 8 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)

I don't agree that the philosophy of space section should be split off at present, it doesn't look long enough to be warrant both its own page and an overview within this page. Were all sections split off bar Mathematics and astronomy then this page would become somewhat stripped of relevant information as well, and would not best serve the presentation of information. Have you read the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Physical space, from which the consensus for the page's current shape was formed? Steve block 8 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)
No, I haven't. It's rather fearsomely long. --Smack (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay. The consensus formed to the effect that there needs to be an overview page of the big picture of space, an introduction to the various usages of the concept, which directs attention to seperate pages which contain fuller explanations of their subject. Steve block talk 07:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I can agree with that consensus, though I'm completely ignorant of the questions that were asked and answered before it was arrived at. However, the plan has been carried out properly in only one section of this article.
  • Physics: links to spacetime and Euclidean space, which address the question of what space is like, not what space is.
  • Astronomy: a glorified definition. I don't really know what more there is to say about astronomers' conception of space, but neither Karman line nor outer space say it.
  • Math: also a dicdef, but there's probably a good bit of generalization that could be done in a separate article
  • Measurement: links to Measurement, which is a good expansion of the topic (or whatever it is that passes for a topic). In fact, it's not a topic but a hodgepodge of topics that relate tangentially to the question of how things are measured. For its own part, the question is remarkably vague - what people sometimes call a "stupid question". Those problems aside, this section is a good example of an "introduction ... which directs attention to separate pages."
  • Philosophy: Had very few relevant links whatsoever, except for two at the very end, until I added a "main article" link at the top.
  • Psychology: Refers to a few "specialized topics", but nothing that's really a fuller explanation.
  • Use of space: I'm sorry. I have nothing to say without being repetitive. Just about any of the above comments could have been said just as well here.
In conclusion, I think that any of the sections of this article would work reasonably well as stand-alone pages, but it's very awkward to have them lumped together like this, particularly given their present state. --Smack (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this argument is getting circular. I'm not sure I grasp what your point is, other than, these things should be split off. I have explained what my reasons are for being against that, in that they are not of sufficient length to yet warrant being split of and summarised on this page, and yet you seem to reiterate that they should be split off. If you believe they should be edited to better suit the purpose of presenting a big picture, by all means do so. If you wish to expand them and then split them off, leaving a summary here, again, please do so. Could I also ask that you at least read Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Physical space or stop presenting yourself as ignorant of it and thereby attempting to disregard it? However, there is another discussion along these lines at the bottom of this talk page, perhaps you could join that one? Steve block talk 18:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I was less than coherent when I wrote that, and I should have known better than to post it. You're very insistent about this discussion of two months ago, but I'm equally insistent that I don't want to read eight pages of meandering wiki-talk. Could you point me to a particularly relevant part of the discussion? --Smack (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merged back

During a vote for deletion on Physical space it was decided to merge content from Physical space and the seperate space disambiguation pages back into one, although splitting off a Space (disambiguation) page for those usages not reflected in the space article. Steve block 08:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinate System

In physics, space is a coordinate system? I don't agree at all; it's an entity on which coordinate systems may (locally) be placed, and even that fact isn't central to what it is, only to how it's modelled in modern theories. I haven't started editing physics entries, and I'm not going to start now yet either, but I couldn't let this go by without registering disapproval. — Toby Bartels (a mathematical physicist sticking to the math pages for now — things are so much more clear cut there), Monday, June 24, 2002

[edit] On arranging stuff in this article

Space is excuse the pun a huge subject. and physical space is an entire subject on its own. As the article was it definitly needed some work but deleting it and redirecting it to space is just rediculous and simple minded. Sorry for getting upset but i was enjoying expanding on the subject. Deleteing it is just not right. And will need arbitration if it keeps up :( sunja 09:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The content was not deleted it was merged here. Steve block 09:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I agree here, the current setup is suboptimal. I think many (or even most) people looking up "space" are interested in outer space. In fact, the first quote in the quotes section refers to "outer space" rather then what's described in this article. I think it would be a good idea to make the disambigious page the primary page and the current one "Space (scientifical)" or some such.

I would vote to split off space (mathematics) as it was before the merger. And maybe split off other things. Instead, a a paragraph or two could be added about the various meanings of space, how they relate to each other. So, write a big picture (which is necessary), but refer to individual articles for details. And yes, most people would associate space with physical space (or outer space if you wish), so that one should be given higher priority than the more abstract meanings. Oleg Alexandrov 03:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I do believe this page should remain the big picture page. Steve block talk 10:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Splitting off space (mathematics) seems like the right thing to do no matter what. This article claims to be about "space — the scientific and philosophical concept" which a mathematical space is not.
Well, it's been a long time since I was at school, but is Maths no longer considered a science? If not, a simple amendment to "space — the scientific, mathematical and philosophical concept" would suffuce, surely? Steve block talk 16:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course math is a science (which means that my suggested title "space (scientifical)" is a bad one). The problem here is that the concept in the math section is an entierly different concept then the one in the rest of the article. The majority of the article is about physical room, whereas the math section is about various mathematical concepts.
Maybe this can be fixed by rewriting the math section to be about mathematics regarding the physical room. Unfortunatly I don't know enough math theory to do such a rewrite. --Sicking 17:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'll put a comment to the above at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and see if someone there will take a look and express an opinion. My maths is bad too. Steve block talk 07:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please make the page less technical

Can someone please make space (of the universe) seem less technical? It is very confusing for the average person to understand, and it seems like the knowledge of physics is mandatory to understand any of it. Please change this.

Try this Simple Wikipedia For Simple People (j/k). Don't devalue the article by simplifying it! It would be pretty useless for physics students if this was aimed at laymen. If someone doesn't understand something, they can look it up. --Username132 15:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Splitting

I think this article should be re-split into several small stubs, which would (hopefully) eventually enlarge to an acceptable size. This page is completely unrelated between sections. It isn't even funny. I'd do it myself, but I wouldn't do something like this without consulting the Community, so I've just put up the 'split' header. Ideas? Marco Polo 02:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

  • might make the article more managble--Hello'from'SPACE00:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The community has consulted amongst itself. Well, by "community" I mean myself and one other person, and by "consulted" I mean that we wrote four pages on the subject and came to no conclusion. See section above. --Smack (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. The community has consulted amongst itself elsewhere, on a related topic, at much greater length, and seemingly reached the conclusion that this "article" should exist. However, I haven't convinced Steve block to tell me where the meat of that discussion is. --Smack (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I think you'll find I told you where that discussion is. I'm afraid I once again oppose a split, as I just can't understand how this page is completely unrelated, nor what people believe an overview page should look like, if not like this. Again I restate there is nothing preventing people expanding and breaking away sections, as long as there is an overview presented on this page. Steve block talk 14:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand that you want to keep this page together, but you haven't explained to me why you want it. If you tell me what parts of the VfD discussion are most relevant, I will read them.
Again, I think that the sections of this page are, for the most part, distinct technical meanings of one word. We generally deal with this situation by creating disambiguation pages. The burden of proof lies with you to show that the sections have the same subject. --Smack (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm just completely baffled. All the parts of this page talk about space. Each subject utilises the same concept, the concept of space. Therefore, my belief is that this page should be an overview of the concept of space and the way different subjects utilise it. I have reiterated this to you over and over again, and am unsure how to explain it to you in a way you can understand. As to the VFD discussion, it is not a long discussion, it is all relevant, and you could pay me the courtesy of reading it. That you state it is eight pages of wiki talk suggests to me you have not even looked at it. As to burden of proof, the burden of proof is on you to show why we should change something that was consensually agreed upon. This subject is already on Requests for Comment and has attracted little comment. I'm going to put a notice on the village pump because it is obvious we need more voices. Steve block talk 07:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
It's very nearly eight pages on my screen, which is 1024x768. Most of it is irrelevant; it's primarily an exposition of the flaws of an article which (fortunately) no longer exists. The idea of this page as it exists now is barely mentioned until the very end of the discussion, when you "mock it up" on your user page. Even then, I see no critique, no pros and cons, just a few people asserting their support without justification.
I will try to sketch out my reasons for splitting this page, but I'm not in a mental condition to do that right now. --Smack (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I am one of the editors of Philosophy of space and time. I think this page should remain as a single article, much as it is; the only variation I might make would be to make the links to the main pages for each area more prominent - as in the philosophy of space section.

This page fulfils much the same role as a disambiguation page, but providing more detail to support the reader in finding the appropriate link for their needs. Keep it that way.

If you want to shorten it, dump the quotes into Wikiquotes, and stick in a link. This would be a better practice anyway. Banno 08:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I support the page as it is, but suggest the following changes:
  1. The cross-references to other articles should be handled more consistently, using the {{main}} template: for example, the astronomy section should start with {{main|Outer space}}, the way the "measurement" section does (I realize "measurement" doesn't actually use the template, but it would look pretty much the same if it did). Philosophy of space should use this template also, and needs to be condensed.
  2. Consider making the "measurement" section a subsection of Physics.
  3. The reference to "personal space" should be in the psychology section, since it has nothing to do with "public space", which is a legal concept; the antonym of "public space" is "private property".
  4. The see-also section at the end should be vastly trimmed, perhaps eliminated, since most of the links are duplications of ones shown earlier in the article. And as Banno says, the quotes could be transwikied.
—Wahoofive (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I've tried to address as many as I feel capable of, although I'm not up to the task of condensing the Philosophy of space section. Steve block talk 21:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Musician - Multi Instrumentalist (Space - Jason Robert Smith) b. Australia March 31 1975. Brisbane. Former guitarist, songwriter and founding member of the rock/metal band Memento. Debut 'beginnings' released on Sony Music / Columbia Records 2003

This dose not seem like it belongs in a article about the scientific term for space.

+++SPACE+++ is just that. It is space. Meaning...nothing is there. I hope we all can agree on that. Now, if we do agree on that, I have a question. If space is space...with nothing in it...then would the space not be displaced by some form of matter? Let's say a marble. When you put a marble into space, and there was no other matter in this space, it seems the marble would displace the space by the amount of it's dimensions. Almost like displacing water. When this displacement occured, would there not be some kind of pressure exerted on the surface of the marble? And what do we call this DISPLACEMENT PRESSURE? Another question is...Is space finite? Because if it goes on forever, then wouldn't two marbles, placed however far apart, be pushed together ever so lightly, due to the fact that there was less SPACE PRESSURE between the two marbles as there was outside of thier direct 'line of sight', so to speak.

[edit] Minkowski space and special relativity

The text says:

This definition coupled with present definition of time makes our space-time to be Minkowski space and makes special relativity theory to be absolutely correct by definition.

Doesn't this imply that the definition is correct, not the theory? --Iantresman 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there sound in space?

I was wondering if there's any sound in space? This site (http://www.spacesounds.com/home/index.html) claims that the sounds are from space, but I've read somewhere that there isn't, so I was wondering that some of you smart folks might be knowing it?

No, sound can't exist in a vacuum, as sound relies on air to propagate itself. What we hear are vibrations of air. That link has sounds, but you wouldn't hear them if you were in space, since they're mostly electromagnetic radiation of some sort or another. Sound is relative, in this case. Deleuze 12:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the "composition" of space.

In a book that might already be outdated, by Fritz Kahn, he says that space, is not something that matter just is within, but a product of matter (which is according to Einstein, if I recall what he said. There was something about space being somewhat like foam), and is composed by the sum of all fields generated by matter, such as gravitational, eletromagnetic, and whatever else. I do not understand much of these, so that is just a suggestion. --Extremophile 14:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] space is not solely the domain of the sciences

Space appears to be yet another one of those subjects that is the concern of a large number of disciplines yet always defaults to science as its main authority in wikipedia. I think that the decision to hand over the subject almost entirely to the scientific paradigm here is perhaps a mistake - although I do agree with separating 'outer space' with its very specific meaning, to its own page, after all our use of the term space for outer space is simply a contraction of the latter term.

Space IS a hugely complex and very interesting subject that is rife with paradox and contradiction. This page could give a sense of the exciting cross discipline nature of the subject, if it simply spent a bit of time covering common ground and general principles - before launching into issues of measurement.

OK so via measurement, we learn that space is not absolute, but why must we arrive at it through the arcane mass versus distance debate.
When it is quite simply understood that the space between, say, two chairs, isn't empty as such, it is just devoid of chairs or other objects, when we make the statement we imply our absolute parameters (and exclude others) so that air isn't included in our consideration, or sound or any other insubstantial matter. In short we all know that space is a set long before mathematics comes to bear on it.
This basic human understanding of space as being 'that which separates the subjects in question' leads to some very fundamental insights into the nature of space, like the question whether objects displace space or occupy it (depending on ones choice of set), or that space is itself influenced by the objects that it separates (as in the dynamics of the space between two massive buildings).
My point here is that taking a purist approach and insisting on such an abstract notion of space can only exclude the vast majority of perspectives that can be brought to bear on the subject. In this way disciplines such as music, architecture, sculpture and philosophy can only be represented, where they do not agree with the scientific paradigm, on separate pages entitled 'musical space' and such like - in with case why isn't this page called 'scientific space'?

There is one discipline that is solely concerned with, and defined by its concern with space, that is not mentioned at all on this or the disambiguation page, namely Sculpture, which deals entirely with an objects relationship with, and manipulation of 3 dimensional space. This is a subject that perhaps could be disambiguated as 'sculptural space' but would still need to refer to 'space' as its baseline, only to be misinformed that mathematics was at the root of its investigations which is almost never the case. DavidP 23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Um, if I get the gist of what you are saying, are you proposing to add a section entitled Space and the arts? If so, bloody good idea. Philosophy has already been covered, and architecture gets a brief mention in the geographical section, but certainly feel free to add. Steve block Talk 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Moved from Science ref desk

Can space exist on its own, or do you need mass to create it?--Light current 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

lol, space can exist on its own. Mass does not create it, it can only affect it. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Are you sure?? How would you define space? Is it something or nothing?--Light current 23:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass needs space, otherwise there'd be nowhere for matter to fit. JackofOz 00:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No! Space needs mass to exist!--Light current 03:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're so sure of this, why did you ask your original question? JackofOz 04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me now that since you cannot truly escape the bounds of the known universe, you cannot actually get into real space. THis needs moving to talk:space --Light current 11:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No-one knows. But space does have geometry and energy. Now, if we had an extra universe and we took all the mass out... Peter Grey 03:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Your question kind of relates to mine: is a universe without mass or energy really a universe at all, or is it just nothingness, a non-universe, what surrounds this tiny expanding region of matter and energy to infinite depths into the beyond.. --Froth 02:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Its less than nothing. it doesnt exist!--Light current 03:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In quantum field theory the vacuum has energy, and therefore mass. --LambiamTalk 05:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets ask another question: Is it possible to accelerate your space craft beyond the limits of the universe?--Light current 03:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If that was possible, they wouldn't be truly the limits, would they? --LambiamTalk 05:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There isnt even a vacuum. This discussion should be moved to talk:space--Light current 11:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Einstein empty space does not exist. He considers space as energy field. In the Stafford Little Lectures at Princeton in May 1921, he stated [1]: “… the properties of the space-time continuum which determine inertia must be regarded as field properties, analogous to the electromagnetic field.” And: “… besides the energy density of the matter there must also be given an energy density of the gravitational field, … The gravitational field transfers energy and momentum to the ‘matter,’ in that it exerts forces upon it and gives it energy; …” In his last years, Einstein repeatedly emphasized his view [2] that if “we imagine the gravitational field … to be removed, there does not remain … (an empty) space …, but absolutely nothing, and also no ‘topological space.’ … There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e., a space without a field.” In 1953, in the foreword to the Concepts of Space [3], Einstein wrote: “… the concept of the material object was gradually replaced as the fundamental concept of physics by that of the field. … That which constitutes the spatial character of reality is then simply the four-dimensionality of the field. There is then no “empty” space, that is, there is no space without a field.” 1. Einstein A. 1921, “ The Meaning of Relativity,” Stafford Little Lectures delivered May 1921 at Princeton University, fifth edition, MJF Books, New York, 56. 2. Einstein A. 1954, “Relativity and the Problem of Space”, from Relativity, the Special and the General Theory: a Popular Exposition. Translated by W. Laws. London:

Methuen, 1954, Reproduced in “Ideas and Opinions” of Albert Einstein, Crown Publications, 1954, 375.

3. Einstein A. 1953, Preface, in Concepts of Space, Max Jammer, third enlarged edition, Dover Publications Inc., New York, USA, 1993, p XVII. Fundamental skeptic 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/a/Talk%7ESpace_761c.html"