Talk:Space/Archive 1

Archive 1

The size of The Space

Hello there. It seems to me that The Space is not boundless, as it is stated in the article. If hubbles expanding universe-theory is correct, which it seems to be then stuff that eventually travel to a certain distance from us will end up with the speed of light, meaning that it will no longer be detectable by any means possible (because the distance gets larger faster than the signal back to us can travel.) And because we do not believe in stuff that we can not prove, anything outside that distance will not be part of our physical universe. Stuff leaving our universe would not actually leave it, from our perspective - just grow weaker over time until it gets practically impossible to observe. Perhaps philosophers can argue that it stuff far away also are further back in time. There is a reason people believe the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. I guess this can be argued with, and I look forward to it, BUT at least, do not state that the universe is boundless without any hard evidence. Or at least write something that stuff outside that distance is not part of our casual universe with the present theories. However, for me, it is the same thing as The Space has an ending. Or am I wrong? Crakkpot (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so no one has said anything about the size of The Space in 8 days. I rephrased the first sentence in this article. ("Space is the boundless[citation needed] extent within which matter is physically extended ..." to "Space is the extent within which matter is physically extended ...") Crakkpot (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it's been over a year and no citation was ever placed during that time to support space being 'boundless' (from the point of view of known science), I removed the word 'boundless' from the opening sentence. By the way it reads easier that way anyway, although that's not the primary reason why I made the edit (just a nice side-effect).

On another point: I also replaced the word 'extent' with the word 'matrix' since 'extent' (as it was used in the sentence) was a vague abstraction, whereas "matrix" has more specific and concrete meaning.

69.171.160.32 (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

But space is not a matrix. See also User talk:Bkell#Please Define the Word 'Matrix.' —Bkell (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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 is most likely boundless bu tthe stuf that fills it is bounded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.252 (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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?

BORING!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blugah2 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as a geographer I would be willing to update the geography section of this page however it is protected and so i am unable to do so. if anyone with the ability to allow me to edit this page could email me at drb4@aber.ac.uk that would be great.

I would propose to mention different concepts of space.

absolute relative relational

and also delve into spatial assemblages, using full citations for all.

Also land is not anything to do with space, it is not even a spatial assemblage and should be removed. Dazbaylo 18:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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? Hiding 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. Hiding 6 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)

Yes, Hiding'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)

Hiding 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? Hiding 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? Hiding 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. Hiding 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? Hiding 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)

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. Hiding 08:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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. Hiding 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. Hiding 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? Hiding 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. Hiding talk 07:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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--User:Hello fromSPACE 00:09, 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 Hiding 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. Hiding 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. Hiding 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)

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. Hiding 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.

How can you first write that space should be considered entirely empty, and then write about pressure, displacement and "SPACE PRESSURE"? Pressure in an absolute vacuum? Are you high? Crakkpot (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

However, in the context of our solar system, there is sufficent "atmosphere" provided by the stellar wind to allow the sounds of the sun to be detected, but it hardly qualifies with proper sound, I agree with the above, most "sounds" iin the context of space are in fact radio-waves and the like given out by electric and magnetic interactions in celestial bodies.

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)

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. Hiding Talk 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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. --Lambiam^Talk 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? --Lambiam^Talk 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)

Science of spatial packing

Does anyone know what the term is for the science of packing or storing items? There must be a word. For instance, ergonomics is the term used to descibrie 'an applied science that coordinates the design of devices, systems, and physical working conditions with the capacities and requirements of the worker.'

What is the term used to describe the science of maximising the efficiency of packing e.g. cubes are the most efficient way, but there is a science that logistics experts use - what is it called?

Thanks

Trickyf

Request protection

This page, unbelievably, is subject to considerable vandalism - maybe its because those vandals cannot spell many words besides space. How do we request protection? --JimWae 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

102 edits since Feb 14, all but 2 or 3 vandalism or reversions of vandalism WP:RFP --JimWae 19:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what is it?

I know "the term is used somewhat differently in different fields of study", but is this referring to the concept of empty space? Space as a dimension? That place that's everywhere except the immediate vicinity of earth? All three? Two of the three? None of the three? One, two, or three of these combined with some other concept? Morgan Wick 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know?(about{Outer}Space{)

Did you know that space isn't empty (even though it's called "space")We are in it,Earth is as well , the solar system,etc. Space is gigantic, you can't believe how big is it because it has no ending(or maybe it will take generations!!!{it's a mystery}!!!)

Category: Space

Shouldn't this article be in its own category?

Category: Accuracy

Iantresman has mentioned the implications but it needs corrected or removed for accuracy.

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.

Special Relativity is in fact correct under any definition of the speed of light or choice of measuring units. This needs corrected ASAP. --My wan 22:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Famous explanations about space and time

In a nutshell, four different accounts of space and time could be described as follows:

• Newton—space and time exist independently, apart from all things. They are God's sensations.
• Leibniz—space and time are mental concepts of relations that are based on properties of things in themselves.
• Kant—space and time are ways that the mind intuits the juxtaposition and succession of the appearances of objects.
• 21st century science—space and time are, together, independently existing geometry that exists in yet another space and time. Space can be can be warped, twisted, flattened, curved, and bent within that other space. Time can be sped up or slowed down within that other time.

As believers in progressive development, we ignore the older explanations and wholeheartedly give our assent to the most recent.Lestrade 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Disambiguation

A disambiguation page for "Space" would be helpful to distinguish the following:
1) Space (the Michener book)
2) Space (the Michener tv miniseries)
3) Space: Above and Beyond (another tv series)
4) Space: 1999 (another tv series)
5) and of course this page on Space.
regards WWriter (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Something like Space (disambiguation), as linked to at the top of Space? Hiding T 12:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Erratum

I suspect this is not what was intended: "One view pie space is that it is part of the fundamental structure of the universe..." Namesinger (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spatial statistics?

I got redirected here from spatial. Where is Spatial Statistics supposed to fit in this scheme? Including Spatial Regression and many other topics. 80.2.203.119 (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See Spatial analysis. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another go at splitting

In light of the above discussions [1] [2] [3] I would like to add my vote for this page to be deleted and replaced with the Space (disambiguation) page. Any material on this page which is not elsewhere should form the stubs of seperate pages on space as it applies to different disciplines.

The article as it currrently stands deals with the very different meanings of 'space' as they apply to philosophy, physics, geography, philosophy and anatomy. Because it is not a true disambiguation page it does not quickly and effectively direct users to the relevant material they are after. Because it does not deal with any unified concept it does not warrant a page of its own.

Please let me know your thoughts on this. It would be great if we could do it by consensus. Andeggs (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. I think there needs to be an overview page on space the way there is for time and the way every other reference work does. I think turning this page into a disambiguation page will actually confuse the general reader, to be honest, who won't actually know where to go to get a brief overview of the subject, something an encyclopedia and by extension Wikipedia should provide. Sometimes Wikipedia gets too bogged down in the detail, forgetting the simple. We're here to explain concepts to a general and a specific audience. You seem to be making certain assumptions on behalf of our readers that aren't born out by the edit history of the article, and I reject the idea that the notion of space is not a unified concept. Also, I'd like to point to out the article is viewed to be a vital one by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Hiding T 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia, articles must cover a single topic, and that's the case here. The article is talking about the same thing from different viewpoints. That being the case, there is only one topic being discussed, even though it is pigeon-holed into different sections.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep as it is: I came here with some ambivalence towards the idea of an article bringing together such different viewpoints, and I could easily have been swayed against. But looking over the article, I think it does a good job of covering a difficult general concept. The use of summary style is very good, and readers who miss the disambiguation banner across the top can easily navigate their way to a more detailed article if they need one. The fact that around 2000 people a day are reading this article suggests that it is meeting a need; if you look at some similar types of words that are disambig pages (such as personal or order these receive far fewer hits). I also note that on our selection lists this article (without any help from being "vital") is ranked as the highest Start-Class article on WP:Astronomy (see here), higher than eclipse or nebula. This is boosted by the fact that 32 other languages have an equivalent article; of the major languages I looked at (and could read!), only German, Italian and Polish had the article as a disambig page, a clear majority (about 8) had an article similar in style to this one. So on balance I'd say keep this. And try and get some citations, and this could easily be B-Class! Walkerma (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it more as it is. The concepts of space in this article are related, and contrasting them to one another helps the reader understand what the topic is about. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support keeping this summary page of space. its good and it works. Although the intro is a bit thick perhaps, and could be made simpler and clearer. sunja (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK Thanks for the comments. I would like to improve the lead of this article by developing a definition of "space" as the current non-definition seems insufficient. I suspect this exercise may also act as a litmus test for whether "space" is a unified concept or not. Please share your thoughts (and edits) on this replacemenet introductory paragraph Thanks Andeggs (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC):

Space is the component of the universe in which matter is physically extended and objects have positions relative to one another. Although there is disagreement between philosophers over whether space exists as anything other than a conceptual framework, scientists tend to think of it as a part of the boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime.

In classical mechanics, space is treated as being seperate from time and is thought of as one of the few fundamental physical quantities. In Isaac Newton's view space was absolute, in the sense that it exists permanently and independently of whether there is any matter in the space or moving through it. However Albert Einstein's theory of relativity predicted that space and time could not be seperated in such a way. Scientists now acknowledge that the rate at which time passes for an object depends both on its velocity relative to the speed of light, and the strength of nearby gravitational fields.

• That's a good stab and does outline how the differing fields make use of the concept. I'd support this as a lead, introduces and lays it all out for the general reader. Hiding T 08:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• NO. Space is a component of the universe? Would you say "red is a component of the universe"? light? Would you say the universe is composed of space and matter and some other stuff? It's a stretch to say "space is a component of universe" is informative. To the extent that it is even meaningful, it ignores a major body of works on "space". Leading that way also ignores "mathematical" & "psychological" space topics later in the article. More later --JimWae (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A definition that would include both the scientific and philosophical aspects of the concept would be something like:
    • Space is a basic component of the measuring system used to compare and quantify the distance between objects, their sizes, their shapes, their relative positions, and their movements (directions and speeds).

    However, this would needlessly relegate mathematical & psychological & musical space to a sidebar. Curiously, this section seems to be taking various tacks (including overly-narrow definition) to justify splitting off that part of the article. Actually, it seems someone has already removed mathematical space --JimWae (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Britannica Online says: "a boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction." It does not say "component of the universe" --JimWae (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed beginning of lede

The following is NOT designed to lead to splitting the article --JimWae (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The concept of space is a major subject in number of different disciplines.

Within the fields of science and philosophy of science, space is a basic component of the measuring system used to compare and quantify the distance between objects, their sizes, their shapes, their relative positions, and their movements (directions and speeds). Since the term is used somewhat differently in different fields of study, the above definition does not necessarily apply to the usage of the term space in other fields such as mathematics, psychology, and art.

Within the fields of science and philosophy of science, space (sometimes called physical space) is considered to be a fundamental quantity (a quantity which cannot be defined via other quantities because those other quantities have already been defined in terms of space, and so defining space in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition). Disagreement also exists on whether space itself is some entity that can be measured, or whether it is simply part of an intellectually-constructed measuring system. (See Space in philosophy and Space-Time.) Rather than trying to answer questions about what space really is, scientists (and philosophers of science) have "put aside" such questions and instead have worked on an operational definition of space, in which the situations in which the term is applied are noted, the procedures for measuring spaces (distances) are described, and the units of measurement are defined.

I am not in favour of this edit. I believe it is circular to define space as being "a basic component...of the measuring system used to compare and quantify the distance...". It simply begs the question "what is distance?", which then itself must be defined in spatial terms. I agree that the original lead is awkward in its use of the phrase "component of the universe" and I am happy to see it replaced. However I am convinced that space is more than a component of the measuring system. Do we even have any references for this viewpoint? Andeggs (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Some concepts just CANNOT be defined in simpler terms, because we are already dealing with some of the simplest terms. When that occurs, sif anything more than an operational definition is "desired", then some circularity is unavoidable. I am quite busy these 2 days & will have to come back to this later. I must say that given the 2 choices, I cannot see any reason to prefer "component of the universe" - that it claiming far too much - and is unsourced in its entirety. Better to claim too little & then raise possible additions --JimWae (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• The term "space" is not easy to define for at least 3 reasons 1> IF a term is fundamental, it CANNOT be defined in terms of simpler terms (else it would not be funamental) 2> The term "space" is used somewhat differently in different fields of study 3> there is disagreement over whether this noun is the name of any "thing" AND 4> there is disagreement over whether SPACE could "posess" any properties. We were better ff when the lede admitted definition is problematic.
• I introduced "used to compare and quantify the distance between objects, their sizes, their shapes, their relative positions, and their movements (directions and speeds)" to attempt to satisfy your need for a definition. At least part of that is contained in the EB definition, the rest is rather obvious. Such a formulation is part of an operational definition because it gives the circumstances under which one would compare or measure spatial extents. It is, however, not appliable to mathematical space
• Alternatively, we could return to the lede that had existed for more than 2 years - one in which no definition was given --JimWae (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style states that "The first paragraph needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader." Although space is difficult to define I don't see any reason why it should be impossible; I don't agree it is an utterly fundamental concept and impossible to describe in other terms. By the way I have now changed "component of the universe" to "property of the universe". Andeggs (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm getting out of my depth, but I tend to agree with Jim that if there are issues then we should probably return to the lede that had existed for more than 2 years. Hiding T 13:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should we stick with something that's misleading just because it has been misleading for a long time? Andeggs (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because of WP:CONSENSUS. Hiding T 13:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure but Consensus can change! Anyway, let's get back to the matter at hand: the lead is far from perfect at the moment and we should discuss and edit to improve it. Andeggs (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I have been busy, and have not had the time to allow myself to get drawn into this again.

• Your proposed definition is not able to avoid the very circularity you are concerned about. "Extension" also would require some understanding of the meaning of "distance" (and distance, as you agree, requires an understanding of "space").
• The old lede was not misleading. What would be misleading would be to present a definition as though it were a simple thing to do, with not even an acknowledgement of the difficulty.

• What do we seem to agree on?:
  1. Space (in the physical sciences anyway) involves "the extensions of objects and their relative positions".
     • at least we don't have the issue common in the literature that focusses on only one of those - the space between objects, or the space objects occupy

• What do we disagree on? ...lots
  1. saying "space is a property of the empire universe" is little better than saying "space is a component of the universe". First, it is an extraordinary and grandiose claim (hence "empire" vandalism has some sympathy). Extraordinary claims require very strong backing - not just one or two reference books that make the same extraordinary claim.
  2. "Property of the universe" does nothing to narrow the scope of usage of the term. Isn't "red" also a property of the universe? and light? and perhaps matter and encyclopedias and contracts and words as well?
     • btw, EB online does not support "property of the universe"
  3. furthermore, the term space is used differently in different fields, but because there is a relationship between their usages, it makes sense to present them all in one article. A definition in the lede that focusses on physical space does not allow, for example, for the different usage in mathematics, in which there aren't any "physical objects" at all
  4. not only objects get located in space, events do too. Again, a definition that is limited to the usage of "space" in physics overlooks a range of other uses.
  5. defining terms with simpler terms MUST have an end, and we have met that point with "space". Instead of a definition by elements, what philosophers AND physicists do is they give operational definitions for such terms - they DESCRIBE the circumstances under which the term is used, and (if measurement is appropriate) the procedures and units of measurement.
     • The "circumstances under which the term is used involves more than extension and position. They involve the "distance between objects, their sizes, their shapes, their relative positions, and their movements (directions and speeds)".
• The article's lede has been stable for over 2 years, and what you propose neither has consensus nor improves the lede. We need to return the lede to its previous state and work from there.
• I have been working out some ideas for additions to the lede that would answer some of your concerns, but we first need to agree that the scope of this article is not limited to the meaning of space in physics (in which, btw, it matters little how one defines it ("empire" could stay & it wouldn't really matter), it matters more how you use the term and how the units used in spatial measuremnts are defined)

--JimWae (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

---

First I have no strong feelings about "component" or "property" of the universe. McGraw-Hill (not, I agree, the be all and end all in this debate) call it a property. I don't think it's wholly unreasonable in that the "thing" which "owns" space is the universe whereas the thing which owns "red" is the frequency of light. But I agree that it does not add much information and could be discarded.

Secondly, yes talking about extensions is a bit circular I suppose. The important bit of the definition of space is that it allows "objects to have positions relative to one another". In my mind this then leads onto the concepts of distance, size and shape. Note that directions and speeds require the existence of time, as well as space, to have meaning.

Thirdly, doesn't the existence of spacetime invalidate the appeal to operational definition? Predictions about the shape of spacetime are validated by experiment. The original lead did not attempt to define space at all and I believe this is unnecessarily cautious: it has meaning beyond a set of procedures.

Finally, I agree that the most important next step is to confirm the scope of this article. In my view it should start from a description of physical space. Mathematical space was originally an extension of the concept of physical space and should lead from there (we need to beef this section up). I would support a philosophical section too although we must bear in mind that some of this is in plain disagreement with current scientific thinking. Einstein shows that space (as a part of spacetime) is more than just a conceptual framework for measurement. For what it's worth I don't think "geographical space" and "psychological space" should be here - they are obviously about something different. Andeggs (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

They're about as valid for the article as most of the philosophical stuff. ;-) I think they are talking about aspects of the same thing. I would prefer to see the article grow, and refer out to other articles; space is a big thing ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the scope of the article needs to be that it covers all the notable models/theories of space, including geographical and psychological ones does not seem incompatible with this.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Curved space

I noticed there wasn't much on general relativity. I added a little, it needs expanding. Basically, under general relativity, space literally changes shape due to gravity. For example if you were to drill a hole through the Earth and measure the distance through it (notionally with a tape measure), and then measure the distance between the two holes from the outside (notionally with *big* calipers), the two wouldn't be the same. The distance through the Earth is further. Space time slumps under the weight of the Earth. There's slightly more volume in the Earth than you would expect from it's diameter.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you say space IS distorted, IS curved, you are attributing qualities of a substance to it. If you say it can be considered as if it were curved by objects, you do not as strongly imply it IS a substance --JimWae (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't imply any such thing, I merely state that the curvature of space is real, which; it is. Experimental data trumps any such philosophical objects you may have against the notion of curved space.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I should have use "one says" instead of "you say" - for that is what I meant. It matters not what one implies, it matters how the words are understood by intelligent beings. Claims that space is "real" and "physical" fly in the face of loads of scholarly work & cannot stand as flat "statements of fact". Also, Einstein frequently spoke in metaphors in English (not his native tongue), and if he ever said space IS curved, he also said time was unreal. His words do not completely override centuries of scholarly work. Your edits with no edit summaries that pesist in repeating that space is "physically curved" amount to editorial comment, are unsourced, and even if sourced, stating them as bald "facts" would require near unanimity in the field, which there is not --JimWae (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. If you have references to the contrary, please add any significant controversy to the article and reference it very well. But it has to be said that there is very good consensus indeed on this within the physics community- the existence of curved space is part of the standard model; and yes, experimental data does override centuries of scholarly work, every single time. It's called 'science'.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to Einstein saying that 'time was unreal', because I don't recall him saying anything like that? Indeed his entire career was spent describing the realities of time, and inter-relating them with other quantities in precise ways.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am entirely familiar with the experimental results & have no problem with them. The problem is how to write the conclusions and how to talk about space as "curved". Saying it IS "physically curved", as you have added to lede, (unless construed as just a model) implies space is physical. This statement requires extraordinary support, which does not exist --JimWae (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, "curved space" is a MODEL. Yet the lede presents it not as a model but as a PHYSICAL reality --JimWae (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by physical. If you mean related to physics, then it is physical. Space has a large number of properties that are consistent with it being physical in other senses as well, it supports gravity, curvature, magnetic and electric fields as well as zero point energy and some other things I may have missed. If you wish to discuss it in terms of it being a model, I don't have any particular problem, provided you emphasise that the model has extraordinary experimental support.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• which way will be clearer & more informative to readers - making it clear this is a model, or treating space like it might be some physical "aether" --JimWae (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I find you comparison between relativity theory and the aether model which it displaced rather odd.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The luminiferous aether was really a reference frame that Maxwell's equations were true in and every other reference frame had to be referred back to. In relativity theory all reference frames are equally good, and there's no preferred one. That doesn't mean that space doesn't exist as a physical entity, because it certainly does.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• is it you who keeps reverting to a version that cannot spell "separate"? and modifies a { {fact}} tag? --JimWae (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I did do this time, the article had been vandalised, and it seemed like a reasonably good revert point.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Maths and geometry

I thought that maths had something to say about space. There's multiple geometries, spherical, euclidean, non euclidean, orientable, non orientable and they all describe different spaces, with different properties. Doesn't the geometry define what kind of space you are in?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure as to your question, but I certainly agree with the first sentence. In it's current state, I think this page is unworthy of a redirect from Space (Mathematics) and should instead be perhaps links to vector space and hilbert space. --24.130.26.157 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation/article name

I'm really not sure that this is the main article that people expect when they search for 'space' here; I suspect that they actually want outer space. It might be a good idea to at least temporarily move it to one side, and put the disamb page in its place. After a few days of collecting statistics with User:Henrik's tool at: [4] we could make a much better determination. Comments?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Kant & Properties of space

Kant did not "believe that the properties of space could be determined a priori using the rules of geometry set out by Euclid in the 3rd century BC". He did not even believe that space was an entity that could "have properties". --JimWae (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

When I get back home I will check this sentence and replace it with a better version. I have made a few alterations in the lead. In the definition, I am happy with 'boundless extent' rather than 'continuum' but I think it should be "within which matter is physically extended and objects have positions relative to one another" rather than "within which objects and events are located relative to one another". Events have a time element so are not strictly located in space. Thanks Andeggs (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• So motions, atomic explosions, light, events & energy are NOT in space, do NOT have a location? Just because they involve time (what doesn't?) does not mean that they are without space. Space is essential to describing motion - and space cannot be defined in simpler terms than itself.
• The point of the introduction is to present a bit of what is to come, not to set up straw men to hack them down with the implication that now we have the final answer they were too ignorant to see
• Grab a metre stick roughly in the middle & hold it up. What space are you measuring? Whether space can itself be "measured" is part of the debate & to assert it IS measured violates NPOV - and is NOT supported by the reference either.
• Whether space has a "nature" is part of the debate - not just what its "nature" is. Again a POV issue
• Your second sentence (the one with the Easter egg for nature) implies some "higher truth" about 3 dimensions - something I do not think you intend
• Date linking is for date preferences to work. There is no benefit to linking centuries - and style guide says not to
• The goal of science is not "maintaining the laws of mechanics and optics", but examining what "laws" can be "found". Models are for explanation, not for preserving the past.
• You have removed several key points in my version. I do not see the reversions you have made as an improvement in any way at all.
• --JimWae (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK - good points, I've hopefully reverted my incorrect edits in the right places. I think we still need a sentence at the end of para 2 to hint at the Kant's synthetic a priori argument and introduce Euclid. "He believed that the theorems of geometry, derived from rules set out by Euclid in the 3rd century BC, consisted of assertions about the nature of the world in which one could have complete confidence." What do you think? Andeggs (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's no reason to single out Kant's view of Euclid from that of everyone else. Synthetic a priori is in body of article. What IS needed is statement that for Kant the spatial framework is not a matter one can choose or avoid at will - it is an unavoidable framework --JimWae (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

update to philosophy

I've just added a whole load of referenced material to the philosophy sections. Please feel free to edit and improve. Most of my material has come from books on philosophy of physics so if you think there are genuine systematic biases then let's discuss. thanks Andeggs (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move proposal

I'd like to move this article to Space (extent) and install the disamb at Space. The reason is the high hit rate at Outer space[5] and space[6] is less than twice as much, I'm pretty sure that that is not a coincidence; I think the users are searching for space, when they want 'Outer space' and getting here, and then following the link across, so there's two sets of hits. If we do the move then we will soon see the relevant hit rates, and we can decide, which if any, should get the automatic redirect, or whether we should leave it at the disamb.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

I cannot edit the page, so could someone change fi-wiki interwiki link from fi:Avaruus to fi:Fysikaalinen avaruus? Ʒ (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-self referential definition of space?

Is it possible to give a definition of space without using space in the definition? The definition in the article states "Space is the extent within which matter is physically extended.." Basically, space is the space between objects. Am I the only one that has a problem with this? The same thing happens when trying to define time, and it is troubling to me, please help! M00npirate (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Some terms cannot be defined in more basic terms - they are already as basic as it gets. Nobody has ever come up with a definition of space that did not already involve spatial concepts - Only an operational definition is possible. The article used to be more immediately explicit that a non-operational definition has eluded everyone, and such should probably be restored --JimWae (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Metaphoric and abstract usage of the word space in mathematics

In mathematics, the word space is used metaphorically and abstractly, so as to evolve a more general meaning than Euclidean space, more general even than Minkowski spacetime. In mathematics, a space is a set of points (again the word point is here used metaphorically and abstractly) with a mathematical structure.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In the context of mathematics I wouldn't call that metaphorically or abstractly - quite on the contrary. I reverted the edit in the lead, and added a remark with wikilinks in the mathematics section. DVdm (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Because they couldn't think of a new name, mathematicians have used the word "space" to designate more than one concept. This is ambiguity. Some people revel in ambiguity. Others try to avoid it in the interest of clear communication. We now have multiple concepts that are signified by the word "space." I assume that if anyone tries to analyze the ambiguity and present a distinct list of the various meanings, in order to foster clarity, they will be called pedantic, naïve, reductionist, or simplistic.Lestrade (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Mathematicians also have used the word "number" to designate more than one concept. Outside the subject of mathematics, we also have multiple concepts that are signified by the word "table". I think that's a good thing, and I don't think that the people who created this particular "distinct list of the various meanings, in order to foster clarity", let alone this one, will be called "pedantic, naïve, reductionist, or simplistic" :-) - DVdm (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There are many ambiguous words, so it must be acceptable, even "a good thing." If anyone wants to know an ambiguous word's meaning they should consider its context. Otherwise, it is a guessing game or an exercise in decoding.Lestrade (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

A question on space.

Those who are interested in understanding the propertie of space, in the context of our reality, i. e. cosmology and not just the Universe, can make the first step in that direction if they answer the following question;- when your body changes position in space;- does it take with it the space which the body occupies or not? If not, what does it take?

Those who are interested in understanding the properties of space, in the context of our reality and not only the Universe, will start breaking the barrier of ignorance if they attempt to answer the following question;- when your body changes position in space, does it take with it the space which it occupies or not? If not what is it that it takes? (89.243.216.102 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

?

When people say "nothing go's on forever" do they mean it literly because if "space" is empty and there is nothing in it, that would me nothing does go on forever. So where does space end/begin? And if noting is at the end/begin of space it truly does go on forever. urName (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a question for the wp:Reference desk/Science. DVdm (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Engvar

Currently this article is evenly split on -ISE and -IZE spellings

• idealised
• formalised
• characterized
• specialized

However, the second version of the article used "modeled", which is the American spelling, not the British spelling, "modelled".

This 2005-JUN-17 edit introduced -ise and -ize at the same time (popularised, specialised) and (characterized)

This 2005-JUN-18 edit removed "characterized"

This 2005-AUG-12 edit added "generalize"

This 2006-JAN-16 edit added "defineable"

As I understand it, British spelling accepts both -ise and -ize, giving -ize some claim also to being more "international". That claim is reinforced by -ize also being the spelling used in most Canadian style-guides. Based on initial use of "modeled" and subsequent mixed usage of -ise and -ize, it appears that "-ize" spelling and "American" engvar has presumed preference.--JimWae (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

British spelling does not accept -ize endings (otherwise WP would have standardised on them a long time ago I think): I have to stop my spell-corrector "fixing" American spellings like that when editing articles, and occasionally force myself to use them for consistency, but such spellings still look odd to me despite my time here.

this seems to be the earliest version that's not a DAB page, and it has one use of -ize, two of -ise and a modeled, so two each of US and British spellings. The change was "(Merged in content from Physical space, Space (astronomy), Space (philosophy), Space (physics) and Space (mathematics) as per vfd on Physical Space)", so there's no clear first editor or edit.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

According to this source, British spelling does accept -IZE. (I have found other support for this before, and will look for it again). The article started out as a non-DAB page, and the very 2nd version back in 2001-OCT-03 used "modeled". It appears, WP:RETAIN would call for "American" spelling for this article.--JimWae (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

These Wikipedia sources support -IZE in British usage:--JimWae (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)#International_organizations
• Oxford_English_Dictionary#Spelling
• Oxford spelling
• American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ise.2C_-ize_.28-isation.2C_-ization.29

And I'll just add that Oxford University Press standardizes on the -ize endings for all of its publications (unsurprisingly). One of the great authorities on the English language, Fowler, was clear that British English should not sacrifice the etymology of those verbs ending in -ize just for the sake of simplicity in remembering which take -ise from etymology (surprise, analyse) and which take -ize (from Greek -izein)... See: this entry in Fowler's Modern English Usage (not so modern now!). GKantaris (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article

I feel this article should be nominated for featured article. It's well written and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghunc (talk • contribs) 06:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Using Britannica's definition?

I was a little surprised to find this article lifting its opening (definition) sentence from the current edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (albeit with attribution). I know that some entries in Wikipedia are/were originally taken from out-of-copyright editions of Britannica, but the definition given here is taken from the current edition (and the 1911 out-of-copyright edition does not have a succinct definition because it treats Space and Time together under a philosohical discussion). Looking back in the Archive, I see a lot of disagreement over the definition in the lead, so it may be that the use of Britannica was decided on as the only feasible solution, but it does seem like something of a cop out! GKantaris (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. Further, I think the Britannica definition ("Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.") is flawed. I don't think "direction" is a valid concept without the dimension "time". Therefore, there should be no mention of "direction" in the definition. --WithGLEE (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Space a valid concept without the dimension time? Can the two be meaningfllu described as separate?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC) and we dont know.

grammatical error

In the first sentence of the article, "in which objects and events occur" should be "in which objects exist and events occur." I cannot correct this because it is currently locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2014

Selvakumar srs (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please resubmit your request with any necessary sources detailing the changes you would like made. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 14 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AnwarAfnan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracy or ambiguity

"time goes more slowly at places with lower gravitational potentials" What does the "lower" mean here, either lower potential, which would be at points further from the gravitational mass (and the statement would be factually incorrect) or lower towards the gravitational mass (which would make the statement factually correct but a confusing use of language)

I think this phrase should read "time goes more slowly at places with stronger gravitational potentials" <<< and I'm not sure the terminal "s" is needed either! This phrasing is then consistent with the description in the first paragraph of the related link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.160.122 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Lastly, and more trivially, I'm not sure time "goes" anywhere, perhaps "proceeds"? or "passes"? or "evolves"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.160.122 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015

Previous research has illustrated that space constraints can increase regulation of motor and social activity. Data collected both internationally and within the U.S. showed that people in more populated areas have lower leve lof revanlence in overwierght and obesity as well as lower rates of road trafiic accidents comparing to less populated regions. The effect of spacial constraints revealed that people tend to be less motivated to purchase products and less likely to comsume high-calorie foods while standing in smaller spaces 130.126.37.56 (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Three-dimensional space should redirect here

Pls weigh in here: Talk:Three-dimensional space#2nd merger. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

space — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.171.108 (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016

146.90.151.247 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is space boundless?

space is inside your body and outside your body , matter makes your body.

space can be inside and outside at the same time but matter is inside space you can't touch space . space is mystery and you can't solve it . space is limitless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.194.130.30 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Since it is unknown what exist outside our own universe, and it has become a scientific assertion that our universe indeed has bounds, then to define space as boundless and 3 dimensional seems to be inaccurate. In the spirit of simplicity i understand that we are not going to have a existential discussion about the nature of the universe or its size. But i would caution the use of the term boundless as it is quite assumptive. Perhaps something more accurate like "Space is a word used to describe 3 dimensional measurements within our universe" . maybe you can come up with something better. Aperseghin (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC) a have added the template to this statement because i believe it isΔρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, current mainstream conjecture remains that the universe is infinite in extent (the shape described by the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric). A few alternatives are presented at Shape of the universe, but despite multiple searches, no evidence for closed shapes has yet been found in the cosmic microwave background (you'd see various types of repeating pattern if the universe was sufficiently small). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Um according to what we know of physics and the big bang, the universe has an AGE and therefore has BOUNDS because it expanded at a measurable speed from the beginning and has done so for the entire TIME. SPEED x TIME = DISTANCE (aka bounds). the universe != space . SPACE is 3d area the universe is space + time + its forces. Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's just the size of the observable universe (the distance light from the beginning of the universe could travel to reach us). Per big bang, when space itself is expanding, different parts can be expanding faster than light relative to each other (everything outside the observation horizon is moving FTL relative to us). Space's size is also independent of its expansion rate. Consider a balloon: I can inflate it as slowly or quickly as I like. Measuring how fast the surface of the balloon stretches tells me nothing about the size of the balloon. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The current info on NASA's site shows the universe to be flat, with a extremely small (0.5%) margin of error. It also explains that no rules are violated with infinite space, because everything in space has a finite lifespan. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html 74.132.249.206 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

aND TO QUOTE THEM "All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe." NOW THAT WAS IN 2001. So my point is that since that time (2001) we have learned alot including that though we cant see past observable space (AGE x C distance from us) somewhere out there, it ends. (ask hawking)Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing several things. Hawking's work concerns black holes, not the observable universe. There has been no discovery of an "end" to space, so I have no idea where you're getting that from. The edge of the observable universe is, and remains, the cosmic microwave background emitted during the time of decoupling of matter and light (when matter ceased to be ionized and light could finally pass through it). Objects nearer to us - quasars - are routinely described as being 40+ billion light-years away, so your claim of "age x C" is incorrect, per my previous reply to you. You can find out where those numbers come from by looking up "Comoving distance" and "Proper distance". For distances larger than a few billion light-years, the metric expansion of space gives you a longer distance than your value (your value is only true if space doesn't expand). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

ok lets dumb this down for a moment. Singularity > Bang > Expansion (faster than the speed of light)> time passes (time that according to hawking did not exist before the bang)> we get to NOW. So NOW the expansion has been happening for a set TIME. Speed * Time = distance. does not matter how much distance, its a measurable distance, therefore finite and not boundless Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That would assume that there is no space beyond the farthest objects. That would be assuming that space is some kind of entity that is constantly being created, rather than (3) dimension(s). That would be assuming that objects are moving toward a "no-place" where space does not yet "exist" (toward "no-space"). There's a difference between space and space that has been occupied. --JimWae (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

An infinite space can still expand. That's exactly what the metric expansion of space is, and what the FLRW metric describes. For any given points, the distance between them later is larger than the distance between them earlier, no matter where you choose the points to be in the infinite range of coordinates available to you.

Having a singularity at the beginning doesn't change this; it just means that as you track time back to zero, the distance between any two points becomes zero. This happens no matter where you choose the points to be at nonzero time, in the infinite range of coordinates available to you.

The simplest example of a system like this: consider a space expansion scheme where $x(t)=x_{0}\left({\frac {t}{t_{0}}}\right)$ . Particles at rest some distance apart at time t are twice as far apart at time 2 t, half as far apart at time 0.5 t, and at one singular location at time t = 0. Points far enough apart will be moving FTL relative to each other, and so be outside each others' "observation horizons". Because it's space itself that expands, FTL is allowed.

The actual expansion formula is more complicated than this, but not by very much, and has similar features. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Our concept of a possible volume of space is an orthogonal 3 dimensional concept, and there is no reason to consider it to be lass than boundless! With reference to our Universe there are reasons to consider it to be less than boundless in spacial volume due to physical considerations. The idea of an orthogonal 4 dimensioned spacetime continuum is a misconception because there are no orthogonal 4 dimensional spaces. What there are with relation to the existence of matter within a spacial volume are noted instance events related to the relative positions of matter in space that change over intervals of time. Then the logic of Mathematics tries to rationalize the noted variability of the spacial dimensions with the time dimension and winds up with mathematical formulae that disagree with our classical independent dimension concepts. This has resulted in the concept that matter may move an infinite distance through a 3 dimensional space during a zero time time interval!WFPM (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)This defies our logic with relation to the sequencing and integration of instances of time into the interval units of the time continuum.WFPM (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, we have made elaborate efforts to determine the velocity of light through space to a high degree of accuracy and have defined its value to 10 significant figures. We know for example that the time of existence of the universe advances by approximately 2.5 seconds while a light from the earth goes to the moon and is reflected back to the earth's transmission point.WFPM (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a physicist, but doesn't an actual infinity lead to logical contradictions, like Hilbert's hotel room paradox?

From your osition in space the boundary of space is far away 'there'. From the position 'there' the boundary of space is where you are now. Since the observer can be in any point of space the boundary of space is in every point of the space. Therefore the boundary is not at a distance in straight line, instead it is 'here' in the smallest unit of space. Beyond that boundary there is immaterial space time to which the observer has no access with his material senses and his body made of electromagnetism and atoms and existing in the space time of the material Universe. KK (83.27.35.49 (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC))

What are the meaning of "Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent..."? Does it mean while space is boundless, but yet finite? Space don't have any topology, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.186.56.47 (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It means there is no physical limit to space. There is no end of area, and if something could move in one direction forever, it would never reach an end. The part that's finite is the part that has stuff in it, but it continually grow. There is a border of sorts, made up of the things which are the farthest away from the center at any given time. But space itself continues beyond it, without any end of any sort. There's just nothing there yet, except possibly a higgs field. This idea makes sense, but our minds seem to be incapable of imagining an infinite amount of area, so it can cause confusion. 74.128.43.180 (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothingness

DO you know about flow nets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.144.24 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothingness ‘0’ is contradiction of Totality’1’. The trinity of Nothingness, the Totality and the difference ‘<’ between them can be noted as (0<1). When Totality ‘1’ consists of ‘c’ parts of 1/c one part 1/c is the observer of this plurality and it is a unit of measurement of magnitude of the Totality and of each of its parts. Existence of the observer changes existence of Nothingness to non-existence. Isolation of the observer 1/c from the Totality of c makes the duality of Nothingness and Totality imperfect as (0<(c-1)). The imperfection changes observation of the duality in the first ‘now’ to observation of four elements in the next ‘now’, two of them ’independent ‘outside’ and two ‘inside’ as memory of contents of the first ‘now’ At the same time the observation moves location of self of the observer in opposite direction namely from increase in plurality to decrease.. Each time the observer changes his ‘now’ from ‘n’ to (n+1) he doubles plurality of parts of the Totality and halves magnitude of each part.. Each point ‘u’ on the difference < between two realities is the Trinity (0<1) in which ‘0’ is Nothingness and the beginning containing memory of non existing past and ‘1’ is the end and the imperfect totality of ‘now’. A part of the difference is u=n/c where (0<n<c) while (0<c<oo). Continuous change of ‘now’ creates our reality which is static as Totality of ‘1’ but which is dynamic internally The difference < varies from identity to contradiction. (217.99.252.69 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC))KK bottom line is you know NOT A thing about space and you will never know!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.194.130.30 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2018

In the section Relativity, in the last paragraph some changes should be made to acknowledge the observations of gravitational waves by the LIGO and VIRGO scientific collaborations. I suggest modifying the last sentence "While indirect evidence for these waves has been found (in the motions of the Hulse–Taylor binary system, for example) experiments attempting to directly measure these waves are ongoing." to "Indirect evidence for these waves has been found, e.g. in the motions of the Hulse–Taylor binary system. Moreover, the ongoing LIGO and VIRGO experiments have detected gravitational waves on multiple occasions since the first observation of gravitational waves on 11 February 2016." TanisGosu (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Space

Here it is how it all started.It all started one day when a massive explosion happend known as Big Bang.Since then space has started to expand and form new galaxies, after our galaxy was formed the solar system of ours was formed.When it was formed it was just a lonely star then planet started to form around our beatifull star (Sun), when the Earth was formed it was noting but a big fireball.We came to making of our Moon, Moon was made when a Mars-siez body know as Theia collided with Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milosbasbic (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggested additions

(1) I propose adding a section each on Galileo and Descartes under "Philosophy of Space." I think this will help contextualize the Newton-Leibniz debate. (2) I also suggest adding a section on the treatment of space in the Social Sciences after the section titled "In Psychology." This will explain theories about space in Feminism, Critical Geography, Marxism, and Postcolonial Studies. I have begun drafting these sections in my Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sgk18/sandbox/space. I am open to feedback, suggestions and criticism as I develop them in the next two weeks. Sgk18 (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Space

WHere is there any mentnion of the first meaning kids learn ???? Space is above our atmosphere. Completely neglected. This is a travesty. WHH????71.31.148.44 (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's why there's a hatnote (the very first sentence) saying This article is about the general framework of distance and direction. For the space beyond Earth's atmosphere, see Outer space.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey IP #! I added "outer space" to see also but Drow removed it. Said it was not related. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

HATCH – European Research and Innovation Web Portal

HATCH is a web portal developed in the framework of the H2020 work programme. It is a repository of EU funded space research and innovation projects and works. It, also, gathers information on space-related news, events, organisations, projects, publications, and calls for proposals.

The main goal of HATCH is to maximise the impact of European space research by providing access to project information (such as results, outcomes, funding) through a user-friendly, online platform aimed at both professionals and non-professionals.

Services and features

• Search and filters – the possibility to search throughout the database or filter specific data by type of document, subject, programme, country, language, start date and end date.
• Trends and statistics – it provides information about statistics on proposals, companies, publications and other materials published on HATCH.
• Networks – allows users to follow projects, companies, publications, specific topics, keywords, etc.
• Information on calls, ongoing projects, finished projects, their results, publications, news, and events.

Development

The HATCH web portal was developed in the framework of the H2020 work programme. The project duration was 20 months. It started on the 1st of November 2017 and ended in June 2019. The web portal www.spacehatch.eu was launched in April/May 2019. The portal was developed by a consortium of 4 SMEs and a high-profile technology centre. The consortium:

• Blue Dot Solutions (Poland) Blue Dot Solutions is the first Polish company in the downstream part of the space sector to receive venture capital investment.
• Catena Space (United Kingdom) The company combines expertise in space sector and technology development with business analysis and management.
• Eurecat (Spain) The principal technology centre of Catalonia, providing the industrial and business sector with differential technology and advanced expertise in a wide range of disciplines to respond to their needs for innovation and enhance their competitiveness.
• WATERDOG (Portugal) WATERDOG is a software development company founded in 2011 to offer services in web and mobile development. Focused on building products and businesses, WATERDOG is constantly developing cutting-edge digital solutions for different international clients.
• WIT Berry (Latvia) WIT Berry is an international digital communications consultancy firm based in Latvia. The company’s focus is digital communication and strategic content marketing.

The project included the following stages: concept specification and analysis, creation of user personas, system architecture, wireframing, design, testing, copywriting, back end development, front end development, communication, testing, business plan development and the launch.

The web portal launch took a place in Paris during the international event Paris Space Week on April 2.

HATCH has been involving different stakeholders in order to promote space a fast growing and trending sector in a global scale. Specific activities were aimed to inform school children, ongoing project participants, start-ups, policy makers etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a03:ec00:b191:3a8a:7d0a:feb1:6001:2f08 (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

THIS MIGHT HAPPEN IN 20,000,000 YEARS.......

So your probley wondering what will happen in 20,000,000 years. I will tell you right now what will mabey happen in 20,000,000. The sun might grow so big it will "breath in" 3 plants (Mercury,Venus and Earth.) So the world may end...........D: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbylw7 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Scary!! MadZarkoff (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Read the statement at the top of this page:This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.Hellbound Hound (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait... how would the sun be that big in 20 million years? It shouldn’t be a red giant by then; it should still have another 4 billion years as of today until it reaches white dwarf phase, and if I remember correctly, the red giant phase is short, on a universal time scale. It should be occurring much later. I’m not sure about this last part, but I don’t think the sun grows just over time. I believe it’s already taken in all it’s fuel for its main phase during the protostar phase. Or is there something I am missing here? Warboyawsome (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"right-handed three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system"

In the interests of accuracy, I feel constrained to point out that the figure in the Introduction is not a "right-handed three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system": it is a reduction (or whatever term is preferred) of one to two dimensions.

Normally this might seem unimportant, but since dimensions are intimately involved in the subject under discussion, I think it deserves some attention. Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2020

i think you should talk about planet X it is hypothetical tho 64.254.70.242 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not for general suggestions for article expansion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

nbhjgjbj,hjgbhjmbgjv,b,jgv,nbhjg, Ahmedelsayes (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Boundless

I read a paper somewhere that said something about space being finite. Something about a cube?-Thanks Ooh Saad (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

space

space is the biggest question of all times space is every where inside everybody and also outside everybody , space is omnipresent ,even if the universe is a living body then also you have a fare chance of space outside that universal body or system ,the emptiness where you can raise your hands freely is space , space is bigger than imagination itself you have number of possibilities in it , it stores all the powers inside , no matter how big is the star system still some where inside space .

Proposal:

replace

n mathematics one examines spaces with different numbers of dimensions and with different underlying structures.

by

???

to distinguish between geometrical spaces, in which 'point', 'line' and 'plane' have their intuitive meaning of olden times, and abstract spaces (sets) like function spaces, in which 'point' means hardly more than 'element'. Geometrical spaces can have different numbers of dimensions and different underlying structures.

Ldboer (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

generally, the goal of replacing things is accuracy or clarity, as well as relevance. Yours maybe gets the accuracy, although you don't source that so its just a guess, but fails the other two. Theres no good reason. Also, what does space have to do with a racehorse from the early 1960s? 74.132.249.206 (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Universal body Geometrical Ferdinand Oliphant (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

293711 Ferdinand Oliphant (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Ferdinand Oliphant (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

29372311 Ferdinand Oliphant (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Space

Chris Ross Grasso (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Request denied. It is not clear what you want done.—Anita5192 (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)