Jump to content

Talk:Space

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.132.249.206 (talk) at 06:52, 2 September 2012 (→Is space boundless?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP1.0

space

Proposal:

replace

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

by

In mathematics one has 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

?

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is space boundless?

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 [dubious – discuss] template to this statement because i believe it isΔρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space&oldid=510392037"