Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2024 May 23

= May 23 =

Inner space
What is outer space "outer" of? Is it "the region beyond Earth's sky" (i.e. the atmosphere) mentioned in outer space? I tried visiting Inner space, but it's a disambiguation page with no relevant results. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There isn't a firm boundary for outer space, as atmospheric pressure exponentially decreases with altitude above Earth's surface (see scale height) and thus the exosphere blends into space rather than suddenly vanishing into a vacuum. The lead section of outer space gives at least one boundary defined by convention, and the body states that the density of atmospheric gas gradually decreases with distance from the object until it becomes indistinguishable from outer space; this need not occur at a fixed altitude even if we assume a constant pressure for the interplanetary medium (or threshold above it). I guess we could then say that outer space is "outer" to the region with a significantly higher density/pressure with respect to the interplanetary medium, or more simply, "outer" to any measurable atmosphere of a planet.
 * I've also never heard the term "inner space" in the context of planetary science. Complex / Rational  02:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * One arrives at inner space by sitting and meditating, not by visiting a website. (Cue one of my frequent dad jokes: "My son has taken up meditation. Well, at least he's not just sitting around doing nothing".) -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Kármán line may be of interest. I don't think the term 'outer space' ever had a physical 'inner' counterpart. As a term for the mental realms, however, 'inner space' was often used in explicit opposition to 'outer space' in discussions of the 'New Wave' of Science Fiction writing in the 1960s and later (see Inner space (science fiction)). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Contrasting with outer space, there's also near space, which redirects to mesosphere. PiusImpavidus (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of being enamored by one symmetric face and bored by an equally symmetric one?
Why should evolution give them such a wide range from meh to gobsmacking? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You are potentially ascribing too much intent, if rhetorical or metaphorical, to the process. Sometimes there are just spandrels. Remsense  诉  05:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If hunter gatherers lived in population densities under 1 per square mile and only saw one band of unrelated humans at a time and only about 75 were female and a fairly large percent were too young or too old with the stage 1 population pyramid and some of the rest aren't attracted to you and some you can't stand to live with long-term or almost and some can't stand you either then what's the point of some females being far more beautiful than others to specific men all other things being equal? Or it increased group harmony vs if beauty was less in the eye of the beholder? Less discord at least if not fights over women. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This question doesn't seem like it has an answer, because you are ascribing too much intent to conceptual abstractions. Remsense  诉  01:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We have a facial symmetry article. DMacks (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's nice that the last line in that article is the 'what the...?' cliffhanger "Some evidence suggests that face preferences in adults might be correlated to infections in childhood..." with the cited source saying "...frequency of diarrhea in particular". Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The word "bored" seems to have taken on some strange new meaning. I see people on social media saying stuff like "I was bored out of my skull so I came here ..." (= "I'm only here because I'm desperate"). If that isn't the greatest insult to their fellow socialmediaists, I don't know what would be. Contrary to the OP's title, being indifferent to something does not equate to being bored by it. One would have to spend some considerable time focussing on the object in question to get to the point of being bored by it, but that is the exact opposite of being so unimpressed by the object that one moves on immediately to something potentially more interesting. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this sense of "bored" develops when one views a range of examples in aggregate such that they constitute one experience. Remsense  诉  23:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)