Talk:Free space

message: I rewrote a bit...not much content changed I think...let me know what you think. One thing is, I used phrases like "properties of vacuum in classical electromagnetism" rather than "classical vacuum" -- it's not the vacuum that is classical or quantum, it's the laws of physics describing it. Also, it's not in principle impossible to remove every last particle of matter from some volume, it just is in practice today, so I tried to make that clearer. --Steve (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree that free space is defined in terms of its permeability and its permittivity. It is our systems of units which are defined by the numerical values of these constants. Maybe we should have a separate section on these, but I've always found it hard to do without falling into WP:OR. Physchim62 (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it says that... It says that in classical electromagnetism, the permeability of free space is mu0 and the permittivity is epsilon0. That's not debated by anyone. It does not say that that's the definition of free space, does it? Are you misled by the phrase "has the following properties"? That's not meant to be "is defined by the following properties", just "has". Maybe there's a clearer way to say it. --Steve (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote a bit 

message: Please see the merge discussion at Talk:Vacuum#Merge_proposal:_from_Free_space, and add comments there if you want.  It appears that there was only one objection, without followup, to the merge proposal.  I still think it's the right way to go, and maybe it's now time.  Comment there.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge it? 

message: The article as it stands now contains egregious omissions ... --J. D. Redding 00:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the stuff you're showing  (above) was removed as being either not relevant to free space, or redundant with respect to vacuum.  If some of the many sources provide info about free space that is useful in distinguishing it from vacuum, or otherwise relevant to the idea of having a separate article on free space, please do point those out or add them back.  There seems to have been pretty good consensus for taking out most of this stuff that you and Brews ohear added,  but I'm sure that if you explained, we could include any bits that are important. Dicklyon (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Restore facts and information

message: Please expand and improve the existing article. J. D. Redding 00:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the stuff you're showing  (above) was removed as being either not relevant to free space, or redundant with respect to vacuum.  If some of the many sources provide info about free space that is useful in distinguishing it from vacuum, or otherwise relevant to the idea of having a separate article on free space, please do point those out or add them back.  There seems to have been pretty good consensus for taking out most of this stuff that you and Brews ohear added,  but I'm sure that if you explained, we could include any bits that are important. Dicklyon (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: EOS

message: Free space is also a term used in sociology and left-wing/anarchist culture for a community center or other space which is free of state control and discrimination. See Article on autonomy or Polletta on free space or Chris Atton 2003: Infoshops in the Shadow of the state, in: Contesting Media Power: alternative media in a networked world, 2003, p.57-69.--85.183.154.44 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: sociology