Since this has been going on all day, I'll reiderate what has been said in edit summaries, and from independent research. Some galaxies are thousands of light years apart, while others are millions. The nearest galaxy to our own is the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy, 25,000 LY away and one of several Milky Way Satalite Galaxies. See here for a list of galaxies closest to the Milky Way and note that most of the galaxies are within 500,000 LY. Lancer1289 10:17, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
There are in fact around two dozen satellite galaxies, most of whose distances from the Milky Way are on the order of hundreds of thousands of light years. Canis Major is 25,000 light years from our solar system and 42,000 light years from the galactic centre, the more relevant distance being the latter since we are discussing intergalactic distances. But that distance is unusually close and explains why Canis major is being torn apart by the Milky Way.
The majority of galaxies are not tearing eachother apart, for the simple reason that they are too far away from eachother for their gravitational pulls to have such destructive effects. Furthermore, your idea that galaxies are only a few thousand light years implies that the universe is far younger than the widely accepted estimate of 13.2 billion years. If galaxies were on average thousands of light years apart they would still be forming, and probably so would we.
- But saying millions negates the fact that galaxies are close together. If we say millions, then anything closer than the Phoenix Dwarf Galaxy isn't a galaxy, which they are. Millions is more appropiate if we were talking about Andromeda or another major galaxy, but wer aren't becuase we are talking about galaxies in general. Galaxies are closer than Millions of Light Years so the article reflects that. Lancer1289 10:32, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Lancer never said 'a few thousand'. Also, the average is meaningless. The simple fact of the matter is that there a quite a large number of galaxies within less than a million light years of other galaxies. Whether or not they're being 'eaten' by the larger galaxy is irrelevant, and I'm actually not sure I agree that most galaxies aren't tearing eachother apart, I'd bet a lot of them are eating up satellite galaxies, and even Andromeda and the Milky Way are going to collide in the distant future. Also, a million is divisible by a thousand, saying 'thousands' in no way implies that there aren't any galaxies further a way.
- I we still can't come to an agreement, a simple compromise is to say: "Because at least thousands of light-years lie between any two galaxies". Though I think that's unnecessary.
- JakePT 10:39, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
- I also think that is unnecessary as thousands says it quite plainly and covers all the bases. Saying "at least" just clogs up the sentence and people will wonder what we mean by at least, under 5,000, under 10,000 LY distance. Thousands removes that and also says that there is greater distance as well. Lancer1289 10:45, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
- JakePT 10:39, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
Saying thousands implies anything between 1000-9999, which I'm sure even you would agree is too close since the CMDG is 42,000 light years away from the galactic centre. A better compromise would be to say tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands.
- And when you say tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands you imply 10,000 - 99,999, and 100,000 - 999,999 respectivly. Both of those are innaccurate as there are galaxies that fall outside both categories. Thousands has been used in places where tens and hundreds isn't appropiate, like this case. Thousands is more accurate and saying anything else is implying something else, when thousands has worked and is the best fit for this situation. It is also used to descibe distances beyond what yoru definition of thousands says. Examples: The Earth is thousands of miles in circumfrance. The Moon is thousands of miles from Earth. And I can go on all day. Bottom line is thousands fits better and is more accurate. Lancer1289 11:02, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
Naturally there galaxies that fall outside the ranges of 10,000-99,999 and 100,000-999,999. but there are NO galaxies whatsoever that fall within the range of 1000-9999 that you keep insisting on. To suggest otherwise is totally inaccurate and I fail to understand why you believe otherwise. If we only consider those galaxies that are orbiting the Milky Way, the vast majority fall within the range of 100,000-500,000 light years in distance, whilst the remaining three (Canis Major Dwarf, Saggitarius Dwarf and Ursa Major II Dwarf) fall within the range of 10,000-99,999 light years.
An accurate measurement can be defined as a measurement that is as close to the true value as possible. In the context of our galaxy and the neighbours closest to it, the millions of light years measurement may be wide of the mark. But at least there ARE galaxies that fall into the range of 1,000,000-9,999,999 and they would be relevant in terms of the intergalactic void, which I have noticed was corrected recently. But there are NO galaxies at all that are 1000-9999 light years away from the galactic centre. The categoric average of a given set of data is the category into which the most figures fall. The average of a set of data is therefore the most accurate representation of a set of data. This is why the average is relevant in regards to the question, and why 1000-9999 has no accuracy or relevance whatsoever in this respect, since no galaxies fall into this category.
Finally, since 21 of the 24 orbiting dwarf galaxies fall into the 100,000-500,000 category, this is the most accurate average of distance from our galaxy, therefore 100,000s should be the figure stated on the Dark Space article.
- I can only see the edits that would come from that. Sample edit summary from someone changing it, "But there is a galaxy 25,000 LY away so hundreds of thousands is innaccurate" and then they say tens of thousands. Or you could interchange that with many other forms of combinations. That would start an edit war over wording that would eventually wind up back where it started, with thousands, which is why it's used. Thousands has again been used where other forms of thousands, i.e. tens and hundreds, doesn't fit, which is exactly this situation. Thousands removes the possiblity of people saying but there are galaxies that are tens/hundreds/millions of LY away and that would result in a revolving door of edits that would just be a nusence to try and sort out. Thousands is what was agreed upon, as many editors have stated that it is also more appropiate. SpartHawg948: "it's thousands, as there are some galaxies less than one million light years apart from one another. PikaShepard: "This has been discussed before, and since the nearest galaxy is only 25,000 LY away 'thousands' is more appropriate." Again the bottom line is that thousands fits better and is more appropiate. Lancer1289 11:39, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
So am I correct when I say that your argument can be summed up as such: "Different people will argue for different units of distance that have varying degrees of truth and relevance, so to keep the peace we'll put a unit of distance with no truth or relevance whatsoever"?
- No you aren't correct as the argument has been made that thousands is more accurate than anything else because they don't fit. Thousands is used commonly when it can imply 1,000-999,999, and I've seen it used in books, formal papers, etc to describe similar things. Thousands has been agreed upon and in sthis case, since nothing else fits, is more accurate. See JakePT's comment above. Lancer1289 12:15, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
I think what Lancer is doing is right simply because "thousands" is more general than "tens of thousands" or "hundreds of thousands". I am an astronomy minor in college, very well aware of the awesome distances between astronomical objects in general and galaxies in particular. But in the end, this isn't Wikipedia or BadAstronomy.com. We just want to make things as simple as they can be for readers, who are mostly gamers seeking help and such, not astronomy buffs or scientists. So better to keep things general and simple, without explicitly violating scientific principles.
Not saying you 18.104.22.168 don't have a point, but still. Fiery Phoenix 14:54, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the assurance Fiery Phoenix. It just seems to me that since Bioware has put a lot of effort into basing much of Mass Effect's background on actual science, the wiki ought to follow suit.
- Which we are with thousands. Since there are a number of galaxies less than one million LY apart, it would be incredibly inaccurate to say "Because millions of light-years lie between any two galaxies"... This is a blanket statement (thanks to the any two galaxies), and changing it to millions would mean that you could take any two galaxies, look at the distances between them, and see that they are millions of LY apart, which is of course false. SpartHawg948 18:58, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
Why not say something like this? "Because range between any two galaxies varies from tens of thousands to the millions (with a single light-year being exactly 9,460,730,472,580.8 kilometers), dark space is essentially a vast expanse of near-vacuum." Personally, I think the exact numeral distance for a light year is excessive and unnecessary. Because I happen to be American, I don't think in kilometers. Not saying we switch it to miles. I suggest we just take out that altogether. Everybody knows a light year is immensely long. If they want to know specifics, they can Google it. We aren't here for astronomical specifics (though some of you would seem to disprove that point). We're here to learn about the game specifics. So Ask yourself. What does this article intend to provide? The definition of Dark Space, for those gamers who do not know what it means. The answer? "Any space between galaxies that is uninhabited by stars or systems. The lack of light in these areas gave it the name "Dark Space". Though some galaxies are relatively close, most are separated by an expanse in excess of tens of thousands of light years in galaxy clusters. Galaxy clusters can be separated by expanses in excess of millions of light years." That's all we really need on astronomical specifics. --Geotexan 18:52, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Not all readers may be here for astronomical specifics, but some of them certainly do want to see them, as they wouldn't have been added otherwise. Remember that everything you see here, such as the exact numeral distance for a light year, are here because an editor put it into the article. It's not inaccurate, it's relevant to the topic, and it doesn't in any way detract from the article, so I see no reason to remove it, personally. SpartHawg948 19:14, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
- I also can't see a reason to remove or change it either. Since this entire commentary, the issue has come up, once, maybe twice and it was only the editor I was, then others, were arguing with that had a problem with it. There really isn't much of an issue. What is stated now is accurate and the proposed modification just adds unnecessary wordiness to the article to say the exact same thing. Lancer1289 19:47, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
The "emerging from hibernation at the end of ME2" mentioned in the Mass Effect 2 section of the article (a notion which never had any actual basis in the first place, thank you very much admins) has now been proven wrong by Lead Writer Mac Walters on Twitter http://twitter.com/#!/macwalterslives/status/106469649889247232
It is now established that the Reapers began moving towards the galaxy at the end of ME1, and that the snippet we see of them in ME2 is simply showing them moving through dark space. I will therefore make the necessary changes to the article to reflect this. --22.214.171.124 21:21, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Ok first, there is no need to be outright rude to start off. It isn't the best way to introduce yourself to a community. Second, we actually did have a basis for what the article in the first place given what is presented at the end sequence of Mass Effect 2. While you obviously disagree, there was enough basis for stating what we did. Now apparel there is new information, which I should mention is only about 30 minutes old at the point this message was left, that says differently and the article should reflect that, but there is no need to go about in the somewhat rude manner that you did. Lancer1289 21:27, August 24, 2011 (UTC)