This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is Archive 1 covering 2003 and earlier.
Geologically speaking, wouldn't the Earth have only six continents? Europe and Asia are actually one land mass; the are different 'continents' in a cultural sense only. - Stephen Gilbert
Geologically speaking, one might talk of the different tectonic plates the earth has. Geographically speaking, one might talk about continents. Thus, I would add "...geographically dividing it into five oceans and seven continents". -- Grant
If an entity from another system within the known universe (or any other universe for that matter) were to read (assuming that was possible) the Earth page, ya gotta wonder what said entity might think! -- Grant
The count of oceans is at least as arbitrary as that of continents; the Arctic Ocean is clearly distinct, but there's no obvious place to divide the Indian Ocean from the Pacific, or the Antarctic from the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.
Also, are imports and exports even meaningful concepts here? -- Vicki Rosenzweig
I think the exports and imports part has some interesting information ($5.6 trillion a year in production; shows who produces it and where it goes). Is there some easier and immediately understood way to phrase it? --KQ
At this point the wikipedia is a compendium of human knowlege if an alien were to read the wikipedia he/she/it mighe find that it did not reach an ideal NPOV, but who cares? I'd argue that we can't possibly do this without the input of the aliens themselvs, and anyway if aliens start reading and getting involved in the wikipedia, we'll have to change a lot of things anyway... MRC
Consistency or no, I'm not going to move most of Earth to Earth (planet) right now. From an astronomy point of view that would be logical, but I suspect its orbital parameters and suchlike aren't what people first think of when they think Earth. However, there is a slight ambiguity problem with Earth-as-our-world, Earth-as-a-planet, and earth-as-soil. Is this best left as-is, or is there a better way to handle it? -- April
Deleted the reference to "intelligent species, including humans, apes, dolphins and maybe a few others". Ranking other species as "intelligent" gets into a whole load of complex debates that it's really not worth getting into here - for instance, there's research currently claiming some extremely impressive cognitive abilities for parrots that I'd imagine others working in the area would dispute hotly. -- Robert Merkel
From the main article:
At this rate of ocean level drop, over the past five billion years the ocean level would have fallen approximately 9,500 miles. Does anyone know the real rate at which water is being lost? Bryan Derksen
---
I added in the obligatory Mostly Harmless to pay homage to Douglas Adams' "The Hithchiker's Guide to the Galaxy", where the description of Earth in the Guide is simply the two words, "Mostly Harmless." Trust me, people will understand.
---
A lot of this stuff is from the CIA World Factbook. Don't let that scare you, it's entirely unclassified info, but there may be some copyright issues. The factbook is available for browsing at www.odci.gov
---
I really feel it is remiss not to include the Mostly Harmless thing *somewhere* in the page. It's not a joke, it's something that deserves to be linked. How about at the "other names" area? Is that OK, or are you going to ban me again?
---
Well let me further my point, then I'll put it to rest. There will be two types of people looking at the Planet Earth article: people who want statistics about the planet and people who just want to see the entry "mostly harmless," just like in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. This is already seen in everything2.com, hhg.com and a few other distributed encyclopedias like this one. What's the big deal? People expect it! I'm not the only one who has attempted that edit, according to your change history. With there being a demand and the likeliness that someone else will try it again, why not just put it in?--Anon
Whatever the CIA may think, it is false at present to speak of the Earth's economy as having imports and exports -- to say nothing of external debt! -- FOo
Describing Earth as the only planet known to be inhabited by living organisms is unacceptable and violates NPOV. There have been countless research teams claiming and disputing evidence from Mars meteorites and the Viking probes; some researchers still claim that the Viking probes successfully demonstrated the existence of life on Mars [1], [2]. To these researchers, the fact that there are microbes on Mars is "known", even if it is disputed by others. Referring to intelligent life lets us avoid the whole life on Mars controversy. -- Eloquence 21:52 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)
Now we agree more or less on the content but it doesn't look OK. I think something like this is better:
I think this is OK form the correctness of the information, NPOVness and the presentation. -- Looxix 02:30 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
As a casual reader, this article seems to be very uneven. It's missing sections on:
I am not suggesting the article should become much longer to fit these in. They should be brief summaries with lots of links, with a slight bias towards those subjects which don't fit easily into obviously named articles. (E.g. the History section should lean slightly more towards those phenomena, like war, which aren't conveniently confined to an article on one modern-day country).
In addition, there's a lot of stuff here which doesn't seem nearly important enough to be in an article of this size on Earth in general. Some examples:
Perhaps the items in the latter list could be moved to their own articles first, shrivelling the relevant sections in Earth as you go (and adding links if necessary), before any new sections are added. That would avoid the article getting too unwieldy.
-- mpt, May 1, 2003
Eloquence removed
Maybe it is too wordy, but I think it is beneficial to at least have links to creation stories written by contemporary writers. Mythological information is provided in the Earth article. So should popular fictitious references. Maybe we can find a compromise. Kingturtle 02:36 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
Kingturtle's quote of what Eloquence removed is incomplete. The opening sentence was, "There is a long-running joke relating to the treatment of the Earth in encyclopaedias." This is true, and arguably relevant to a treatment of the Earth in an encyclopaedia. I added the explanation which followed, just to explain what the joke was. It was not intended as "DNA fandom stuff". (The bit about Magrathea wasn't me...) As well as being arguably relevant, it would quite likely (as a minor bonus) stop random passers-by from adding the "Mostly harmless" phrase themselves, in a less encyclopaedic way, as they quite often do. -- Oliver P. 16:40 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
The following irrelevant material has been removed from the article. This entry is about the planet Earth. This article is not about all facts and information about the human race! This article also is not the Main Page of an encyclopedia. We do not just jam every topic in the world into one entry, because the entry is titled "Earth". Get a grip! RK
(Moved to Economy of Earth by Bryan)
I really think the discussion of human civiliation here is very overblown, amd totally of place. Everything we have here, including the data, should be summarized in a paragraph. And in all seriousness, it wouldn't hurt to mention the Douglas Adams bit, next to the link about the Earth in fiction. RK
Where should this go? David J. Stevenson, Professor of Planetary Science at Cornell University, has just published "A Modest Proposal: Mission to Earth's Core", a paper published in Nature (May 15, 2003) A Modest Proposal: A Mission to the Earth's Core
I removed this from the article, for now:
What do you mean by "some scientists"? To the best of my knowledge, this is not a mainstream idea anymore; my reading is that such ideas did exist in the 1960s and 1970s, but they are no longer considered viabl arguments. Are you claiming that some form of this argument has resurfaced in the mainstream? I would like to see some references on this point. It seems to me that much of this article was written as an argument to show that life can't possibily exist on any planet except Earth, and that life here is due to one random chance that can't be counted on to occur anyplace else. RK
RK, I don't agree with your removal of the Earth-related data. Think about it: You open up a page in the Encyclopedia Galactica for a populated planet -- what do you expect to find? Certainly more than just a summary of the planet's physical characteristics. We may have to reorganize this stuff, but the article Earth should certainly be an entry point to many related subjects. Removing all information about the global economy while retaining a link to Earth in fiction is also blatantly inconsistent. -- Eloquence 02:15 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
I second you on this one :-) -- Looxix 02:30 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
How about moving that material to a more specific article, for example Economy of Earth (in the same pattern as the CIA factbook pages for countries), and then linking to it in the same way that Earth in fiction is linked to? I agree with RK that there was a great deal of stuff in this article which didn't fit well here. Bryan
_____
I added a link to Chandler wobble - wasn't sure where else to put it! Planetary geology hasn't been done yet. - David Stewart 10:18 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
Please stop adding this to the earth article. It's getting really boring now and will just keep being removed. Secretlondon 12:10, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
"Nearly all humans live on the Earth." Indeed. Where do the rest live? Adam 10:47, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I hate to be pedantic (!), but one "lives" in one's home. A work assignment, even a prolonged one, is not where one lives. There are naval personnel atm who have spent a year on an aircraft carrier - do they live there? They do not, they live at their homes. Ask them. The line is just someone being clever, which I don't mind, but it isn't encyclopaedic. Adam 01:32, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Also: "Earth has one natural satellite, "the Moon", which revolves around the Earth." Is this not a rather geocentric view? In fact the Earth and the Moon revolve around each other, or rather around a point between them, closer to the Earth than to the Moon because of the Earth's greater mass. If we were living on the Moon, the Earth would appear to be revolving around us, no?
Adam 10:53, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In contrast to the degree by which Luna orbits Terra; Terra's "orbit" of Luna is negligible. Lirath Q. Pynnor
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is Archive 2 covering 2004.
How did the Earth form? What aspect of the Earth or its location do astrobiologists hypothesize as having been crucial to the development of its most idiosyncratic feature-- life. How did life emerge and when. Have there been any noteworthy biological events since the appearance of the first cell? How does the emergence and history of life relate to geological and climate evolution? How often is Earth hit by asteroids? What have been the consequences? Do we expect more?
How did scientists determine the average density of the earth? - The average density is Mass divided by Volume. To find the volume you need the radius which you can find by measuring the curvature of the Earth like Eratostenes did about 230BC. Then you know the volume of the Earth (assuming it is sufficiently spherical). To measure the mass you need to know the gravitational constant which was measured sometime I believe sometime in the 18th century. You apply Newton's law for gravity (the one with inverse-square radius) and you have the mass.
How many human-made satellites are there and when did the first one ( sputnik) go up? If you count every single piece of manmade debris - millions. Sputnik - October 4th 1957.
How do people study the Earth? What kind of scientists study it? What questions plague us, if any? What are predicted fates of the Earth? What about the ozone hole? What about the Kyoto protocol? What about geomagnetic reversals? 168... 05:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nearly all humans live on Earth: 6,327,152,352 inhabitants (November 1, 2003 est.)
User:Cantus has twice removed this statement from the intro paragraph: "the largest terrestrial planet in the solar system." I disagree with the reasons he's stated in the edit summaries (first that Jupiter's core might be larger, and then that it was "anecdotal"), and think it is a totally reasonable thing to say in the intro. Cantus, could you explain in greater detail why you think it should be removed? Bryan 04:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there's any credible evidence of any terrestrial planet our solar system that is larger than earth. Cantus' objections are absurd. I say if it gets removed in the future, that should be considered vandalism unless there's a damn good explanation. -- Doradus 01:45, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Bryan Derksen, where are you getting that mean temperature from? Averaging the min and max gives 258, not 282... If that average temp. was obtained thru a different method, care to mention the source? -- Cantus 06:00, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
the moon is not the only "natural satellite". E.g. the earth has captured an asteroid named Cruithne.
about mentioning the moon in a short article about earth: it's important. On this level, the earth is nothing than a planet among 9 others. The number of moons is characteristic and has to be meantioned.
I get 365.25636 / 365.2422 ≈ 1.00003877. Fredrik (talk) 19:25, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The planet is big enough to have the core differentiated into a liquid outer core, which gives rise to a weak magnetic field due to the convection of its electrically conductive material, and a solid inner core.
It is generally believed that the rotation of the inner core (which is primarily composed of iron) creates the Earth's magnetic field. It is not known, exactly, why this occurs.
I think this is confusing. What is causing the magnetic field - inner or outer core? Are there two components of the field? This needs to be clarified. Paranoid 11:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Does this need to be in this article? Do we even have a source for it? Edward 10:01, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Inclination of Earth's orbit is given as 0.00005 degrees. Since this is the inclination to the Ecliptic, shouldn't this be 0 by definition? If the value given is related to some other plane, shouldn't that be made clear? Thanks. Amorim Parga 04:21, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't the entry say "Mostly harmless." ?? Just drooling. ;-)
Someone attempted to add a comparison of the torques felt on the Earth by different astronomical objects in order to explain why the moon has a stabalizing effect on the axis of the Earth. For one thing, this is rather technical information and might not fit very well into this page, but worse than that, the numbers quoted were simply very wrong. It is clear from the scale of the numbers stated that the author was merely comparing the force exerted on the Earth from various astronomical objects. However the force is not the same as the torque. The torque depends not on the total force but on the difference in the force applied to one side of the equatorial bulge rather than the other. Because it is so close, the moon has the largest gravitational gradient across the Earth of any astronomical object (followed shortly thereafter by the sun). Hence, the Moon exerts the largest torque on the Earth and that is why the moon acts to stabilizes the Earth's axial tilt.
However, other factors are also important. For example, relatively constant torques, such as from the Moon and Sun tend to cause axial precession and not nutations or axial tilts. For other planets (e.g. Mars) the total torques exerted depend more significantly on where it is in its orbit with respect to its nearest neighbors (e.g. Earth and Jupiter). It is when such time varying torques are a significant component of the total torque that one tends to promote chaotic shifts in the planet's axis.
Dragons flight 18:56, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Seems that the complex and as stated controversial subject of chaotic instability of Earth's axial tilt under moon should be moved to another article, maybe to axial tilt, rather than in this long general article. - Vsmith 01:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Cantus wrote: Encyclopedias are not written for aliens or animals. So what's wrong with aliens (or animals) reading Wikipedia? — Monedula 11:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can we remove the specific number and round to the nearest 10,000? I'm pretty sure we haven't been able to get even that accurate as it is. Oberiko 17:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
An anonymous user changed the surface area very slightly. I haven't done any calculations, but the change may even be within the error margin. However, I feared that this was one of the slashdot-inspired changes designed to evaluate the efficiency of Wikipedia peer review, so I'd like to find a recent supporting source for one of the numbers. However, my efforts of googling something up have been unsuccessful. Help? — David Remahl 20:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can contribute some calculations. Hopefully it's good enough to assume an oblate spheroid with polar radius 6356.78km and equatorial radius 6378.14km, which are taken from our own Earth page (but which are more precise than the values listed in NASA's planetary fact sheet).
First, the eccentricity is defined by:
Solving for eccentricity e:
Plugging into the formula for the area of an oblate spheroid:
This is evidently the calculation performed by the anonymous editor. However, carrying it to the nearest square kilometer is excessive, since (for instance) that implies that the radius figures are accurate to the nearest centimeter (!!), and is also far beyond the accuracy of the oblate spheroid approximation. Certainly 510,067,000km² is more than enough precision. -- Doradus 02:48, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
An unimportant point regarding the surface area of the Earth: the actual surface area of the Earth is slightly smaller than the surface area as calculated from its radius. This is due to the Earth's gravitational warping of space-time, and the difference is about an acre (about half a hectare).-- B.d.mills 11:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I recently read a rather interesting article in Science News or in New Scientist about a theory that the Earth may have a Uranium core deep inside our Iron core. The main thesis of this theory is that it accounts for otherwise inexplicable levels of energy.
Unfortunately I don't have the citations at hand and I'd be reluctant to add references to this theory without some discussion of it's merits. (In any event it would be posed only as a short counterpoint paragraph to the comment about the core's putative lack of heavier elements, especially uranium.
Here's one older link: Discover, August, 2002. (Normally I wouldn't consider Discover to be a compellingly credible source --- but I'm sure I read this elsewhere and was impressed with the logic of the theory).
JimD 20:11, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
Where it says on the first line "Earth, the planet on which we live", that may be incorrect if aliens from another planet grasp satelite signals from our planet. In that case, we may offend them and they could sue Wikipedia for irrelevant information. I therefore feel we should change it to "Earth, the planet on which humans live". It's important that our information be as relevant as possible, and that is why we should change the first line.
I removed the word "billion" in the second most recent edit as of when this edit to the talk page was made, but then someone started to include both forms?? Any comments about whether the word "billion" should be kept?? 66.245.126.161 15:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Billion re-inserted along with scientific notation for clarity (for those who understand sci. not.). Billion is also used in several other places within the article and I inserted sci. not. with them also. May have missed some. Also did some more cleanup on this hodge-podge article at the same time. I'm the someone referred to in your note. Who are you? - Vsmith 16:40, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Earth is almost never called Sol III. Google hits:
The latter is almost exclusively science-fiction. It is not enough to be featured in the first line in the article about Earth. An obscure SF-term is not notable enough for that! Gerritholl 09:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
( SEWilco 05:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Does anyone have any opinions about whether permanent human life outside earth can become possible?? Where in the universe is this?? (This question was brought to my attention based on something that Louis Epstein wrote a while ago about people living thousands of years, which he says advanced technology makes possible, but which can't become useful with human life staying completely on earth because earth will become too crowded.) (Also, if you have any external links that talk about doing so, feel free to include them.) 66.245.26.209 14:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've seen no mention of the number of artificial satellites orbiting Earth. I think it is definitely worth noting that our planet has thousands of bits of metal that we put up there ourselves orbiting it, even if only from an astronomical standpoint. -- Jacius 22:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It would be good to link the various moon navigator's together, and provide a small page explaining them(it could be called Wikipedia:moon navigator). Right now, it's not obvious what purpose it serves. I don't have time to do it right now, but I'll do it if no one else gets to it. JesseW 13:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The template seems to have been corrupted. I don't know how to access it so I copied the infobox from before the template move (11-4) and pasted it back into the article. - Vsmith 01:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rather large for an article don't you think?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/upload/f/f4/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.png
Zen Master 05:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've heard talk about a hollow Earth theory.. and I've done little research on it with Google. I'm not sure if it's complete bogus or if it's true, but some people seem to believe the theory (and some claim to have traveled inside Earth). Shouldn't something about this theory about Earth be included? -- Mike 07:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is Archive 3 covering March 25, 2006 - August, 8 2006.
Shouldn't we mention something about Tellus? [anon]
Identifying Earth with the human race seems rather inaccurate to me. There must be a more appropriate article for those stats to go in. I would recommend human. Bonalaw 09:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I dislike that new info box with human social statistics. The rest of the article is mostly on the physical characteristics of the earth, it seems as though the social statistics are out of place.
Also I would like to point out that there are exactly two (2) refferences for this article when I am typing this. This number should be far far higher for an article as important as this one. Harley peters 20:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the social statistics definitely needs to go. I suggest moving it to human. Fredrik | talk 18:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For the Swedish article I've created an illustration of Earth's interior. If you like it you might want to add it here as well. Have a look at:
/ Mats Halldin 06:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Anyone else in favor of wiping out the article and replacing it with the words "mostly harmless"? I thought I'd survey public opinion before doing it myself. Halidecyphon 20:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just resisted the temptation, myself. - RJ Mar 2005
It's been done over and over and over and over and over and over (deep breath) and over and over again. It was barely funny the first time. :) Bryan 07:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How about this. Next time someone replaces it with "mostly harmless", we slap a copyvio template on it? -- SPUI ( talk) 22:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I considered changing it. Should I? Go on, let me. It'll be funny.
And I didn't even know you could put comments in articles like that... Fantom 19:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Why don't we just add it as a quotation like in the Italian page:
[4]
I know that the joke is replacing everything Ford Prefect fellow wikipedia contributors wrote with "mostly harmless"... but it should be mentioned
--
Lou Crazy 05:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Recently 67.161.42.199 added:
The tolerance part of this is nonsense. We quote in the article "Equatorial diameter 12,756.28 km, Polar diameter 12,713.56 km", giving a difference equator to pole of 43 km at sea level. As I recall the point farthest from the center is actually at the top of some mountain in South America near the equator. Though the calculation is apparently wrong, it might still be worth having these few sentences, assuming someone here who isn't about to go bed can figure out how to accurately describe the shape of the Earth. Dragons flight 08:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
User:Dragons_flight said that Image:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.png being placed on the right causes problems: "On wide screens, placing it on the right creates a huge gap between Core and Mantle." Not on my browser, even when expanding to span two monitors. Placing the image on the left can produce the text below on a more common width. (I'll work on the monster Infobox some to reduce various problems). ( SEWilco)
[edit] Mantle Main article: Mantle (geology) Earth's mantle extends to a depth of 2890 km. The pressure, at the bottom of the mantle, is
That looks better. I split the social box off, and moved it next to the Human section. Infoboxes tend to be at the top of an article, but that would widely separate the related text and box, with a lot of Earth_as_planet between. ( SEWilco 05:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))
The first part of this article is total crap...I can't get rid of it cause I can't find it when I go to edit...something's wrong! Bremen 05:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In case someone is interested, the editnote template used in the Mostly Harmless reminder has been suggested for deletion: Templates_for_deletion#Template:Editnote Template author: ( SEWilco 18:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))
I really think the beginning of this article should be more general. (not signed by submitter)
This article is great! Has it been featured yet? If it's not, then it should definitely be put up! LeoDV 7 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
The percentages (with the possible exception of Mandarin Chinese) seem seem to be way off compared to List of languages by total speakers or List of the most spoken native languages. Am I missing something here? -- Slark July 9, 2005 06:45 (UTC)
How did the current blue marble photo get reverted to the old overly red image again? I don't even see it in the history! The version that I uploaded in place of it [5] seems gone now. -- Deglr6328 21:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I always thought it was an oblique spheroid, but this article calls it an oblate spheroid, how sure are you all about oblate? - (anon) 17:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
This article, and the geothermal (geology) article it refers to, say the center of the Earth is 5270 degrees K. Looking at other websites, 5270 is in the right range but nobody else claims accuracy to the nearest 10 degrees, or even 100. Note that geothermal (geology) also offers the more reasonable guess of 4000 C or higher. I'll let somebody smarter decide what number to use, but I'm pretty sure 5270 has an overstated accuracy. Art LaPella 04:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Nobody smarter has yet arisen, so I shall sally forth alone. Art LaPella 21:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously the planet's known as Terra in other languages, but how did the word "Earth" end up as the official title? What are its origins? When did it become widely accepted, rather than the mythological Roman name? -- Marcg106 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I am challenging the neutrality of this article. It states that the earth formed billions of years ago, and this is contrary to the beliefs of billions of people, in order for this article to present and represent information in an unbiased manor it should represent other theories and opinions. 68.248.33.155
THE ORIGIN OF PLANET EARTH IS NOT A VIEWPOINT. REPEAT, "NOT A VIEW POINT"! An encyclopedic entry on Earth is to contain factual, empirical truth. If you want to read about creationism, or any other mythological "theory", search for pages specifically dealing with them. You can't keep attacking scientific knowlege simply because it doesn't conform to whatever prefered reality you wish to live in. Seriously, it is just not acceptable for you to slip religious propaganda into the hard earned scientific knowlege accumulated by some of the greatest minds in human history. For shame!
I assume our anon. is concerned that I twice removed the following: ( according to some theories) (hover over that and see where it really leads) which I saw as a deceptive edit, hiding origin beliefs link behind according to some theories is sneaky editing. It has nothing to do with origin beliefs - it is about well founded scientific evidence and continuing testing. Vsmith 15:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree, this article is NOT neutral neither is it factual. Science has not proven that the earth is old at all, to the contrary it has shown that it cannot be older than 6,000 years.
Science has not proven that the earth moves either (if anyone thinks that it has you might try collecting that
$15,000 reward!)
NarrowPathPilgrim 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
In school, I was taught that there is pedosphere in addition to lithosphere, biosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere. There is also article on cryosphere. I wonder, these words are not referenced here, are they still used? Samohyl Jan 11:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
That the earth is round does go contrary to the beliefs of a few people. Now, they are a tiny minority, so I'm not asking that the article insert caveats. However, like someone mentioned above, this is about scientific knowledge of the aspects of the earth. As such, the warning I keep trying to assert is totally appropriate. I goes as follows -
I don't think it's unreasonable at all to mention the scientific nature of this article before stating a bunch of things some people totally reject. NPOV, guys, NPOV. MrVoluntarist 00:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Either a bogus attempt to sneak creationist concepts upfront again in the article - or - someone just wanting to justify the existence of a poorly written debate article earth shape debate which is just flat earth nonsense trying to pose as a real rather than phoney debate. Is MrVoluntarist the anon who added Neutrality part I? Vsmith 01:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The link doesn't belong and the new page either needs to reflect the fact that this is a historic debate which is now settled or go to VfD. There is no contemporary debate--arguments otherwise I wouldn't even call pseudoscience, but patent nonsense. I'm willing to leave it because it could become a placeholder for interesting points; Magellan's expedition finally proving the round Earth for example. Marskell 07:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I just reverted an undiscussed move of the article to Earth (planet). The move was made by User:Acid. I don't recall any discussion of such a proposed move. Vsmith 01:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
There's already a Earth in fiction article. I say move this section there. -- kop 01:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Why do you people keep reverting my attempts to reveal that the information in the article is based on scientific study, rather than the Truth? MrVoluntarist 03:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Flat earthism is already there in the Descriptions of Earth section. Bogus attempts to insert the nonsense more prominently are simple trollisms. Truth trolls have been there and done that already. Enough is enough. Vsmith 04:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
At the risk of re-opening a can of worms, yes it is too much to ask. Wikipedia, like any resource of its sort, assumes the fundamental validaty of scientific consensus ahead of mythology or superstition (and thus does not demand a qualifier before any serious point of scientific import). Not that scientific debates or disagreements are not noted, but rather an idea regarding which the scientific method (read it carefully if you haven't) has been adhered to and for which scientific consensus is unanimous will be presented as "the Truth." The Earth is round. It is round and that is "the Truth." It is round according to any intuitive test or any serious epistemological test you want to apply. We don't need to qualify every statement in this article to note that. Marskell 22:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I did not say it was written from a scientific point of view but that it assumes "the fundamental validity of scientific consensus" (there is a difference between the statements). Indeed, I have read NPOV and sir I would point you to the most important qualifier on the page, Undue Weight:
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not (see Wikipedia:Flat earth problem)."
The ancillary article, Flat Earth, already exists; no qualifier is needed here. Marskell 09:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
MrVoluntarist, we could preface every article (or even every statement) that focuses on scientific knowledge by writing "scientists believe", and it would be accurate (though often incomplete since many non-scientists believe the same thing). However, in most cases, including this one, it would also be entirely redundant. Can you imagine anyone (including young / flat Earthers) who would open up an encyclopedia article and expect it to focus on any perspective of Earth's history and shape other than the scientific one? After all, the vast majority of educated people, including many Christians, believe the Earth is old and round. Even those who hold the alternative viewpoints you are fond of defending must surely know they are in the minority and not expect to get much time in an encyclopedia article on the subject of Earth, right? I don't see any reason to add clauses like "scientists believe" unless there is some evidence that not having them is going to confuse people as to what the article is talking about. In this case, I can't imagine anyone reading this article would not realize it is focusing on the scientific perspective (as everyone ought to expect it to). Dragons flight 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
While do I respect this is an attempt at a compromise, understand how the categories work: this article is already a "grand-daughter" of the Science cat. As it stands:
It doesn't need to be re-classified. It's fine. Really.
"Held to a different standard?" Sure—it's absolutely more discursive and more in-depth than similar sources and should be held to that standard. But it almost seems you're suggesting that Wiki should buck what contemporary epistemological understanding is. You are truly misunderstanding NPOV—it does mean the door is open to every hypothetical criticism. I could start an article about a triangular Earth, swear by it, and try to get it included—it wouldn't and shouldn't be included. It, just like a Flat Earth, has no professional or public acceptance that is even marginally notable. And this is where I'm thumping my head with you. You want a guideline to prove that Wiki accepts the validity of scientific consensus? It's like asking for a guideline showing English Wiki must be written in English. Of course this article is written from a scientific perspective. Of course we don't need to state that. Marskell 00:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Seeing no objections, I will make the change. MrVoluntarist 10:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
1. Science --> Earth Sciences --> Earth (as primary article in sub-cat). I mentioned this above.
2. Placing Science in the categories does not imply Earth has to be on any other page but rather that other pages should also be categorized in Science. Again, the articles in Science are sciences themselves or very general scientific concepts not specific objects or subjects.
3. This isn't a controversial topic. Marskell 12:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The above is from me. It logged me out for some reason in the middle of posting. MrVoluntarist 13:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
"We don't have to put earth or any of the others on the subcategory or category page, as you just realized." Then what the hell are we debating? If you add the category at the bottom it automatically appears on the category page.
Further, I don't enjoy having my good faith sarcastically questioned ("You didn't explain there how to trace back, which is what I was asking. And you didn't do it here either. (Thanks for that.)", "I assumed you knew how to answer a question.")
Conversation over on this end. Add as you please and I will revert where I feel necessary. Marskell 14:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
If either of you feel the need to continue in this vein, please do so on your user talk pages. Your debate is focusing more on each other's debating style than on the content of the Earth page. -- Doradus 21:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
This debate is essentially about what can be stated unqualifiedly as fact. The consensus definition of fact is "something that can be demonstrated to be true", in other words, "something based on empirical evidence". I think that most dissenters would acknowledge that their views are not by this definition "fact", that is, they would not claim that their views are "built on empirical evidence". Frankly, the definition of fact is very much linked with the definition of science, as the goal of science is the establishment of fact. Thus, statements about which there is no fact-based debate, such as the roundness of the earth, can be stated as fact. Non-fact-based dissenting views can be stated as dissenting views, preferably in their own articles to avoid confusing the fact-seeking encyclopedia user. The alternative, as far as I can figure, is to not state anything at all as fact, which would make Wikipedia a useless hellish cauldron of boiling fat. As one who believes that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, this isn't a very attractive prospect. If anyone can think of a different way to determine what can be stated as fact, go right on ahead. Kai 07:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Nobody uses terameters; why the hell are we? -- Robert Merkel 05:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Just made this. It's sort of better than the current cutaway image since it's (at least roughly) to scale, and shows a few more features. What do you think? - Fredrik | talk 20:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The planet infobox is too large; it interferes with the page layout and crams lots of unrelated data into one small space. It would be best if it was only about as tall as the table of contents. How about moving the orbit data to the section on "Earth in the Solar System", and the atmospheric data to the "Atmosphere" section? The article is already a bit inconsistent; for example, the table on the Earth's composition is inlined but the list of atmospheric constituents is in the infobox. I think it would make most sense to put only the most important and general data in the table at the top, and move the rest to sections (where the information can also be better referred to from the text). Of course, this change would cause inconsistency with the other planet artices, but that's not necessarily a problem. For one thing, the article's focus should be slightly different since Earth is not primarily the target of astronomers. Fredrik | talk 23:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Since huge parts of this article needs to be improved, I've put up talk:Earth/rewrite so people can do radical editing without worrying about breaking anything. This is based on a rewrite attempt I started a few months ago but never finished; some parts that were taken out are missing and others may need to be updated. Fredrik | talk 11:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
The adjective for Earth is "Earthling." Terrestrial is just our type of planet. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk) 22:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
User:JQF wrote: It should be noted, however, that alternative theories regarding the date of formation do exist.
Before we start an edit war, could somebody describe the alternative scientific theories of Earth's age since I'm not aware of any.-- Jyril 15:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Since the age of the earth cannot be reasonably agreed upon, it admits and must presuppose the existence of a disagreement of terms. Therefore I suggest, wherefore one cannot speak with certainty, one should be silent. -- [[User_talk::66.168.222.44]]
I base my belief in God solely on reason, I am a deist thank you, not one of these brainless Christians. Read the "Summa Theologica" Proofs for the Existence of God.
The following comment to editors was left in the article; I used HTML commenting it to hide it from non-editors. This kind of self-referential comment should not be visible in the main article. FreplySpang (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
On Firefox 1.0.6 (MacOS 10.4.2) the infobox is flooding the article, appearing before just about everything... what's going on here? Alphax τ ε χ 01:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Earth's core redirects to here, but there is virtually no information on Earth's core. Is this information anywhere else in Wikipedia? - Volfy 09:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The Earth's shape is that of an oblate ellipsoid, with an average diameter of approximately 12,742 km.
I'm pretty sure the Earth is an oblate spheroid and not an oblate ellipsoid like the article says. Take a look at this.
Earth (with a capital "E") is a formal noun in English... and it doesn't need an article (meaning, "the") preceding it. I have always been intrigued as to when we started calling this planet "Earth" and not "the earth." Interesting to note is that in other forms of our planet's name, we don't use "the" as in "Terra." You never see "the terra". Ditto for the names of the other planets in our solar system... (Mars, never referred to as "the mars".)
Should Earth's population be added in the infobox? -- Revolución ( talk) 23:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
In the info box for this article it states that the orbital inclination of the earth is 0.00005° . Isnt the correct value for this is exactly 0° as the inclination of the Earths orbit is what the orbital inclinations of the other planets are measured relative to. Does anyone else know enough about this to be sure? -- Timmywimmy 18:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
History of the Earth would be a much needed addition. -- Revolución ( talk) 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I checked several teacher aids on google, most of which gave arable land as 1/32 of the earth's surface (e.g., 1/8th of land). Anyone know where the 10% comes from?
Question 2: Anyone know if all the "land use" refer *only* to land?
The section I deleted said "Large areas are subject to overpopulation, industrial disasters such as pollution of the air and water, acid rain and toxic substances, loss of vegetation ( overgrazing, deforestation, desertification), loss of wildlife, species extinction, soil degradation, soil depletion, erosion, and introduction of invasive species." It's asserting all of this as fact, when all of it is heavily disputed. If the claim is only that these things are possible, it's undue emphasis, a POV violation. Whoever put this in was trying to slip in a plug for an environmentalist, scaremongering POV. For example, the entire concept of "overpopulation" is heavily contested, especially by economists. Whether or not overpopulation is the cause of any current ill is still debated, and it's talking like the debate has been settled. The assertions of threats in other areas is the POV of some environmentalists, disputed by high-profile environmentalists like, I don't know, Bjørn Lomborg and Patrick Moore. There's no reason to cite the possibilities of all these things unless you want to list every possible thing that could go wrong, and at that point, it's unclear how that's relevant to someone who wants to learn about "the earth". What you first need to learn is that these claims are a POV, and many people actually dispute them. Wikipedia is not a place to promote environmentalism. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. MrVoluntarist 04:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
VSmith, I can't but assume you're trying to personally insult me, but I'll hold off for a clarification. I never supported the flat earth position, and you know it. And "Randwicked" -- I didn't cite "economists" alone, I cited two prominent environmentalists. Ever heard of The Skeptical Environmentalist? Why don't we talk about what that portion is actually trying to say? Is it saying that overgrazing, deforestation, desertification, etc. are all possible? Okay, then fine, but lots of other things are possible -- genocide, war, famine, communism, etc. The list could go on for days, and you'd probably delete any chance to insert such balance. So what is it saying? Is it saying that all those things are likely? If so, then it is stating something as fact when there definitely is no consensus. The best science tells us that less than 1% of species will go extinct over the next 100 years. If you want to re-iterate the 50,000 species a year claim, you'll need to edit the biodiversity and extinction articles first, where such claims are roundly rejected. So no, you don't have science on your side for those claims. And insofar as those claims even have plausibility, they're definitely not worldwide problems (thus not meriting position in the "earth" article). There's just as much forest as there was in North America as there was 100 years ago. Would you care to give a mainstream source for any of those claims? Learning you have a bias is the first step toward being a productive Wikipedia contributor. MrVoluntarist 05:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Aw - no insult intended, just an attempt at humor re your previous stand in the sections above. As for Lomborg: he is maybe a statistician who wrote a tome about stuff beyond his expertise, hardly qualifies as a prominent environmentalist. No one is claiming the 50,000 bit - why would you think that? - reading stuff that isn't there? Is that your reason for deleting? And yeah we all have biases - kinda like a result of our life experiences. I know mine - do you know yours? Cheers Vsmith 05:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Kai Miller, well done! Excellent argument, and it seemed to stop this debate in its tracks. Is there an award that be be offered, like a Barnstar award, but an award for managing to put forward a good argument that diffuses debate? If not, I think one should be created for this purpose! :) -- User:Rebroad 13:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Should a section on the fate of Earth be added? It is widely theorized that the Earth will either be consumed by the Sun or turned into a Venus or Mercury environment as the Sun expands into a red giant in a few billion years. Then, once the Sun releases it's outer layers as a planetary nebula, it may very well destroy Earth or at least severely damage it. -- tomf688{ talk} 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Definetely! Actually, that's why I dropped by the article in the first place and I must say I was a bit disappointed when it didn't mention 'the end' at all. If I can remember my physics classes properly, the sun is approx halfway in its lifetime and will in some five billion years become a red giant, engulfing the earth.. I guess the question will be whether the article should discuss the probability of meteoroids hitting the earth, killing all life, stopping photosynthesis and the like. Superdix 00:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I took physics, chemistry, and 2 biologies, and they never said anything about that. Maybe because they were in high school. Flame viper 12 13:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone answer this? I've checked the articles on both poles and didn't see the answer if it was there. Initially I suspected that the colder areas at the poles were caused by less intense sun light in those regions. Is that what causes those areas to be so cold?
and the only planetary body that modern science confirms as harboring life.
so sceince has to confirm that there is life on earth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.2.222 ( talk • contribs) .
To the flat Earth advocate,
Since when isn't science neutral? Scientific theories must be testable and falsifiable, and subjected to peer review. Sometimes science is faked, but fake science can be disproved by better science, and the process is neutral. If the scientific method is not neutral, then what basis do we have to discuss neutrality? The flat Earth is a well known theory, but it is widely regarded as an inferior theory to the spherical Earth (and related cosmos), because the modern theory makes better predictions. If your theory makes better predictions than the sidereal theory, then cite your sources. If your flat Earth theory makes no predictions, and accounts for nothing that the modern theory does not, then how is it relevant? Should we assume that you have equal objections to the human article, since it describes people as a species of animal, rather the descendents of deities? But science does not contradict any alternative theory of the cosmos, and it is neutral on the subject of religion, because untestable hypotheses are not the subject of science. Science is the activity of finding neutral grounds for which to debate the subjects of empirical inquiry. Wikipedia is not a source of the truth, it is a secondary source which reports the consensus of verifiable primary sources. Disagreements on a scientific basis would perhaps be relevant, but disagreements on a basis that is untestable are unwinnable arguments and do not form the subject of an encyclopedia article. oneismany 14:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This article conforms nicely to NPOV as far as I can tell. The allegations of POV based on religious reasons are groundless. Just as pro-science editors do not slap NPOV tags on religious articles for stating the earth is 6000 years old in those articles, biblical literalist editors should reciprocate that courtesy.-- JohnDO| Speak your mind 18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The bit which lists the geologic components and their depths seems to imply that the atmosphere is less a part of the earth than the solid bit, which varies from standard. Perhaps it should list all layers of the earth and their altitudes, with the sub-solid-surface layers in negative altitudes? I felt I ought to get feedback from more qualified parties before I made a rash change to a good article. Kai 07:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering if it would be a good idea to describe the location of the Earth within the universe as best we can. It seems like a major omission that the article doesn't even mention that the Earth is in the Milky Way galaxy. There is also no mention of nearby stars. Let's write the article in such a way that a reader who is not from Earth would be able to come visit.
I notice that Albedo in the infobox seems to be the Geometric Albedo of the Earth, not the Bond Albedo. Should Bond Albedo be included as well? - Bill3000 16:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
(Practically) every article deserves a "history" section, in my opinion. I just added one, but it is not easy to condense 4.5 billion years into a single paragraph. Feel free to add or trim as necessary. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Flame viper 12 12:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This article starts out saying the scientific evidence indicates the Earth was formed 4.57 billion years ago and refers the reader to Age of the Earth, which lists the formation at 4.55 billion years ago. What is the source for this age? — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't you agree? -- Revolución hablar ver 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is Archive 4 covering August 8, 2006 - August, 23, 2006.
Isn't it redundant to describe the earth as the only place known by humans to support life? Most readers assume that encyclopedia articles reflect human knowledge... Sceptre Seven 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Te picture states that "Earth and Moon to scale." ,Distance included in the scale? if so ,it should be stated in the article...
Hey. Sorry, I'm not very good with editing page but I think this is what I'm suppposed to do when making a discussion...?
Anyhow, it says the surface area of the Earth is 510,065,284.702 km². How can this be measured to such a degree of accuracy? It is obviously not true because I could dig a hole in my back-garden and spread the soil evenly across my lawn. This would change the surface area...
a,b b/a (6380,6355 = 0.996081505) (6378,6357 = 0.996707432) 6378.14,6356.75 = 0.996646358 6378.2064,6356.5838 = 0.996609925 6378.388,6356.912 = 0.996633005 6378.16,6356.775 = 0.996647152 6378.137,6356.752 = 0.996647140 6378.136,6356.749 = 0.996646826 6378.135,6356.750 = 0.996647139 6378.134,6356.751 = 0.996647452
Look you all I'm not vandalizing the article....I'm just removeing an eyesore from it to improve its quality. How about this if I find a better one would that work? 138.163.0.37 00:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey how do I add a caption to that image? any help would be great Aeon 00:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:IAstronaut-EVA.jpg|thumb|right|200px|New satellite.]]
, which I used to display the image at right. Aeon, where did you get the animation of the rotating Earth? —
Knowledge Seeker
দ 01:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)I did a google search....I will find the site and get the copyright status of it.... Aeon 02:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I change the image found one that was not copyrighted and added a caption. Aeon 02:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Article states: "Scientific evidence indicates that the Earth and the moon were formed around 7,000-10,000 years ago." Obviously, this is not true.
In fact, all scientific evidence points to an earth that is about 4.6 billion years old, along with the rest of the solar system. An earth younger than 10,000 years exists only in the belief system of certain religions, and is not based on scientific analysis. If someone experienced with Wikipedia could correct this, we would all appreciate it. Thanks. 66.243.43.98 21:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
(near the winter and summer solstices, which are on about December 21 and June 21, respectively).
With respect the Earth had two hemispheres last time I check and that this statement referrs only to the northern hemisphere, for the southern Hemisphere this is factually incorrect as summer solstice occurs about December 21 and the winter solstice occurs about June 21. Gnangarra 14:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
In the chapter named "Earth's future" it says both "billion years" and "Gyr". I believe it should be corrected. Only one term should be used. -- Idan Yelin 04:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
the use of "GYR" should be explained better. I followed the link to the page it refers me to and yet I cannot find any reference to the abbreviation used. I can only find "gaussian year" and "great year". the one that is in use is not specified. this seems a very strange measurement of time anyway. why not simply use the standard units of time? and add trillions or billions or whatever you need to. if this article is supposed to be for everyone it should use terms that normal people can understand. it should be standard. 17:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The section of Pangaea, while well written, doesn't really belong in this article, in my opinion. It seems out of place and a bit arbitrary—why a section on Pangaea and none of the other continents or supercontinents? Perhaps a section on continental movements could be included instead, or perhaps relevant information discussed briefly in the Earth#History section. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps somebody knows the answer to this question: If the Moon continues to recede from the Earth, at what point (time or distance) will it no longer exert a significant influence in stabilizing the axial tilt of our planet? Thank you. — RJH 03:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Mostly Harmless.
Isn't the pressure 101.325 kPa? 203.218.86.162 11:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Is anybody but me struck by how silly it is to write Precipitation patterns vary widely ... or The Earth's terrain can vary greatly ...? Precipitation varies widely compared to what? Precipitation on Mars? Jupiter? My back yard? I could be wrong here but I bet Jupiter has a lot more variation in precipitation, just becuase it probably has a lot more precipitation overall. Things can only vary widely or greatly in comparison to something else. When you're talking about the whole Earth itself there really isn't much to compare against. Just making the sentences longer to make them look good buys us nothing.
I tried removing an adverb once, writing just Precipitation patterns vary ... but somebody put it back. Rather than start an edit war I figured I'd point out the sillyness here. -- kop 05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"The Earth was formed around 4.57 billion (4.57×109)[1] years ago (see Age of the Earth) and its largest natural satellite, the Moon, was orbiting it shortly thereafter, around 4.533 billion years ago."
This part is nonsense and cannot be proven. Therefore I have removed it. --
Scotteh 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you win. For now. -- Scotteh 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
My troll detection unit is blinking. Should I be concerned? :-) — RJH ( talk) 22:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The Lexicography section gives cognates to "earth" which is interesting in its own right (although it might show the need for an article on earth - although this might be too similar to soil) but what I'd be interested in names other cultures use for "Earth". I assume most Indo-European languages also use their equivalent to "earth" but what about elsewhere? Some of it is touched on in the first paragraph of the Descriptions of Earth section but are there more? It may be that it is all as mundane as our own naming system but there may also be interesting information that could be drawn together. So would some kind of new section ("Names for the planet Earth" perhaps?) be worth considering? ( Emperor 17:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC))
For some reason, whenever I try to RV some edits, I get redirected to an edit conflict with Simon Harcourt, peculiar... 惑乱 分からん 10:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
"distance from the Sun, and the fifth in order of size. We are mostly harmless." what is that comment about? -- Dan 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a reference to the Earth's entry in the fictional book Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, although it's very out of place.
can we have some different measurements for mass? I spent AGES trying to figure out how many teratons the earth was..... I now know it to be roughly 5 billion teratons, but it took me a LOT of searching and a LOT of (what I consider) complex maths...
It's a great article, however it contains units of measure that are virtually meaningless to roughly 5% or so of the world's population. I propose to add English/Imperial measurements to all the figures given, using google calculator. Any objections? Supercam 21:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Added a brief paragraph on the word for "Earth" in other languages, since I was curious about this and couldn't find it in other articles, or via Wiktionary. The best that I could come up with is this, via Google search. The examples are therefore all transliterated into English. Anyone with more experience in these languages or with linguistics, please feel free to add or revise the paragraph. -- Brasswatchman 22:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Am I at all correct or am I simply mistaken to think that the approximate mileage around the equator of the earth is something short of like 8000 miles in distance in the circle round the equator. I think (although I am not sure) that the actual mileage is something possibly close to 7,480 miles. I try to relate and to comprehend this number in such a way as to think as to how and to break it all down. Well ( i think to myself) if I drove 1000 miles then I would need to drive about another 6 and half times that distance around the earth to complete a full circle. And that is of course assuming my automobile could travel over the water and not sink to the bottom of the ocean. Maybe the Wikipedians out there could help to illuminate the precise expanse of the mileage and distance around the equator of the earth. I tend to comprehend the concept of actual miles better than I do kilometers or any other system of measurement. Is there a precise and a confident consensus for the number of miles starting from point A and either going west or east until you finally reach point B when you travel around the globe in a nice straight line. www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 02:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Kaimbridge, therefore, is it correct to say of that the equator is 24,901.5 miles around ? www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be titled Terra? Its the scientifically and politically correct term for Earth,same for the moon being called Luna. While some think it's just Latin, its also the proper scientific term.
This section has been returned to the main talk page [10]
I change the whole layout, added hydrosphere, changed plate tectonics (which is theory) to facts about tectonic plates on Earth, added pedosphere and some other minor changes. To write article about Earth is quite though task. There's too much information taht should be included and many other articles on Wikipedia related. GeoW 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I beleive that most current discussions are resolved. HighInBC 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This entry needs a section called "Earth in popular culture", to keep it in line with every other wikipedia entry. Simbachu 20:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The section made by this request, "Earth in Modern Culture", seems to lack proper, accurate information of any kind that could provide a reader with proper greater knowledge about the Earth in said context, to be precise the conclusion that Earth implies "reason" or "life" is subject to discussion and more a matter of perspective that proper information, that is to say that up to now the section is not only a stub, but a piece of accumulated junk, unless something can be done about its content to be something more than meaningless I would say said article better deserves deletion.---GTB 6:29 am Lima Peru 20/10/2006
Q. Should I replace this article with the words "mostly harmless" or "harmless", as per The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
A. No. Every other vandalism to this article is just that, and people who do this will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Share and enjoy!
I was thinking about doing this myself, but I had a feeling it would have been done before. Oh wells :-) Bennity 11:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I have archived the talk page as it was getting long, please move any discussion still active back here. HighInBC 20:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for bringing this up again, but I was still going to ask something. -- Scotteh 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is pathetic - I'm sorry to say. Someone please change it. The whole article is written in the evolutionist's perspective and cites rubbish referances. Are we now forgetting that there exist other theories over the age of the earth, etc.? Howcome this article only contains the theories of the evolutionists? Half the world does not even support evolution! This is pathetic. With articles such as these, Wikipedia is only going to become more and more unreliable. -- Scotteh 19:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why they aren't credible. Whoever said that science was the only credible theory to the age of the earth? No one will ever prove the age of the earth and therefore it's idiotic to exclusively note science's opinion on this. It's situations like this that continue to make Wikipaedia further and further away from being an encyclopaedia, let alone a notable encyclopaedia. -- Scotteh 14:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Scotteh, please keep mindful of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. You're pretty far across the line on your reply to me. Meanwhile, you'll also want to keep mindful of WP:AWW. We don't need to qualify every value with "scientists believe that...".
Atlant 18:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
(FYI: I didn't deliberately remove anything. But there is some sort of bug in the Wikimedia software where it fails to flag "edit conflicts" on talk pages and so person A's contribution ends up replacing person B's contribution. I believe that is what happened here, but if an apology will help, then: "I apologize; I did not deliberately remove anyone's comments from this talk page."
Atlant 19:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
I am sorry Scotteh but this discussion has ceased to be productive. Please present new evidence or put this argument to bed. Simply repeating yourself and attacking your opponents will not change our minds. You are on the verge of being ignored. I would prefer to listen, but only if it is productive. HighInBC 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, also I will leave you with this helpful hint from WP:Reliable_sources:
An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.
This means that while opinion itself is not welcome, facts about opinion are. HighInBC 19:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here is how it works. There is scientific evidence that directly supports evolution, so we can say that. Since, as far as I know, there is no scientific evidence for intellegent design you can only prove that people believe in it.
As for it's position in the article I am imagining something along the lines of Despite faith based beleifs that the earth is considerably younger(citation goes here), the majority of scientific evidence suggest that the Earth is approximatly 4.5 billions years old..
Notice I didn't put the 6000 years there? That is because different faith based groups give different estimates. This is of course just my opinion, others may has different views. HighInBC 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to point out, that this article is already very long and only briefly touches upon subjects that are covered more in depth in other related articles. Have you taken a look at the Age of the Earth article? Also, Dating Creation and Origin belief deal with this. HighInBC 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I CANT BELIEVE
Why do so many religionists (mainly), always screw up discussion pages with their holier than thou rants. Is it because they have no proof of their own beliefs and are frustrated that everyone doesn't arbitrarily accept the same faith system to which they were indoctrinated.
Is it because they intuitively know (correctly I might add) that there really is a power greater than mankind, and are so frustrated that the quantum nature of creator cannot be proven but only experienced?
Or is it that after reading scripture translated by those with an agenda, they feel so empty that they must verify their weak position by trying to convince others of its validity? Apparently they keep forgetting the part that suggests your relationship with your maker is a private one, not to be taken to the streets.
Are they wanting answers so desparately they are willing to look foolish as if an attempt to get the attention of someone who really knows something and can give them those answers?
Could it be all of the above? I cant believe I read all that. Scotteh: may I suggest reading more to increase your vocabulary? You had a beginning. You will have an end. The creature should know they were created. The proof is in the mirror. Or not there (a light is on, but no one is home). Alphaquad 14:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Evolution is just a theory and has very little if not no proof to back it up. This planet is incredible. The trees, the ocean, the sunset. There is no way this planet just appeared and everything just gradually formed. No, im going with intelligent design. Someone has got to change it. Crion Naxx
Going back to the previous discussion .... I don't like the opening paragraph:
"The Earth was created by God around 5,000 years ago[1] (see Age of the Earth) and its largest natural satellite, the Moon, was orbiting it shortly thereafter, around 5,000 years ago."
That is a way too biased religious statement. The earth is millions of years old, not 5000. Why can't we just state the age of the earth based on geological fact and add a section specifically for religious beliefs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.125.115.183 ( talk • contribs) .
You are of course right. And it has been reverted to the correct way, such edits are only there for a short time. HighInBC 17:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Have another point, isn't Moon is Earth's ONLY natural satellite? If that's the case, why is the word largest is required? It implies that there is more than one natural satellite.... -- Cyktsui 01:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a relatively minor point, but the section on "Composition of the Earth" cannot be quite correct. The percent by mass of the earth that is iron, oxygen, etc. is given; if one adds the percentages of these seven major constituents, one gets 101.1%. Even if each of the percentages were rounded, that still would not be enough to make the real value <= 100%, and one would in fact expect these to add up to slightly LESS than 100%. I went to the referenced source, and the percentages that I found there did not agree with the ones on this page. But I was puzzled as to why someone would have mistranscribed them, and wasn't sure "bulk earth" was the correct category to be looking under. Perhaps someone can look into this and fix it?
Has anyone looked at this problem yet? Another thought -- apparently much of earth's large density is due to compression; sources seem to say that the density of the inner core is 13 or even 15 gm/cm^3. This is surprising, since the density of iron is usually around 8 gm/cm^3. How does this work; does iron under extremely high pressures form an unusual crystalline structure or something? How high does the pressure have to be -- would a planet have to be approximately earth-sized for the pressure at the core to be high enough? It would be nice if someone knowledgeable wrote about this or looked into it. Kier07 22:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Removed newly added Clearing the neighbourhood section which linked to planetologists squabbling (see: Clearing the neighbourhood). The article is long enough already without adding their trivial naming squabbles or whatever. Vsmith 00:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting to think people who pull that joke for the umpteenth time should be immediately blocked. Thoughts? Danny Lilithborne 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, does anyone have any data or know of references regarding how the diameter of the earth has changes over its evolution? That is, has the diameter of the earth increased or decrease since its inception? I know, according to solar growth rates stored in fossil records, that it's rotation rate is slowing, e.g. at the 2.5 BYA mark the earth rotated once every ten hours, and that at the 4.5 BYA mark it would have been revolving faster than one rotation per hour (Source: Whitrow's What is Time (1972), pg. 63.) Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 12:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Id assume the diameter would have shrunk due to cooling -- Nbound 09:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought, in the first paragraph the Moon is said to be 4.533Ga old. Firstly, I would like to know where that figure came from, and secondly how come we seem to know it so accurately? I'm not questioning it – I'm sure whoever wrote it knows more about it than me, I would just like to know. Would it not be more correct to state the ages of Earth and the Moon to the same number of significant figures if possible? Kris 08:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
In the section surface it writes
Which is obviously false: simple maths shows that the depth would be "average depth of the seas as they are now" x "percentage of land surface in water". Taking the figures from the article, this yields 3,794x0.708=2686.152. Something like this is noted in the footnote:
I find this setup rather confusing - wouldn't it make more sense to leave out the Statue of Liberty altogether, because it is nowhere close to comparable? 80.109.92.235 00:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is the Earth round? Ok. Get this. Think of a ball. You are on a ship going down the curve. Wouldn't you suddenly be upside down? But that isnt the case. Therefore, I will reword my question. Why don't ships go upside down when traversing down the curve of Earth if it were round? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.89.40.251 ( talk • contribs) .
On what basis is "Tellus" to be considered "correct" and "Terra" incorrect?
This seems like yet another case of bringing in a lesser-known bit of knowledge (in this case that "Tellus" is also a name of the Latin earth goddess) and arbitrarily declaring that a particular interpretation based on it is "correct."
"Terra" is Latin for earth, as in soil, but also land in the sense of territory (e.g., the new world, "terra nova") and the earth as a whole (notably, "In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram."). English partly follows this very pattern. We talk about tilling the earth, or an earthy smell, but also of the earth as a whole. This sort of metaphoric extension is fundamental in language. Further, Terra is the earth goddess and by extension the earth itself. For example, from Bullfinch's Mythology: "A celebrated exploit of Hercules was his victory over Antaeus. Antaeus, the son of Terra, the Earth, was a mighty giant and wrestler [...]"
"Tellus" appears to be another name for the earth goddess. Bullfinch has (in the story of Medea and AEson) "To the stars she addressed her incantations, and to the moon; to Hecate, the goddess of the underworld, and to Tellus the goddess of the earth, by whose power plants potent for enchantment are produced."
It's not clear how to pick a "correct" choice between the two. "Terra" and "Tellus" appear to be simple alternations and are almost certainly cognate to begin with. Either that, or there were actually two earth goddesses, with suspiciously similar names and attributes, in which case on what basis do we decide that one is "correctly" considered as representing the planet as a whole?
Modern usage at least seems to strongly prefer "Terra", so if one is to be considered "correct" it should be "Terra". - Dmh 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
humans love cars. stop it. think about global warming. lets all protest the stinking oil. ok? walk to work . just walk. forget cars. screw anything that involves mass greenhouse emissions. now if youre just addicted to cars, then screw you. you will get drowned by the oceans. (and wait im not talking nonsense) with more ice caps melting... the oceans will cool and then they will absorb more heat and technically there could be another ice age. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.142.143.42 ( talk • contribs) .
not everyone lives within walking distance of work -- Nbound 04:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
In any case, global warming is a myth, according to reliable scientific data. 222.153.235.96 04:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but this animation is incorrect: it does not take into account the Earth's axial tilt. Should it therefore be removed?
Martin.Budden 17:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
As requested in the priority one to do list since September 4th 2006 regarding implementing suggestions from featured article review for this article I have taken action to implement on October 1st 2006. Only minor action was taken for a few examples of grammar, as well as changing the word simular to similar which appeared to have a meaning closer to its paragraph in context. Please read, discuss, and keep as the consensus of the group here sees fit. I now go to the next priority one to do list. Absolutely no worries at all. Neutralaccounting 05:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I am from Earth, atleast I will be staying here a while, anybody want me to take some specific pictures while I am here? HighInBC 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Template:Planet Infobox/Earth was placed on TFD by someone who doesn't like the fact that it stands alone by itself. Please visit the TFD and express your opinion on this issue. Dragons flight 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
sure take pics of all the landmarks, i hear u have weird substances here on earth qantas goes to venus!
I think it interesting that people have made the effort to write the word for Earth in other languages, but why is there no transliteration of the Sanskrit word? "Words for Earth in other languages include: पृथ्वी pr̥thvī (Sanskrit)". DDD DDD 01:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I am from another planet and was wondering if someone could tell me about life on Planet Earth?
This section needs some lengthening. That, or actually put some relevent information in the link to another article. This section states composition, but doesn't even state if this is composition by mass or by number of atoms. I recall this information used to be on wikipedia, however now it is on neither page. Harley peters 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There should be more info. about which regions prefer " earthing", " earthing system", as compared to " ground", " grounding", " grounded", " grounding system"?
This does seem extremely dependent on dialect, region, neighborhood.
Then there is " earthling".
hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I was taking a quick scroll of the article and saw the section Pedosphere and thought it was vandalism so hit history to revert it but couldn't find the diff very quickly - so I clicked on the link for it and turns out there's such thing as a pedosphere lol. I wonder if anyone has incorrectly deleted this before. -- WikiSlasher 11:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
An image caption currently reads:
To which my reaction is basically "uhh... what?". This needs more explanation, as it is apparently self-contradictory; how can something have a different shape from what it appears to have? JulesH 07:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Since when is Earth ever called 'Your Mom'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.7.189 ( talk • contribs) 20:29, November 12, 2006
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I feel that this article is racist and persecuted towards the members of the Flat Earth Society, as it insists that Earth is closed to sphere shaped. This is very one-sided and racist, lol.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.27.211.52 ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 21 April 2007.
I have archived this rather long talk page. If I have accidently archived an active discussion please move that discussion back and accept my apologies. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Q. Should I replace this article with the words "mostly harmless" or "harmless", as per The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
A. No. Every other vandalism to this article is just that, and people who do this will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Share and enjoy!
Man! That's exactly what I came here to do today! Anyway, I still think it won't do any damage if the article starts with "Mostly Harmless."
This is covered on the Earth in fiction page, which is linked via the "See also" section at the bottom of the article. — RJH ( talk) 20:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've uploaded a 3D rendered version of the Earth being cut to its core. It labels the areas numerically so as to be language-independent. It also includes the D-double-prime layer.
as a replacement for:
Thangalin 04:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The future section ignores the possibility of human action to either change the atmosphere or move the earth. Perhaps a new section, "Alternate Futures," or a new article linked to the Earth one would be of interest. Science fiction often becomes science fact.
-- Dwise75 09:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"it is the largest planet in the world"... take that out
--
Darrendeng 09:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It still needs to be taken out. --Ben 12/17/06
"
space" should link to
Outer space
Astronauts now alternate in the space station more often than once every 6 months, the last mission only lasted for 2 weeks or so...
The future section mentions nothing of the stability of the orbits of solar system members, including Earth. Between now and the Sun's twilight years, orbits can reshape and become unstable - resulting in possible ejection out of the solar system. External influences such as close passes by other stars and the potential collision between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy may disrupt the orbits further. Earth's fate is speculation, but generally bleak by the looks of it - disregarding speculation on Humankind's safeguarding its cradle planet.
Paulsmith99 22:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The animated rotating earth picture could be replaced with a better one from Wikimedia Commons: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Rotating_earth_%28large%29.gif/120px-Rotating_earth_%28large%29.gif (from the large version at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rotating_earth_%28large%29.gif ) 144.134.71.109 12:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This arctical should be a featured arctical Da Man 2000
I believe "commoner" should be switched to "more common" in the minerals section.
The better image is this one.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Earth_5-50.gif
What makes you think any different?
Alphaquad 06:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the distance from the sun to earth? (in km) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.59.178.86 ( talk) 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
[17]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.38.160.124 ( talk) 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC).:
Is carbon really so rare in the crust that it is not mentioned ? CaO exists in greater quantity than all the carbonate rocks ? Bob Armstrong 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
We need to seperate this article because "Earth" is a very broad subject. For example: Earth as a planet, Earth as the world, Earth meaning soil, Earth as in the ground, etc. etc. It would be wrong to assume that anyone who is searching for "Earth" is always searching for the planet :). So searching for "Earth" should only give you a disanbiguation page with all the subtopics on it.
So the center of the earth is made of hot iron? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnYoNe! ( talk • contribs).
It has very large and meaty clustered chunks of great educative data to it, perhaps it could be broken down into smaller peices. Nevertheless it remains an excellent article worked on by many. Just one of several hundreds saved in my watch list. It is actually 17 pages long
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 16:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The article states that Earth is the fifth largest planet in the solar system. However, as far as I can tell, it is only larger than Mercury, Venus and Mars. Is this a remnant from when Pluto was classified as a planet?
Thanks, 12.219.93.35 20:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The article lists the Earth as being 4.57 aeons old, but in accordance with the most recent scientific data, this is completely illogical. Judging from the sun's current rate at which it loses mass, the sun would be large enough to pull the earth into it at that point in time (simple laws of gravitation have proven this.)
Furthermore, we are losing our moon at a rate of about 4 inches per year. At that rate, you would have to say that 1.2 aeons ago, the moon would have been on the surface of the Earth.
Please keep all archaic theories noted as such. If you must include the Earth being 4.57 aeons old, then you must also include the "facts" that the Earth is flat and that the Sun travels around it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.5.159.25 ( talk) 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
I dont believe anyone who says "face reality". Evolution doesn't mean "theres no god". Theologians have no problem with it. Why do people? Mailrobot 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I agree with the IP address. If the world really was millions of years old, everything would be dead and worn-out by now. I watched a documentary where they carbon dated trees in a lake near Mount Saint Helens that were swept there when the volcano erupted. The test found that the trees already turned to carbon and that it dated back millions of years. Also, because the trees sank to the bottom of the lake in different phases, it appeared as if it was a lot of forests on top of each other. But whatever. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 13:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You do know you have no idea what you are saying, right? The tree outside your house hasn't been there for millions of years, that's why it isn't dead. Mailrobot 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The age of the earth is so thoroughly theoretical; discussion of such things can only be meaningful to those with a hidden agenda. Alphaquad 06:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Both differing theories from both points of view each contain evidence 'proving' itself true while contradicting the other. At the moment there is no way to determine the real age of the earth but perhaps both theories could be placed on the 'Age of the Earth' page so both points of view can be noted. 210.11.82.26 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has articles for the above stuff and nonsense - see: Origin belief and Creation within belief systems for all the various mythologies. Vsmith 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is it stated that "Widely accepted scientific evidence indicates that the Earth was formed around 4.57 billion years ago"... What else do we use in an encyclopedia? The age of the Earth is that old, we dont say "widely accepted scientific evidence" for any other age on wikipedia, why here? i think this is just bending over backwards to young-earth religious zealots... Theres plenty of other articles to do with your viewpoint where you can spread this information. Just keep it out of here -- Nbound 05:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the age of the Earth cannot be proved scientifically and it is not documented historically (other than in the Holy Bible), the age of the earth should not be written as if it is a fact. It should say "evidence suggests that the Earth is 4.57 billion years old" or "many scientists think the Earth is 7000 years old" Since it is not a fact, it should not be portrayed as such. And everyone please, stop bashing true Christians who believe in young earth creation. It is a perfectly valid belief and endorsed by many scientists. teemanbf04 17:57, 11 April 2007
It is strongly advised that mature adults who are also critical thinkers simply ignore creationist trolls and their incessant flaming about "intelligent design."
How long exactly is a day on Earth, and would it help if I divided the orbital circumference by the orbital speed? Should it be in the article? Thanks. A stroHur ricane 00 1( Talk+ Contribs+ Ubx) 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are coordinates on the celestial sphere listed for Earth? Aren't they meaningless? Why should Earth be any more at the north pole of the celestial sphere than anywhere else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.171.232.233 ( talk) 03:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
The last sentence of the article suggests "it might be possible to move the Earth's orbit outwards, and thus it would not suffer a runaway greenhouse effect." I think this is a straightforward violation of WP:CRYSTAL, especially given the casual, un-qualified phrasing of the sentence. Sure, it's cited, but if we cite everything that some sci-fi author manages to say on television, this will be a zoo. Ethan Mitchell 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The picture that says 'The first time an "Earth-rise" was seen from the moon.' needs rotating 90' to the left I think. I saw a documentary on TV about a year ago which had one of the astronaughts in it. He said it always bothered him how that photo was always displayed on its side. -OOPSIE- 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That odd looking box floating at the top of the article makes a weird space, and contains information that you'd hope the article would get to quickly anyway. It's not on mars, neptune, or pluto, (though I guess pluto isn't much of a planet anymore) and its pushing down on the introduction text. Homestarmy 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the first paragraph be modified to make it more engaging than a series of comparisons with the planets of the Solar System. Here's my first attempt:
What do you think? I'm sure this can be much improved. Any suggestions? — RJH ( talk) 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
After looking over this article it seems to me that there are entirely too many penny-packet sections with less than a paragraph of content. The overall structure also seems a little random. So I tried to put together an organizational structure by grouping common content into major headings:
If these makes sense, it should be possible to consolidate a number of the sub-topics as well. Any thoughts? — RJH ( talk) 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We know that the earth isn't quite spherical. It would be great to have an exaggerated picture of the earth to show where the bulges are. This could include the mountain ranges, to get a sense of how much of the earth's nonsphericalness is due to mountains and how much is due to large-scale shape. Perhaps NASA has that dataset? —Ben FrantzDale 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Propose adding a new section that provides the actual earth radius (much like it is referenced in the facts box) and a footnote reference to the WGS84 standard. I'd also like to clean up some of the wording regarding the ellipsoid, geoid, oblate sphere, etc. Spaceman13 15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's a place for a paragraph on "Earth Day", at best it should be cross-referenced with a link in a "See Also" section. I propose we delete this bit. Kris 10:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see why some editors would want to keep it in but I don't think it flows with the Human Viewpoint section that well. The two other subsections refer to development of thought and study, whereas the Earth Day part is just tacked on the end describing events that go on to promote environmental issues and concerns. The rest of the article is also about studies of Earth phenomena and associated theories and facts, so this bit just doesn't fit for me. There's no harm in wikilinking to the main article though. Kris 10:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"The moon formed soon afterwards, possibly as the result of a Mars-sized object, known as Theia, impacting the Earth in a glancing blow.[2] Most of this object's mass merged with the Earth, nearly doubling the planet's radius."
Doubling Earth's radius means quadrupling its volume, which a Mars-sized object cannot do since Mars has only a quarter of Earth's volume. -- Bowlhover 21:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that in some places the text gives both metres (or km) and feet, while in others only the metric values are shown. Should the page be consistent one way or the other? I would have no heartburn over dumping the old-English units but others may disagree. — RJH ( talk) 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
To be comprehensive, I think this page should cover most of the core topics described on the NASA World Book article. I don't think the page is quite there yet. For example, currently the Hydrosphere section doesn't cover the roles of the oceans as a heat and chemical reservoir. — RJH ( talk) 15:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the following entry: "The mean height of land above sea level is 686 m (426 ft)." Should be corrected. Either the feet of the meters value is wrong.
A separate concern is the orbital and geologic table along the right edge. The earth's radius is listed as about 6 million KM. It should be 6 million METERS.
"Earth does not have a sovereign government with planet-wide authority. Independent sovereign nations claim all of the land surface except for some segments of Antarctica. There is a worldwide general international organization, the United Nations. The United Nations is primarily an international discussion forum with only limited ability to pass and enforce laws."
What the **edited out** is this? It sounds like it has been written for interplanetary space travellers. - Abscissa 18:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
If that were true, the current article would be deleted and replaced with, "Mostly Harmless". Fephisto 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Absicca's change has been reverted - the text does not imply "intergalactic sovereign governments" (or anything even remotely similar). As mentioned above, this is not the Simple English edition. (No disrespect whatsoever to that version, but the English Wikipedia can presume a certain level of comprehension from its audience and the text should reflect that.) -- Ckatz chat spy 00:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've had to revert Abscissa's changes again, as they appear to be contrary to the preferences outlined above. However, in an attempt to address his/her concerns, I've reorganized and slightly reworded the text for clarity. Please take a look and let me know what you think. -- Ckatz chat spy 20:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The following versions of this paragraph have appeared over the past couple of days:
The paragraph was then reverted to Rewrite #1 by Ckatz. I've been attempting to compromise between the viewpoints expressed, but apparently not successfully. We need to reach a consensus on how to write this paragraph before this turns into an edit war. Please comment. Thanks. —
RJH (
talk) 21:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite #3 is perfectly fine. Ckatz seems to think that I have some hidden agenda to remove information, or I am trying to subert the article with simplicity. In fact, I am trying to improve the article. "Concise writing comes quickly to the point. It avoids wordiness—unnecessary and repetitious words that add nothing to the meaning." Ideas require clarity and distinctness to be communicated effectively. Let us take a look at what the paragraph is trying to communicate. There are three clear and distinct ideas: 1. There are 267 regions on Earth; 2. There is no international government; 3. The closest thing to international government is the United Nations.
Everything else is just wordy nonsense. Perhaps Ckatz would be kind enough to enlighten us as to what a general reader will reap from the first paragraph that he will sorely miss from a simpler, clearer version. - Abscissa 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
RJHall, if you'd like input on the text, I'll be glad to work with you. However, I'm not willing to put up with what I feel is an unfair (and unduly aggressive) attitude from Abscissa. Thank you for your efforts with regards to the paragraph. -- Ckatz chat spy 08:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please add {{Link GA|zh}} in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I don't know whose bright idea it was to include the Earth lights picture (The Earth at night) in the article with the current resolution of 16384 by 8192! Do you want to see your own house or something?
Anyway if you are to include a picture SCALE IT DOWN FIRST. This is less then helpful and borders on stupidity. At the moment I am VERY tempted to delete it. Please scale it down or I will give it the chop. Cheers 61.68.183.81 15:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys, it's all good. Like I’ve stated before when I clicked on the image on the article I started to download the full resolution image without seeing the intermediate screen. This caused my browser to hang. I wasn't happy about it because I didn't see the screen in between the thumbnail and full sized picture which actually states that the size of the picture (over 8Mb) and a warning regarding opening the picture with the browser. Therefore I do not have a problem with the current picture. I'm checking wether that incident was a one of or there are other incidents in Wikipedia where clicking on a thumbnail causes the browser to download the full version picture without the intermediate screen.
This topic is resolved and I retract my initial message.
Keep up the good work on the article. 61.68.187.174 06:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
From the third paragraph, "At present the Earth orbits the Sun once for every roughly 365.26 times it rotates about its axis — a period known as the sidereal year".
Noting the sidereal frame of reference, shouldn't the Earth be considered to rotate about its axis once every sidereal day, or about 366.26 times a year? If that would be thought too confusing for such an early paragraph, perhaps it should be rephrased to explicitly refer to solar days instead of rotations.
RTBoyce 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Much better now. :) RTBoyce 18:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we left align some of these images? The reader with a high resoltion computer screen is treated to no less than an eight inch blank gap in the early section of the text. Yeesh, talk about ugly. Quadzilla99 03:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that since the protection has been removed this page has already been subjected to a mass of vandalism. The wide scope of the topic probably makes it an attractive target, so it will always suffer an undue amount of these unhelpful "revisions". I'm expecting that whatever quality the page possessed will now start to slide, at least without a lot of constant monitoring. So I don't think the removal of the protection status will prove helpful. — RJH ( talk) 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The following paragraph appears in the "Human viewpoint" section:
This doesn't seem a very notable entry in the wider context. It appears that at best this group had a few thousand followers and the particular views don't represent a wide-spread belief. The topic is also covered on the Flat Earth article page. So is there any objection to the removal of this paragraph from the Earth article? — RJH ( talk) 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't Terra match the other planets' names better? - Working for Him 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is every other planet in the Solar System is named after a Roman god or goddess, so why is it called "earth" when the Roman goddess of earth is named Terra. - Working for Him 21:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, is it not? I don't believe that it has the authority, nor the means to question the name of something as large as a planet. The planet should be reffered to as Earth on this wiki page, as that is the name by which the majority of modern (English speaking) society calls it. From this perspective, I believe that no further discussion is required. However, it may be interesting and/or useful to include a summary of where the name Earth came from in the first place, but since this would probably take effort, and since it is only a minor point, I shant be doing it. Glooper 09:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The article says: "But even if the Sun were eternal and stable, the continued internal cooling of the Earth would have resulted in a loss of much of its atmosphere and oceans (due to lower volcanism).[91] More specifically, for Earth's oceans, the lower temperatures in the crust will permit water to leak more deeply into the planet than it does today. (At present, water evaporates at a sufficient depth due to increasing temperature.)"
This statement is highly intriguing, and I want to know more. However, the reference doesn't point to anything substantial. What I want to know, is where is this information from (reference)? Specifically, I am interested in how the cooling of the core would result in loss of the atmosphere and the oceans. I crawled the web and have found no information on this. Any insight would be helpful. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It is theroised that the earth will end when the sun goes out in 5 Gyrs, but our galiaxy will collide with Andromida in about 3 Gyrs. the turmoil that will ensue may cause an ending of the solar system includung earth.
I believe, and I could be wrong, but I believe that the moon is the Earth's only natural satellite (and that's if we're being fussy and not including Cruithne) but we have many man made satellites, so shouldn't that be included in the concise facts on the top right? Or at least changed to : Natural Satellites: 1. (The Moon)." As oppose to "Satellites: 1. (The Moon)".
I would agree with this (note that the same will have to be done to Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn!) Spaceman13 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe, and I could be wrong, but I believe that the moon is the Earth's only natural satellite (that is if we're being fussy and not including Cruithne) but we have many man made satellites, so shouldn't that be included in the concise fact on the top right? Or at least changed to: "Natural Satellites: 1. (The Moon)." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthewhaworth ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
After all, some people may actually not be aware our planet is called Earth. I mean seriously, someone might not know that (not likely, sure). Like, they might come to this page and think we're talking about some planet made of dirt, hence the name earth, but where's home?
I just think it makes sense, even if it's obvious, to state early in the lead that Earth is the planet on which we/humans live. Just the same as how the article on Milky Way points out that it is the home of the solar system (even though most people know this). -- Alfakim-- talk 02:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Much better :) -- Alfakim-- talk 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL im sorry but if someone is logging on to an english wikipedia via the Internet im pretty sure they know the name of the planet they live on.-- 85.210.43.45 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"The Hill sphere (gravitational sphere of influence) of the Earth is about 1.5 Gm (930,000 miles) in radius.[62][63] This is maximum distance at which the Earth's gravitational influence becomes stronger than the more distant Sun and planets. Objects must orbit the Earth within this radius, or they can become unbound by the gravitational perturbation of the Sun."
This is wrong. The Sun's gravity becomes stronger around 258,000 km. G*Msun/150,000,000,000^2 =~ G*Mearth/258,000,000^2 (in meters). Also saying that "this is the maximum distance at which the Earth's gravitational influence becomes stronger" implies that there are lesser distances where the Earth's gravity becomes stronger. Perhaps rephrase to "This is the distance at which...". Also, the gravity of the other planets are insignificant when considering Earth's Hill Sphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony873004 ( talk • contribs)
"The rotation of the Earth creates the equatorial bulge so that the equatorial diameter is 43 km (27 mi) larger than the pole to pole diameter."
Since earth circumference numbers are provided (Equatorial 40,075.02, Meridional 40,007.86 km), why not replace the above quote with "The rotation of the Earth creates the equatorial bulge so that the equatorial _circumference_ is 67km (xx mi) larger than the pole to pole circumference"? In this case, I find shifting from circumference to diameter less intuitive than sticking with circumference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slawek7 ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
earth has life and water and is knawn as the living world.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Earth rotates 366.26 times but this equals 365.26 days? Can anyone explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.153.189 ( talk • contribs) 6 December 2007 15:56
Why can't we get the little lock protection symbol like on George W. Bush or Leet for aesthetic purposes? Aaron Bowen 22:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the fact box have reference notes? I think this is especially important since several of the numbers in the fact box do not show up in the main article. For instance, what is the source of the min/mean/max temperatures? They are not mentioned anywhere in the article and therefore there is no traceability. Spaceman13 15:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't the longitude of the ascending node equal to zero (due to measurements of this for other planets are relative to the Earth's)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neodymion ( talk • contribs)
The atmosphere info on the Mars page is much more detailed than that available here. Also here, oxygen, is abbreviated as O2 while on Mars its spelled out. Nitrogen too. 76.203.74.145 05:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is based only on scientific believes, and has nothing in it involving any other belief. the article should be rewriten to follow the right of religion, the public isn't just into scientific believes, in fact, 80% of the public is christian, or pronounced christian. the article should be rewriten in this format:
-Earth
{Basic infomation without religious or scientific believes}
-The Planet
{Deeper infomation without religious or scientific believes}
-Religion
christianity
{christian belief}
Scientific believes
{Scientific belief}
{ Keep adding to the list }
{add on more religion and believes}
{ Finish article without religious or scintific believes }
this format or related formats could be useful for many other articles in the Solar System series.
If you want that, then go somewhere esle
--The Unsigned User 70.130.172.193 21:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Umm... hello... just a reminder that there actually are some people on this planet who speak English who (gasp!) aren't American! And that means that... wait for it... the English Wikipedia might actually be for people from around the globe! (Not just American Christians.) If you're trying to get your point across, you weaken your case by making statements that are just going to offend others. -- Ckatz chat spy 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
-- The Unsigned User 70.130.172.193 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
--WikiDragon--
One thing, wikipedia stays neutral, so it has to go with the scientific theory, or it will no longer be neutral. If you want to find out a religeous theory, check out that religion, so if you want to know want christianity says, go to the article about Christianity, if you want to know what Buddhism has to say about the creation of earth, go to the article about Buddhism. But for the article on earth, it should stay with the scientific theory, so that it stays neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDragon295 ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 May 2007
For those interested, please see: Origin belief and Creation within belief systems - two articles discussing at length a variety of religious and cultural mythologies where all the beliefs belong. Vsmith 00:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And what ever else religious about earth you want.
Neutral means not being on any side of a topic or despute, and scientific belief is a side, thus wikipedia, to be nuetral, must not have any religion, this also includes Scientific beliefs. And now for you Vsmith, Scientific beliefs, as it's name states, is in fact a belief, so it to should belong somewhere else, AKA, Big Bang, and any other scientific beliefs about the earth.
The article EARTH is about EARTH, not religion, so keep all religion out of the article, and if one religion (Scientific Belief) is allowed in the article, then wikipeida would no longer be neutral, but on a religious side. Scientific Belief is religion, religion is belief, and belief is bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.172.193 ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 17 May 2007
Um, I never thought I would say this (believe me), but science is not about belief. Stop calling it "scientific belief" because that's not true and you know it.
JuJube 02:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
70.130.167.7 11:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses scientific facts for things (except religon), and the creation of the earth goes with earth, and the creation theory is not considered a religion by law or by wikipedia. So so just quit. WikiDragon295 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
~WikiDragon
Exactly. WikiDragon295 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Okey, but one more thing, Vandelism. If at least a bit of religion, not effecting the article Earth, but merely it's own headline, wouldn't harm it, but may stop vandelism ralated to religion. and one thing, christians can go to Creationism, but it wouldn't tell them about earth itself, but merely the creation of earth. christians who want to know about about earth itself, can't rely on Earth because it's all scientific belief, and how can a christian or Muslim or even a Budhist rely on some other belief, even a little headline about a religion on Earth could provide believers of the religion a bit of reliablity, and a christian or muslim might have a hard time coming to something that only has the scientific idealistic side of that something, and it could also push them to Vandelism. No one or so headline/s could harm the value of an article, it could only be nuetral or positive.
If anyone wants to reply to this discussion, then please, please reply. all opinions are appreciated and valuable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.167.7 ( talk • contribs)
It is my "belief" that Christianity is all a load of bollocks from a fictional book. Andy86 16:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Science is not a "religion". Science is a method for studying the universe and building usable models based on VERIFIABLE FACTS AND EVIDENCE. Religion is about myths and traditions. Religious principles only hold true for the people who believe in them. Scientific facts still hold true regardless of what your religion is.
A small mention of how various human cultures have related to the planet through myths and legends, including Creationism (which despite posing as one is not a scientific theory, but a religious belief, and for many a political agenda) is appropriate and important. This article should definitely briefly mention and then link to the various ways religious traditions - ALL OF THEM, NOT JUST CHRISTIANITY - have placed importance and symbolism on our planet.
But elevating mythical claims, like that the ancient Hebrew storm god Yahweh created the planet, or that the earth is six thousand years old, to the same level as reputable data is NOT neutrality. It does nothing less than make the article inaccurate, unscientific, biased and useless to anyone looking for accurate information. If I wanted to learn about Christian or Jewish creation mythology I would search for it in the appropriate articles concerned with their religions, belief systems and political agendas ("creationism", "Genesis", etc.)
Neutrality does NOT mean "all viewpoints get equal time, no matter how preposterous or lacking in evidence". Rglong 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This and the article above are pretty much one discussion headline, would that make this the largest discussion in wikipedia? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikro ( talk • contribs)
well, at least Earth needs changes is the largest on Talk:Earth, even without this discussion right here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikro ( talk • contribs)
i don't know how to use this discussion or anything so someone will have to fix/delete this but isn't "continental drift" involving the tectonic plates just a Theory, while the article implies it to be fact. i believe it myself but it would be wrong to state it as a fact —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.134.229.98 ( talk) 08:13, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Just say that the Earth was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.45.90 ( talk) 09:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want the Earth article to include christian beliefs then for neutralitys sake you must also add the beliefs of every single religion on earth which would result in a size with which you can fill an entire book. And these beliefs would also include scientology and the belief that earth is a computer-simulated object in a computer-simulated Universe and the belief that earth was created by extraterrestrial aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.233.190 ( talk) 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem adding Christian beliefs to this article... As long as you also add the other fun FACTS about the Earth in the Christianity section, such as how the Earth is the center of the universe, is flat, and the FACT (seen as one user put it in the MUSEUM OF FACTS!!! (i.e. the Creation Museum)) that it is only 6000-something years old. On a serious note now, and I say this before I have read the rest of the article, just put a link somewhere to other beliefs about the way the Earth formed.... However if I could just go back tothe person who said "there's a whole museum of FACTS, the Creation Museum... now try and say they're not facts!!" than Mr whoever you are please stop reading if you believe in things such as that, then reason will never reach you. Also other people make valid points... For example, whoever said this is English wikipedia and should therefore show American statistics on Christians.... It's called ENGLISH as in ENGLAND not AMERICANISH as in AMERICA. Whoever it was that said if Christianty and its beliefs goes in here than every single other religion goes in here... That is also true. I believe (I'm probably wrong) but aren't there more Muslims than there are Christians? And finally if ever Christian beliefs do go in here, for the sake of neutrality please remember to include my beliefs as a pastafarian. It wouldn't be fair otherwise.~~ Healyhatman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.110.251 ( talk) 12:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this has been said already, but I've been following this discussion for ages, I love it, everyone's so passionate... anyway, I think it's important to note the use of “Scientific evidence indicates” and similar phrases. No-one is trying to impose their school of thought onto anyone. This standard seems to be upheld throughout most of Wikipedia, save some areas that need cleaning up. Don't get me wrong it's really interesting to know about all the viewpoints in the world, but that's why we have Style and Sectioning etc, is it not? The stance taken by people wanting every article to drive home a religious viewpoint (particularly in the article's lead paragraph) is inflammatory and IMHO petulant. On another ragga tip, my favourite thing about Wikipedia is that its never a finished product, so don't immediately get hot-headed if what you think should be included isn't: we're all responsible for what makes it in to here and there are reliable people keeping it all in check. Wikipedia does not exist to propagate singular or hand-picked agendas.-- HeyImDan ( Talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall a rectangular map of the earth posted on wiki, of approximately those dimensions. Does anybody have a link to it they can share? 24.205.34.217 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Human Viewpoint needs a change of name. Human Viewpoint makes me imagine a View of earth, not beliefs and religious point of views. A suitable name should be choosen, something like Other Beliefs, or Human Beliefs, something that sounds more like a headline on the religious side of EARTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikro ( talk • contribs)
If Earth is the name of the planet, why does the article use the colloquial name "the Earth" throughout? The articles on Mars and Venus don't talk about "the Mars" and "the Venus". In fact, the articles on Mars and Venus refer to Earth (and this article) as "Earth", not "the Earth". — Runtime 20:00, 25 May 25 2007 (UTC)
§→ Nikro 15:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah this age-old debate...we've had it before. The conclusion that we eventually reached was that 'The Earth' is the correct usage for this partiuclar context. (It goes against my own grammatical judgement, but that doesn't matter.) You can consult the Wikipedia Manual of Style where the final rule that we reached is clarified. Tanzeel 16:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
CalRis 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC): In the fact box it says that Earth's "escape velocity" is 11.186 km/s or 39,600 km/h. The last value seems to be wrong as 11.186 km/s x 60 seconds x 60 minutes equals 40,269.6 km/h, or am I wrong? Bye, CalRis.
Should other possibilities of the Earth's future be added? I mean, other than the Sun becoming a Red Giant? Like, an asteroid collision thing? Or just the Ice Age that scientists are predicting in a few thousand years? Spark Moon 04:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is this in American English, and not British English. Just wondering... Juckum 12:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
<De-indent> I really think that where international standards exist we should use them, regardless of the dialect used in the rest of the article. For example, look at all the trouble that has been saved at Aluminium (not Aluminum), Caesium (not Cesium) and Sulfur (not Sulphur) by many editors agreeing to use the IUPAC's recommended spellings. The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures is the relevant organisation here, and they use metre (as does Wikipedia's article). Apart from that, I think the policy is to use the spelling of the oldest consistent, non-stub version of the article. I had a quick look through some of the older versions, and could not see any words which are different in different dialects. I don't know whether anyone else wants to track some down...? Bistromathic 14:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The future section which talks about the destruction and inhabitability of Earth talks about time frames such as 9,000,000 years and 5,000,000,000 years until Earth could become, well, not livable and destroyed. One of the fundamental reasons for thinking about the destruction of the Earth is that humans need it to live and %100 of the people reading it will be human, so the ability for humans to live on Earth when it's destruction comes seems paramount to the future of the Earth section and relates to %100 percent of the readers of this article. The problem is that it talks about these massive numbers, 900 million years and 5 billion years until the Sun will blow up and such, but it doesn't give a contrast on what that could mean to the dominant species of the planet, us humans. I thought it would be a good idea to add that the destruction of the Earth in 5 billion years will have little bearing on humans as we know them today, because humans will in all probability not exist in 5 billion years time. Humans and human forms as we know them have only been around for about 130,000 years, so it is inconceivable that humans will not be extinct or have evolved into something else completely in 5 billion years time. Humans being the dominant species on Earth and humanity being of primary interest to this articles human readers, it makes absolute sense to add this to the end of the Future section. There are many scientific journals and articles out there that can source the claims about the fate of human (h. sapian) kind in 5 billion years time, so sourcing isn't a problem, I just want to know if anyone has a good idea of how to word this. JayKeaton 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The orbital distance under the Orbit and rotation head, last paragraph are off a factor 100. The numbers in the fact box are correct: Earth orbits at 150Gm, not 1.5Gm.
Oh, of course the distance in miles needs the same revision, sorry for not explicitly noting this. I assumed it logical.
I came to this page looking for the age of the earth and information about how it was created. Am I missing it? Religious theories are mentioned and linked, but not actual ones? ~ Strathmeyer 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Where does the name "Earth" come from? -- Antonio.sierra 04:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a suggestion with regards to this snippet.
Many localized areas are subject to human-made pollution of the air and water, acid rain and toxic substances, loss of vegetation (overgrazing, deforestation, desertification), loss of wildlife, species extinction, soil degradation, soil depletion, erosion, and introduction of invasive species. Human activities are also producing long-term climate alteration due to industrial carbon dioxide emissions. This is expected to produce changes such as the melting of glaciers and Arctic ice, more extreme temperatures, significant changes in weather conditions and a global rise in average sea levels. [22]
I understand that Global Warming is a hot topic at the moment, but why does it need to take up 2/3 of the human-caused hazards part in a brief summary of Hazards? In my opinion you wouldn't need more than a blurb about GW in the list of other destruction humans cause, in fact, it would really be a subcategory of pollution of the air and water. Alternatively, since the first sentence is talking about localized hazards, we could make a jump to global hazards like so:
Many localized areas are subject to human-made pollution of the air and water, acid rain and toxic substances, loss of vegetation (overgrazing, deforestation, desertification), loss of wildlife, species extinction, soil degradation, soil depletion, erosion, and introduction of invasive species. On a global level, human activity has been linked to an overall warming of the earth's climate [23].
What are your thoughts? And Please, I don't want to get involved in a discussion about Global Warming.
-- Popoi 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the lead was changed to the following:
However the assertions about an official IAU name are unsourced, so it needs a valid citation. Otherwise I'm not sure I see a valid need to place such an emphasis on the latin name of the planet. (See WP:MoS#Foreign_terms.) — RJH ( talk) 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
From the opening:
How is the word "myriad" being used here? If it's an adjective then this is the correct usage. If it's being used as a noun then it should be:
The addition of the template showing "Earth" as the "Person of the Year" seems to be an invalid addition. The TIME magazine gives the meaning of you as people:
BBC gives the interpretation as:
That has absolutely nothing to do with the planet Earth; it is about people, as is appropriate to the award name. So the template appears inappropriate and I have reverted it. — RJH ( talk) 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I received this email request and decided to unprotect the article 4 days ahead of the expiry to allow this person to edit:
My astronomy is sufficiently rusty that I didn't want to make the edit myself. Martin 10:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn’t the article on Earth explain why its named Earth? Like where that name came from and other names for it. -- DB Explorer 01:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm growing a little dubious about the supposed accuracy of the orbital elements on this page. For example, Bretagnon (1974) gives a=1.000000968 A.U. (See Tableau 1.) Yoder (1995) only gives a=1.00000011; the same value as on NASA's " Earth fact sheet".
Does anybody know where the orbital elements on this page came from? I'd like to cite them with the "orbit_ref" parameter in the infobox. Even if we have a reference, they vary over time, [26] so I'm not sure they should be listed to such a degree of accuracy. — RJH ( talk) 17:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Surface area: 510,065,600 km²
Land area: 148,939,100 km² (29.2 %)
Water area: 361,126,400 km² (70.8 %)
My poor maths skills tell me those numbers don't add up? I call massive worldwide governmental conspiricy coverup for that missing 100 km² :)
Seriously though, they don't add up, so which number is wrong?
I also noticed this error...I did some internet research and fixed the problem...and properly referenced it. The table breaks down the areas of each of the oceans, so it makes a bit more sense as to where the numbers are coming from. — Kevin K 26 November 2007
I would like to know if it is possible that the earth formed Thousands of years ago by material that was billions of years old —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.245.60.229 ( talk) 19:38, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Jorge Ianis 03:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC) This very important article is for ilustration not for religous preaching, there are other places for theological discussions, please let people who loves knowledge alone.
My edition is at the following sentence:
"The Earth's axis of rotation is tilted 23.5°[8] away from the perpendicular to its orbital plane, "
it should be: 23.4393º[8]
Reference: 8: SOME ASTRONOMICAL AND PHYSICAL DATA, at Observer's Handbook 1999; The Royal Astronomical Society. And many others.
Jorge Jorge Ianis 03:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently took a test asking how many planets are named after a Greek or Roman God, after reading through this I am still not sure. Can someone clarify?
Mercury is Roman, as are Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (if your test was old). This article says that Earth is referred to as both Terra and Gaia. · AndonicO Talk 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following sentence since it is not supported by a relevant citation: "Specifically, for Earth's oceans, the lower temperatures in the crust will permit water to leak more deeply into the planet than it does today." The citation that follows it is to a seven-year-old BBC news article [27], and it refers only to evaporation, not leakage into the crust. GrahamN 14:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"The planet formed about 4.57 billion years" - This takes the scientific opinion as fact, thus giving
Bias to the scientific view, when alternate views exist.
Consider "Scientists estimate that the Earth was formed about 4.57 billion years".
StuartDD (
t •
c ) 15:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
No one can prove, using the Scientific Method, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. No one was around to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.108.186 ( talk) 12:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I just moved a couple of sentences from the intro to Earth#Atmosphere. Here's the stuff I moved:
I deleted one thing: and other abiotic conditions on the planet. It wasn't referenced. User:RJHall put the material back in the intro, saying the intro needs to stand alone. I don't think the intro is bad as it is now, it just seems that the level of detail in the part I moved is a little excessive. I also think some stuff from later in the intro should be moved or deleted. For example, Later, asteroid impacts caused significant changes to the surface environment seems out of place, and it is not referenced.
I won't remove anything else from the intro without discussion. So? Rracecarr 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
the earth is not round but ovil and is the center of the univers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoobe ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Technicaly, if the universe is infinately big, then the earth would be the center because it is at an equal distance away from every edge of the infinately large universe! lol :P But yeah, it'd be silly to write that. Also, that sign bot doesn't give you a second does it! I realised I forgot to sign and then as I was saving it, it said that someon has edited the page after me. so I checked and the sign bot had been signing for me! lol, well it's good to have (just incase I totaly forgot to sign!) -- Stikman 14:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Two values have recently been here for the mean radius.
This is the average (3D) radius: avg meridional radius ≈ 6367.447 ≈ [.5*(a^2+b^2)]^.5; equatorial radius = 6378.137 = [.5*(a^2+a^2)]^.5; avg 3D radius/arcradius ≈ 6372.797 ≈ [.25*(3a^2+b^2)]^.5; ("6,371.01" is the approximate "authalic" (surface) area radius)
Can we get a more verbose explanation of the new value, please? I am sorely tempted to restore the old value unless there are some compelling arguments for the new one. Deuar 11:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
10 RF=#Pi/180:IO=10^100 100 a=6378.137:b=6356.752:Oe=acos(b/a) 1000 TN=0:AP_a=0:TL_a=0:VR=0:VO=0:VP=0 1010 TN=TN+1:AP=90*RND*RF:TL=90*RND*RF:LT=.LT(AP,TL):Az=.Az(AP,TL) 1020 TL_a=TL_a*(TN-1)/TN+TL/TN:AP_a=AP_a*(TN-1)/TN+AP/TN:VR=VR*(TN-1)/TN+.R(LT)/TN:VO=VO*(TN-1)/TN+.Oz(Az,LT)/TN:VP=VP*(TN-1)/TN+.P(Az,LT)/TN 2000 If Int(TN/100000)=TN/100000 Then?TN;Using(,3),AP_a/RF;TL_a/RF,Using(,7),VR,VO,VP 2010 GoTo 1010 9999 End 60000.np(LT):Return(1/(cos(Oe)^2+(cos(LT)*sin(Oe))^2)^0.5) 60010.M(LT):Return(a*cos(Oe)^2*.np(LT)^3) 60020.N(LT):Return(a*.np(LT)) 60030.Oz(Az,LT):Return(((.M(LT)*cos(Az))^2+(.N(LT)*sin(Az))^2)^0.5) 60040.P(Az,LT):Return(.Oz(Az,LT)^2/(.M(LT)*cos(Az)^2+.N(LT)*sin(Az)^2)) 60050.R(LT):Return((((a^2*cos(LT))^2+(b^2*sin(LT))^2)/((a*cos(LT))^2+(b*sin(LT))^2))^.5) 60100.LT(AP,TL):Return(atan(IO*cos(AP)*sin(TL)/(IO*(cos(TL)^2+(sin(AP)*sin(TL))^2)^0.5+1))) 60200.Az(AP,TL):Return(atan(IO*sin(AP)*(IO/(IO*cos(.LT(AP,TL))+1))/(IO*(1-(IO*sin(AP)/(IO*(cos(.LT(AP,TL)))+1))^2)^0.5+1))))) ---------------------------------------------------------- TN Radius Arcradius Rad. of Curv 100 43.732 46.468 6372.1430086 6374.0377755 6374.0458938 1000 43.490 44.864 6372.6288801 6372.4905336 6372.4992895 10000 44.967 44.399 6372.8983554 6372.5030411 6372.5120728 100000 45.040 44.853 6372.8362600 6372.7429106 6372.7518904 1000000 44.975 44.982 6372.8107809 6372.7897606 6372.7987262 25000000 44.998 45.005 6372.8089513 6372.8069121 6372.8158831 26000000 44.997 45.003 6372.8091890 6372.8057722 6372.8147439 27000000 44.997 45.002 6372.8093739 6372.8049196 6372.8138913 28000000 44.999 45.001 6372.8098107 6372.8048157 6372.8137876 29000000 45.001 45.001 6372.8100828 6372.8049950 6372.8139668 30000000 45.001 44.999 6372.8101686 6372.8047085 6372.8136806 35000000 45.003 44.998 6372.8106931 6372.8044417 6372.8134140
TN Great-ellipse Geodetic | Great-ellipse Geodetic ----- ------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ 10 6377.3552412 6377.3499023 | 6372.2393942 6372.2288356 50 6371.1268091 6371.1240155 | 6369.2562518 6369.2348326 100 6370.9095822 6370.9075567 | 6370.8787701 6370.8663407 500 6372.3378461 6372.3356314 | 6372.3400535 6372.3197614 1000 6372.2713239 6372.2688892 | 6372.6258601 6372.6055899 5000 6372.2001029 6372.1975977 | 6372.8110708 6372.7899544 10000 6372.2673216 6372.2647367 | 6372.9078181 6372.8867079 20000 6372.1645898 6372.1618996 | 6372.8435400 6372.8225587 30000 6372.1234538 6372.1207377 | 6372.8486510 6372.8288874 40000 6372.0945988 6372.0919012 | 6372.8614164 6372.8421600 50000 6372.1049516 6372.1022504 | 6372.8462601 6372.8265046
Does anyone have information on what the radius would be of sphere with the same surface (instead of volume) as the WGS84 reference ellipsoid? This would be most useful to calculate distances on the surface from their coordinates. − Woodstone 18:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please change the spelling of Aluminum to the internationally accepted Aluminium (see spelling debate at that article). I can't make the change becuase this article has been SP for a stupidly long period. Thanks. 82.27.238.134 10:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The decision was reached back in '04-'05 to use IUPAC spelling of aluminium, sulfur and caesium to stop the seemingly unending spelling wars. Vsmith 01:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No one seems to agree with me, and it's not an important point, so I'm dropping it. I think the policy of using aluminium everywhere in deference to IUPAC is misguided, (see above--not even the scientific community follows this convention) and moreover it is certainly not applied consistently here on Wiki (hundreds of pages link to "aluminum"). Further, the spelling aluminium is incorrect in American English as far as I know (at least the spell checker in my version of Mozilla Firefox highlights it as a misspelling). But I'm shutting up now. Rracecarr 19:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Would it be redundant or unnecessary to instead say "Earth is the only place in the universe known by humans to harbor life"? Giamgiam 00:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think adding the 'by humans' would suggest that there are other species known which would have more knowledge. Seems a bit self-contradictory.
Wild Wizard 08:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it really true that Earth is the only place in the universe to harbor life? What about space stations? It seems like a minor point; but we might as well get it correct. -- Rmrfstar 01:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed the following - appears to be simply a promotion of a "religious view". A simple one-liner would seem adequate in the cultural section, seems there is a ref to Gaia already. The article is already too long.
Please discuss here. Vsmith 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I find it important to include into the article an idea of Earth being a living energy entity. This idea is obviously consonant with the mythological and religious views of most of the ancient cultures, providing a synthesis of their approaches, while being framed into a language compatible to esoteric and modern time ESP related viewpoints. It being not adequately verifiable by contemporary official science and/or not coinciding with the private views of Mr. Vsmith is not a reason enough for its demotion and dumping, IMHO.
I take the liberty to restore the first para, while having replaced the second one (Astrological Importance) with a single short reference. I'm also removing the individual sub-section (though personally I believe this info deserves such a sub-section) and include a single remaining para into the Cultural section, lest to make the article too long.
Regards, NazarK 10:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding recent renaming of the "oblateness" parameter in the infobox to "flattening" and back. If you have a look at flattening and oblate spheroid (which is linked to from the oblateness field), it becomes clear that the two terms "oblateness" and "flattening" are synonymous. As to which one should be used, there are at least two arguments that support "flattening":
On the basis of these, "flattening" is preferable on the whole. Deuar 10:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
i was watching a old episode of the show QI the other day, and i heard that earth has a second moon that only appears every few hundred years, is this information correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanhalenrulesforever ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is protected (argh!), but there appears to be some vandalism on it:
{{start box}} {{succession box| title=[[Person of the Year|Time's Planet of the Year (Endangered Earth)]]| before=[[Mikhail Gorbachev]]| after=Mikhail Gorbachev| years=1988| }} {{end box}}
really ought not to be at the bottom of the page as it's quite silly.
Out of curiosity, how many people have blanked the article and written "Harmless" or "Mostly harmless" in its place?-- Tomoko4004 01:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently a couple of editors have taken offense to this image and have tried on a few occasions to have it removed. I don't have any particular preference in this regard, but I would like to know what the consensus is before it gets permanently removed. So what do you think: keep it or lose it? Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, I think we need some type of image in there to contrast the current Sun with its red giant stage. The following may do the job:
What does everybody think? — RJH ( talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I see it as an artist's interpretation which, assuming it is factually correct, doesn't offer much information and can send the wrong message. The image of a star's life-cycle presents the same information and more, while maintaining a NPOV. Supporting deletion and replacement. -- Lambyte ( talk) 01:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has been indef semi-protected per my request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It has previously been protected (non-indef) many times before. If anyone feels that the article needs to be unprotected in the future please feel free to post on this talk page or over at RfPP. My rational for this protect was/will always be heavy IP vandalism, as this article is very high profile. Hope this gives everyone who watches this article a break. Cheers — Cronholm 144 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The page states there is only one Moon, the Moon, for Earth. However, there is the second moon Curithne TTRP ( talk) 19:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help))
Nihiltres{
t.
l} 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have new content but I am not able to add it to this page as I am a new member. Will you please add it for me? Here it is... The word Earth comes to the English language from the Norse goddess known as Hertha or Nerthus. Roman consul and historian, Tacitus, wrote an account in the year 98, of a north German deity variously named Ertha, Hertha, Nerthus, or Mother Earth. The name also appears in the Viking sagas, written down about a thousand years after Tacitus (about the year 1190). The German name Bertha may owe its origin to this goddess of myth and fertility. Historically, we named planets after Roman or Greek gods. But the Earth is the only planet named from Norse mythology, Hertha, the goddess who ruled the very stuff the planet is made of. Hertha also was goddess of the home, and the legend goes that as smoke rose up from the fireplace it was said to be her spirit, thus the word hearth. In old Teutonic languages, the word hearth means "the ground beneath your feet." Hearth shares a common root in Old English with the word heart.
Eric Kasum Scubeesnax ( talk) 15:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC) PS - This is much more accurate than the current info. I also to not yet know how to quote references, but just do a search on google.com for "hertha" "Norse" "Saga" or "Tacitus" "Hertha"
THE VERY WORD ERTHA comes from Lithuanian language and means the soil ('dirva'=a soil, 'arta'=to plough, and 'plugas'=a plough comes from 'plaukt'=to swim) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.173.120 ( talk) 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The Earth rotates 366.26 times but this equals 365.26 days? Can anyone explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.153.189 ( talk • contribs) 6 December 2007 15:56
This article has been indef semi-protected per my request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It has previously been protected (non-indef) many times before. If anyone feels that the article needs to be unprotected in the future please feel free to post on this talk page or over at RfPP. My rational for this protect was/will always be heavy IP vandalism, as this article is very high profile. Hope this gives everyone who watches this article a break. Cheers — Cronholm 144 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The page states there is only one Moon, the Moon, for Earth. However, there is the second moon Curithne TTRP ( talk) 19:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help))
Nihiltres{
t.
l} 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)I went went round the Earth recently. It's a nice place for a holiday but I wouldn't want to live there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyTheCat ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how exactly Wikipedia of all places has an article on earth without once mentioning the phrase "Mostly Harmless"! -- Xshare ( talk) 07:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"Home to millions of species including humans, Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist."
Surely it's merely the only place in the universe where humans know life exists? Or am I just being silly and pedantic? Martin ( talk) 03:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree... it sounds rather weird to say "the only place in the universe where life is known to exist".Saimdusan 07:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimdusan ( talk • contribs)
I disagree... I also don't understand why it is so hard to... understand... what the sentence is saying. Only place in the universe where life is KNOWN to exist. I put the emphasis on the KNOWN for effect. Of course you could say "well, the aliens KNOW they exist, therefore humans are the ones who don't know therefore the sentence is wrong" which would be a bit on the stupid side. This is an english encyclopedia about the knowledge of HUMANS on earth. If you want to get into the topic of what aliens know about themselves it's probably time to start your own wiki. In summary you ARE being silly and pedantic. It's like the schrodengers (I know I spelt it wrong, meh) cat. We say it exists AND doesn't exist because WE don't know... But surely the cat knows? But of course the point is moot - the cat is just a cat, and if we don't know then it doesn't count so much. Which I always thought was stupid but there you have it. -- Healyhatman ( talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I find that the expression of the Sidereal rotation period values is a bit confusing because they are quite different values, with roughly 1 second offset between them. Since the units are also different, the reader may wrongly assume they're numerically equivalent despite the the footnote link for the second one. I can't tell which one is more realiable but it would be more clear if both values were expressed in the same units.
Peace for everyone on Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.38.227 ( talk) 16:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
in this article it states that earth was formed 4.54 billion years ago and it states it as scientific fact but this has not been proved i think it should be changed to say that it is an oppinion and then should state the other oppinions about the forming of the earth like creationism and evolution and so on it shouldn't be a whole thing of creationism vs. evolution because that would belong in a seperate article it just shouldn't pass the big bang theory off as reasoned fact Charlieh7337 ( talk) 06:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ha! I came here and I was worried when I saw all the changes that there wouldn't be some nutjob (sorry) banging on about Young Earth Creationisms "theories" and how this page is an evil atheist conspiracy to lie to the children. Okay the comment isn't that bad above but still here goes... This is an encyclopedia. As in knowledge and whatnot. SCIENTIFIC knowledge, which is the kind that can be tested, verified, falsified and whatnot, is the kind we should be dealing with. You say that creationism should get its day in the page - you're wrong. Creationism has its own section dealing with what they "think" happened. If you wanted to apply Christian dogmatic and religious views on the formation of the earth to this page you would have an instant horde of thousands upon thousands of religions clamouring for their beliefs to be added as well. The point is none of it matters - they have their own section where they have their myths detailed, it doesn't need to appear on the main page of our planet.
Also, you say "should state the other opinions about the forming of the earth like creationism and evolution". I'm not sure if you know what evolution is, maybe you should hit up the evolution page? Evolution is NOT (repeat NOT) a theory concerning the formation of the Earth. It's the theory of the origin of species and as such is independant of the planet or other environment on which it is applied. So putting the "evolution" point of view of the creation of the earth on this page is useless because evolution doesn't HAVE a point of view on the topic, save that 6000 years is nowhere near enough time for the species to have evolved to their current states.-- Healyhatman ( talk) 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the previous comment, that SCIENTIFIC knowledge is that which can be "tested, verified, falsified and whatnot". Unfortunately, the theory that the Earth came into being some billions of years ago can NOT be "tested, verified" with any real accuracy, while they can be "falsified and whatnot". The "Scientific Consensus" mentioned earlier in this article in no way constitutes acceptable experimental proof that the Earth is billions of years old. As one Creationist put it, the phrase "billions of years ago" means essentially the same as "once upon a time...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.9.133 ( talk) 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to propose changing the wording of the "This article is about..." lead sentence to the following:
This would have the benefit of making the purpose of the article clearer, so that it will not be confused with a particular cultural or religious bias (as seems to happen here). Does this make sense?— RJH ( talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The following addition has been inserted at the top:
I'm not sure this is really necessary. Earth (classical element) is already linked from Earth (disambiguation), so that part is redundant. Should the Han character "土" simply be redirected to Earth (classical element)?— RJH ( talk) 17:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"Scientific evidence suggests that the earth is around 4.54billion years old" What evidence? It would be nice to have this in the article. Thanks George bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.60.208 ( talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
A while ago I wrote a 3D Earth program to show the day and night view of the Earth with animated latest 24 hours global cloud. It shows mountain shadows and 3D clouds to provide a better 3D effect. The day/night shading shows three different shadings, daylight, twilight and night so you can see clearly which part of the Earth is currently at sunset, sunrise etc... Different satellite views of the Earth are used for each month. The date/time can be changed to see the view of the Earth at different times. The country under the cursor is highlighted to show associated states and islands. Sunrise/sunset and first/last light times (and magnetic variation) are calculated for the cursor position. I'm currently adding location based timezone information so you can see local time at any place under your cursor.
I think this program shows a very nice view of the Earth, as it would be seen from outer space, while providing useful interactive features.
The program if free to use. It is written in Java (1.5+) so it can run on most platforms but it does require a 3D graphics card. It runs as an unsigned applet in a web page (even on iGoogle) as well as a desktop application.
You are free to link to it. I don't think it is appropriate to add the link myself, someone else should evaluate and decide whether the link should be added.
Regards, Sapphireman ( talk) 02:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, Gaia has only become a synonym for Earth since Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis became popular in 1979, and that only really applies to the planet Earth in a very specific context. "Terra" is the name of the Earth in Latin, and obviously use of Latin in scientific writing post-dates the realization that Earth is a planet, but I've never heard it in common use outside certain science fiction contexts. Using "Terra" in English might be a bit misleading because "Terra" is the name of Earth in several Romance languages. Serendipod ous 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
While the sphere is beautiful no matter how you view it, does anyone prefer Image:Earth Eastern Hemisphere.jpg to the one we have now? It's centered on India, and it seems to more richly emphasize the blue. Our current ( Image:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg) seems to emphasize the white. I genuinely prefer the former. Marskell ( talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sun is on one of the focus of Earth's elliptical orbit. Is this mentioned in the article (i cannot find it, though I saw that Earth is at a barycenter of Moon's orbit) 198.62.10.11 ( talk) 08:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Article says, "...as the formation of the ozone layer which, together with Earth's magnetic field, blocks harmful radiation, permitting life on land." What is the proof that ozone is necessary for life or life cannot sustain in presence of "harmful" radiation. Why wouldn't Life have sustained and evolved even in the absense of ozone or even oxygen. This statement should be removed or proper reference should be attributed. 198.62.10.11 ( talk) 12:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the next link is spam:
what are the names given to the bumps and hollows of the earths surface—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.60.119 ( talk • contribs)
/ˈɜrθ/ and not /əːθ/ or /ɚːθ/? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.120.67 ( talk) 23:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
See for example dictionary.com. you may have to click the small "IPA" button to see it. − Woodstone ( talk) 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
For that reason a small group of editors with experience in IPA has setup the page help:pronunciation. As is clearly stated there it is on purpose a rather broad phonemic transcription ignoring minor differences between the various English dialects. It is based on the most common ways used in practice. The page Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) referenced from WP:MOS states as guideline to use that transcription. It is a way to obtain reasonable consistency in the use of IPA for English in WP. Especially it uses /r/ after a vowel, even though in US it rhotacizes the vowel, and UK only lenghtens it. If you insist on a reference, you can use dictionary.com. Said help page is especially for English. There is the page help:IPA for international use. − Woodstone ( talk) 19:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone just deleted Blindlynx's addition of the information that Earth has about 3000 useful artificial satellites orbiting it, and about 6000 pieces of space junk. I agree that the infobox was not the appropriate place for the fact, but I think it belongs somewhere in the article. I also think that somewhere in the article (perhaps under Earth#Surface, Earth#Modern perspective, or Earth#Exploration and mapping), the point should be made that satellites provide lots of information about conditions on the planet's surface, its gravitational field, etc. Rracecarr ( talk) 01:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The section on tectonic plates states that the aesthenosphere is the inner mantle and the lithosphere is the outermost mantle. Surely there should be some modifier explaining that both asthenosphere and lithosphere are characteristic of the upper mantle. The lower mantle is completely different. As a side note, semi-fluid or plastic seems more appropriate for describing the texture of the asthenosphere than viscous liquid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.75.37 ( talk) 05:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to suggest replacing the B&W picture (option 1) with a coloured one (option 2. Also, the angle from where the picture was taken is wrong, if you check the original photo from NASA, you will notice that the spaceship was moving towards the left side of the Moon.
Original photo:
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2001-000009.jpg
Therefore, I propose to vote for one of the pictures bellow:
Current photo: |
|
Proposed photo: |
Cheers,
--
Mhsb (
talk) 02:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The following entry lacks a citation:
It was inserted in the lead, but belongs in the body.— RJH ( talk) 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This phrase is highly subjective and should be removed.DvH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.88.14.230 ( talk) 03:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This should be changed, now. The planet is the only known planet with life known to /humans/. If there is life on another planet somewhere, they would certainly know it. I would change it but for some reason it's locked. 71.105.113.251 ( talk) 06:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(Left adjusting) Perhaps I am missing your point. Here is the current wording and your proposed statement, slightly re-written for flow:
They seem to be logically identical, assuming that by "other places" you mean the "universe".— RJH ( talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Mhsb ( talk) 10:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've now put in references to it. [34] It may seem that's too many references but people need that many references to make a dent in biases (e.g. biases against certain religions) people have on wikipedia. If you disagree with naming, then you should find as many referneces to Gaia and Terra as I put in for Teegeeack. William Ortiz ( talk) 10:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It says in the last sentence of the intro to this article that Ice ages are caused by Earth's cosmic movements. I had heard that Ice Ages were caused by the changing chemical make-up of the atmosphere. Maybe it's both. Either way, it should mention this, shouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.192.191 ( talk) 03:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Moving here for archival:
— RJH ( talk) 15:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I really question myself if it's really necessary to make significant changes to the article. The Earth article is already a featured article, do we need to make significant changes to it? -- Mhsb ( talk) 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The article says, correctly, that we have just one satellite, but then says that we have co-orbital satellites. Confusing. Saros136 ( talk) 06:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My browser loaded nearly 300 kilobytes of data (without images) for this page – an annoyance when using a dial-up connection.
Lots of interesting stuff, but the scope of the page seems excessive – more like a book than an article.
I suggest breaking it into multiple pages. I was looking for a quick reference for the size and weight of the earth. A 300 kb download wasn't a quick reference. I don't know why the history page says that the page size is less than 100 kb.
The page size seems excessive for a worldwide audience – everyone doesn't have a broadband connection. - Ac44ck ( talk) 06:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The bandwidth usage of this page seems to be in the tens of gigabytes per month, which is the same order of magnitude as other pages of similar popularity.
The page rank for February was 156 in the list here: [36]. I made a table including the five pages above and below this article in that list. The page size data is from late March, so the tablulated values probably differ somewhat from the actual bandwidth numbers for each page. The local rank in this table was determined by sorting the bandwidth values.
Month Page rank re: views | Page views | Size per Google, kb | Bandwidth for month, kb | Local rank re: bandwidth | Article |
151 | 343986 | 123 | 42310278 | 6 | Super Bowl |
152 | 342694 | 123 | 42151362 | 7 | Anime |
153 | 342455 | 105 | 35957775 | 8 | Politics |
154 | 341489 | 89 | 30392521 | 10 | Tom Petty |
155 | 340785 | 325 | 110755125 | 1 | Peyton Manning |
156 | 340029 | 276 | 93848004 | 3 | Earth *** |
157 | 338267 | 295 | 99788765 | 2 | Vietnam War |
158 | 337890 | 90 | 30410100 | 9 | Family Guy |
159 | 335570 | 80 | 26845600 | 11 | Michelle Obama |
160 | 335314 | 220 | 73769080 | 4 | American Idol |
161 | 333924 | 137 | 45747588 | 5 | List of House episodes |
The highest value for bandwidth is only about four times the lowest bandwidth value in this table. Not what I wanted to find as a dial-up user. Peace. - Ac44ck ( talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. -- Iwilleditu Talk :) Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ne1 think of adding mostly harmless to the article? As a joke ^-^ 13:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)13:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)~~
Perhaps the following message box would be appropriate for the top of this talk page?— RJH ( talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"Humorous" references to the Douglas Adams novel Mostly Harmless are inappropriate content for this article. |
I removed this addition from the article because (1) it is unsourced; (2) this is a summary-style article about the Earth, not the Moon; (3) the information is too tactical in nature and could be summarized in a single sentence; (4) the Earth article is already quite large, so the content needs to be kept tight. Sorry.
Do others feel that this should have been included? The "Human geography" section already mentions that 12 people have walked on the Moon.— RJH ( talk) 17:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I do feel something about visits to the Moon should be included. Since the section on the moon is fairly short, then it should only be a sentence or two summarizing the visits to the moon. I believe it leaves the article incomplete if we're going to have a section about the Moon and not even one word about us visiting / landing on it. Cody-7 ( talk) 19:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please add SEE ALSO link to Hollow earth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.239.219.220 ( talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
But I believe that this article should if not explicitly mention creationism, at least indirectly mention that there are alternative beliefs regarding earths origin and age. From my sources, I have learned that most scientists believe intellegent design though they do not necessarily conflict this belief with a belief in evolution and a belief in an old earth. If nothing else I will add a POV tag.-- Urban Rose 22:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are some examples of strong scientific evidence that I have that support alternate theories and/or prove that these theorys are more than just "fringe beliefs". Unfortunately I do not have links for these at the moment, and if they are nonsense I would like to know. 1. Most scientists believe in a creator, though they do not necessarily conflict this with evolution or an old earth theory. 2. Biological evidence has been found that suggests that humanity has originated from one man and one woman. 3. When astronauts landed on the moon for the first time, the level of dust found was only a fraction of what was predicted would have been found had the moon been billions of years old. These are just a few examples. What I am afraid is happening is that while strong evidence has been found to support alternative beliefs regarding earth's age and origin, it is immediately being censored by the scientific community and by Wikipedia simply because of what it supports.-- Urban Rose 23:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
|
How is adding a link to a site that explains that alternate views exist "acting disruptively" and "adding fringe beliefs to an article". And how is creating a thread expressing my views on this article "abuse of the talk page" to such an extent that even the thread is censored (and my bet is that this one will be also). It has become apparent that many of you aren't content with an article which reveals that there are alternative beliefs regarding earth's age and origin. You want an article that describes only won belief to the point that even mentioning in an entirely neutral way that other beliefs exist is censored from the article. Many, many people, and many in the scientific community hold these alternative views. They can't be described as "fringe beliefs" by anyone speaking of them in a neutral tone. They deserve a mention in some form or another but even so much as one external link isn't allowed apparently.-- Urban Rose 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
There is also the "Religious beliefs" section. I've expanded that section a little. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
From the limited reading I've done (much of which has been young-earth creationist publishings) I have been at the conclusion that there are many holes in the big bang theory and old earth theory and that the belief in that the universe was created as is and the belief that it is only several thousand years old are equally valid theories. If I have been wrong and science has recently (or not so recently) proven otherwise, I apologize. And I also recognize that it is Wikipedia's duty to report strictly what has been accepted by the scientific community, not what many people simply choose to believe in spite of the facts. I personally do believe in the big bang theory and in evolution, and am not sure right now whether I believe in a creator or not, but I previously considered based on my limited knowledge young-earth creationism to be an equally valid scientific theory. So in conclusion, I've learned something new and won't continue to try to insert people's personal beliefs into a factual article. I think that the article's header, which now contains a link to creation myths is fine and makes it known sufficiently that there are other beliefs about the earth's age and origin without getting in the way of fact.-- Urban Rose 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The header states that "For the Earth's geography, see World." However, the article includes a section called "Human geography" that includes a main article link to Human geography. To me it seems somewhat redundant to include the first message, as the two are interrelated. Should these be consolidated by instead adding World as a main article link under "Human geography" and removing the sentence from the lead?— RJH ( talk) 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Humans do not know of life to exist on any other planet but Earth.
The quote Earth is the only place where life is known to exist is not scientifically proven. How can you prove that extraterrestials do not know of some planet except for Earth in which life exists. Thus Humans only know life to exist on Earth, but other life in the Universe may no know life to exist elsewhere. Saying that life is only known to exist on Earth is faulty and erroneous because it is inductive reasoning. We cannot assume something without scientifically proving that there is no other planet that life is known to exist. Saying this automatically assumes that aliens do not exist and that has not yet been proven.
Maldek (
talk) 02:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
From the earlier discussion here, about including human knowledge in the phrasing, there was a narrow preponderance for rejection:
After this new discussion the balance is tipped:
So I will consolidate this in the article. − Woodstone ( talk) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What humans know is the underlying assumption of every statement in every article in the wiki. Do we really need to state this? Takarada ( talk) 14:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose rewording the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead to say
I think this wording reads better than the current version
This should stay here for a bit before being implemented because of the edits advocating a concern for bias against extra terrestrials (or whatever). ASHill ( talk | contribs) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Carbohydrates fill numerous roles in living things, such as the storage and transport of energy (starch, glycogen) and structural components (cellulose in plants, chitin in animals).
Scientists have observed that carbohydrates fill numerous roles in living things, such as the storage and transport of energy (starch, glycogen) and structural components (cellulose in plants, chitin in animals).
I don't understand why saying "Earth is the only place in the universe where Humans have found life" is such a big deal. It doesn't take up much space and it is more accurate. You say wikipedia is meant for humans only. That's not a good answer because where does it say that. All it says is Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. So is it then, because the person writing the article is a human so it is assumed that that it is from a human?
"Earth is the only known place where life exists" (Written by a human, therefore from a human perspective. Since humans do have proof of life elsewhere)
"Los Angeles is the only known place where life exists" (Written by an anonymous person who does not know of any life existing outside of Los Angeles. In theory this is okay to say to because it is assumed that when we say "Known" it means known by that person?
-What is consensus? Please explain this to me. What are the rules for edting? Why is it called Vandalsim for putting correct information? How do we know what is assumed? If I write something and say Los Angeles is the only known place where life exists is that okay, since it must be assumed that we are talking about me, since I edited it? How do we know? I am so confused as to these rules. How many people must agree with your revision for you to be able to edit? What are the rules? Are there any, or is it just that people will block you if they don't agree with you? If people don't agree with you and you are right is it fair to be blocked? Thank You. Maldek ( talk) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
As another proposal to help resolve the dispute, I suggest attaching a note such as the following to the statement that, "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist":
The purpose of this is to avoid modifying the sentence to a pedantic form, while still satisfying the same goals that are driving the debate. Of course there is probably a better way to word it, but I just want to see if the community is open to this approach.— RJH ( talk) 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me to be somewhat pedantic - if and when the public discovers alien life, sapient or not, I am sure Wikipedia will be updated within minutes. :). Otherwise, it's quite safe to make the assumption that "is known" refers only to humans. Saying that we need to be explicit about such a triviality seems to me somewhat like saying "In the barrel of monkeys, the monkeys are made out of plastic. They're not real monkeys." Nihiltres{ t. l} 01:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Gweneral perception about formation of earth is that primarily it was a hot planet with no life forms and everything gradually started to happen in a phased manner. However if we see that this didnt happen in case of other planets. More then often scientists try to compare the features of earth with our other neigbhouring planets. However if we see there is a very formidable difference in case of our earth and other planets. If we observe the atmosphere of other planets most of them have a very violent form of atmospheric activity. Also apart from this they dont resemble much geological activities. The nature of storms on planets like jupiter shows how furious the weather conditions can be. In comparison to them our most fierce twisters seem to be like a babies breath. When earth was formed the conditions over here were also same. But how come the nature of our earth changed from such a furious form to a calm one? The answer lies in the form of abundant water present on the earth surface. This water was inintially responsible for changing our earths atmosphere as well as it also preserved the geological activity of our planet. The presence of constant water first of all helped in the cooling down of the earths tempearture as well as removal of excess particulate material and depositing the necessary minerals back into the surface. also constant discharge of electricity helped in the formation of various gases beneficial for the survival of life on earth. as regards the geological activity if we see the constant pressure of water on the surface of earth prevented it from gradual cooling of the crust at a fast pace. This water again helped in the formation of various life forms on land and in water both. the abundance of water also points in the direction that it was not by mistake that life appeared on earth and nowhwere else in our solar system. Asim786mrt ( talk) 12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The new picture of a spinning globe is nice, but spinning way too fast. Now it's about one revolution per 2.5 seconds. Would look much better at once per 15 seconds (or more). − Woodstone ( talk) 14:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear about the detail (eg. so that
you can see that the light-blue areas represent shallower water) and so forth:
I've reduced the frame advance rate to one/sec (there are 24 frames, so that's "one hour/sec").
To get a "smooth" animation at a comparable spin rate, I'd need to have three or four times as many frames, so to keep the file size manageable I'd have to reduce the quality and/or dimensions down to that of the "original" (above).
But there does not seem to be much need for me to put much more work into this -- though I do think something incorporating a "lights at night" image would be neat, too!
Also btw
the (unanimated & "flat") NASA images are available here.
Regards,
Wikiscient 09:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it might sound absurd but the Infobox Planet for Earth should or, most probably, it must contain an information about the human population. I wanted to know what is the human population on earth and I thought I could find it at the Earth's infobox but I did not. I never thougt to look at the World population article. Only after, I found out where it is. But I think that some people that had the same question as me, have searched the info on the Earth article. Anyway, it's a good idea to do a new section at the infobox, maybe with all the three values:
Tuloc ( talk) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Placing the "Earth-related topics" infobox at the bottom has resulted in several attempts to create a redundant "See also" section. Should we:
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay here's my thinking behind that section: I agree with the concerns about having a "See also" section too cluttered with too many links and making the navigation/info box at the bottom is a good idea. The problem with that is many users won't notice that navigation box and I'm sure many users find see also sections useful. The four links I added are all articles that contain a list of a lot more articles which is kind of like putting a navigation box (but more comprehensive) into one link. I think perhaps an article could be started titled "List of Earth-related topics" or "List of basic planet Earth topics" or something like that and all those topics in the navigation box could be listed in that article plus any other topics that are Earth-related. The only problem with that is it would share a lot of the same articles in the "List of Earth science topics" but that's not such a big deal. Then we could add that new link into the see also section and it would be like putting that navigation box there as you suggested. If people like this idea I could start making that article when I have the time or anyone else that's interested could. LonelyMarble ( talk) 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, but I'd like to make sure this is a satisfactory consensus as the "other uses" section at the top is still undergoing occasional revisionism. Which of the following is preferred for the "other uses" statement?
This (1):
or (2):
{{three other uses|scientific information on the Earth|the Earth's geography|World|religious beliefs|creation myth}}
or (3):
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the "scientific information" wording is inappropriate. I, without having seen this discussion, changed the hatnote to read
In my opinion, we should not present more than this in the hatnote. If "scientific" refers to the
natural sciences, then it is factually inaccurate as the "Cultural viewpoint" section and parts of the "Human geography" section refer not to natural sciences, but to
social sciences. If "scientific" refers to the union of both
hard and
soft sciences, then it refers primarily to academic work and is redundant given that as Wikipedia is meant to be
verifiable, the article should be using academic sources regardless.
I am similarly concerned that the wording is being used as a subtle
disclaimer against creationists; while they are certainly annoying in multiple ways (the real concern being POV-pushing), this is not an excuse to include something in the article as a deterrent. Problematic additions can be reverted, and the authors of such additions educated about our
neutral point of view. The neutral point of view issue is another problem that I have with the current wording of the hatnote. While I am agnostic and oppose dogma, it is equally important for the sake of NPOV that we not push our own views. It occurs to me that presenting the article as being composed of "scientific information" at very least implies a particular, science-favouring point of view – should not such implications be avoided?
Nihiltres{
t.
l} 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A little ORBITAL CHARACTERISTICS addition for us simple people ? We're also orbiting Sol at 66,622.17 mph . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFSLAKES1 ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Under Physical Characteristics the Earth's density is given as 5.5153 g/cm³. But right above it the mass is given as 5.9736 and the volume as 1.0832073 in the appropriate units. Given that 5.9736/1.0832073 = 5.5147, how was 5.5153 determined and why is it different? It's not a big difference, but I don't see why there should be any difference. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 04:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The source for "The mean height of land above sea level is 686 m" is an 1892 article, which cites its source as an 1888 article. An estimate I've seen in various places is 840 m, anyone have a trustworthy (and relatively recent) source for this quantity? -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 05:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I am a little confused as to what the information on this article and the Earth article says about the end of life on Earth. It says that in 900 million years all plants on Earth will die and in an additional 1 billion years all of the water on Earth will evaporate. Does this mean that in 1.9 billion years the Earth's ocean will evaporate? It is confusing because the sources say in 1 billion years the Earth's oceans will evaporate but the article says a billion years later, meaning 1 billion years after 900 million years the oceans will evaporate. So is it 1 billion years or 1.9 billion years that the Oceans will evaporate? Another thing is that it says also that in only 500 million years all life on Earth will die but this contradicts the place where it says that in 900 million years all plants will die and millions of years later on animals will die. I am so confused by these contradictions. Please help clarify this for me.Maldek (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Maldek ( talk) 01:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The Sun is 4.57 billion years old and will spend 10 billion years as a Main Sequence Star before it becomes a Red Giant. Is it okay to change 5 billion years to a more accurate 5.43 billion years? Thank You. Maldek ( talk) 04:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Who is the moron that wrote "At present, Earth orbits the Sun once for every roughly 366.26 times it rotates about its axis." ?
The earth does absolutely not orbit around the sun each 366.26 days, it is 365. I edited the page, but someone removed my entry and blocked me from editing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven Alexis De Varennes ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
In the first part of the "Earth" article it is stated that life on the planet began some one billion yrs ago. It is not true and, moreover, it is inconsistent with the info given in the same article below (about the first ancestor of all living organisms on the planet). One should keep in mind at least oldest stromatolites etc. or, maybe, oldest remnants of (suggested) bacteria...
I am sorry for this mistake - indeed, the statement is correct. (TM)
It is not true that first multicellular organisms appeared in Cambrian! At least, the pre-Cambrian Ediacara fauna should be taken into account. As far as I remember, the "Cambrian explosion" is partly an illusion: a phenomenon caused by the fact that in Cambrian many animals started to produce carbonate skeletons, making them much more likely to be preserved as fossils. Cambrian absolutely not the begin of multicellular neither tissue-built animals (Eumetazoa).
Tomasz Mardal, Poland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.77.246 ( talk) 10:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
IMO, the Precambrian multicellular, specialized forms of life (incl. the Ediacara fauna) should be at least shortly mentioned - without those the (brief) story of life on Earth seems to be misleading (the same regards oldest stromatolites). The statement that "the Cambrian explosion, when multicellular life forms began to proliferate" seems to be really not perfect, or doubtful, if one takes into account that numerous Ediacara fossils are supposed to precede several Cambrian animal groups evolutionally. I think it can't be definitely stated that the Late Precambrian Eumetazoa did not proliferate. (TM)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.7.109 ( talk • contribs)
I understand your point, but it is possible to avoid the doubtful sentence regarding the Cambrian explosion and the "proliferation" then without making the text much longer. At the moment, the text is misleading. The "summary type" of the text should not substantiate its such disadvantages. I am also of the opinion, that the spectacular and widely found Ediacara fauna could be (very briefly) addressed.
May I also suggest to add (very brief) info on the oldest Earth rocks known and oldest minerals (I gess, zircons preserved unchanged within metamorphic rocks), as well as the oldest remnants of life (incl. oldest Precambrian stromatolites).
By the way, the incorrect term "continental plate" is used at least twice in the section "Surface". First, this all stuff regarding the "tectonic plates" (or, better, "litosphere plates") should be moved to the previous section, regarding the plates themselves. Second, there is nothing like a "continental plate" - as you surely know, a specific plate of lithosphere may contain both oceanic and continental lithosphere. So, the term used, "continental plate" seems to be a remnant of the old Wegener's theory and should not appear in the Wikipedia at all. Koci Tata ( talk) 21:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
When Earth orbits the Sun, the angle between the plan of the Earth terminator and the Earth axis is subject to continuous variation so that it equals zero at the equinoxes and reaches its (absolute) maximal value 23.4° at the solstices of June and December. This subtle oscillation of Earth axis around the terminator plan is the main cause of seasons.
When I added this statement (with 3D representations) to the Earth article (edit of 14:22, 20 June 2008), this one has been immediately deleted by Rracecarr. His argument of this deletion is this is misleading and oversimplified.
My question is: where misleading is in my description? Wikeepedian ( talk) 13:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
At the end, in the future section, it says that even if the sun where to remain constant life on earth would be killed because of decreased volcanic activity. How does this work (the linked article was not very helpful. Thanks, Brusegadi ( talk) 13:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In the "Moon" section; the following text is found:
"Some theorists believe that without this stabilization against the torques applied by the Sun and planets to the Earth's equatorial bulge, the rotational axis might be chaotically unstable, as it appears to be for Mars."
Is there any supporting evidence or citations? This "fact" (chaotically unstable axis) is notably absent from the "Mars" article.
Rusk42 (
talk) 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest changing that sentence to read:
Rusk42 ( talk) 15:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand this may have been talked about before, and that the scientific articles use metric units for measurement, but I do hope that the community realizes that The United States of America does not use metric units for the hoi polloi (however frustrating it may be). Therefore, I do suggest that that American units of measure be added to this article when referencing the radius, circumference etc. There are over 300 million Americans, many of which read and contribute to wikipedia that do not know the conversions. I suggest that many Americans looking up "Earth" on wikipedia are in fact NOT scientists and therefore do need the American conversions. I am willing to edit them in if that is OK, I did not want to do so until I received some sort of consensus. Remember, metric does make more sense and is simpler, but unfortunately a very large percentage of the English speaking world population is dumbfounded by them. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumacdon ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 2008 July 7 (UTC)
see: Earth#Future
I read the 'future of earth' section and believe it to be only tackling the issue from a solar perspective... in other words, the suggested pattern is that due to solar output increase, the Earth will eventually be baked dry. For the moment I will call this perspective 1; but there are two more elements (that I'm aware of) that must be considered.
Granted, the general future of the sun is fairly easy to predict, but it is not the only force active on Earth. Earth, itself, is an active force on Earth, and I don't see any mention of its affect over that very same future. It seems, rather, that the sun's affect is the only variable being considered.
What about the gradual cooling of the mantle and core? What about the eventual halt of tectonics, and the eventual end of vulcanism. I've heard estimates that both will have ended by the end of a billion years, and the results would mean a colder planet, whose water is either wholly frozen (in small part) on the surface, or (primarily) locked deep beneath the surface, in and under a crust too cold to force it back up again. Furthermore, declining vulcanism translates into less atmospheric replenishment/recycling and, finally, a cooling and less dynamic core would almost certainly mean a lessening magnetic field that is less and less capable of fending off the sun's touch... such that at the same time that geological replenishment of certain aspects of the atmosphere wanes, the top would be ever more sheared away and/or ionized. Even if the solar output increases, an internally 'less hot' planet with a thinning atmosphere may still swing climate toward 'icy' rather than 'steamy'
At any rate, what I'm asking for here is for folk who know more about this to persue the topic and help include it as part of the 'future' of the earth. My information on time scale is 2nd hand at best.
~ Jeturcotte ( talk) - July 13, 2008
see: Earth#Future
Hokay then, on to the last variable I am familiar with as being likely to have a dramatic influence over the future and climate of the earth... namely, orbital and rotational changes.]
Again, as I said before, the 'future of the earth' segment only appears to be concerned with solar output changes, which are real enough... but the Earth and Moon are heading toward a probable orbital equilibrium that would have the moon some 40% further away and would also have Earth finally tidally locked to it... at which point a month and day would be the same length at some odd 42 contemporary days in length. Though the planet is cooling internally, and the atmosphere will thin as vulcanism wanes... what effect would it have on the Earth to have a daytime that lasts 21 now-days long?
Again, I'm asking that experts in this area help modify the Earth page to reflect these ongoing changes. It would be interesting to have a more complete scenario (or set of theories) based on all three variables, rather than JUST on solar output increases. Thanks!
~ Jeturcotte ( talk) - July 13, 2008
It has come up a couple of times in the last month, but only briefly, so I wanted to start a focused discussion of whether or not certain sections should remain in the article. I think the article should tighten its focus on the planet, so we could potentially drop the Human geography, Religious beliefs, and Modern perspective subsections (at least/most?). I don't think many readers would come to this article looking for the information contained in those sections, for the most part, but there are some pieces of information that readers might specifically come to this article looking - e.g. the number of human inhabitants. I don't know how we could best deal with that, forcing it into another part of the article where it doesn't belong? modifying the hatnote again? should readers just be expected to know what other search terms to use? I'm really not sure. There is the 'Earth-related topics' template sitting hidden down the bottom, maybe we could use that to our advantage somehow?
While I was writing this I was wondering if standardising the planet articles, regarding sections/subsections, has ever been discussed? I realise the Earth article would be the odd one out when trying to do something like that, but since it's related to this discussion, I thought I'd ask. Cheers, Ben ( talk) 18:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC).
"Home to millions of species,[8] including humans" everyone reading this knows that there are humans on earth with the possible exceptions of the incredible stupid and astronauts, i think it should be removed. 72.83.117.192 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This is my first edit of any scale to this page, and I am not a scientist of any measure, but I have been noting all the debates over one of the opening sentences (guess which one); so, could we just put a little note at the top of page that states that this is written from a human viewpoint so that all the debates as to the wording of that sentence will stop? And include a link to whatever policy or guideline page states that all pages on Wikipedia are written by and for humans, if it exists. ( Justyn ( talk) 06:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC))
<!--This sentence has uses a particular, consensus-picked perspective, and has taken a lot of debate to be settled. Before rewording it, please get consensus on the talk page.-->
to help prevent unnecessary drama. I don't care either way, but this is the solution that you'd probably want. {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
log}} 14:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The image arrangement of this page has been going through more thrashing lately. As a format improvement, I'd like to suggest modifying the table in the "Internal structure" section as follows:
Earth cutaway from core to exosphere. Not to scale. | ||
Depth
[5] km |
Component Layer | Density g/cm³ |
---|---|---|
0–60 | Lithosphere [6] | — |
0–35 | ... Crust [7] | 2.2–2.9 |
35–60 | ... Upper mantle | 3.4–4.4 |
35–2890 | Mantle | 3.4–5.6 |
100–700 | ... Asthenosphere | — |
2890–5100 | Outer core | 9.9–12.2 |
5100–6378 | Inner core | 12.8–13.1 |
(The information about location variation has been converted into notes.) Does this seem reasonable to everybody?
Also, in the "Tectonic plates" section, the location of the various plates is shown by the colored map. It seems reasonable therefore to remove the "Covering" column from the table in that section. The map could also be merged into the table (colspan="2") as per above.
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I reverted several edits made during the past day as they replace a valid reference with an unsourced remark and I could not access the one provided link. It is also unclear that the sigurdhu link is a reliable source. The site just looks like a generic account provider. By contrast, Michael Pidwirny is an associate professor at the University of British Columbia Okanagan. If there are better sources available that can confirm the changes, that would be great. Sorry.— RJH ( talk) 17:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist" Hasn't life been found on comets and whatnot? 69.183.4.168 ( talk) 13:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Os it just me or do these two sentences contradict each other completely?
I didn't want to remove either one of them as I wasnt sure which one was correct...
The Flying
Spaghetti Monster! 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This article should be nominated at WP:TFAR next Earth Day. It is a core article and the only core WP:FA that has not been a WP:TFA from my quick glance.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that scientists have NOT proven that the Earth was formed billions of years ago. If you do have proof, please post it so that we all may see. 24.74.160.28 ( talk) 02:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)September 13, 2008
I might as well post this now before another edit war gets started. User Kwamikagami made multiple changes to the numerical values in this article that do not appear to agree with the format at Wikipedia:MoS#Large_numbers. Some examples:
Before | After |
---|---|
152,097,701 km | 152 097 701 km |
1.0167103335 AU | 1.016 710 333 5 AU |
I think that such a change needs to be introduced via a MoS revision before it is introduced here. Wikipedia has its own standards that don't necessarily agree with particular ISOs. Any thoughts?— RJH ( talk) 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about the idea of moving the "Cultural viewpoint" section to another page and replacing it with a summary? This approach is recommended on Wikipedia:Summary style for long articles.
For example:
With the appropriate citations, of course. Does anybody find this objectionable? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 21:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a few minor concerns regarding the level of precision in the infobox. Wikipedia:MoS#Large_numbers says to avoid over-precise values where they are unlikely to be stable or accurate, or where the precision is unnecessary in the context. The orbital period is given as 365.256366 days, which corresponds to 365d 6h 9m 10.0224s. (Seriously, who has a watch accurate to one second per thousand years?) 365.256 days gives 365d 6h 9m 10s. Per the article, that number is also going to vary by 23μs per year, or 0.000023. So the current value will be off within a year.
There are also a number of fields with multiple values, but the level of precision of the values don't match. Example: 152,097,701 is nine decimals, 1.0167103335 is eleven. I think they should be consistent.— RJH ( talk) 17:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)</ref>I'd like to suggest that we consider replacing the rotating Earth image in the above-named section with the illustration to the right. The latter seems more informative and it may help the reader better understand the text.— RJH ( talk) 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Etymology: Middle English erthe, from Old English eorthe; akin to Old High German erda earth, Greek era. Date: before 12th century earth. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/earth Pawyilee ( talk) 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There are 7 moons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.160.50 ( talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that the word "Earthling" is also appropriate as an adjective. What are your thoughts? Fireleaf ( talk) 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why the longitude of the ascending node is not zero? Isn't the ascending node the same as the vernal equinox and isn't the vernal equinox at longitude zero by definition? Thanks for any help. PAR ( talk) 10:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just began careful reading of this article and I've already noticed some major problems:
I'll update as I find more.-- Adi4000 ( talk) 07:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
polution of ozonelayer occered because of old refrigirators,the rays of the refrigirators can easyily defeat ozone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.129.115 ( talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Per the above review, I put together a tentative fourth paragraph for the lead. Does anybody have issues or concerns with the wording? Perhaps somebody has a better proposal?
There may be a need to modify the second paragraph accordingly. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
A recent picture to replace the blue marble image would be really nice, since we now have the technology to observe the Earth with highly advanced cameras. While that older image is recognized (it should be moved to a more appropriate section), it is 2008... we at Wikipedia could be help promote a new image for the next generation now in school. My specialty is not images though, so someone with that expertise might be able to accomplish this if we have consensus. This is one of the most important leads in all of Wikipedia. Two examples are listed below: All Is One ( talk) 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The article claims that the atmosphere is oxidizing due to the escape of the rudcing element hydrogen. Although this might be considered true in some tortuous sense, free oxyegen is generally considered to be a result of photosynthesis - and ideed, the reference for the se3ntence about reducing and oxydizing atmosphere states this clearly. The sense the escape of free hydrogen could be considered to lead to free oxygen is that if there were more hydrogen in the biosphere, there might be enough to reduce all the oxygen (that is oxidize the hydrogen) to form water.
151.195.3.100 ( talk) 20:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Sol-3 redirects here. Could some discussion on this term be included in the article? __ meco ( talk) 12:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a modification to the 'History' section that will incorporate the 'Future' section. Right now 'Future' seems stuck out on its own, past the culture and geography information, and I think it would provide better article flow by being included with the history. Here's what I'm suggesting:
Any thoughts or concerns about this? Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 22:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Will someone stop protecting this page so we can upload earth.jpg from Yahoo! Images? 66.72.201.167 ( talk) 17:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Just upload the image. 66.72.201.167 ( talk) 18:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
At ptesent, the lead includes the following statement:
However, I think that the word "shows" would be a stronger, less passive wording than "indicates". Thus:
Within the context of scientific investigation, I'm not aware of any significant controversy about the age; at least in terms of the order of magnitude. (This issue seems to have been settled about a century ago. [39]) Thus I think the stronger wording is warranted, under the proviso that this is the scientific viewpoint. Would anybody find this modification objectionable? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 18:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I see the problem with this sentence in Human Geography:
1/8th, which I believe is based on proportions given in the second part of the sentence (1/4 land area * 1/2 suitable land = 1/8th), based on sources, is incorrect. It implies that humans don't settle, for ex. in high mountains. Source [123] says: Mountain environments cover some 27% of the world’s land surface, and directly support the 22% of the world’s people who live within mountain regions. I've been trying to find a source online that approximates amt. of suitable land for humans, unfortunately, I wasn't able to. -- Adi ( talk) 18:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence seems both vague and relative. I think the same sentence can be applied to the Moon and any of the other terrestrial planets.
Do we need this statement? If so, could you suggest how to make it more useful? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The sentence: "...total arable land is 13.31% of the land surface, with only 4.71% supporting permanent crops" doesn't correspond to its source (the CIA factbook) which states: arable land: 10.57% - permanent crops: 1.04% - other: 88.38% (2005).
Also, it is not clear how the next sentence: "Close to 40% of the Earth's land surface is presently used for cropland and pasture, or an estimated 1.3×107 km² of cropland and 3.4×107 km² of pastureland." relates to these figures. I have not access to the source given (the FAO Production Yearbook 1994). -- Sir48 ( talk) 15:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I had a similar discussion with another user about this in the archives here: Talk:Earth/Archive_9#Contradiction. That should explain the definitions. But the problem here is that the World Factbook figures for arable land and permanent crops has changed. When I made that comment in the archives less than four months ago it was the 13.31 and 4.71 figures in the World Factbook, now the figures are 10.57 and 1.04. The odd thing is not only does this change in figures seem a bit large (but maybe it's not I wouldn't know), but also the year was stated as 2005 for the old figures and it's still stated as 2005 for the new ones as well. The World Factbook has to be considered a reliable source though so maybe these numbers should be changed in the article, and it would be nice to find another collaborative source for these figures, especially one that has information on the other types of land like pastureland. LonelyMarble ( talk) 00:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Land use | Percentage |
---|---|
Arable land: | 13.13% |
Permanent crops: | 4.71% |
Permanent pastures: | 26% |
Forests and woodland: | 32% |
Urban areas: | 1.5% |
Other: | 30% |
Alright, after all that blabbering I came to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations official site. That is the same source used in the article (FAO Staff (1995). FAO Production Yearbook 1994 (Volume 48 ed.). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ISBN 9250038445.), but apparently the source from the article uses figures from 1993. This site right here seems to contain all the information we'd need and it's updated to 2005: [41]. Only problem is it might take a little while to convert all the units and get the percentages correct. I'll attempt this some time in the future when I have more free time if no one else does it first. Here's the main site: [42], and I went to ResourceSTAT - Land for the link above. Anyone that wants to update these figures feel free. LonelyMarble ( talk) 00:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Land use | Area (1000 Ha) | Caculated percentage |
---|---|---|
Total land: | 13,013,475.40 | |
Arable land: | 1,421,169.10 | 10.92% |
Permanent crops: | 140,511,70 | 1.08% |
Permanent pastures: | 3,405,897.80 | 26.17% |
Forests: | 3,952,025.70 | 30.37% |
Other: | 4,092,972.40 | 31.45% |
Total: | 99,99% |
The following appear in the article using both upper and lower case forms: North Pole, South Pole, Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle. I think they should be consistently one or the other. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 16:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
How about a section that lists different cultures' alternative names. This is very Western-centric. 24.174.82.195 ( talk) 22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this article seem to have lag issues with scrolling?— RJH ( talk) 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
how many is the earth Synodic period???but the moon Synodic period is know and it is result please yeah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.161.55 ( talk) 08:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This section has a couple of sentences that I'm not sure are in keeping with WP:Summary style:
Will anybody object if these are moved to the Earth's rotation article? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 16:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
A useful addition would be to actually quantify the rate of slowing of the earth's rotational speed, but I'm not qualified to do that myself. The Wikipedia article on Tidal Acceleration quotes a figure of 2 ms / 100 years, but that seems far too small in the light of a TV news article today, that has informed us that since 1972, our clocks have had to be adjusted by 23 seconds, i.e. approx. 0.65 seconds per year. Have I misunderstood this news article? Can anyone supplement the 'Rotation' section with accurate information on this subject? Snookerrobot ( talk) 19:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
In the language box, the uppermost link (for me) is to a Norwegian bokmål template about the person of the year, which doesn't really have much to do with the Earth. I tried to see if I could remove it but I couldn't figure out how. Could anyone help me remove that link? Torswin ( talk) 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I still can't believe things like "the earth is such and such million or billion years old" are still being accepted as fact. I myself believe in the creation described in the Bible, but there is no proof to make either my belief, or these other beliefs SCIENTIFIC. Science has NO part in this, and can NOT prove how old our world is, OR how it was created. Who's to say that the laws of physics were EVEN THE SAME those millions or billions of years ago?! I'm quite frankly appalled that this is in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.171.211 ( talk) 21:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The claim about the age of the earth in this article has sufficient citations. They are entirely valid and scientific. That is all. -- Sadistic monkey ( talk) 10:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The claim that the earth is 4.5bn years old does not, as is commonly thought, contradict the biblical account. The biblical Genesis account talks of a 7 day creation but it must be understood that the word 'day' in the book of Genesis is a translation from the old Hebrew of a word that could mean either a day of 24 hours / one rev of the earth, OR an 'era' or unspecified period of time, possibly of very long duration. Having said that, I think it would be more accurate (speaking as a scientist) to say that the Earth is thought to be 4.5bn years old, rather than saying that it is 4.5bn years old. The reason I say this is because there is a signicant, though admittedly small, body of scientific opinion that believes the earth to be much younger. There are various published scientific papers on this subject. As a comparison example, the scientific evidence for, and consensus of scientists belief in, the existence of the atom, is very much greater than the evidence for and consensus of belief in the age of the earth. Therefore in scientific terms it is reasonable to treat the atom as a certainty, but with the age of the earth, it would be fairer to say that there is a significant level of doubt. Hope this clarifies things a bit. 80.41.138.18 ( talk) 15:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Just because the facts on this page don't adhere to your myths does not mean they are false. If you have no proof that the myths you believe are true then why do you believe them? And there is plenty of evidence that the earth is billions of years old Look up the big bang theory, evolution, fossils, universe. 82.23.62.255 ( talk) 19:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
And also check out wiki pages for "age of the earth" & "History of the Earth". learn something new. 82.23.62.255 ( talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The infobox says "Satellites 1 (the Moon)" However, there are many, many, man-made satellites also orbiting the earth. I propose changing this to say "Natural Satellites 1 (the Moon)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.22.75 ( talk) 18:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
That navbox does not belong in this article. Opinions? -- Sir48 ( talk) 11:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
That looks like an error in the template. The Time Person of the Year article lists environmentalism as having obtained the award and not the Earth. Secondly, looking at the collection of navboxes (Earth-related topics - Earth's location in space - Elements of nature - Times persons of the year) shows a totally different perspective in the latter one, not having anything to do with the subject of the article. -- Sir48 ( talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Without any reactions I've been bold and changed the navbox to link to environmentalism and consequently have removed that navbox from this article. -- Sir48 ( talk) 17:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been reading through the article, and there are some things I would like to change. As it is a featured article, I'd like feedback before I touch it.
I think that's as much as I'll hit at one shot. So anyone want to comment / give me the go-ahead on one or more of the aforementioned issues?
Awickert ( talk) 07:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
All Done! I'll wait a few days for more comments and then archive this as it's mostly just a finished checklist. Awickert ( talk) 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I tried to hunt down the primary source for the data in the second paragraph of the "Chemical composition" section, as well as "F. W. Clarke's Table of Crust Oxides". I think I have it narrowed down to perhaps the first edition, Chapter I of:
The data in this article's table does not quite match the values on page 32 of the above, so my initial inclination was to use the values from the book (which was published the same year as the encyclopedia listed as the reference). However, I understand there were subsequent editions of this book, so those values may differ as well. What do you think? Perhaps there is a final edition sitting in a university library somewhere? :) — RJH ( talk) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The article states that the hydrosphere
"...technically includes all water surfaces in the world, including inland seas, lakes, rivers, and underground waters down to a depth of 2,000 m."
Is it possible to find a source for the limitation to 2,000 m? -- Sir48 ( talk) 17:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The quiantities in the Earth's statistics sometimes have a period instead of a coma when referring to thousands (ex. 6.371.0 = mean radius of the Earth) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.70.130 ( talk) 21:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In the box on the right side of the page, there appear to be inconsistencies in format for some of the numbers. Should the Mean Radius and Polar Radius be written 6.371.0 km 6.356.8 km? 129.49.84.108 ( talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy Apr 1st. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't one sentence in the intro saying Earth is the only known planet with life and liquid water currently on its surface enough? It seems most facts are followed by how unique the Earth is; we only know of about 200 extrasolar planets, and we have only very rough estimate of the atmosphere of 1 or 2 of those 200. This is an article about earth, not the article on the probability of life in the universe. Lets make those statements a little more concise. 98.202.48.28 ( talk) 23:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry I don't know how this is done, but I just wanted to mention that the sentence in question is factually and grammatically incorrect. "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist". It presumes upon facts not in evidence. Neither can the facts be known at this time, nor does all of humanity agree with the assertion as it stands. To know what's known, we'd have to know what in the universe knows things. We don't. Earth is believed by some to be the only place in the universe where life exists. That's as close as you can come. Many cultures assert that there's life on other worlds, in other dimensions, and in different states of being. Many cultures define life in different ways, nor is the definition completely clear in a scientific context. The scientific fact of life not being found on other planets is unremarkable enough to void need of mention, given the tiny cross section of planets we've examined closely enough to detect life. In short, neither do we get to state empirically what is known, nor do we get to make a similar claim for what all of humanity supposedly knows - especially since it simply isn't what everyone thinks they know. [just some guy who read the article] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.71.229 ( talk) 03:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh my god. I can't believe how long this discussion is. The keyword is KNOWN, people. Earth is the only place we KNOW to have life. That's true. End of story! -- 81.97.47.128 ( talk) 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it looks odd to have the .svg image after the text. It looks like it has fallen down or something. How would it be if the image was right-adjusted, hugging the right wall of the browswer and having the text to its left? / Tense ( talk) 13:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Because the image scale on the tectonics world map makes the labels unreadable, my suggestion is to try using the unlabeled map at File:Tectonic plates (empty).svg, then provide a link to a labelled map. Would anybody object to this?— RJH ( talk) 17:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Recent edits have removed Yuri Gagarin as the first person to leave Earth. I believe it should be in because although he did not altogether leave the atmosphere, he went into what is popularly known as "outer space", and what he did would generally be considered as the first person to leave Earth. Based arguments on leaving the atmoshere, if we use the exponential decay model for the atmosphere, we never fully leave it; we must just define some limit. So I propose that either we leave this in, or re-define "atmosphere" and say that he went far out in the atmosphere, and then the Apollo astronauts left Earth altogether (Apollo astronauts leaving Earth seems unarguable to me.) Awickert ( talk) 09:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I replaced with "humans who travelled the farthest from the planet". You said "what he did would generally be considered as the first person to leave Earth." Here what generally considered is factually incorrect unless we can come up with strong and universal definition of "leaving the Earth". That include reasons why leaving just an Earth surface(air planes, balloons) not good enough. Leaving an Earth atmosphere is a good starting point, but, yes, in this case we need to know exact boundaries of it. Vitall ( talk) 10:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
How about this wording: In 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to reach outer space and orbit Earth; he was 327 km above Earth's surface at his highest point. [43] Humans traveled the farthest from the planet in 1970, when the Apollo 13 crew was 400,171 km away from Earth. [44] [45] LonelyMarble ( talk) 18:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just checked the links, it turned up four error 404:s: Layers of the Earth(Cite:88), Terrestrial Impact Cratering and Its Environmental Effects(Cite:87), Canadian Forces Station (CFS) Alert(Cite:154) and Mineral Genesis: How do minerals form?(Cite:146). Gsmgm ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Creation (and challenges to darwinist claims) should be included. This article wrongly presupposes evolutionary theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.190.41 ( talk) 10:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to add this image
to the "Orbit" section, to illustrate and show the vast context of Earth and our Solar system. Since I've only just created a Wikipedia account can someone add this for me? Having an image along with this statement in the Orbit section...
"Earth, along with the Solar System, is situated in the Milky Way galaxy, orbiting about 28,000 light years from the center of the galaxy, and about 20 light years above the galaxy's equatorial plane in the Orion spiral arm."
... will really help people understand and see just where we are in our area of our galaxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotint ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, could someone convert the information about earth's surface area, etc. into Imperial units and put it in the Infobox? I know many people use the metric system, but for those of us living in the countries who haven't started using the metric system, it's a real pain to have to manually convert each thing as we need it.
Thanks much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.181.248 ( talk) 20:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the pronunciation from the first sentence of the lead, but someone reverted me. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article to begin with the pronunciation, unless perhaps the word is uncommon and the pronunciation unobvious. "Earth" is a common word, and the pronunciation of common words is typical material for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yes, one often sees pronunciation given in the lead of other Wikipedia articles. The fact that a mistake has been made in other articles is not good justification for continuing to make that mistake. -- Srleffler ( talk) 00:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This issue exists on other astronomical object pages besides the planets, so I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Pronunciation, hoping for a more general consensus. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 18:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The earth, sun, and moon should not be capitalized unless they are mentioned in relation to other heavenly bodies. Why are they capitalized in the article? Lestrade ( talk) 14:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
infoboxes tend to acquire a life of their own. This is a bad thing and needs to be counteracted. An infobox shouldn't contain any information that isn't explained and referenced in greater detail in the article. In this case, the alleged adjectives pertaining to Earth, not repeated anywhere in the article body,
This is unvoluntary comedy. Of course these are all adjectives, and they all relate to Earth in one way or another, but they are very far from interchangeable. -- dab (𒁳) 07:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
the earth is clearly flat and not round
It says that Earth is the only planet where life is known to exist. It should say that Earth is the only planet where earthling humans know life to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.54 ( talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090612203303.htm
This source states that life could be around for much longer than previously anticipated. I think that this should be put into a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is obviously biased. Why, in the beginning of this article, does it say that the Earth formed billions of years ago? First of all, that is only one of thousands of theories. That makes this article biased. It puts the rest of the theories at the end, as if they're not as true, or important, or are merely other theories aside from the "billions of years ago" theory. At the beginning of this article, it should say that the creation of Earth is disputed, or arguable, or something. Not just that it "formed billions of years ago," which is just another theory like all the others. -- 75.185.109.23 ( talk) 20:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, is it appropriate to categorize these types of arguments under the WP:PSCI policy, and label them as "obvious pseudoscience"?— RJH ( talk) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Why mention only humans on the opening chapter, any species, f.e Tympanobasis, could do? And the notion that humans live on earth isn't referenced, so it is also doubtful.
In the last bit of the human geography section, it says 400 people have visited outer space as of 2004. As of 2009 it's closer to 500. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.11.153 ( talk) 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the future section, in its exposition of when the oceans will evaporate, is giving undue weight to a single worst-case-scenario back-of-the-envelope calculation by a single professor at a shitty state college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.197.106 ( talk) 01:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Related information:
based on an IAU symposium. Some interesting food for thought.— RJH ( talk) 15:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The second paragraph states that life on Earth could possibly be extended up to 2.3Gyrs. The third paragraph talks about "most, if not all, remaining life" being destroyed when the sun becomes a red giant in 5Gyrs.
Both are supported by their sources. Perhaps the 3rd para needs to be rephrased using "any" or a subjunctive? AlmostReadytoFly ( talk) 08:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought the definition of the year was the time Earth took to orbit the Sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.203 ( talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused about the text in the article that says:
"Earth interacts with other objects in outer space, including the Sun and the Moon. At present, Earth orbits the Sun once for every roughly 366.26 times it rotates about its axis. This length of time is a sidereal year, which is equal to 365.26 solar days."
Why are the two numbers of days different (366.26 -vs- 365.26)?
Ojm37a (
talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'd like to see what would be the opinion on modifications to Human Geography section. The current map causes technical problems - one link on top of the other and enlargement of the width of the article. Also, countries are mentioned but not the continents. Another Wikipedia ( mechanical translation here, "Geography") utilizes the use of clickable map with links to Commons Atlas, while wikilinks to continents are provided within the paragraph. Would that idea work?-- Adi ( talk) 22:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The new map looks fine, and thank you for putting that together. It may make sense to put it in a template for maintenance and re-use. 'Template:Continents' is already taken, so perhaps a name like 'Template:Continents navmap' or 'Template:Earth continents' would work?— RJH ( talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it true that the gravitational pull of the sun and moon causes the earths orbit of the sun and the earths rotation to slow down ever so slightly. if it is would it be worth adding to the article. Mr Deathbat ( talk) 10:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The image in the infobox is not the original Blue Marble from Apollo 17 as the caption claims, it's a home-made gif based on a 2001 retake. For reference, File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg is the original, while File:Rotating earth (large).gif (according to its descripton page) is based on on this NASA image (external link). Disregard that, judging from User talk:South Bay, it was apparently a nonsense . 78.34.155.161 ( talk) 11:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist", this does not really have other possible points of view from other planets in mind, as there are probably most definitely other planets with life and I'm sure they know they exist. This should be changed to show that currently to human beings its the only place known to have life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.138.53 ( talk) 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. We've been discussing here whether it should be "Earth" (as in this article) or "earth" (as the MOS implies here). Apologies if this has already been discussed but I would appreciate some of your thoughts. -- John ( talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
* Sun, earth, and moon are not capitalized when used generally: The sun was peeking over the mountain top. They are proper nouns and capitalized when personified: Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god. and in an astronomical context when referring to specific celestial bodies (our Solar System, Sun, Earth, and Moon): The Moon orbits the Earth, but Io is a moon of Jupiter.
The Associated Press observes the lowercase practice world-wide whenever mentioning of the earth, moon, or sun when writing something like this: For civilian night-vision goggles to work effectively, the moon must be above the horizon. Their practice is compliant with the general grammar rule encapsulated at Grammar.ccc.comment.edu, which states as follows:
• [Do capitalize] Names of celestial bodies: Mars, Saturn, the Milky Way. Do not, howver, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun.
Since the Earth article is a scientific article, and specifically in an astronomical context, it seems well justified to always capitalize Earth, Sun, and Moon in this article. My personal opinion on the matter is if Earth is being talked about in any scientific manner, it should be capitalized. I can see not capitalizing the sun and the moon in casual sentences, such as "The sun is hot today," or "There is a full moon tonight."
Actually, those sentences led me to the full moon and Full Moon articles. Seems a bit odd those are two separate articles, and "moon" is alternated from lowercase to capital on the full moon article. Anyway, that's just an example I stumbled across just now that proves the ambiguity of this question. By the way, I wouldn't use a really old reference book for comparisons. I don't know for sure but I'd bet it's become more common to capitalize these terms in scientific contexts, and always writing them in lowercase is outdated. LonelyMarble ( talk) 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
does anyone think that the world human population should be included in the infobox? surely that is at least as important to most people reading this article as some of the other figures already there? Jessi1989 ( talk) 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
All the planets in the solar system use Latin names, except Earth. I realize this is because the IAU has no official scientific name for our dear planet, but as far as I know, IAU doesn't have a scientific name for our moon either. Checking the Moon article it reads "The Moon (Latin: Luna)" at the beginning of the article. A similar thing for the Sun, "The Sun (Latin: Sol)".
I am a bit puzzled why there is nothing similar to this for the Earth. In school I remember being taught the latin name for the Earth was Tellus, and I know some people use Terra (from Terra Mater). Shouldn't we at least mention this in the article, instead of simply stating "It is also referred to as the World and Terra."
How about: "Earth (Latin: Tellus/Terra) ..."
Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skela ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
As it is now, the "Designations" section seems rather empty, there's only some rubbish about Adjectives used. Do you have any arguments against it besides personal taste? Skela ( talk) 20:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This may sound obvious, but I think there should be a section dedicated to the etymology of the word "Earth". I have absolutely no idea how it came into place. If I find info, I'll definitely add it. obento musubi 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The number for the surface area used doesn't seem mathematically correct, using the formula for the surface area of a sphere will give a number in the region of 10^14 meters squared where the number here is 10^11. I actually think that the number from the cia world book might be a typo and the period is supposed to be a comma, also looking for an online reference will usually lead back to hear making the reference circular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.171.165 ( talk) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
oops my bad, did a very silly mistake when changing from meters squared to kilometers squared, thought something was odd about the whole matter. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.44.85.47 (
talk) 21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
earth is the only living planet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.182.137 ( talk) 08:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The article starts sentences by saying "Earth is" as opposed to "the Earth is". Is that correct? Makewater ( talk) 20:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you please add Template:Physical Earth. I am a newbie user and I can't edit this article. Thanks.
-- BSATwinTowers ( talk) 10:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
In my physics book it says it's about 1.496*10^11m, I wonder if it would be a good idea to include this. btw, I'm using the seventh edition of physics for scientists and engineers with modern physics by serway/jewett (for sourcing purposes if anyone needs it). -- Dguenther - DGun ( talk) 10:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to compare the temperatures of the different inner planets looking at their wikipedia articles. Strangely earth of all articles doesn't seem to have this data I found on a NASA website that it's .04 degrees Celsius. I think this should be added to the climate section It seems like an important and basic fact of a planet. The article is locked however so I could not add it myself. A side note I really don't like the fact that the article on the earth itself is locked, please reconsider this.
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#GlobalTemperature
-Doug 68.25.20.16 ( talk) 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Is "blue planet" a logical name for Earth?? I think it more logically fits Neptune. Georgia guy ( talk) 23:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Gaia be in the list too? Where did Tellurian come from? I've only ever heard this planet being called Earth, the World, Terra, and Gaia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.184.220 ( talk) 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Earth's Greek name is Gaea which us married to Uranus.She is the mother of land formations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melzy2022 ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this file restricted for use only on this article? -- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this sentence in the lead:
Does it make sense to say Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist? In the context of discussing life on other planets, it strikes me as a little arrogant, as if humans not knowing of any other life is equivalent to other life not being known to exist. I mean, the existence of any other self-aware being (of which we are discussing the possibility of), whether they themselves are aware of life on other planets, is enough to contradict the sentence. Of course, in any other context (like the discussion of a mathematical conjecture) it must be assumed we're talking about humans' understanding (it is not known if conjecture A is true or not, as opposed to humans don't know ..). We also send out a lot of stuff into space, no doubt some of it living, so does that contradict the sentence too? As you roll your eyes and ask if I'm being serious, rest assured I agree that I'm being very picky, and even feel a little foolish bringing it up. Still, I think the sentence could be worded a little more correctly, if only to avoid the issue than try and deal with the issues I've brought up. Ben ( talk) 10:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This article states that "Earth has at least two co-orbital asteroids, 3753 Cruithne and 2002 AA29.". The Quasi-satellite article states that "Earth currently has four known quasi-satellites: 3753 Cruithne, 2002 AA29, 2003 YN107, and 2004 GU9.". -- 93.167.94.18 ( talk) 23:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Doesnt the earth actually have 5 moons now? Shouldnt this be added?
there are now: The Moon, Cruithne, 2000ph5, 2000wn10, 2002aa29.
Bizzehdee ( talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
shouldn't this be "only example currently known to man" as the current statement - taken literaly - would mean that no other planet harbours life in the entire universe. my proposition would be more accurate. user: XM8 Carbine (my log in memmery isn't working) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.136.236 ( talk) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we sould add a clear qualifier that puts both of these statments in to context i.e. that us and the Earth are the only examples we have of life and therefore the 'habitability' of any part of the universe is completely and arbitarily defined by the sample size of N=1. We could add such a clause as (as we currently know it, which is based on a sample size of N=1, is limited by our current observations and is therefore a completely arbitrary definition). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amore proprio ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
At present, only the circumference of 1 paralell is mentioned; can a list be given for how large the other paralells are ? (eg the parallell on the at 70° N/S is much shorter than the 0° parallell)
In addition, the parallells arent really the east-west equivalents of the meridian's: the parallells run parallell to each other (no intersection), while the meridians run towards 1 central point (Northpole, Southpole) and intersect there. What exactly is the true equivalent of the meridians, and what are the equivalents of the paralells (thus lines running paralell from the north/southpole, and not towards it).
Also, shouldn't the ecliptic meridians and their equivalents be used on maps (I'm guessing the "top" of the earth isn't actually the north pole, but rather the area more left towards the 70° parallell is. See File:AxialTiltObliquity.png .
If the proposed parallells and their equivalents don't yet exist, they need to be drawn on a new image and shown in the earth article (and modifications need to be made at Circle of latitude and Meridians
KVDP ( talk) 09:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently the article includes the following statement:
This result is based upon the Bounama et al. (2001) paper, which uses a geophysical model that posits 27% of the current ocean mass will be subducted within the next billion years. In 2006, however, there was a news story:
that states:
Those rates don't seem compatible. Is that because the continents are larger now and there is much higher rate of subduction? But even that wouldn't seem to account for the difference.— RJH ( talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that all the other planets have Latin names, is then "Terra" not the correct name for this planet? And thus "Terran" as the posessive? RadicalOne ( talk) 02:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that "terra" even belongs in the lead, given that the only note that links to it simply informs the reader that the IAU does not recognise the term as a name for the Earth. Serendi pod ous 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The section Future seems to me to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This might seem at odds with science which clearly can make prediction on the fate of the sun. However: I wish to interpret the policy so that, when modelling and guessing the future of Earth, it must be painstakingly clear that the section Future reflects one or more models. I dislike the simplistic model presented as being truth. Statements such as:
is far too precise. If I'm not wrong, there are various models of early Venus, one claiming that the oceans evaporated for runaway greenhouse effect very early, such as about 3000-3500 Ma ago, and another that claims that the increasing clouding allowed Venus to be oceanic up to about 800 Ma ago. Such variance in models for Venus should have its counterparts for the future of Earth. The number 900 Ma in future should probably be from 500 to 3000 Ma in future or some such, if similar models are applied to Earth as for Venus. Stating 900 million years would require lots of according to and references. I believe the section presents as facts very speculative modelling attempts very early in the science of planetary meteorology. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I've submitted Volume of the Earth for deletion (see here), in case anyone was interested. Cheers, Ben ( talk) 08:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
This might be a suitable piece of information to include on all of the information bars for the planet series on Wikipedia, as it is a relatively common and useful piece of information. I am finding myself having to search on other sites to acquire this data, which is a rarity for Wikipedia. Take this into consideration and perhaps confer with some of the other talk pages on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.134.41 ( talk) 02:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
i can't put this in because i can't edit this page
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/KatherineMalfucci.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.182.192.11 ( talk) 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me it would make sense to include the surface temperatures in the sidebar in Fahrenheit as well, regardless of their scientific acceptance, they are used by one of the largest countries on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarfyperson ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
but, while there is a wiki article for underwater, there is no equivalent article for underground. I can't find an appropriate article to add to the disambig page. Is there one? Serendi pod ous 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is Archive 1 covering 2003 and earlier.
Geologically speaking, wouldn't the Earth have only six continents? Europe and Asia are actually one land mass; the are different 'continents' in a cultural sense only. - Stephen Gilbert
Geologically speaking, one might talk of the different tectonic plates the earth has. Geographically speaking, one might talk about continents. Thus, I would add "...geographically dividing it into five oceans and seven continents". -- Grant
If an entity from another system within the known universe (or any other universe for that matter) were to read (assuming that was possible) the Earth page, ya gotta wonder what said entity might think! -- Grant
The count of oceans is at least as arbitrary as that of continents; the Arctic Ocean is clearly distinct, but there's no obvious place to divide the Indian Ocean from the Pacific, or the Antarctic from the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.
Also, are imports and exports even meaningful concepts here? -- Vicki Rosenzweig
I think the exports and imports part has some interesting information ($5.6 trillion a year in production; shows who produces it and where it goes). Is there some easier and immediately understood way to phrase it? --KQ
At this point the wikipedia is a compendium of human knowlege if an alien were to read the wikipedia he/she/it mighe find that it did not reach an ideal NPOV, but who cares? I'd argue that we can't possibly do this without the input of the aliens themselvs, and anyway if aliens start reading and getting involved in the wikipedia, we'll have to change a lot of things anyway... MRC
Consistency or no, I'm not going to move most of Earth to Earth (planet) right now. From an astronomy point of view that would be logical, but I suspect its orbital parameters and suchlike aren't what people first think of when they think Earth. However, there is a slight ambiguity problem with Earth-as-our-world, Earth-as-a-planet, and earth-as-soil. Is this best left as-is, or is there a better way to handle it? -- April
Deleted the reference to "intelligent species, including humans, apes, dolphins and maybe a few others". Ranking other species as "intelligent" gets into a whole load of complex debates that it's really not worth getting into here - for instance, there's research currently claiming some extremely impressive cognitive abilities for parrots that I'd imagine others working in the area would dispute hotly. -- Robert Merkel
From the main article:
At this rate of ocean level drop, over the past five billion years the ocean level would have fallen approximately 9,500 miles. Does anyone know the real rate at which water is being lost? Bryan Derksen
---
I added in the obligatory Mostly Harmless to pay homage to Douglas Adams' "The Hithchiker's Guide to the Galaxy", where the description of Earth in the Guide is simply the two words, "Mostly Harmless." Trust me, people will understand.
---
A lot of this stuff is from the CIA World Factbook. Don't let that scare you, it's entirely unclassified info, but there may be some copyright issues. The factbook is available for browsing at www.odci.gov
---
I really feel it is remiss not to include the Mostly Harmless thing *somewhere* in the page. It's not a joke, it's something that deserves to be linked. How about at the "other names" area? Is that OK, or are you going to ban me again?
---
Well let me further my point, then I'll put it to rest. There will be two types of people looking at the Planet Earth article: people who want statistics about the planet and people who just want to see the entry "mostly harmless," just like in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. This is already seen in everything2.com, hhg.com and a few other distributed encyclopedias like this one. What's the big deal? People expect it! I'm not the only one who has attempted that edit, according to your change history. With there being a demand and the likeliness that someone else will try it again, why not just put it in?--Anon
Whatever the CIA may think, it is false at present to speak of the Earth's economy as having imports and exports -- to say nothing of external debt! -- FOo
Describing Earth as the only planet known to be inhabited by living organisms is unacceptable and violates NPOV. There have been countless research teams claiming and disputing evidence from Mars meteorites and the Viking probes; some researchers still claim that the Viking probes successfully demonstrated the existence of life on Mars [1], [2]. To these researchers, the fact that there are microbes on Mars is "known", even if it is disputed by others. Referring to intelligent life lets us avoid the whole life on Mars controversy. -- Eloquence 21:52 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)
Now we agree more or less on the content but it doesn't look OK. I think something like this is better:
I think this is OK form the correctness of the information, NPOVness and the presentation. -- Looxix 02:30 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
As a casual reader, this article seems to be very uneven. It's missing sections on:
I am not suggesting the article should become much longer to fit these in. They should be brief summaries with lots of links, with a slight bias towards those subjects which don't fit easily into obviously named articles. (E.g. the History section should lean slightly more towards those phenomena, like war, which aren't conveniently confined to an article on one modern-day country).
In addition, there's a lot of stuff here which doesn't seem nearly important enough to be in an article of this size on Earth in general. Some examples:
Perhaps the items in the latter list could be moved to their own articles first, shrivelling the relevant sections in Earth as you go (and adding links if necessary), before any new sections are added. That would avoid the article getting too unwieldy.
-- mpt, May 1, 2003
Eloquence removed
Maybe it is too wordy, but I think it is beneficial to at least have links to creation stories written by contemporary writers. Mythological information is provided in the Earth article. So should popular fictitious references. Maybe we can find a compromise. Kingturtle 02:36 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
Kingturtle's quote of what Eloquence removed is incomplete. The opening sentence was, "There is a long-running joke relating to the treatment of the Earth in encyclopaedias." This is true, and arguably relevant to a treatment of the Earth in an encyclopaedia. I added the explanation which followed, just to explain what the joke was. It was not intended as "DNA fandom stuff". (The bit about Magrathea wasn't me...) As well as being arguably relevant, it would quite likely (as a minor bonus) stop random passers-by from adding the "Mostly harmless" phrase themselves, in a less encyclopaedic way, as they quite often do. -- Oliver P. 16:40 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
The following irrelevant material has been removed from the article. This entry is about the planet Earth. This article is not about all facts and information about the human race! This article also is not the Main Page of an encyclopedia. We do not just jam every topic in the world into one entry, because the entry is titled "Earth". Get a grip! RK
(Moved to Economy of Earth by Bryan)
I really think the discussion of human civiliation here is very overblown, amd totally of place. Everything we have here, including the data, should be summarized in a paragraph. And in all seriousness, it wouldn't hurt to mention the Douglas Adams bit, next to the link about the Earth in fiction. RK
Where should this go? David J. Stevenson, Professor of Planetary Science at Cornell University, has just published "A Modest Proposal: Mission to Earth's Core", a paper published in Nature (May 15, 2003) A Modest Proposal: A Mission to the Earth's Core
I removed this from the article, for now:
What do you mean by "some scientists"? To the best of my knowledge, this is not a mainstream idea anymore; my reading is that such ideas did exist in the 1960s and 1970s, but they are no longer considered viabl arguments. Are you claiming that some form of this argument has resurfaced in the mainstream? I would like to see some references on this point. It seems to me that much of this article was written as an argument to show that life can't possibily exist on any planet except Earth, and that life here is due to one random chance that can't be counted on to occur anyplace else. RK
RK, I don't agree with your removal of the Earth-related data. Think about it: You open up a page in the Encyclopedia Galactica for a populated planet -- what do you expect to find? Certainly more than just a summary of the planet's physical characteristics. We may have to reorganize this stuff, but the article Earth should certainly be an entry point to many related subjects. Removing all information about the global economy while retaining a link to Earth in fiction is also blatantly inconsistent. -- Eloquence 02:15 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
I second you on this one :-) -- Looxix 02:30 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
How about moving that material to a more specific article, for example Economy of Earth (in the same pattern as the CIA factbook pages for countries), and then linking to it in the same way that Earth in fiction is linked to? I agree with RK that there was a great deal of stuff in this article which didn't fit well here. Bryan
_____
I added a link to Chandler wobble - wasn't sure where else to put it! Planetary geology hasn't been done yet. - David Stewart 10:18 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
Please stop adding this to the earth article. It's getting really boring now and will just keep being removed. Secretlondon 12:10, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
"Nearly all humans live on the Earth." Indeed. Where do the rest live? Adam 10:47, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I hate to be pedantic (!), but one "lives" in one's home. A work assignment, even a prolonged one, is not where one lives. There are naval personnel atm who have spent a year on an aircraft carrier - do they live there? They do not, they live at their homes. Ask them. The line is just someone being clever, which I don't mind, but it isn't encyclopaedic. Adam 01:32, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Also: "Earth has one natural satellite, "the Moon", which revolves around the Earth." Is this not a rather geocentric view? In fact the Earth and the Moon revolve around each other, or rather around a point between them, closer to the Earth than to the Moon because of the Earth's greater mass. If we were living on the Moon, the Earth would appear to be revolving around us, no?
Adam 10:53, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In contrast to the degree by which Luna orbits Terra; Terra's "orbit" of Luna is negligible. Lirath Q. Pynnor
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is Archive 2 covering 2004.
How did the Earth form? What aspect of the Earth or its location do astrobiologists hypothesize as having been crucial to the development of its most idiosyncratic feature-- life. How did life emerge and when. Have there been any noteworthy biological events since the appearance of the first cell? How does the emergence and history of life relate to geological and climate evolution? How often is Earth hit by asteroids? What have been the consequences? Do we expect more?
How did scientists determine the average density of the earth? - The average density is Mass divided by Volume. To find the volume you need the radius which you can find by measuring the curvature of the Earth like Eratostenes did about 230BC. Then you know the volume of the Earth (assuming it is sufficiently spherical). To measure the mass you need to know the gravitational constant which was measured sometime I believe sometime in the 18th century. You apply Newton's law for gravity (the one with inverse-square radius) and you have the mass.
How many human-made satellites are there and when did the first one ( sputnik) go up? If you count every single piece of manmade debris - millions. Sputnik - October 4th 1957.
How do people study the Earth? What kind of scientists study it? What questions plague us, if any? What are predicted fates of the Earth? What about the ozone hole? What about the Kyoto protocol? What about geomagnetic reversals? 168... 05:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nearly all humans live on Earth: 6,327,152,352 inhabitants (November 1, 2003 est.)
User:Cantus has twice removed this statement from the intro paragraph: "the largest terrestrial planet in the solar system." I disagree with the reasons he's stated in the edit summaries (first that Jupiter's core might be larger, and then that it was "anecdotal"), and think it is a totally reasonable thing to say in the intro. Cantus, could you explain in greater detail why you think it should be removed? Bryan 04:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there's any credible evidence of any terrestrial planet our solar system that is larger than earth. Cantus' objections are absurd. I say if it gets removed in the future, that should be considered vandalism unless there's a damn good explanation. -- Doradus 01:45, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Bryan Derksen, where are you getting that mean temperature from? Averaging the min and max gives 258, not 282... If that average temp. was obtained thru a different method, care to mention the source? -- Cantus 06:00, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
the moon is not the only "natural satellite". E.g. the earth has captured an asteroid named Cruithne.
about mentioning the moon in a short article about earth: it's important. On this level, the earth is nothing than a planet among 9 others. The number of moons is characteristic and has to be meantioned.
I get 365.25636 / 365.2422 ≈ 1.00003877. Fredrik (talk) 19:25, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The planet is big enough to have the core differentiated into a liquid outer core, which gives rise to a weak magnetic field due to the convection of its electrically conductive material, and a solid inner core.
It is generally believed that the rotation of the inner core (which is primarily composed of iron) creates the Earth's magnetic field. It is not known, exactly, why this occurs.
I think this is confusing. What is causing the magnetic field - inner or outer core? Are there two components of the field? This needs to be clarified. Paranoid 11:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Does this need to be in this article? Do we even have a source for it? Edward 10:01, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Inclination of Earth's orbit is given as 0.00005 degrees. Since this is the inclination to the Ecliptic, shouldn't this be 0 by definition? If the value given is related to some other plane, shouldn't that be made clear? Thanks. Amorim Parga 04:21, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't the entry say "Mostly harmless." ?? Just drooling. ;-)
Someone attempted to add a comparison of the torques felt on the Earth by different astronomical objects in order to explain why the moon has a stabalizing effect on the axis of the Earth. For one thing, this is rather technical information and might not fit very well into this page, but worse than that, the numbers quoted were simply very wrong. It is clear from the scale of the numbers stated that the author was merely comparing the force exerted on the Earth from various astronomical objects. However the force is not the same as the torque. The torque depends not on the total force but on the difference in the force applied to one side of the equatorial bulge rather than the other. Because it is so close, the moon has the largest gravitational gradient across the Earth of any astronomical object (followed shortly thereafter by the sun). Hence, the Moon exerts the largest torque on the Earth and that is why the moon acts to stabilizes the Earth's axial tilt.
However, other factors are also important. For example, relatively constant torques, such as from the Moon and Sun tend to cause axial precession and not nutations or axial tilts. For other planets (e.g. Mars) the total torques exerted depend more significantly on where it is in its orbit with respect to its nearest neighbors (e.g. Earth and Jupiter). It is when such time varying torques are a significant component of the total torque that one tends to promote chaotic shifts in the planet's axis.
Dragons flight 18:56, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Seems that the complex and as stated controversial subject of chaotic instability of Earth's axial tilt under moon should be moved to another article, maybe to axial tilt, rather than in this long general article. - Vsmith 01:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Cantus wrote: Encyclopedias are not written for aliens or animals. So what's wrong with aliens (or animals) reading Wikipedia? — Monedula 11:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can we remove the specific number and round to the nearest 10,000? I'm pretty sure we haven't been able to get even that accurate as it is. Oberiko 17:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
An anonymous user changed the surface area very slightly. I haven't done any calculations, but the change may even be within the error margin. However, I feared that this was one of the slashdot-inspired changes designed to evaluate the efficiency of Wikipedia peer review, so I'd like to find a recent supporting source for one of the numbers. However, my efforts of googling something up have been unsuccessful. Help? — David Remahl 20:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can contribute some calculations. Hopefully it's good enough to assume an oblate spheroid with polar radius 6356.78km and equatorial radius 6378.14km, which are taken from our own Earth page (but which are more precise than the values listed in NASA's planetary fact sheet).
First, the eccentricity is defined by:
Solving for eccentricity e:
Plugging into the formula for the area of an oblate spheroid:
This is evidently the calculation performed by the anonymous editor. However, carrying it to the nearest square kilometer is excessive, since (for instance) that implies that the radius figures are accurate to the nearest centimeter (!!), and is also far beyond the accuracy of the oblate spheroid approximation. Certainly 510,067,000km² is more than enough precision. -- Doradus 02:48, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
An unimportant point regarding the surface area of the Earth: the actual surface area of the Earth is slightly smaller than the surface area as calculated from its radius. This is due to the Earth's gravitational warping of space-time, and the difference is about an acre (about half a hectare).-- B.d.mills 11:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I recently read a rather interesting article in Science News or in New Scientist about a theory that the Earth may have a Uranium core deep inside our Iron core. The main thesis of this theory is that it accounts for otherwise inexplicable levels of energy.
Unfortunately I don't have the citations at hand and I'd be reluctant to add references to this theory without some discussion of it's merits. (In any event it would be posed only as a short counterpoint paragraph to the comment about the core's putative lack of heavier elements, especially uranium.
Here's one older link: Discover, August, 2002. (Normally I wouldn't consider Discover to be a compellingly credible source --- but I'm sure I read this elsewhere and was impressed with the logic of the theory).
JimD 20:11, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
Where it says on the first line "Earth, the planet on which we live", that may be incorrect if aliens from another planet grasp satelite signals from our planet. In that case, we may offend them and they could sue Wikipedia for irrelevant information. I therefore feel we should change it to "Earth, the planet on which humans live". It's important that our information be as relevant as possible, and that is why we should change the first line.
I removed the word "billion" in the second most recent edit as of when this edit to the talk page was made, but then someone started to include both forms?? Any comments about whether the word "billion" should be kept?? 66.245.126.161 15:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Billion re-inserted along with scientific notation for clarity (for those who understand sci. not.). Billion is also used in several other places within the article and I inserted sci. not. with them also. May have missed some. Also did some more cleanup on this hodge-podge article at the same time. I'm the someone referred to in your note. Who are you? - Vsmith 16:40, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Earth is almost never called Sol III. Google hits:
The latter is almost exclusively science-fiction. It is not enough to be featured in the first line in the article about Earth. An obscure SF-term is not notable enough for that! Gerritholl 09:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
( SEWilco 05:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Does anyone have any opinions about whether permanent human life outside earth can become possible?? Where in the universe is this?? (This question was brought to my attention based on something that Louis Epstein wrote a while ago about people living thousands of years, which he says advanced technology makes possible, but which can't become useful with human life staying completely on earth because earth will become too crowded.) (Also, if you have any external links that talk about doing so, feel free to include them.) 66.245.26.209 14:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've seen no mention of the number of artificial satellites orbiting Earth. I think it is definitely worth noting that our planet has thousands of bits of metal that we put up there ourselves orbiting it, even if only from an astronomical standpoint. -- Jacius 22:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It would be good to link the various moon navigator's together, and provide a small page explaining them(it could be called Wikipedia:moon navigator). Right now, it's not obvious what purpose it serves. I don't have time to do it right now, but I'll do it if no one else gets to it. JesseW 13:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The template seems to have been corrupted. I don't know how to access it so I copied the infobox from before the template move (11-4) and pasted it back into the article. - Vsmith 01:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rather large for an article don't you think?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/upload/f/f4/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.png
Zen Master 05:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've heard talk about a hollow Earth theory.. and I've done little research on it with Google. I'm not sure if it's complete bogus or if it's true, but some people seem to believe the theory (and some claim to have traveled inside Earth). Shouldn't something about this theory about Earth be included? -- Mike 07:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is Archive 3 covering March 25, 2006 - August, 8 2006.
Shouldn't we mention something about Tellus? [anon]
Identifying Earth with the human race seems rather inaccurate to me. There must be a more appropriate article for those stats to go in. I would recommend human. Bonalaw 09:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I dislike that new info box with human social statistics. The rest of the article is mostly on the physical characteristics of the earth, it seems as though the social statistics are out of place.
Also I would like to point out that there are exactly two (2) refferences for this article when I am typing this. This number should be far far higher for an article as important as this one. Harley peters 20:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the social statistics definitely needs to go. I suggest moving it to human. Fredrik | talk 18:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For the Swedish article I've created an illustration of Earth's interior. If you like it you might want to add it here as well. Have a look at:
/ Mats Halldin 06:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Anyone else in favor of wiping out the article and replacing it with the words "mostly harmless"? I thought I'd survey public opinion before doing it myself. Halidecyphon 20:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just resisted the temptation, myself. - RJ Mar 2005
It's been done over and over and over and over and over and over (deep breath) and over and over again. It was barely funny the first time. :) Bryan 07:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How about this. Next time someone replaces it with "mostly harmless", we slap a copyvio template on it? -- SPUI ( talk) 22:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I considered changing it. Should I? Go on, let me. It'll be funny.
And I didn't even know you could put comments in articles like that... Fantom 19:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Why don't we just add it as a quotation like in the Italian page:
[4]
I know that the joke is replacing everything Ford Prefect fellow wikipedia contributors wrote with "mostly harmless"... but it should be mentioned
--
Lou Crazy 05:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Recently 67.161.42.199 added:
The tolerance part of this is nonsense. We quote in the article "Equatorial diameter 12,756.28 km, Polar diameter 12,713.56 km", giving a difference equator to pole of 43 km at sea level. As I recall the point farthest from the center is actually at the top of some mountain in South America near the equator. Though the calculation is apparently wrong, it might still be worth having these few sentences, assuming someone here who isn't about to go bed can figure out how to accurately describe the shape of the Earth. Dragons flight 08:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
User:Dragons_flight said that Image:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.png being placed on the right causes problems: "On wide screens, placing it on the right creates a huge gap between Core and Mantle." Not on my browser, even when expanding to span two monitors. Placing the image on the left can produce the text below on a more common width. (I'll work on the monster Infobox some to reduce various problems). ( SEWilco)
[edit] Mantle Main article: Mantle (geology) Earth's mantle extends to a depth of 2890 km. The pressure, at the bottom of the mantle, is
That looks better. I split the social box off, and moved it next to the Human section. Infoboxes tend to be at the top of an article, but that would widely separate the related text and box, with a lot of Earth_as_planet between. ( SEWilco 05:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))
The first part of this article is total crap...I can't get rid of it cause I can't find it when I go to edit...something's wrong! Bremen 05:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In case someone is interested, the editnote template used in the Mostly Harmless reminder has been suggested for deletion: Templates_for_deletion#Template:Editnote Template author: ( SEWilco 18:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))
I really think the beginning of this article should be more general. (not signed by submitter)
This article is great! Has it been featured yet? If it's not, then it should definitely be put up! LeoDV 7 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
The percentages (with the possible exception of Mandarin Chinese) seem seem to be way off compared to List of languages by total speakers or List of the most spoken native languages. Am I missing something here? -- Slark July 9, 2005 06:45 (UTC)
How did the current blue marble photo get reverted to the old overly red image again? I don't even see it in the history! The version that I uploaded in place of it [5] seems gone now. -- Deglr6328 21:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I always thought it was an oblique spheroid, but this article calls it an oblate spheroid, how sure are you all about oblate? - (anon) 17:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
This article, and the geothermal (geology) article it refers to, say the center of the Earth is 5270 degrees K. Looking at other websites, 5270 is in the right range but nobody else claims accuracy to the nearest 10 degrees, or even 100. Note that geothermal (geology) also offers the more reasonable guess of 4000 C or higher. I'll let somebody smarter decide what number to use, but I'm pretty sure 5270 has an overstated accuracy. Art LaPella 04:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Nobody smarter has yet arisen, so I shall sally forth alone. Art LaPella 21:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously the planet's known as Terra in other languages, but how did the word "Earth" end up as the official title? What are its origins? When did it become widely accepted, rather than the mythological Roman name? -- Marcg106 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I am challenging the neutrality of this article. It states that the earth formed billions of years ago, and this is contrary to the beliefs of billions of people, in order for this article to present and represent information in an unbiased manor it should represent other theories and opinions. 68.248.33.155
THE ORIGIN OF PLANET EARTH IS NOT A VIEWPOINT. REPEAT, "NOT A VIEW POINT"! An encyclopedic entry on Earth is to contain factual, empirical truth. If you want to read about creationism, or any other mythological "theory", search for pages specifically dealing with them. You can't keep attacking scientific knowlege simply because it doesn't conform to whatever prefered reality you wish to live in. Seriously, it is just not acceptable for you to slip religious propaganda into the hard earned scientific knowlege accumulated by some of the greatest minds in human history. For shame!
I assume our anon. is concerned that I twice removed the following: ( according to some theories) (hover over that and see where it really leads) which I saw as a deceptive edit, hiding origin beliefs link behind according to some theories is sneaky editing. It has nothing to do with origin beliefs - it is about well founded scientific evidence and continuing testing. Vsmith 15:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree, this article is NOT neutral neither is it factual. Science has not proven that the earth is old at all, to the contrary it has shown that it cannot be older than 6,000 years.
Science has not proven that the earth moves either (if anyone thinks that it has you might try collecting that
$15,000 reward!)
NarrowPathPilgrim 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
In school, I was taught that there is pedosphere in addition to lithosphere, biosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere. There is also article on cryosphere. I wonder, these words are not referenced here, are they still used? Samohyl Jan 11:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
That the earth is round does go contrary to the beliefs of a few people. Now, they are a tiny minority, so I'm not asking that the article insert caveats. However, like someone mentioned above, this is about scientific knowledge of the aspects of the earth. As such, the warning I keep trying to assert is totally appropriate. I goes as follows -
I don't think it's unreasonable at all to mention the scientific nature of this article before stating a bunch of things some people totally reject. NPOV, guys, NPOV. MrVoluntarist 00:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Either a bogus attempt to sneak creationist concepts upfront again in the article - or - someone just wanting to justify the existence of a poorly written debate article earth shape debate which is just flat earth nonsense trying to pose as a real rather than phoney debate. Is MrVoluntarist the anon who added Neutrality part I? Vsmith 01:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The link doesn't belong and the new page either needs to reflect the fact that this is a historic debate which is now settled or go to VfD. There is no contemporary debate--arguments otherwise I wouldn't even call pseudoscience, but patent nonsense. I'm willing to leave it because it could become a placeholder for interesting points; Magellan's expedition finally proving the round Earth for example. Marskell 07:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I just reverted an undiscussed move of the article to Earth (planet). The move was made by User:Acid. I don't recall any discussion of such a proposed move. Vsmith 01:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
There's already a Earth in fiction article. I say move this section there. -- kop 01:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Why do you people keep reverting my attempts to reveal that the information in the article is based on scientific study, rather than the Truth? MrVoluntarist 03:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Flat earthism is already there in the Descriptions of Earth section. Bogus attempts to insert the nonsense more prominently are simple trollisms. Truth trolls have been there and done that already. Enough is enough. Vsmith 04:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
At the risk of re-opening a can of worms, yes it is too much to ask. Wikipedia, like any resource of its sort, assumes the fundamental validaty of scientific consensus ahead of mythology or superstition (and thus does not demand a qualifier before any serious point of scientific import). Not that scientific debates or disagreements are not noted, but rather an idea regarding which the scientific method (read it carefully if you haven't) has been adhered to and for which scientific consensus is unanimous will be presented as "the Truth." The Earth is round. It is round and that is "the Truth." It is round according to any intuitive test or any serious epistemological test you want to apply. We don't need to qualify every statement in this article to note that. Marskell 22:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I did not say it was written from a scientific point of view but that it assumes "the fundamental validity of scientific consensus" (there is a difference between the statements). Indeed, I have read NPOV and sir I would point you to the most important qualifier on the page, Undue Weight:
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not (see Wikipedia:Flat earth problem)."
The ancillary article, Flat Earth, already exists; no qualifier is needed here. Marskell 09:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
MrVoluntarist, we could preface every article (or even every statement) that focuses on scientific knowledge by writing "scientists believe", and it would be accurate (though often incomplete since many non-scientists believe the same thing). However, in most cases, including this one, it would also be entirely redundant. Can you imagine anyone (including young / flat Earthers) who would open up an encyclopedia article and expect it to focus on any perspective of Earth's history and shape other than the scientific one? After all, the vast majority of educated people, including many Christians, believe the Earth is old and round. Even those who hold the alternative viewpoints you are fond of defending must surely know they are in the minority and not expect to get much time in an encyclopedia article on the subject of Earth, right? I don't see any reason to add clauses like "scientists believe" unless there is some evidence that not having them is going to confuse people as to what the article is talking about. In this case, I can't imagine anyone reading this article would not realize it is focusing on the scientific perspective (as everyone ought to expect it to). Dragons flight 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
While do I respect this is an attempt at a compromise, understand how the categories work: this article is already a "grand-daughter" of the Science cat. As it stands:
It doesn't need to be re-classified. It's fine. Really.
"Held to a different standard?" Sure—it's absolutely more discursive and more in-depth than similar sources and should be held to that standard. But it almost seems you're suggesting that Wiki should buck what contemporary epistemological understanding is. You are truly misunderstanding NPOV—it does mean the door is open to every hypothetical criticism. I could start an article about a triangular Earth, swear by it, and try to get it included—it wouldn't and shouldn't be included. It, just like a Flat Earth, has no professional or public acceptance that is even marginally notable. And this is where I'm thumping my head with you. You want a guideline to prove that Wiki accepts the validity of scientific consensus? It's like asking for a guideline showing English Wiki must be written in English. Of course this article is written from a scientific perspective. Of course we don't need to state that. Marskell 00:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Seeing no objections, I will make the change. MrVoluntarist 10:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
1. Science --> Earth Sciences --> Earth (as primary article in sub-cat). I mentioned this above.
2. Placing Science in the categories does not imply Earth has to be on any other page but rather that other pages should also be categorized in Science. Again, the articles in Science are sciences themselves or very general scientific concepts not specific objects or subjects.
3. This isn't a controversial topic. Marskell 12:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The above is from me. It logged me out for some reason in the middle of posting. MrVoluntarist 13:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
"We don't have to put earth or any of the others on the subcategory or category page, as you just realized." Then what the hell are we debating? If you add the category at the bottom it automatically appears on the category page.
Further, I don't enjoy having my good faith sarcastically questioned ("You didn't explain there how to trace back, which is what I was asking. And you didn't do it here either. (Thanks for that.)", "I assumed you knew how to answer a question.")
Conversation over on this end. Add as you please and I will revert where I feel necessary. Marskell 14:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
If either of you feel the need to continue in this vein, please do so on your user talk pages. Your debate is focusing more on each other's debating style than on the content of the Earth page. -- Doradus 21:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
This debate is essentially about what can be stated unqualifiedly as fact. The consensus definition of fact is "something that can be demonstrated to be true", in other words, "something based on empirical evidence". I think that most dissenters would acknowledge that their views are not by this definition "fact", that is, they would not claim that their views are "built on empirical evidence". Frankly, the definition of fact is very much linked with the definition of science, as the goal of science is the establishment of fact. Thus, statements about which there is no fact-based debate, such as the roundness of the earth, can be stated as fact. Non-fact-based dissenting views can be stated as dissenting views, preferably in their own articles to avoid confusing the fact-seeking encyclopedia user. The alternative, as far as I can figure, is to not state anything at all as fact, which would make Wikipedia a useless hellish cauldron of boiling fat. As one who believes that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, this isn't a very attractive prospect. If anyone can think of a different way to determine what can be stated as fact, go right on ahead. Kai 07:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Nobody uses terameters; why the hell are we? -- Robert Merkel 05:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Just made this. It's sort of better than the current cutaway image since it's (at least roughly) to scale, and shows a few more features. What do you think? - Fredrik | talk 20:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The planet infobox is too large; it interferes with the page layout and crams lots of unrelated data into one small space. It would be best if it was only about as tall as the table of contents. How about moving the orbit data to the section on "Earth in the Solar System", and the atmospheric data to the "Atmosphere" section? The article is already a bit inconsistent; for example, the table on the Earth's composition is inlined but the list of atmospheric constituents is in the infobox. I think it would make most sense to put only the most important and general data in the table at the top, and move the rest to sections (where the information can also be better referred to from the text). Of course, this change would cause inconsistency with the other planet artices, but that's not necessarily a problem. For one thing, the article's focus should be slightly different since Earth is not primarily the target of astronomers. Fredrik | talk 23:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Since huge parts of this article needs to be improved, I've put up talk:Earth/rewrite so people can do radical editing without worrying about breaking anything. This is based on a rewrite attempt I started a few months ago but never finished; some parts that were taken out are missing and others may need to be updated. Fredrik | talk 11:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
The adjective for Earth is "Earthling." Terrestrial is just our type of planet. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk) 22:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
User:JQF wrote: It should be noted, however, that alternative theories regarding the date of formation do exist.
Before we start an edit war, could somebody describe the alternative scientific theories of Earth's age since I'm not aware of any.-- Jyril 15:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Since the age of the earth cannot be reasonably agreed upon, it admits and must presuppose the existence of a disagreement of terms. Therefore I suggest, wherefore one cannot speak with certainty, one should be silent. -- [[User_talk::66.168.222.44]]
I base my belief in God solely on reason, I am a deist thank you, not one of these brainless Christians. Read the "Summa Theologica" Proofs for the Existence of God.
The following comment to editors was left in the article; I used HTML commenting it to hide it from non-editors. This kind of self-referential comment should not be visible in the main article. FreplySpang (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
On Firefox 1.0.6 (MacOS 10.4.2) the infobox is flooding the article, appearing before just about everything... what's going on here? Alphax τ ε χ 01:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Earth's core redirects to here, but there is virtually no information on Earth's core. Is this information anywhere else in Wikipedia? - Volfy 09:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The Earth's shape is that of an oblate ellipsoid, with an average diameter of approximately 12,742 km.
I'm pretty sure the Earth is an oblate spheroid and not an oblate ellipsoid like the article says. Take a look at this.
Earth (with a capital "E") is a formal noun in English... and it doesn't need an article (meaning, "the") preceding it. I have always been intrigued as to when we started calling this planet "Earth" and not "the earth." Interesting to note is that in other forms of our planet's name, we don't use "the" as in "Terra." You never see "the terra". Ditto for the names of the other planets in our solar system... (Mars, never referred to as "the mars".)
Should Earth's population be added in the infobox? -- Revolución ( talk) 23:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
In the info box for this article it states that the orbital inclination of the earth is 0.00005° . Isnt the correct value for this is exactly 0° as the inclination of the Earths orbit is what the orbital inclinations of the other planets are measured relative to. Does anyone else know enough about this to be sure? -- Timmywimmy 18:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
History of the Earth would be a much needed addition. -- Revolución ( talk) 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I checked several teacher aids on google, most of which gave arable land as 1/32 of the earth's surface (e.g., 1/8th of land). Anyone know where the 10% comes from?
Question 2: Anyone know if all the "land use" refer *only* to land?
The section I deleted said "Large areas are subject to overpopulation, industrial disasters such as pollution of the air and water, acid rain and toxic substances, loss of vegetation ( overgrazing, deforestation, desertification), loss of wildlife, species extinction, soil degradation, soil depletion, erosion, and introduction of invasive species." It's asserting all of this as fact, when all of it is heavily disputed. If the claim is only that these things are possible, it's undue emphasis, a POV violation. Whoever put this in was trying to slip in a plug for an environmentalist, scaremongering POV. For example, the entire concept of "overpopulation" is heavily contested, especially by economists. Whether or not overpopulation is the cause of any current ill is still debated, and it's talking like the debate has been settled. The assertions of threats in other areas is the POV of some environmentalists, disputed by high-profile environmentalists like, I don't know, Bjørn Lomborg and Patrick Moore. There's no reason to cite the possibilities of all these things unless you want to list every possible thing that could go wrong, and at that point, it's unclear how that's relevant to someone who wants to learn about "the earth". What you first need to learn is that these claims are a POV, and many people actually dispute them. Wikipedia is not a place to promote environmentalism. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. MrVoluntarist 04:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
VSmith, I can't but assume you're trying to personally insult me, but I'll hold off for a clarification. I never supported the flat earth position, and you know it. And "Randwicked" -- I didn't cite "economists" alone, I cited two prominent environmentalists. Ever heard of The Skeptical Environmentalist? Why don't we talk about what that portion is actually trying to say? Is it saying that overgrazing, deforestation, desertification, etc. are all possible? Okay, then fine, but lots of other things are possible -- genocide, war, famine, communism, etc. The list could go on for days, and you'd probably delete any chance to insert such balance. So what is it saying? Is it saying that all those things are likely? If so, then it is stating something as fact when there definitely is no consensus. The best science tells us that less than 1% of species will go extinct over the next 100 years. If you want to re-iterate the 50,000 species a year claim, you'll need to edit the biodiversity and extinction articles first, where such claims are roundly rejected. So no, you don't have science on your side for those claims. And insofar as those claims even have plausibility, they're definitely not worldwide problems (thus not meriting position in the "earth" article). There's just as much forest as there was in North America as there was 100 years ago. Would you care to give a mainstream source for any of those claims? Learning you have a bias is the first step toward being a productive Wikipedia contributor. MrVoluntarist 05:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Aw - no insult intended, just an attempt at humor re your previous stand in the sections above. As for Lomborg: he is maybe a statistician who wrote a tome about stuff beyond his expertise, hardly qualifies as a prominent environmentalist. No one is claiming the 50,000 bit - why would you think that? - reading stuff that isn't there? Is that your reason for deleting? And yeah we all have biases - kinda like a result of our life experiences. I know mine - do you know yours? Cheers Vsmith 05:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Kai Miller, well done! Excellent argument, and it seemed to stop this debate in its tracks. Is there an award that be be offered, like a Barnstar award, but an award for managing to put forward a good argument that diffuses debate? If not, I think one should be created for this purpose! :) -- User:Rebroad 13:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Should a section on the fate of Earth be added? It is widely theorized that the Earth will either be consumed by the Sun or turned into a Venus or Mercury environment as the Sun expands into a red giant in a few billion years. Then, once the Sun releases it's outer layers as a planetary nebula, it may very well destroy Earth or at least severely damage it. -- tomf688{ talk} 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Definetely! Actually, that's why I dropped by the article in the first place and I must say I was a bit disappointed when it didn't mention 'the end' at all. If I can remember my physics classes properly, the sun is approx halfway in its lifetime and will in some five billion years become a red giant, engulfing the earth.. I guess the question will be whether the article should discuss the probability of meteoroids hitting the earth, killing all life, stopping photosynthesis and the like. Superdix 00:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I took physics, chemistry, and 2 biologies, and they never said anything about that. Maybe because they were in high school. Flame viper 12 13:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone answer this? I've checked the articles on both poles and didn't see the answer if it was there. Initially I suspected that the colder areas at the poles were caused by less intense sun light in those regions. Is that what causes those areas to be so cold?
and the only planetary body that modern science confirms as harboring life.
so sceince has to confirm that there is life on earth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.2.222 ( talk • contribs) .
To the flat Earth advocate,
Since when isn't science neutral? Scientific theories must be testable and falsifiable, and subjected to peer review. Sometimes science is faked, but fake science can be disproved by better science, and the process is neutral. If the scientific method is not neutral, then what basis do we have to discuss neutrality? The flat Earth is a well known theory, but it is widely regarded as an inferior theory to the spherical Earth (and related cosmos), because the modern theory makes better predictions. If your theory makes better predictions than the sidereal theory, then cite your sources. If your flat Earth theory makes no predictions, and accounts for nothing that the modern theory does not, then how is it relevant? Should we assume that you have equal objections to the human article, since it describes people as a species of animal, rather the descendents of deities? But science does not contradict any alternative theory of the cosmos, and it is neutral on the subject of religion, because untestable hypotheses are not the subject of science. Science is the activity of finding neutral grounds for which to debate the subjects of empirical inquiry. Wikipedia is not a source of the truth, it is a secondary source which reports the consensus of verifiable primary sources. Disagreements on a scientific basis would perhaps be relevant, but disagreements on a basis that is untestable are unwinnable arguments and do not form the subject of an encyclopedia article. oneismany 14:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This article conforms nicely to NPOV as far as I can tell. The allegations of POV based on religious reasons are groundless. Just as pro-science editors do not slap NPOV tags on religious articles for stating the earth is 6000 years old in those articles, biblical literalist editors should reciprocate that courtesy.-- JohnDO| Speak your mind 18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The bit which lists the geologic components and their depths seems to imply that the atmosphere is less a part of the earth than the solid bit, which varies from standard. Perhaps it should list all layers of the earth and their altitudes, with the sub-solid-surface layers in negative altitudes? I felt I ought to get feedback from more qualified parties before I made a rash change to a good article. Kai 07:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering if it would be a good idea to describe the location of the Earth within the universe as best we can. It seems like a major omission that the article doesn't even mention that the Earth is in the Milky Way galaxy. There is also no mention of nearby stars. Let's write the article in such a way that a reader who is not from Earth would be able to come visit.
I notice that Albedo in the infobox seems to be the Geometric Albedo of the Earth, not the Bond Albedo. Should Bond Albedo be included as well? - Bill3000 16:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
(Practically) every article deserves a "history" section, in my opinion. I just added one, but it is not easy to condense 4.5 billion years into a single paragraph. Feel free to add or trim as necessary. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Flame viper 12 12:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This article starts out saying the scientific evidence indicates the Earth was formed 4.57 billion years ago and refers the reader to Age of the Earth, which lists the formation at 4.55 billion years ago. What is the source for this age? — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't you agree? -- Revolución hablar ver 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is Archive 4 covering August 8, 2006 - August, 23, 2006.
Isn't it redundant to describe the earth as the only place known by humans to support life? Most readers assume that encyclopedia articles reflect human knowledge... Sceptre Seven 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Te picture states that "Earth and Moon to scale." ,Distance included in the scale? if so ,it should be stated in the article...
Hey. Sorry, I'm not very good with editing page but I think this is what I'm suppposed to do when making a discussion...?
Anyhow, it says the surface area of the Earth is 510,065,284.702 km². How can this be measured to such a degree of accuracy? It is obviously not true because I could dig a hole in my back-garden and spread the soil evenly across my lawn. This would change the surface area...
a,b b/a (6380,6355 = 0.996081505) (6378,6357 = 0.996707432) 6378.14,6356.75 = 0.996646358 6378.2064,6356.5838 = 0.996609925 6378.388,6356.912 = 0.996633005 6378.16,6356.775 = 0.996647152 6378.137,6356.752 = 0.996647140 6378.136,6356.749 = 0.996646826 6378.135,6356.750 = 0.996647139 6378.134,6356.751 = 0.996647452
Look you all I'm not vandalizing the article....I'm just removeing an eyesore from it to improve its quality. How about this if I find a better one would that work? 138.163.0.37 00:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey how do I add a caption to that image? any help would be great Aeon 00:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:IAstronaut-EVA.jpg|thumb|right|200px|New satellite.]]
, which I used to display the image at right. Aeon, where did you get the animation of the rotating Earth? —
Knowledge Seeker
দ 01:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)I did a google search....I will find the site and get the copyright status of it.... Aeon 02:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I change the image found one that was not copyrighted and added a caption. Aeon 02:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Article states: "Scientific evidence indicates that the Earth and the moon were formed around 7,000-10,000 years ago." Obviously, this is not true.
In fact, all scientific evidence points to an earth that is about 4.6 billion years old, along with the rest of the solar system. An earth younger than 10,000 years exists only in the belief system of certain religions, and is not based on scientific analysis. If someone experienced with Wikipedia could correct this, we would all appreciate it. Thanks. 66.243.43.98 21:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
(near the winter and summer solstices, which are on about December 21 and June 21, respectively).
With respect the Earth had two hemispheres last time I check and that this statement referrs only to the northern hemisphere, for the southern Hemisphere this is factually incorrect as summer solstice occurs about December 21 and the winter solstice occurs about June 21. Gnangarra 14:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
In the chapter named "Earth's future" it says both "billion years" and "Gyr". I believe it should be corrected. Only one term should be used. -- Idan Yelin 04:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
the use of "GYR" should be explained better. I followed the link to the page it refers me to and yet I cannot find any reference to the abbreviation used. I can only find "gaussian year" and "great year". the one that is in use is not specified. this seems a very strange measurement of time anyway. why not simply use the standard units of time? and add trillions or billions or whatever you need to. if this article is supposed to be for everyone it should use terms that normal people can understand. it should be standard. 17:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The section of Pangaea, while well written, doesn't really belong in this article, in my opinion. It seems out of place and a bit arbitrary—why a section on Pangaea and none of the other continents or supercontinents? Perhaps a section on continental movements could be included instead, or perhaps relevant information discussed briefly in the Earth#History section. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps somebody knows the answer to this question: If the Moon continues to recede from the Earth, at what point (time or distance) will it no longer exert a significant influence in stabilizing the axial tilt of our planet? Thank you. — RJH 03:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Mostly Harmless.
Isn't the pressure 101.325 kPa? 203.218.86.162 11:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Is anybody but me struck by how silly it is to write Precipitation patterns vary widely ... or The Earth's terrain can vary greatly ...? Precipitation varies widely compared to what? Precipitation on Mars? Jupiter? My back yard? I could be wrong here but I bet Jupiter has a lot more variation in precipitation, just becuase it probably has a lot more precipitation overall. Things can only vary widely or greatly in comparison to something else. When you're talking about the whole Earth itself there really isn't much to compare against. Just making the sentences longer to make them look good buys us nothing.
I tried removing an adverb once, writing just Precipitation patterns vary ... but somebody put it back. Rather than start an edit war I figured I'd point out the sillyness here. -- kop 05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"The Earth was formed around 4.57 billion (4.57×109)[1] years ago (see Age of the Earth) and its largest natural satellite, the Moon, was orbiting it shortly thereafter, around 4.533 billion years ago."
This part is nonsense and cannot be proven. Therefore I have removed it. --
Scotteh 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you win. For now. -- Scotteh 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
My troll detection unit is blinking. Should I be concerned? :-) — RJH ( talk) 22:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The Lexicography section gives cognates to "earth" which is interesting in its own right (although it might show the need for an article on earth - although this might be too similar to soil) but what I'd be interested in names other cultures use for "Earth". I assume most Indo-European languages also use their equivalent to "earth" but what about elsewhere? Some of it is touched on in the first paragraph of the Descriptions of Earth section but are there more? It may be that it is all as mundane as our own naming system but there may also be interesting information that could be drawn together. So would some kind of new section ("Names for the planet Earth" perhaps?) be worth considering? ( Emperor 17:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC))
For some reason, whenever I try to RV some edits, I get redirected to an edit conflict with Simon Harcourt, peculiar... 惑乱 分からん 10:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
"distance from the Sun, and the fifth in order of size. We are mostly harmless." what is that comment about? -- Dan 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a reference to the Earth's entry in the fictional book Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, although it's very out of place.
can we have some different measurements for mass? I spent AGES trying to figure out how many teratons the earth was..... I now know it to be roughly 5 billion teratons, but it took me a LOT of searching and a LOT of (what I consider) complex maths...
It's a great article, however it contains units of measure that are virtually meaningless to roughly 5% or so of the world's population. I propose to add English/Imperial measurements to all the figures given, using google calculator. Any objections? Supercam 21:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Added a brief paragraph on the word for "Earth" in other languages, since I was curious about this and couldn't find it in other articles, or via Wiktionary. The best that I could come up with is this, via Google search. The examples are therefore all transliterated into English. Anyone with more experience in these languages or with linguistics, please feel free to add or revise the paragraph. -- Brasswatchman 22:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Am I at all correct or am I simply mistaken to think that the approximate mileage around the equator of the earth is something short of like 8000 miles in distance in the circle round the equator. I think (although I am not sure) that the actual mileage is something possibly close to 7,480 miles. I try to relate and to comprehend this number in such a way as to think as to how and to break it all down. Well ( i think to myself) if I drove 1000 miles then I would need to drive about another 6 and half times that distance around the earth to complete a full circle. And that is of course assuming my automobile could travel over the water and not sink to the bottom of the ocean. Maybe the Wikipedians out there could help to illuminate the precise expanse of the mileage and distance around the equator of the earth. I tend to comprehend the concept of actual miles better than I do kilometers or any other system of measurement. Is there a precise and a confident consensus for the number of miles starting from point A and either going west or east until you finally reach point B when you travel around the globe in a nice straight line. www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 02:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Kaimbridge, therefore, is it correct to say of that the equator is 24,901.5 miles around ? www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be titled Terra? Its the scientifically and politically correct term for Earth,same for the moon being called Luna. While some think it's just Latin, its also the proper scientific term.
This section has been returned to the main talk page [10]
I change the whole layout, added hydrosphere, changed plate tectonics (which is theory) to facts about tectonic plates on Earth, added pedosphere and some other minor changes. To write article about Earth is quite though task. There's too much information taht should be included and many other articles on Wikipedia related. GeoW 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I beleive that most current discussions are resolved. HighInBC 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This entry needs a section called "Earth in popular culture", to keep it in line with every other wikipedia entry. Simbachu 20:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The section made by this request, "Earth in Modern Culture", seems to lack proper, accurate information of any kind that could provide a reader with proper greater knowledge about the Earth in said context, to be precise the conclusion that Earth implies "reason" or "life" is subject to discussion and more a matter of perspective that proper information, that is to say that up to now the section is not only a stub, but a piece of accumulated junk, unless something can be done about its content to be something more than meaningless I would say said article better deserves deletion.---GTB 6:29 am Lima Peru 20/10/2006
Q. Should I replace this article with the words "mostly harmless" or "harmless", as per The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
A. No. Every other vandalism to this article is just that, and people who do this will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Share and enjoy!
I was thinking about doing this myself, but I had a feeling it would have been done before. Oh wells :-) Bennity 11:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I have archived the talk page as it was getting long, please move any discussion still active back here. HighInBC 20:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for bringing this up again, but I was still going to ask something. -- Scotteh 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is pathetic - I'm sorry to say. Someone please change it. The whole article is written in the evolutionist's perspective and cites rubbish referances. Are we now forgetting that there exist other theories over the age of the earth, etc.? Howcome this article only contains the theories of the evolutionists? Half the world does not even support evolution! This is pathetic. With articles such as these, Wikipedia is only going to become more and more unreliable. -- Scotteh 19:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why they aren't credible. Whoever said that science was the only credible theory to the age of the earth? No one will ever prove the age of the earth and therefore it's idiotic to exclusively note science's opinion on this. It's situations like this that continue to make Wikipaedia further and further away from being an encyclopaedia, let alone a notable encyclopaedia. -- Scotteh 14:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Scotteh, please keep mindful of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. You're pretty far across the line on your reply to me. Meanwhile, you'll also want to keep mindful of WP:AWW. We don't need to qualify every value with "scientists believe that...".
Atlant 18:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
(FYI: I didn't deliberately remove anything. But there is some sort of bug in the Wikimedia software where it fails to flag "edit conflicts" on talk pages and so person A's contribution ends up replacing person B's contribution. I believe that is what happened here, but if an apology will help, then: "I apologize; I did not deliberately remove anyone's comments from this talk page."
Atlant 19:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
I am sorry Scotteh but this discussion has ceased to be productive. Please present new evidence or put this argument to bed. Simply repeating yourself and attacking your opponents will not change our minds. You are on the verge of being ignored. I would prefer to listen, but only if it is productive. HighInBC 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, also I will leave you with this helpful hint from WP:Reliable_sources:
An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.
This means that while opinion itself is not welcome, facts about opinion are. HighInBC 19:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here is how it works. There is scientific evidence that directly supports evolution, so we can say that. Since, as far as I know, there is no scientific evidence for intellegent design you can only prove that people believe in it.
As for it's position in the article I am imagining something along the lines of Despite faith based beleifs that the earth is considerably younger(citation goes here), the majority of scientific evidence suggest that the Earth is approximatly 4.5 billions years old..
Notice I didn't put the 6000 years there? That is because different faith based groups give different estimates. This is of course just my opinion, others may has different views. HighInBC 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to point out, that this article is already very long and only briefly touches upon subjects that are covered more in depth in other related articles. Have you taken a look at the Age of the Earth article? Also, Dating Creation and Origin belief deal with this. HighInBC 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I CANT BELIEVE
Why do so many religionists (mainly), always screw up discussion pages with their holier than thou rants. Is it because they have no proof of their own beliefs and are frustrated that everyone doesn't arbitrarily accept the same faith system to which they were indoctrinated.
Is it because they intuitively know (correctly I might add) that there really is a power greater than mankind, and are so frustrated that the quantum nature of creator cannot be proven but only experienced?
Or is it that after reading scripture translated by those with an agenda, they feel so empty that they must verify their weak position by trying to convince others of its validity? Apparently they keep forgetting the part that suggests your relationship with your maker is a private one, not to be taken to the streets.
Are they wanting answers so desparately they are willing to look foolish as if an attempt to get the attention of someone who really knows something and can give them those answers?
Could it be all of the above? I cant believe I read all that. Scotteh: may I suggest reading more to increase your vocabulary? You had a beginning. You will have an end. The creature should know they were created. The proof is in the mirror. Or not there (a light is on, but no one is home). Alphaquad 14:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Evolution is just a theory and has very little if not no proof to back it up. This planet is incredible. The trees, the ocean, the sunset. There is no way this planet just appeared and everything just gradually formed. No, im going with intelligent design. Someone has got to change it. Crion Naxx
Going back to the previous discussion .... I don't like the opening paragraph:
"The Earth was created by God around 5,000 years ago[1] (see Age of the Earth) and its largest natural satellite, the Moon, was orbiting it shortly thereafter, around 5,000 years ago."
That is a way too biased religious statement. The earth is millions of years old, not 5000. Why can't we just state the age of the earth based on geological fact and add a section specifically for religious beliefs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.125.115.183 ( talk • contribs) .
You are of course right. And it has been reverted to the correct way, such edits are only there for a short time. HighInBC 17:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Have another point, isn't Moon is Earth's ONLY natural satellite? If that's the case, why is the word largest is required? It implies that there is more than one natural satellite.... -- Cyktsui 01:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a relatively minor point, but the section on "Composition of the Earth" cannot be quite correct. The percent by mass of the earth that is iron, oxygen, etc. is given; if one adds the percentages of these seven major constituents, one gets 101.1%. Even if each of the percentages were rounded, that still would not be enough to make the real value <= 100%, and one would in fact expect these to add up to slightly LESS than 100%. I went to the referenced source, and the percentages that I found there did not agree with the ones on this page. But I was puzzled as to why someone would have mistranscribed them, and wasn't sure "bulk earth" was the correct category to be looking under. Perhaps someone can look into this and fix it?
Has anyone looked at this problem yet? Another thought -- apparently much of earth's large density is due to compression; sources seem to say that the density of the inner core is 13 or even 15 gm/cm^3. This is surprising, since the density of iron is usually around 8 gm/cm^3. How does this work; does iron under extremely high pressures form an unusual crystalline structure or something? How high does the pressure have to be -- would a planet have to be approximately earth-sized for the pressure at the core to be high enough? It would be nice if someone knowledgeable wrote about this or looked into it. Kier07 22:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Removed newly added Clearing the neighbourhood section which linked to planetologists squabbling (see: Clearing the neighbourhood). The article is long enough already without adding their trivial naming squabbles or whatever. Vsmith 00:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting to think people who pull that joke for the umpteenth time should be immediately blocked. Thoughts? Danny Lilithborne 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, does anyone have any data or know of references regarding how the diameter of the earth has changes over its evolution? That is, has the diameter of the earth increased or decrease since its inception? I know, according to solar growth rates stored in fossil records, that it's rotation rate is slowing, e.g. at the 2.5 BYA mark the earth rotated once every ten hours, and that at the 4.5 BYA mark it would have been revolving faster than one rotation per hour (Source: Whitrow's What is Time (1972), pg. 63.) Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 12:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Id assume the diameter would have shrunk due to cooling -- Nbound 09:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought, in the first paragraph the Moon is said to be 4.533Ga old. Firstly, I would like to know where that figure came from, and secondly how come we seem to know it so accurately? I'm not questioning it – I'm sure whoever wrote it knows more about it than me, I would just like to know. Would it not be more correct to state the ages of Earth and the Moon to the same number of significant figures if possible? Kris 08:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
In the section surface it writes
Which is obviously false: simple maths shows that the depth would be "average depth of the seas as they are now" x "percentage of land surface in water". Taking the figures from the article, this yields 3,794x0.708=2686.152. Something like this is noted in the footnote:
I find this setup rather confusing - wouldn't it make more sense to leave out the Statue of Liberty altogether, because it is nowhere close to comparable? 80.109.92.235 00:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is the Earth round? Ok. Get this. Think of a ball. You are on a ship going down the curve. Wouldn't you suddenly be upside down? But that isnt the case. Therefore, I will reword my question. Why don't ships go upside down when traversing down the curve of Earth if it were round? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.89.40.251 ( talk • contribs) .
On what basis is "Tellus" to be considered "correct" and "Terra" incorrect?
This seems like yet another case of bringing in a lesser-known bit of knowledge (in this case that "Tellus" is also a name of the Latin earth goddess) and arbitrarily declaring that a particular interpretation based on it is "correct."
"Terra" is Latin for earth, as in soil, but also land in the sense of territory (e.g., the new world, "terra nova") and the earth as a whole (notably, "In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram."). English partly follows this very pattern. We talk about tilling the earth, or an earthy smell, but also of the earth as a whole. This sort of metaphoric extension is fundamental in language. Further, Terra is the earth goddess and by extension the earth itself. For example, from Bullfinch's Mythology: "A celebrated exploit of Hercules was his victory over Antaeus. Antaeus, the son of Terra, the Earth, was a mighty giant and wrestler [...]"
"Tellus" appears to be another name for the earth goddess. Bullfinch has (in the story of Medea and AEson) "To the stars she addressed her incantations, and to the moon; to Hecate, the goddess of the underworld, and to Tellus the goddess of the earth, by whose power plants potent for enchantment are produced."
It's not clear how to pick a "correct" choice between the two. "Terra" and "Tellus" appear to be simple alternations and are almost certainly cognate to begin with. Either that, or there were actually two earth goddesses, with suspiciously similar names and attributes, in which case on what basis do we decide that one is "correctly" considered as representing the planet as a whole?
Modern usage at least seems to strongly prefer "Terra", so if one is to be considered "correct" it should be "Terra". - Dmh 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
humans love cars. stop it. think about global warming. lets all protest the stinking oil. ok? walk to work . just walk. forget cars. screw anything that involves mass greenhouse emissions. now if youre just addicted to cars, then screw you. you will get drowned by the oceans. (and wait im not talking nonsense) with more ice caps melting... the oceans will cool and then they will absorb more heat and technically there could be another ice age. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.142.143.42 ( talk • contribs) .
not everyone lives within walking distance of work -- Nbound 04:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
In any case, global warming is a myth, according to reliable scientific data. 222.153.235.96 04:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but this animation is incorrect: it does not take into account the Earth's axial tilt. Should it therefore be removed?
Martin.Budden 17:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
As requested in the priority one to do list since September 4th 2006 regarding implementing suggestions from featured article review for this article I have taken action to implement on October 1st 2006. Only minor action was taken for a few examples of grammar, as well as changing the word simular to similar which appeared to have a meaning closer to its paragraph in context. Please read, discuss, and keep as the consensus of the group here sees fit. I now go to the next priority one to do list. Absolutely no worries at all. Neutralaccounting 05:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I am from Earth, atleast I will be staying here a while, anybody want me to take some specific pictures while I am here? HighInBC 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Template:Planet Infobox/Earth was placed on TFD by someone who doesn't like the fact that it stands alone by itself. Please visit the TFD and express your opinion on this issue. Dragons flight 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
sure take pics of all the landmarks, i hear u have weird substances here on earth qantas goes to venus!
I think it interesting that people have made the effort to write the word for Earth in other languages, but why is there no transliteration of the Sanskrit word? "Words for Earth in other languages include: पृथ्वी pr̥thvī (Sanskrit)". DDD DDD 01:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I am from another planet and was wondering if someone could tell me about life on Planet Earth?
This section needs some lengthening. That, or actually put some relevent information in the link to another article. This section states composition, but doesn't even state if this is composition by mass or by number of atoms. I recall this information used to be on wikipedia, however now it is on neither page. Harley peters 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There should be more info. about which regions prefer " earthing", " earthing system", as compared to " ground", " grounding", " grounded", " grounding system"?
This does seem extremely dependent on dialect, region, neighborhood.
Then there is " earthling".
hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I was taking a quick scroll of the article and saw the section Pedosphere and thought it was vandalism so hit history to revert it but couldn't find the diff very quickly - so I clicked on the link for it and turns out there's such thing as a pedosphere lol. I wonder if anyone has incorrectly deleted this before. -- WikiSlasher 11:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
An image caption currently reads:
To which my reaction is basically "uhh... what?". This needs more explanation, as it is apparently self-contradictory; how can something have a different shape from what it appears to have? JulesH 07:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Since when is Earth ever called 'Your Mom'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.7.189 ( talk • contribs) 20:29, November 12, 2006
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I feel that this article is racist and persecuted towards the members of the Flat Earth Society, as it insists that Earth is closed to sphere shaped. This is very one-sided and racist, lol.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.27.211.52 ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 21 April 2007.
I have archived this rather long talk page. If I have accidently archived an active discussion please move that discussion back and accept my apologies. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Q. Should I replace this article with the words "mostly harmless" or "harmless", as per The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
A. No. Every other vandalism to this article is just that, and people who do this will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Share and enjoy!
Man! That's exactly what I came here to do today! Anyway, I still think it won't do any damage if the article starts with "Mostly Harmless."
This is covered on the Earth in fiction page, which is linked via the "See also" section at the bottom of the article. — RJH ( talk) 20:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've uploaded a 3D rendered version of the Earth being cut to its core. It labels the areas numerically so as to be language-independent. It also includes the D-double-prime layer.
as a replacement for:
Thangalin 04:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The future section ignores the possibility of human action to either change the atmosphere or move the earth. Perhaps a new section, "Alternate Futures," or a new article linked to the Earth one would be of interest. Science fiction often becomes science fact.
-- Dwise75 09:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"it is the largest planet in the world"... take that out
--
Darrendeng 09:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It still needs to be taken out. --Ben 12/17/06
"
space" should link to
Outer space
Astronauts now alternate in the space station more often than once every 6 months, the last mission only lasted for 2 weeks or so...
The future section mentions nothing of the stability of the orbits of solar system members, including Earth. Between now and the Sun's twilight years, orbits can reshape and become unstable - resulting in possible ejection out of the solar system. External influences such as close passes by other stars and the potential collision between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy may disrupt the orbits further. Earth's fate is speculation, but generally bleak by the looks of it - disregarding speculation on Humankind's safeguarding its cradle planet.
Paulsmith99 22:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The animated rotating earth picture could be replaced with a better one from Wikimedia Commons: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Rotating_earth_%28large%29.gif/120px-Rotating_earth_%28large%29.gif (from the large version at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rotating_earth_%28large%29.gif ) 144.134.71.109 12:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This arctical should be a featured arctical Da Man 2000
I believe "commoner" should be switched to "more common" in the minerals section.
The better image is this one.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Earth_5-50.gif
What makes you think any different?
Alphaquad 06:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the distance from the sun to earth? (in km) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.59.178.86 ( talk) 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
[17]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.38.160.124 ( talk) 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC).:
Is carbon really so rare in the crust that it is not mentioned ? CaO exists in greater quantity than all the carbonate rocks ? Bob Armstrong 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
We need to seperate this article because "Earth" is a very broad subject. For example: Earth as a planet, Earth as the world, Earth meaning soil, Earth as in the ground, etc. etc. It would be wrong to assume that anyone who is searching for "Earth" is always searching for the planet :). So searching for "Earth" should only give you a disanbiguation page with all the subtopics on it.
So the center of the earth is made of hot iron? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnYoNe! ( talk • contribs).
It has very large and meaty clustered chunks of great educative data to it, perhaps it could be broken down into smaller peices. Nevertheless it remains an excellent article worked on by many. Just one of several hundreds saved in my watch list. It is actually 17 pages long
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 16:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The article states that Earth is the fifth largest planet in the solar system. However, as far as I can tell, it is only larger than Mercury, Venus and Mars. Is this a remnant from when Pluto was classified as a planet?
Thanks, 12.219.93.35 20:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The article lists the Earth as being 4.57 aeons old, but in accordance with the most recent scientific data, this is completely illogical. Judging from the sun's current rate at which it loses mass, the sun would be large enough to pull the earth into it at that point in time (simple laws of gravitation have proven this.)
Furthermore, we are losing our moon at a rate of about 4 inches per year. At that rate, you would have to say that 1.2 aeons ago, the moon would have been on the surface of the Earth.
Please keep all archaic theories noted as such. If you must include the Earth being 4.57 aeons old, then you must also include the "facts" that the Earth is flat and that the Sun travels around it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.5.159.25 ( talk) 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
I dont believe anyone who says "face reality". Evolution doesn't mean "theres no god". Theologians have no problem with it. Why do people? Mailrobot 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I agree with the IP address. If the world really was millions of years old, everything would be dead and worn-out by now. I watched a documentary where they carbon dated trees in a lake near Mount Saint Helens that were swept there when the volcano erupted. The test found that the trees already turned to carbon and that it dated back millions of years. Also, because the trees sank to the bottom of the lake in different phases, it appeared as if it was a lot of forests on top of each other. But whatever. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 13:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You do know you have no idea what you are saying, right? The tree outside your house hasn't been there for millions of years, that's why it isn't dead. Mailrobot 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The age of the earth is so thoroughly theoretical; discussion of such things can only be meaningful to those with a hidden agenda. Alphaquad 06:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Both differing theories from both points of view each contain evidence 'proving' itself true while contradicting the other. At the moment there is no way to determine the real age of the earth but perhaps both theories could be placed on the 'Age of the Earth' page so both points of view can be noted. 210.11.82.26 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has articles for the above stuff and nonsense - see: Origin belief and Creation within belief systems for all the various mythologies. Vsmith 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is it stated that "Widely accepted scientific evidence indicates that the Earth was formed around 4.57 billion years ago"... What else do we use in an encyclopedia? The age of the Earth is that old, we dont say "widely accepted scientific evidence" for any other age on wikipedia, why here? i think this is just bending over backwards to young-earth religious zealots... Theres plenty of other articles to do with your viewpoint where you can spread this information. Just keep it out of here -- Nbound 05:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the age of the Earth cannot be proved scientifically and it is not documented historically (other than in the Holy Bible), the age of the earth should not be written as if it is a fact. It should say "evidence suggests that the Earth is 4.57 billion years old" or "many scientists think the Earth is 7000 years old" Since it is not a fact, it should not be portrayed as such. And everyone please, stop bashing true Christians who believe in young earth creation. It is a perfectly valid belief and endorsed by many scientists. teemanbf04 17:57, 11 April 2007
It is strongly advised that mature adults who are also critical thinkers simply ignore creationist trolls and their incessant flaming about "intelligent design."
How long exactly is a day on Earth, and would it help if I divided the orbital circumference by the orbital speed? Should it be in the article? Thanks. A stroHur ricane 00 1( Talk+ Contribs+ Ubx) 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are coordinates on the celestial sphere listed for Earth? Aren't they meaningless? Why should Earth be any more at the north pole of the celestial sphere than anywhere else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.171.232.233 ( talk) 03:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
The last sentence of the article suggests "it might be possible to move the Earth's orbit outwards, and thus it would not suffer a runaway greenhouse effect." I think this is a straightforward violation of WP:CRYSTAL, especially given the casual, un-qualified phrasing of the sentence. Sure, it's cited, but if we cite everything that some sci-fi author manages to say on television, this will be a zoo. Ethan Mitchell 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The picture that says 'The first time an "Earth-rise" was seen from the moon.' needs rotating 90' to the left I think. I saw a documentary on TV about a year ago which had one of the astronaughts in it. He said it always bothered him how that photo was always displayed on its side. -OOPSIE- 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That odd looking box floating at the top of the article makes a weird space, and contains information that you'd hope the article would get to quickly anyway. It's not on mars, neptune, or pluto, (though I guess pluto isn't much of a planet anymore) and its pushing down on the introduction text. Homestarmy 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the first paragraph be modified to make it more engaging than a series of comparisons with the planets of the Solar System. Here's my first attempt:
What do you think? I'm sure this can be much improved. Any suggestions? — RJH ( talk) 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
After looking over this article it seems to me that there are entirely too many penny-packet sections with less than a paragraph of content. The overall structure also seems a little random. So I tried to put together an organizational structure by grouping common content into major headings:
If these makes sense, it should be possible to consolidate a number of the sub-topics as well. Any thoughts? — RJH ( talk) 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We know that the earth isn't quite spherical. It would be great to have an exaggerated picture of the earth to show where the bulges are. This could include the mountain ranges, to get a sense of how much of the earth's nonsphericalness is due to mountains and how much is due to large-scale shape. Perhaps NASA has that dataset? —Ben FrantzDale 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Propose adding a new section that provides the actual earth radius (much like it is referenced in the facts box) and a footnote reference to the WGS84 standard. I'd also like to clean up some of the wording regarding the ellipsoid, geoid, oblate sphere, etc. Spaceman13 15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's a place for a paragraph on "Earth Day", at best it should be cross-referenced with a link in a "See Also" section. I propose we delete this bit. Kris 10:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see why some editors would want to keep it in but I don't think it flows with the Human Viewpoint section that well. The two other subsections refer to development of thought and study, whereas the Earth Day part is just tacked on the end describing events that go on to promote environmental issues and concerns. The rest of the article is also about studies of Earth phenomena and associated theories and facts, so this bit just doesn't fit for me. There's no harm in wikilinking to the main article though. Kris 10:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"The moon formed soon afterwards, possibly as the result of a Mars-sized object, known as Theia, impacting the Earth in a glancing blow.[2] Most of this object's mass merged with the Earth, nearly doubling the planet's radius."
Doubling Earth's radius means quadrupling its volume, which a Mars-sized object cannot do since Mars has only a quarter of Earth's volume. -- Bowlhover 21:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that in some places the text gives both metres (or km) and feet, while in others only the metric values are shown. Should the page be consistent one way or the other? I would have no heartburn over dumping the old-English units but others may disagree. — RJH ( talk) 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
To be comprehensive, I think this page should cover most of the core topics described on the NASA World Book article. I don't think the page is quite there yet. For example, currently the Hydrosphere section doesn't cover the roles of the oceans as a heat and chemical reservoir. — RJH ( talk) 15:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the following entry: "The mean height of land above sea level is 686 m (426 ft)." Should be corrected. Either the feet of the meters value is wrong.
A separate concern is the orbital and geologic table along the right edge. The earth's radius is listed as about 6 million KM. It should be 6 million METERS.
"Earth does not have a sovereign government with planet-wide authority. Independent sovereign nations claim all of the land surface except for some segments of Antarctica. There is a worldwide general international organization, the United Nations. The United Nations is primarily an international discussion forum with only limited ability to pass and enforce laws."
What the **edited out** is this? It sounds like it has been written for interplanetary space travellers. - Abscissa 18:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
If that were true, the current article would be deleted and replaced with, "Mostly Harmless". Fephisto 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Absicca's change has been reverted - the text does not imply "intergalactic sovereign governments" (or anything even remotely similar). As mentioned above, this is not the Simple English edition. (No disrespect whatsoever to that version, but the English Wikipedia can presume a certain level of comprehension from its audience and the text should reflect that.) -- Ckatz chat spy 00:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've had to revert Abscissa's changes again, as they appear to be contrary to the preferences outlined above. However, in an attempt to address his/her concerns, I've reorganized and slightly reworded the text for clarity. Please take a look and let me know what you think. -- Ckatz chat spy 20:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The following versions of this paragraph have appeared over the past couple of days:
The paragraph was then reverted to Rewrite #1 by Ckatz. I've been attempting to compromise between the viewpoints expressed, but apparently not successfully. We need to reach a consensus on how to write this paragraph before this turns into an edit war. Please comment. Thanks. —
RJH (
talk) 21:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite #3 is perfectly fine. Ckatz seems to think that I have some hidden agenda to remove information, or I am trying to subert the article with simplicity. In fact, I am trying to improve the article. "Concise writing comes quickly to the point. It avoids wordiness—unnecessary and repetitious words that add nothing to the meaning." Ideas require clarity and distinctness to be communicated effectively. Let us take a look at what the paragraph is trying to communicate. There are three clear and distinct ideas: 1. There are 267 regions on Earth; 2. There is no international government; 3. The closest thing to international government is the United Nations.
Everything else is just wordy nonsense. Perhaps Ckatz would be kind enough to enlighten us as to what a general reader will reap from the first paragraph that he will sorely miss from a simpler, clearer version. - Abscissa 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
RJHall, if you'd like input on the text, I'll be glad to work with you. However, I'm not willing to put up with what I feel is an unfair (and unduly aggressive) attitude from Abscissa. Thank you for your efforts with regards to the paragraph. -- Ckatz chat spy 08:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please add {{Link GA|zh}} in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I don't know whose bright idea it was to include the Earth lights picture (The Earth at night) in the article with the current resolution of 16384 by 8192! Do you want to see your own house or something?
Anyway if you are to include a picture SCALE IT DOWN FIRST. This is less then helpful and borders on stupidity. At the moment I am VERY tempted to delete it. Please scale it down or I will give it the chop. Cheers 61.68.183.81 15:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys, it's all good. Like I’ve stated before when I clicked on the image on the article I started to download the full resolution image without seeing the intermediate screen. This caused my browser to hang. I wasn't happy about it because I didn't see the screen in between the thumbnail and full sized picture which actually states that the size of the picture (over 8Mb) and a warning regarding opening the picture with the browser. Therefore I do not have a problem with the current picture. I'm checking wether that incident was a one of or there are other incidents in Wikipedia where clicking on a thumbnail causes the browser to download the full version picture without the intermediate screen.
This topic is resolved and I retract my initial message.
Keep up the good work on the article. 61.68.187.174 06:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
From the third paragraph, "At present the Earth orbits the Sun once for every roughly 365.26 times it rotates about its axis — a period known as the sidereal year".
Noting the sidereal frame of reference, shouldn't the Earth be considered to rotate about its axis once every sidereal day, or about 366.26 times a year? If that would be thought too confusing for such an early paragraph, perhaps it should be rephrased to explicitly refer to solar days instead of rotations.
RTBoyce 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Much better now. :) RTBoyce 18:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we left align some of these images? The reader with a high resoltion computer screen is treated to no less than an eight inch blank gap in the early section of the text. Yeesh, talk about ugly. Quadzilla99 03:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that since the protection has been removed this page has already been subjected to a mass of vandalism. The wide scope of the topic probably makes it an attractive target, so it will always suffer an undue amount of these unhelpful "revisions". I'm expecting that whatever quality the page possessed will now start to slide, at least without a lot of constant monitoring. So I don't think the removal of the protection status will prove helpful. — RJH ( talk) 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The following paragraph appears in the "Human viewpoint" section:
This doesn't seem a very notable entry in the wider context. It appears that at best this group had a few thousand followers and the particular views don't represent a wide-spread belief. The topic is also covered on the Flat Earth article page. So is there any objection to the removal of this paragraph from the Earth article? — RJH ( talk) 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't Terra match the other planets' names better? - Working for Him 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is every other planet in the Solar System is named after a Roman god or goddess, so why is it called "earth" when the Roman goddess of earth is named Terra. - Working for Him 21:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, is it not? I don't believe that it has the authority, nor the means to question the name of something as large as a planet. The planet should be reffered to as Earth on this wiki page, as that is the name by which the majority of modern (English speaking) society calls it. From this perspective, I believe that no further discussion is required. However, it may be interesting and/or useful to include a summary of where the name Earth came from in the first place, but since this would probably take effort, and since it is only a minor point, I shant be doing it. Glooper 09:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The article says: "But even if the Sun were eternal and stable, the continued internal cooling of the Earth would have resulted in a loss of much of its atmosphere and oceans (due to lower volcanism).[91] More specifically, for Earth's oceans, the lower temperatures in the crust will permit water to leak more deeply into the planet than it does today. (At present, water evaporates at a sufficient depth due to increasing temperature.)"
This statement is highly intriguing, and I want to know more. However, the reference doesn't point to anything substantial. What I want to know, is where is this information from (reference)? Specifically, I am interested in how the cooling of the core would result in loss of the atmosphere and the oceans. I crawled the web and have found no information on this. Any insight would be helpful. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It is theroised that the earth will end when the sun goes out in 5 Gyrs, but our galiaxy will collide with Andromida in about 3 Gyrs. the turmoil that will ensue may cause an ending of the solar system includung earth.
I believe, and I could be wrong, but I believe that the moon is the Earth's only natural satellite (and that's if we're being fussy and not including Cruithne) but we have many man made satellites, so shouldn't that be included in the concise facts on the top right? Or at least changed to : Natural Satellites: 1. (The Moon)." As oppose to "Satellites: 1. (The Moon)".
I would agree with this (note that the same will have to be done to Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn!) Spaceman13 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe, and I could be wrong, but I believe that the moon is the Earth's only natural satellite (that is if we're being fussy and not including Cruithne) but we have many man made satellites, so shouldn't that be included in the concise fact on the top right? Or at least changed to: "Natural Satellites: 1. (The Moon)." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthewhaworth ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
After all, some people may actually not be aware our planet is called Earth. I mean seriously, someone might not know that (not likely, sure). Like, they might come to this page and think we're talking about some planet made of dirt, hence the name earth, but where's home?
I just think it makes sense, even if it's obvious, to state early in the lead that Earth is the planet on which we/humans live. Just the same as how the article on Milky Way points out that it is the home of the solar system (even though most people know this). -- Alfakim-- talk 02:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Much better :) -- Alfakim-- talk 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL im sorry but if someone is logging on to an english wikipedia via the Internet im pretty sure they know the name of the planet they live on.-- 85.210.43.45 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"The Hill sphere (gravitational sphere of influence) of the Earth is about 1.5 Gm (930,000 miles) in radius.[62][63] This is maximum distance at which the Earth's gravitational influence becomes stronger than the more distant Sun and planets. Objects must orbit the Earth within this radius, or they can become unbound by the gravitational perturbation of the Sun."
This is wrong. The Sun's gravity becomes stronger around 258,000 km. G*Msun/150,000,000,000^2 =~ G*Mearth/258,000,000^2 (in meters). Also saying that "this is the maximum distance at which the Earth's gravitational influence becomes stronger" implies that there are lesser distances where the Earth's gravity becomes stronger. Perhaps rephrase to "This is the distance at which...". Also, the gravity of the other planets are insignificant when considering Earth's Hill Sphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony873004 ( talk • contribs)
"The rotation of the Earth creates the equatorial bulge so that the equatorial diameter is 43 km (27 mi) larger than the pole to pole diameter."
Since earth circumference numbers are provided (Equatorial 40,075.02, Meridional 40,007.86 km), why not replace the above quote with "The rotation of the Earth creates the equatorial bulge so that the equatorial _circumference_ is 67km (xx mi) larger than the pole to pole circumference"? In this case, I find shifting from circumference to diameter less intuitive than sticking with circumference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slawek7 ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
earth has life and water and is knawn as the living world.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Earth rotates 366.26 times but this equals 365.26 days? Can anyone explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.153.189 ( talk • contribs) 6 December 2007 15:56
Why can't we get the little lock protection symbol like on George W. Bush or Leet for aesthetic purposes? Aaron Bowen 22:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the fact box have reference notes? I think this is especially important since several of the numbers in the fact box do not show up in the main article. For instance, what is the source of the min/mean/max temperatures? They are not mentioned anywhere in the article and therefore there is no traceability. Spaceman13 15:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't the longitude of the ascending node equal to zero (due to measurements of this for other planets are relative to the Earth's)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neodymion ( talk • contribs)
The atmosphere info on the Mars page is much more detailed than that available here. Also here, oxygen, is abbreviated as O2 while on Mars its spelled out. Nitrogen too. 76.203.74.145 05:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is based only on scientific believes, and has nothing in it involving any other belief. the article should be rewriten to follow the right of religion, the public isn't just into scientific believes, in fact, 80% of the public is christian, or pronounced christian. the article should be rewriten in this format:
-Earth
{Basic infomation without religious or scientific believes}
-The Planet
{Deeper infomation without religious or scientific believes}
-Religion
christianity
{christian belief}
Scientific believes
{Scientific belief}
{ Keep adding to the list }
{add on more religion and believes}
{ Finish article without religious or scintific believes }
this format or related formats could be useful for many other articles in the Solar System series.
If you want that, then go somewhere esle
--The Unsigned User 70.130.172.193 21:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Umm... hello... just a reminder that there actually are some people on this planet who speak English who (gasp!) aren't American! And that means that... wait for it... the English Wikipedia might actually be for people from around the globe! (Not just American Christians.) If you're trying to get your point across, you weaken your case by making statements that are just going to offend others. -- Ckatz chat spy 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
-- The Unsigned User 70.130.172.193 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
--WikiDragon--
One thing, wikipedia stays neutral, so it has to go with the scientific theory, or it will no longer be neutral. If you want to find out a religeous theory, check out that religion, so if you want to know want christianity says, go to the article about Christianity, if you want to know what Buddhism has to say about the creation of earth, go to the article about Buddhism. But for the article on earth, it should stay with the scientific theory, so that it stays neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDragon295 ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 May 2007
For those interested, please see: Origin belief and Creation within belief systems - two articles discussing at length a variety of religious and cultural mythologies where all the beliefs belong. Vsmith 00:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And what ever else religious about earth you want.
Neutral means not being on any side of a topic or despute, and scientific belief is a side, thus wikipedia, to be nuetral, must not have any religion, this also includes Scientific beliefs. And now for you Vsmith, Scientific beliefs, as it's name states, is in fact a belief, so it to should belong somewhere else, AKA, Big Bang, and any other scientific beliefs about the earth.
The article EARTH is about EARTH, not religion, so keep all religion out of the article, and if one religion (Scientific Belief) is allowed in the article, then wikipeida would no longer be neutral, but on a religious side. Scientific Belief is religion, religion is belief, and belief is bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.172.193 ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 17 May 2007
Um, I never thought I would say this (believe me), but science is not about belief. Stop calling it "scientific belief" because that's not true and you know it.
JuJube 02:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
70.130.167.7 11:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses scientific facts for things (except religon), and the creation of the earth goes with earth, and the creation theory is not considered a religion by law or by wikipedia. So so just quit. WikiDragon295 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
~WikiDragon
Exactly. WikiDragon295 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Okey, but one more thing, Vandelism. If at least a bit of religion, not effecting the article Earth, but merely it's own headline, wouldn't harm it, but may stop vandelism ralated to religion. and one thing, christians can go to Creationism, but it wouldn't tell them about earth itself, but merely the creation of earth. christians who want to know about about earth itself, can't rely on Earth because it's all scientific belief, and how can a christian or Muslim or even a Budhist rely on some other belief, even a little headline about a religion on Earth could provide believers of the religion a bit of reliablity, and a christian or muslim might have a hard time coming to something that only has the scientific idealistic side of that something, and it could also push them to Vandelism. No one or so headline/s could harm the value of an article, it could only be nuetral or positive.
If anyone wants to reply to this discussion, then please, please reply. all opinions are appreciated and valuable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.167.7 ( talk • contribs)
It is my "belief" that Christianity is all a load of bollocks from a fictional book. Andy86 16:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Science is not a "religion". Science is a method for studying the universe and building usable models based on VERIFIABLE FACTS AND EVIDENCE. Religion is about myths and traditions. Religious principles only hold true for the people who believe in them. Scientific facts still hold true regardless of what your religion is.
A small mention of how various human cultures have related to the planet through myths and legends, including Creationism (which despite posing as one is not a scientific theory, but a religious belief, and for many a political agenda) is appropriate and important. This article should definitely briefly mention and then link to the various ways religious traditions - ALL OF THEM, NOT JUST CHRISTIANITY - have placed importance and symbolism on our planet.
But elevating mythical claims, like that the ancient Hebrew storm god Yahweh created the planet, or that the earth is six thousand years old, to the same level as reputable data is NOT neutrality. It does nothing less than make the article inaccurate, unscientific, biased and useless to anyone looking for accurate information. If I wanted to learn about Christian or Jewish creation mythology I would search for it in the appropriate articles concerned with their religions, belief systems and political agendas ("creationism", "Genesis", etc.)
Neutrality does NOT mean "all viewpoints get equal time, no matter how preposterous or lacking in evidence". Rglong 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This and the article above are pretty much one discussion headline, would that make this the largest discussion in wikipedia? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikro ( talk • contribs)
well, at least Earth needs changes is the largest on Talk:Earth, even without this discussion right here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikro ( talk • contribs)
i don't know how to use this discussion or anything so someone will have to fix/delete this but isn't "continental drift" involving the tectonic plates just a Theory, while the article implies it to be fact. i believe it myself but it would be wrong to state it as a fact —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.134.229.98 ( talk) 08:13, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Just say that the Earth was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.45.90 ( talk) 09:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want the Earth article to include christian beliefs then for neutralitys sake you must also add the beliefs of every single religion on earth which would result in a size with which you can fill an entire book. And these beliefs would also include scientology and the belief that earth is a computer-simulated object in a computer-simulated Universe and the belief that earth was created by extraterrestrial aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.233.190 ( talk) 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem adding Christian beliefs to this article... As long as you also add the other fun FACTS about the Earth in the Christianity section, such as how the Earth is the center of the universe, is flat, and the FACT (seen as one user put it in the MUSEUM OF FACTS!!! (i.e. the Creation Museum)) that it is only 6000-something years old. On a serious note now, and I say this before I have read the rest of the article, just put a link somewhere to other beliefs about the way the Earth formed.... However if I could just go back tothe person who said "there's a whole museum of FACTS, the Creation Museum... now try and say they're not facts!!" than Mr whoever you are please stop reading if you believe in things such as that, then reason will never reach you. Also other people make valid points... For example, whoever said this is English wikipedia and should therefore show American statistics on Christians.... It's called ENGLISH as in ENGLAND not AMERICANISH as in AMERICA. Whoever it was that said if Christianty and its beliefs goes in here than every single other religion goes in here... That is also true. I believe (I'm probably wrong) but aren't there more Muslims than there are Christians? And finally if ever Christian beliefs do go in here, for the sake of neutrality please remember to include my beliefs as a pastafarian. It wouldn't be fair otherwise.~~ Healyhatman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.110.251 ( talk) 12:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this has been said already, but I've been following this discussion for ages, I love it, everyone's so passionate... anyway, I think it's important to note the use of “Scientific evidence indicates” and similar phrases. No-one is trying to impose their school of thought onto anyone. This standard seems to be upheld throughout most of Wikipedia, save some areas that need cleaning up. Don't get me wrong it's really interesting to know about all the viewpoints in the world, but that's why we have Style and Sectioning etc, is it not? The stance taken by people wanting every article to drive home a religious viewpoint (particularly in the article's lead paragraph) is inflammatory and IMHO petulant. On another ragga tip, my favourite thing about Wikipedia is that its never a finished product, so don't immediately get hot-headed if what you think should be included isn't: we're all responsible for what makes it in to here and there are reliable people keeping it all in check. Wikipedia does not exist to propagate singular or hand-picked agendas.-- HeyImDan ( Talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall a rectangular map of the earth posted on wiki, of approximately those dimensions. Does anybody have a link to it they can share? 24.205.34.217 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Human Viewpoint needs a change of name. Human Viewpoint makes me imagine a View of earth, not beliefs and religious point of views. A suitable name should be choosen, something like Other Beliefs, or Human Beliefs, something that sounds more like a headline on the religious side of EARTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikro ( talk • contribs)
If Earth is the name of the planet, why does the article use the colloquial name "the Earth" throughout? The articles on Mars and Venus don't talk about "the Mars" and "the Venus". In fact, the articles on Mars and Venus refer to Earth (and this article) as "Earth", not "the Earth". — Runtime 20:00, 25 May 25 2007 (UTC)
§→ Nikro 15:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah this age-old debate...we've had it before. The conclusion that we eventually reached was that 'The Earth' is the correct usage for this partiuclar context. (It goes against my own grammatical judgement, but that doesn't matter.) You can consult the Wikipedia Manual of Style where the final rule that we reached is clarified. Tanzeel 16:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
CalRis 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC): In the fact box it says that Earth's "escape velocity" is 11.186 km/s or 39,600 km/h. The last value seems to be wrong as 11.186 km/s x 60 seconds x 60 minutes equals 40,269.6 km/h, or am I wrong? Bye, CalRis.
Should other possibilities of the Earth's future be added? I mean, other than the Sun becoming a Red Giant? Like, an asteroid collision thing? Or just the Ice Age that scientists are predicting in a few thousand years? Spark Moon 04:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is this in American English, and not British English. Just wondering... Juckum 12:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
<De-indent> I really think that where international standards exist we should use them, regardless of the dialect used in the rest of the article. For example, look at all the trouble that has been saved at Aluminium (not Aluminum), Caesium (not Cesium) and Sulfur (not Sulphur) by many editors agreeing to use the IUPAC's recommended spellings. The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures is the relevant organisation here, and they use metre (as does Wikipedia's article). Apart from that, I think the policy is to use the spelling of the oldest consistent, non-stub version of the article. I had a quick look through some of the older versions, and could not see any words which are different in different dialects. I don't know whether anyone else wants to track some down...? Bistromathic 14:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The future section which talks about the destruction and inhabitability of Earth talks about time frames such as 9,000,000 years and 5,000,000,000 years until Earth could become, well, not livable and destroyed. One of the fundamental reasons for thinking about the destruction of the Earth is that humans need it to live and %100 of the people reading it will be human, so the ability for humans to live on Earth when it's destruction comes seems paramount to the future of the Earth section and relates to %100 percent of the readers of this article. The problem is that it talks about these massive numbers, 900 million years and 5 billion years until the Sun will blow up and such, but it doesn't give a contrast on what that could mean to the dominant species of the planet, us humans. I thought it would be a good idea to add that the destruction of the Earth in 5 billion years will have little bearing on humans as we know them today, because humans will in all probability not exist in 5 billion years time. Humans and human forms as we know them have only been around for about 130,000 years, so it is inconceivable that humans will not be extinct or have evolved into something else completely in 5 billion years time. Humans being the dominant species on Earth and humanity being of primary interest to this articles human readers, it makes absolute sense to add this to the end of the Future section. There are many scientific journals and articles out there that can source the claims about the fate of human (h. sapian) kind in 5 billion years time, so sourcing isn't a problem, I just want to know if anyone has a good idea of how to word this. JayKeaton 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The orbital distance under the Orbit and rotation head, last paragraph are off a factor 100. The numbers in the fact box are correct: Earth orbits at 150Gm, not 1.5Gm.
Oh, of course the distance in miles needs the same revision, sorry for not explicitly noting this. I assumed it logical.
I came to this page looking for the age of the earth and information about how it was created. Am I missing it? Religious theories are mentioned and linked, but not actual ones? ~ Strathmeyer 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Where does the name "Earth" come from? -- Antonio.sierra 04:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a suggestion with regards to this snippet.
Many localized areas are subject to human-made pollution of the air and water, acid rain and toxic substances, loss of vegetation (overgrazing, deforestation, desertification), loss of wildlife, species extinction, soil degradation, soil depletion, erosion, and introduction of invasive species. Human activities are also producing long-term climate alteration due to industrial carbon dioxide emissions. This is expected to produce changes such as the melting of glaciers and Arctic ice, more extreme temperatures, significant changes in weather conditions and a global rise in average sea levels. [22]
I understand that Global Warming is a hot topic at the moment, but why does it need to take up 2/3 of the human-caused hazards part in a brief summary of Hazards? In my opinion you wouldn't need more than a blurb about GW in the list of other destruction humans cause, in fact, it would really be a subcategory of pollution of the air and water. Alternatively, since the first sentence is talking about localized hazards, we could make a jump to global hazards like so:
Many localized areas are subject to human-made pollution of the air and water, acid rain and toxic substances, loss of vegetation (overgrazing, deforestation, desertification), loss of wildlife, species extinction, soil degradation, soil depletion, erosion, and introduction of invasive species. On a global level, human activity has been linked to an overall warming of the earth's climate [23].
What are your thoughts? And Please, I don't want to get involved in a discussion about Global Warming.
-- Popoi 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the lead was changed to the following:
However the assertions about an official IAU name are unsourced, so it needs a valid citation. Otherwise I'm not sure I see a valid need to place such an emphasis on the latin name of the planet. (See WP:MoS#Foreign_terms.) — RJH ( talk) 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
From the opening:
How is the word "myriad" being used here? If it's an adjective then this is the correct usage. If it's being used as a noun then it should be:
The addition of the template showing "Earth" as the "Person of the Year" seems to be an invalid addition. The TIME magazine gives the meaning of you as people:
BBC gives the interpretation as:
That has absolutely nothing to do with the planet Earth; it is about people, as is appropriate to the award name. So the template appears inappropriate and I have reverted it. — RJH ( talk) 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I received this email request and decided to unprotect the article 4 days ahead of the expiry to allow this person to edit:
My astronomy is sufficiently rusty that I didn't want to make the edit myself. Martin 10:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn’t the article on Earth explain why its named Earth? Like where that name came from and other names for it. -- DB Explorer 01:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm growing a little dubious about the supposed accuracy of the orbital elements on this page. For example, Bretagnon (1974) gives a=1.000000968 A.U. (See Tableau 1.) Yoder (1995) only gives a=1.00000011; the same value as on NASA's " Earth fact sheet".
Does anybody know where the orbital elements on this page came from? I'd like to cite them with the "orbit_ref" parameter in the infobox. Even if we have a reference, they vary over time, [26] so I'm not sure they should be listed to such a degree of accuracy. — RJH ( talk) 17:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Surface area: 510,065,600 km²
Land area: 148,939,100 km² (29.2 %)
Water area: 361,126,400 km² (70.8 %)
My poor maths skills tell me those numbers don't add up? I call massive worldwide governmental conspiricy coverup for that missing 100 km² :)
Seriously though, they don't add up, so which number is wrong?
I also noticed this error...I did some internet research and fixed the problem...and properly referenced it. The table breaks down the areas of each of the oceans, so it makes a bit more sense as to where the numbers are coming from. — Kevin K 26 November 2007
I would like to know if it is possible that the earth formed Thousands of years ago by material that was billions of years old —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.245.60.229 ( talk) 19:38, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Jorge Ianis 03:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC) This very important article is for ilustration not for religous preaching, there are other places for theological discussions, please let people who loves knowledge alone.
My edition is at the following sentence:
"The Earth's axis of rotation is tilted 23.5°[8] away from the perpendicular to its orbital plane, "
it should be: 23.4393º[8]
Reference: 8: SOME ASTRONOMICAL AND PHYSICAL DATA, at Observer's Handbook 1999; The Royal Astronomical Society. And many others.
Jorge Jorge Ianis 03:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently took a test asking how many planets are named after a Greek or Roman God, after reading through this I am still not sure. Can someone clarify?
Mercury is Roman, as are Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (if your test was old). This article says that Earth is referred to as both Terra and Gaia. · AndonicO Talk 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following sentence since it is not supported by a relevant citation: "Specifically, for Earth's oceans, the lower temperatures in the crust will permit water to leak more deeply into the planet than it does today." The citation that follows it is to a seven-year-old BBC news article [27], and it refers only to evaporation, not leakage into the crust. GrahamN 14:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"The planet formed about 4.57 billion years" - This takes the scientific opinion as fact, thus giving
Bias to the scientific view, when alternate views exist.
Consider "Scientists estimate that the Earth was formed about 4.57 billion years".
StuartDD (
t •
c ) 15:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
No one can prove, using the Scientific Method, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. No one was around to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.108.186 ( talk) 12:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I just moved a couple of sentences from the intro to Earth#Atmosphere. Here's the stuff I moved:
I deleted one thing: and other abiotic conditions on the planet. It wasn't referenced. User:RJHall put the material back in the intro, saying the intro needs to stand alone. I don't think the intro is bad as it is now, it just seems that the level of detail in the part I moved is a little excessive. I also think some stuff from later in the intro should be moved or deleted. For example, Later, asteroid impacts caused significant changes to the surface environment seems out of place, and it is not referenced.
I won't remove anything else from the intro without discussion. So? Rracecarr 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
the earth is not round but ovil and is the center of the univers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoobe ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Technicaly, if the universe is infinately big, then the earth would be the center because it is at an equal distance away from every edge of the infinately large universe! lol :P But yeah, it'd be silly to write that. Also, that sign bot doesn't give you a second does it! I realised I forgot to sign and then as I was saving it, it said that someon has edited the page after me. so I checked and the sign bot had been signing for me! lol, well it's good to have (just incase I totaly forgot to sign!) -- Stikman 14:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Two values have recently been here for the mean radius.
This is the average (3D) radius: avg meridional radius ≈ 6367.447 ≈ [.5*(a^2+b^2)]^.5; equatorial radius = 6378.137 = [.5*(a^2+a^2)]^.5; avg 3D radius/arcradius ≈ 6372.797 ≈ [.25*(3a^2+b^2)]^.5; ("6,371.01" is the approximate "authalic" (surface) area radius)
Can we get a more verbose explanation of the new value, please? I am sorely tempted to restore the old value unless there are some compelling arguments for the new one. Deuar 11:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
10 RF=#Pi/180:IO=10^100 100 a=6378.137:b=6356.752:Oe=acos(b/a) 1000 TN=0:AP_a=0:TL_a=0:VR=0:VO=0:VP=0 1010 TN=TN+1:AP=90*RND*RF:TL=90*RND*RF:LT=.LT(AP,TL):Az=.Az(AP,TL) 1020 TL_a=TL_a*(TN-1)/TN+TL/TN:AP_a=AP_a*(TN-1)/TN+AP/TN:VR=VR*(TN-1)/TN+.R(LT)/TN:VO=VO*(TN-1)/TN+.Oz(Az,LT)/TN:VP=VP*(TN-1)/TN+.P(Az,LT)/TN 2000 If Int(TN/100000)=TN/100000 Then?TN;Using(,3),AP_a/RF;TL_a/RF,Using(,7),VR,VO,VP 2010 GoTo 1010 9999 End 60000.np(LT):Return(1/(cos(Oe)^2+(cos(LT)*sin(Oe))^2)^0.5) 60010.M(LT):Return(a*cos(Oe)^2*.np(LT)^3) 60020.N(LT):Return(a*.np(LT)) 60030.Oz(Az,LT):Return(((.M(LT)*cos(Az))^2+(.N(LT)*sin(Az))^2)^0.5) 60040.P(Az,LT):Return(.Oz(Az,LT)^2/(.M(LT)*cos(Az)^2+.N(LT)*sin(Az)^2)) 60050.R(LT):Return((((a^2*cos(LT))^2+(b^2*sin(LT))^2)/((a*cos(LT))^2+(b*sin(LT))^2))^.5) 60100.LT(AP,TL):Return(atan(IO*cos(AP)*sin(TL)/(IO*(cos(TL)^2+(sin(AP)*sin(TL))^2)^0.5+1))) 60200.Az(AP,TL):Return(atan(IO*sin(AP)*(IO/(IO*cos(.LT(AP,TL))+1))/(IO*(1-(IO*sin(AP)/(IO*(cos(.LT(AP,TL)))+1))^2)^0.5+1))))) ---------------------------------------------------------- TN Radius Arcradius Rad. of Curv 100 43.732 46.468 6372.1430086 6374.0377755 6374.0458938 1000 43.490 44.864 6372.6288801 6372.4905336 6372.4992895 10000 44.967 44.399 6372.8983554 6372.5030411 6372.5120728 100000 45.040 44.853 6372.8362600 6372.7429106 6372.7518904 1000000 44.975 44.982 6372.8107809 6372.7897606 6372.7987262 25000000 44.998 45.005 6372.8089513 6372.8069121 6372.8158831 26000000 44.997 45.003 6372.8091890 6372.8057722 6372.8147439 27000000 44.997 45.002 6372.8093739 6372.8049196 6372.8138913 28000000 44.999 45.001 6372.8098107 6372.8048157 6372.8137876 29000000 45.001 45.001 6372.8100828 6372.8049950 6372.8139668 30000000 45.001 44.999 6372.8101686 6372.8047085 6372.8136806 35000000 45.003 44.998 6372.8106931 6372.8044417 6372.8134140
TN Great-ellipse Geodetic | Great-ellipse Geodetic ----- ------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ 10 6377.3552412 6377.3499023 | 6372.2393942 6372.2288356 50 6371.1268091 6371.1240155 | 6369.2562518 6369.2348326 100 6370.9095822 6370.9075567 | 6370.8787701 6370.8663407 500 6372.3378461 6372.3356314 | 6372.3400535 6372.3197614 1000 6372.2713239 6372.2688892 | 6372.6258601 6372.6055899 5000 6372.2001029 6372.1975977 | 6372.8110708 6372.7899544 10000 6372.2673216 6372.2647367 | 6372.9078181 6372.8867079 20000 6372.1645898 6372.1618996 | 6372.8435400 6372.8225587 30000 6372.1234538 6372.1207377 | 6372.8486510 6372.8288874 40000 6372.0945988 6372.0919012 | 6372.8614164 6372.8421600 50000 6372.1049516 6372.1022504 | 6372.8462601 6372.8265046
Does anyone have information on what the radius would be of sphere with the same surface (instead of volume) as the WGS84 reference ellipsoid? This would be most useful to calculate distances on the surface from their coordinates. − Woodstone 18:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please change the spelling of Aluminum to the internationally accepted Aluminium (see spelling debate at that article). I can't make the change becuase this article has been SP for a stupidly long period. Thanks. 82.27.238.134 10:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The decision was reached back in '04-'05 to use IUPAC spelling of aluminium, sulfur and caesium to stop the seemingly unending spelling wars. Vsmith 01:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No one seems to agree with me, and it's not an important point, so I'm dropping it. I think the policy of using aluminium everywhere in deference to IUPAC is misguided, (see above--not even the scientific community follows this convention) and moreover it is certainly not applied consistently here on Wiki (hundreds of pages link to "aluminum"). Further, the spelling aluminium is incorrect in American English as far as I know (at least the spell checker in my version of Mozilla Firefox highlights it as a misspelling). But I'm shutting up now. Rracecarr 19:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Would it be redundant or unnecessary to instead say "Earth is the only place in the universe known by humans to harbor life"? Giamgiam 00:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think adding the 'by humans' would suggest that there are other species known which would have more knowledge. Seems a bit self-contradictory.
Wild Wizard 08:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it really true that Earth is the only place in the universe to harbor life? What about space stations? It seems like a minor point; but we might as well get it correct. -- Rmrfstar 01:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed the following - appears to be simply a promotion of a "religious view". A simple one-liner would seem adequate in the cultural section, seems there is a ref to Gaia already. The article is already too long.
Please discuss here. Vsmith 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I find it important to include into the article an idea of Earth being a living energy entity. This idea is obviously consonant with the mythological and religious views of most of the ancient cultures, providing a synthesis of their approaches, while being framed into a language compatible to esoteric and modern time ESP related viewpoints. It being not adequately verifiable by contemporary official science and/or not coinciding with the private views of Mr. Vsmith is not a reason enough for its demotion and dumping, IMHO.
I take the liberty to restore the first para, while having replaced the second one (Astrological Importance) with a single short reference. I'm also removing the individual sub-section (though personally I believe this info deserves such a sub-section) and include a single remaining para into the Cultural section, lest to make the article too long.
Regards, NazarK 10:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding recent renaming of the "oblateness" parameter in the infobox to "flattening" and back. If you have a look at flattening and oblate spheroid (which is linked to from the oblateness field), it becomes clear that the two terms "oblateness" and "flattening" are synonymous. As to which one should be used, there are at least two arguments that support "flattening":
On the basis of these, "flattening" is preferable on the whole. Deuar 10:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
i was watching a old episode of the show QI the other day, and i heard that earth has a second moon that only appears every few hundred years, is this information correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanhalenrulesforever ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is protected (argh!), but there appears to be some vandalism on it:
{{start box}} {{succession box| title=[[Person of the Year|Time's Planet of the Year (Endangered Earth)]]| before=[[Mikhail Gorbachev]]| after=Mikhail Gorbachev| years=1988| }} {{end box}}
really ought not to be at the bottom of the page as it's quite silly.
Out of curiosity, how many people have blanked the article and written "Harmless" or "Mostly harmless" in its place?-- Tomoko4004 01:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently a couple of editors have taken offense to this image and have tried on a few occasions to have it removed. I don't have any particular preference in this regard, but I would like to know what the consensus is before it gets permanently removed. So what do you think: keep it or lose it? Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, I think we need some type of image in there to contrast the current Sun with its red giant stage. The following may do the job:
What does everybody think? — RJH ( talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I see it as an artist's interpretation which, assuming it is factually correct, doesn't offer much information and can send the wrong message. The image of a star's life-cycle presents the same information and more, while maintaining a NPOV. Supporting deletion and replacement. -- Lambyte ( talk) 01:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has been indef semi-protected per my request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It has previously been protected (non-indef) many times before. If anyone feels that the article needs to be unprotected in the future please feel free to post on this talk page or over at RfPP. My rational for this protect was/will always be heavy IP vandalism, as this article is very high profile. Hope this gives everyone who watches this article a break. Cheers — Cronholm 144 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The page states there is only one Moon, the Moon, for Earth. However, there is the second moon Curithne TTRP ( talk) 19:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help))
Nihiltres{
t.
l} 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have new content but I am not able to add it to this page as I am a new member. Will you please add it for me? Here it is... The word Earth comes to the English language from the Norse goddess known as Hertha or Nerthus. Roman consul and historian, Tacitus, wrote an account in the year 98, of a north German deity variously named Ertha, Hertha, Nerthus, or Mother Earth. The name also appears in the Viking sagas, written down about a thousand years after Tacitus (about the year 1190). The German name Bertha may owe its origin to this goddess of myth and fertility. Historically, we named planets after Roman or Greek gods. But the Earth is the only planet named from Norse mythology, Hertha, the goddess who ruled the very stuff the planet is made of. Hertha also was goddess of the home, and the legend goes that as smoke rose up from the fireplace it was said to be her spirit, thus the word hearth. In old Teutonic languages, the word hearth means "the ground beneath your feet." Hearth shares a common root in Old English with the word heart.
Eric Kasum Scubeesnax ( talk) 15:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC) PS - This is much more accurate than the current info. I also to not yet know how to quote references, but just do a search on google.com for "hertha" "Norse" "Saga" or "Tacitus" "Hertha"
THE VERY WORD ERTHA comes from Lithuanian language and means the soil ('dirva'=a soil, 'arta'=to plough, and 'plugas'=a plough comes from 'plaukt'=to swim) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.173.120 ( talk) 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The Earth rotates 366.26 times but this equals 365.26 days? Can anyone explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.153.189 ( talk • contribs) 6 December 2007 15:56
This article has been indef semi-protected per my request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It has previously been protected (non-indef) many times before. If anyone feels that the article needs to be unprotected in the future please feel free to post on this talk page or over at RfPP. My rational for this protect was/will always be heavy IP vandalism, as this article is very high profile. Hope this gives everyone who watches this article a break. Cheers — Cronholm 144 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The page states there is only one Moon, the Moon, for Earth. However, there is the second moon Curithne TTRP ( talk) 19:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help))
Nihiltres{
t.
l} 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)I went went round the Earth recently. It's a nice place for a holiday but I wouldn't want to live there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyTheCat ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how exactly Wikipedia of all places has an article on earth without once mentioning the phrase "Mostly Harmless"! -- Xshare ( talk) 07:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"Home to millions of species including humans, Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist."
Surely it's merely the only place in the universe where humans know life exists? Or am I just being silly and pedantic? Martin ( talk) 03:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree... it sounds rather weird to say "the only place in the universe where life is known to exist".Saimdusan 07:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimdusan ( talk • contribs)
I disagree... I also don't understand why it is so hard to... understand... what the sentence is saying. Only place in the universe where life is KNOWN to exist. I put the emphasis on the KNOWN for effect. Of course you could say "well, the aliens KNOW they exist, therefore humans are the ones who don't know therefore the sentence is wrong" which would be a bit on the stupid side. This is an english encyclopedia about the knowledge of HUMANS on earth. If you want to get into the topic of what aliens know about themselves it's probably time to start your own wiki. In summary you ARE being silly and pedantic. It's like the schrodengers (I know I spelt it wrong, meh) cat. We say it exists AND doesn't exist because WE don't know... But surely the cat knows? But of course the point is moot - the cat is just a cat, and if we don't know then it doesn't count so much. Which I always thought was stupid but there you have it. -- Healyhatman ( talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I find that the expression of the Sidereal rotation period values is a bit confusing because they are quite different values, with roughly 1 second offset between them. Since the units are also different, the reader may wrongly assume they're numerically equivalent despite the the footnote link for the second one. I can't tell which one is more realiable but it would be more clear if both values were expressed in the same units.
Peace for everyone on Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.38.227 ( talk) 16:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
in this article it states that earth was formed 4.54 billion years ago and it states it as scientific fact but this has not been proved i think it should be changed to say that it is an oppinion and then should state the other oppinions about the forming of the earth like creationism and evolution and so on it shouldn't be a whole thing of creationism vs. evolution because that would belong in a seperate article it just shouldn't pass the big bang theory off as reasoned fact Charlieh7337 ( talk) 06:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ha! I came here and I was worried when I saw all the changes that there wouldn't be some nutjob (sorry) banging on about Young Earth Creationisms "theories" and how this page is an evil atheist conspiracy to lie to the children. Okay the comment isn't that bad above but still here goes... This is an encyclopedia. As in knowledge and whatnot. SCIENTIFIC knowledge, which is the kind that can be tested, verified, falsified and whatnot, is the kind we should be dealing with. You say that creationism should get its day in the page - you're wrong. Creationism has its own section dealing with what they "think" happened. If you wanted to apply Christian dogmatic and religious views on the formation of the earth to this page you would have an instant horde of thousands upon thousands of religions clamouring for their beliefs to be added as well. The point is none of it matters - they have their own section where they have their myths detailed, it doesn't need to appear on the main page of our planet.
Also, you say "should state the other opinions about the forming of the earth like creationism and evolution". I'm not sure if you know what evolution is, maybe you should hit up the evolution page? Evolution is NOT (repeat NOT) a theory concerning the formation of the Earth. It's the theory of the origin of species and as such is independant of the planet or other environment on which it is applied. So putting the "evolution" point of view of the creation of the earth on this page is useless because evolution doesn't HAVE a point of view on the topic, save that 6000 years is nowhere near enough time for the species to have evolved to their current states.-- Healyhatman ( talk) 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the previous comment, that SCIENTIFIC knowledge is that which can be "tested, verified, falsified and whatnot". Unfortunately, the theory that the Earth came into being some billions of years ago can NOT be "tested, verified" with any real accuracy, while they can be "falsified and whatnot". The "Scientific Consensus" mentioned earlier in this article in no way constitutes acceptable experimental proof that the Earth is billions of years old. As one Creationist put it, the phrase "billions of years ago" means essentially the same as "once upon a time...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.9.133 ( talk) 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to propose changing the wording of the "This article is about..." lead sentence to the following:
This would have the benefit of making the purpose of the article clearer, so that it will not be confused with a particular cultural or religious bias (as seems to happen here). Does this make sense?— RJH ( talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The following addition has been inserted at the top:
I'm not sure this is really necessary. Earth (classical element) is already linked from Earth (disambiguation), so that part is redundant. Should the Han character "土" simply be redirected to Earth (classical element)?— RJH ( talk) 17:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"Scientific evidence suggests that the earth is around 4.54billion years old" What evidence? It would be nice to have this in the article. Thanks George bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.60.208 ( talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
A while ago I wrote a 3D Earth program to show the day and night view of the Earth with animated latest 24 hours global cloud. It shows mountain shadows and 3D clouds to provide a better 3D effect. The day/night shading shows three different shadings, daylight, twilight and night so you can see clearly which part of the Earth is currently at sunset, sunrise etc... Different satellite views of the Earth are used for each month. The date/time can be changed to see the view of the Earth at different times. The country under the cursor is highlighted to show associated states and islands. Sunrise/sunset and first/last light times (and magnetic variation) are calculated for the cursor position. I'm currently adding location based timezone information so you can see local time at any place under your cursor.
I think this program shows a very nice view of the Earth, as it would be seen from outer space, while providing useful interactive features.
The program if free to use. It is written in Java (1.5+) so it can run on most platforms but it does require a 3D graphics card. It runs as an unsigned applet in a web page (even on iGoogle) as well as a desktop application.
You are free to link to it. I don't think it is appropriate to add the link myself, someone else should evaluate and decide whether the link should be added.
Regards, Sapphireman ( talk) 02:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, Gaia has only become a synonym for Earth since Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis became popular in 1979, and that only really applies to the planet Earth in a very specific context. "Terra" is the name of the Earth in Latin, and obviously use of Latin in scientific writing post-dates the realization that Earth is a planet, but I've never heard it in common use outside certain science fiction contexts. Using "Terra" in English might be a bit misleading because "Terra" is the name of Earth in several Romance languages. Serendipod ous 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
While the sphere is beautiful no matter how you view it, does anyone prefer Image:Earth Eastern Hemisphere.jpg to the one we have now? It's centered on India, and it seems to more richly emphasize the blue. Our current ( Image:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg) seems to emphasize the white. I genuinely prefer the former. Marskell ( talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sun is on one of the focus of Earth's elliptical orbit. Is this mentioned in the article (i cannot find it, though I saw that Earth is at a barycenter of Moon's orbit) 198.62.10.11 ( talk) 08:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Article says, "...as the formation of the ozone layer which, together with Earth's magnetic field, blocks harmful radiation, permitting life on land." What is the proof that ozone is necessary for life or life cannot sustain in presence of "harmful" radiation. Why wouldn't Life have sustained and evolved even in the absense of ozone or even oxygen. This statement should be removed or proper reference should be attributed. 198.62.10.11 ( talk) 12:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the next link is spam:
what are the names given to the bumps and hollows of the earths surface—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.60.119 ( talk • contribs)
/ˈɜrθ/ and not /əːθ/ or /ɚːθ/? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.120.67 ( talk) 23:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
See for example dictionary.com. you may have to click the small "IPA" button to see it. − Woodstone ( talk) 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
For that reason a small group of editors with experience in IPA has setup the page help:pronunciation. As is clearly stated there it is on purpose a rather broad phonemic transcription ignoring minor differences between the various English dialects. It is based on the most common ways used in practice. The page Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) referenced from WP:MOS states as guideline to use that transcription. It is a way to obtain reasonable consistency in the use of IPA for English in WP. Especially it uses /r/ after a vowel, even though in US it rhotacizes the vowel, and UK only lenghtens it. If you insist on a reference, you can use dictionary.com. Said help page is especially for English. There is the page help:IPA for international use. − Woodstone ( talk) 19:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone just deleted Blindlynx's addition of the information that Earth has about 3000 useful artificial satellites orbiting it, and about 6000 pieces of space junk. I agree that the infobox was not the appropriate place for the fact, but I think it belongs somewhere in the article. I also think that somewhere in the article (perhaps under Earth#Surface, Earth#Modern perspective, or Earth#Exploration and mapping), the point should be made that satellites provide lots of information about conditions on the planet's surface, its gravitational field, etc. Rracecarr ( talk) 01:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The section on tectonic plates states that the aesthenosphere is the inner mantle and the lithosphere is the outermost mantle. Surely there should be some modifier explaining that both asthenosphere and lithosphere are characteristic of the upper mantle. The lower mantle is completely different. As a side note, semi-fluid or plastic seems more appropriate for describing the texture of the asthenosphere than viscous liquid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.75.37 ( talk) 05:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to suggest replacing the B&W picture (option 1) with a coloured one (option 2. Also, the angle from where the picture was taken is wrong, if you check the original photo from NASA, you will notice that the spaceship was moving towards the left side of the Moon.
Original photo:
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2001-000009.jpg
Therefore, I propose to vote for one of the pictures bellow:
Current photo: |
|
Proposed photo: |
Cheers,
--
Mhsb (
talk) 02:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The following entry lacks a citation:
It was inserted in the lead, but belongs in the body.— RJH ( talk) 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This phrase is highly subjective and should be removed.DvH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.88.14.230 ( talk) 03:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This should be changed, now. The planet is the only known planet with life known to /humans/. If there is life on another planet somewhere, they would certainly know it. I would change it but for some reason it's locked. 71.105.113.251 ( talk) 06:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(Left adjusting) Perhaps I am missing your point. Here is the current wording and your proposed statement, slightly re-written for flow:
They seem to be logically identical, assuming that by "other places" you mean the "universe".— RJH ( talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Mhsb ( talk) 10:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've now put in references to it. [34] It may seem that's too many references but people need that many references to make a dent in biases (e.g. biases against certain religions) people have on wikipedia. If you disagree with naming, then you should find as many referneces to Gaia and Terra as I put in for Teegeeack. William Ortiz ( talk) 10:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It says in the last sentence of the intro to this article that Ice ages are caused by Earth's cosmic movements. I had heard that Ice Ages were caused by the changing chemical make-up of the atmosphere. Maybe it's both. Either way, it should mention this, shouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.192.191 ( talk) 03:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Moving here for archival:
— RJH ( talk) 15:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I really question myself if it's really necessary to make significant changes to the article. The Earth article is already a featured article, do we need to make significant changes to it? -- Mhsb ( talk) 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The article says, correctly, that we have just one satellite, but then says that we have co-orbital satellites. Confusing. Saros136 ( talk) 06:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My browser loaded nearly 300 kilobytes of data (without images) for this page – an annoyance when using a dial-up connection.
Lots of interesting stuff, but the scope of the page seems excessive – more like a book than an article.
I suggest breaking it into multiple pages. I was looking for a quick reference for the size and weight of the earth. A 300 kb download wasn't a quick reference. I don't know why the history page says that the page size is less than 100 kb.
The page size seems excessive for a worldwide audience – everyone doesn't have a broadband connection. - Ac44ck ( talk) 06:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The bandwidth usage of this page seems to be in the tens of gigabytes per month, which is the same order of magnitude as other pages of similar popularity.
The page rank for February was 156 in the list here: [36]. I made a table including the five pages above and below this article in that list. The page size data is from late March, so the tablulated values probably differ somewhat from the actual bandwidth numbers for each page. The local rank in this table was determined by sorting the bandwidth values.
Month Page rank re: views | Page views | Size per Google, kb | Bandwidth for month, kb | Local rank re: bandwidth | Article |
151 | 343986 | 123 | 42310278 | 6 | Super Bowl |
152 | 342694 | 123 | 42151362 | 7 | Anime |
153 | 342455 | 105 | 35957775 | 8 | Politics |
154 | 341489 | 89 | 30392521 | 10 | Tom Petty |
155 | 340785 | 325 | 110755125 | 1 | Peyton Manning |
156 | 340029 | 276 | 93848004 | 3 | Earth *** |
157 | 338267 | 295 | 99788765 | 2 | Vietnam War |
158 | 337890 | 90 | 30410100 | 9 | Family Guy |
159 | 335570 | 80 | 26845600 | 11 | Michelle Obama |
160 | 335314 | 220 | 73769080 | 4 | American Idol |
161 | 333924 | 137 | 45747588 | 5 | List of House episodes |
The highest value for bandwidth is only about four times the lowest bandwidth value in this table. Not what I wanted to find as a dial-up user. Peace. - Ac44ck ( talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. -- Iwilleditu Talk :) Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ne1 think of adding mostly harmless to the article? As a joke ^-^ 13:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)13:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)~~
Perhaps the following message box would be appropriate for the top of this talk page?— RJH ( talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"Humorous" references to the Douglas Adams novel Mostly Harmless are inappropriate content for this article. |
I removed this addition from the article because (1) it is unsourced; (2) this is a summary-style article about the Earth, not the Moon; (3) the information is too tactical in nature and could be summarized in a single sentence; (4) the Earth article is already quite large, so the content needs to be kept tight. Sorry.
Do others feel that this should have been included? The "Human geography" section already mentions that 12 people have walked on the Moon.— RJH ( talk) 17:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I do feel something about visits to the Moon should be included. Since the section on the moon is fairly short, then it should only be a sentence or two summarizing the visits to the moon. I believe it leaves the article incomplete if we're going to have a section about the Moon and not even one word about us visiting / landing on it. Cody-7 ( talk) 19:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please add SEE ALSO link to Hollow earth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.239.219.220 ( talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
But I believe that this article should if not explicitly mention creationism, at least indirectly mention that there are alternative beliefs regarding earths origin and age. From my sources, I have learned that most scientists believe intellegent design though they do not necessarily conflict this belief with a belief in evolution and a belief in an old earth. If nothing else I will add a POV tag.-- Urban Rose 22:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are some examples of strong scientific evidence that I have that support alternate theories and/or prove that these theorys are more than just "fringe beliefs". Unfortunately I do not have links for these at the moment, and if they are nonsense I would like to know. 1. Most scientists believe in a creator, though they do not necessarily conflict this with evolution or an old earth theory. 2. Biological evidence has been found that suggests that humanity has originated from one man and one woman. 3. When astronauts landed on the moon for the first time, the level of dust found was only a fraction of what was predicted would have been found had the moon been billions of years old. These are just a few examples. What I am afraid is happening is that while strong evidence has been found to support alternative beliefs regarding earth's age and origin, it is immediately being censored by the scientific community and by Wikipedia simply because of what it supports.-- Urban Rose 23:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
|
How is adding a link to a site that explains that alternate views exist "acting disruptively" and "adding fringe beliefs to an article". And how is creating a thread expressing my views on this article "abuse of the talk page" to such an extent that even the thread is censored (and my bet is that this one will be also). It has become apparent that many of you aren't content with an article which reveals that there are alternative beliefs regarding earth's age and origin. You want an article that describes only won belief to the point that even mentioning in an entirely neutral way that other beliefs exist is censored from the article. Many, many people, and many in the scientific community hold these alternative views. They can't be described as "fringe beliefs" by anyone speaking of them in a neutral tone. They deserve a mention in some form or another but even so much as one external link isn't allowed apparently.-- Urban Rose 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
There is also the "Religious beliefs" section. I've expanded that section a little. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
From the limited reading I've done (much of which has been young-earth creationist publishings) I have been at the conclusion that there are many holes in the big bang theory and old earth theory and that the belief in that the universe was created as is and the belief that it is only several thousand years old are equally valid theories. If I have been wrong and science has recently (or not so recently) proven otherwise, I apologize. And I also recognize that it is Wikipedia's duty to report strictly what has been accepted by the scientific community, not what many people simply choose to believe in spite of the facts. I personally do believe in the big bang theory and in evolution, and am not sure right now whether I believe in a creator or not, but I previously considered based on my limited knowledge young-earth creationism to be an equally valid scientific theory. So in conclusion, I've learned something new and won't continue to try to insert people's personal beliefs into a factual article. I think that the article's header, which now contains a link to creation myths is fine and makes it known sufficiently that there are other beliefs about the earth's age and origin without getting in the way of fact.-- Urban Rose 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The header states that "For the Earth's geography, see World." However, the article includes a section called "Human geography" that includes a main article link to Human geography. To me it seems somewhat redundant to include the first message, as the two are interrelated. Should these be consolidated by instead adding World as a main article link under "Human geography" and removing the sentence from the lead?— RJH ( talk) 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Humans do not know of life to exist on any other planet but Earth.
The quote Earth is the only place where life is known to exist is not scientifically proven. How can you prove that extraterrestials do not know of some planet except for Earth in which life exists. Thus Humans only know life to exist on Earth, but other life in the Universe may no know life to exist elsewhere. Saying that life is only known to exist on Earth is faulty and erroneous because it is inductive reasoning. We cannot assume something without scientifically proving that there is no other planet that life is known to exist. Saying this automatically assumes that aliens do not exist and that has not yet been proven.
Maldek (
talk) 02:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
From the earlier discussion here, about including human knowledge in the phrasing, there was a narrow preponderance for rejection:
After this new discussion the balance is tipped:
So I will consolidate this in the article. − Woodstone ( talk) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What humans know is the underlying assumption of every statement in every article in the wiki. Do we really need to state this? Takarada ( talk) 14:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose rewording the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead to say
I think this wording reads better than the current version
This should stay here for a bit before being implemented because of the edits advocating a concern for bias against extra terrestrials (or whatever). ASHill ( talk | contribs) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Carbohydrates fill numerous roles in living things, such as the storage and transport of energy (starch, glycogen) and structural components (cellulose in plants, chitin in animals).
Scientists have observed that carbohydrates fill numerous roles in living things, such as the storage and transport of energy (starch, glycogen) and structural components (cellulose in plants, chitin in animals).
I don't understand why saying "Earth is the only place in the universe where Humans have found life" is such a big deal. It doesn't take up much space and it is more accurate. You say wikipedia is meant for humans only. That's not a good answer because where does it say that. All it says is Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. So is it then, because the person writing the article is a human so it is assumed that that it is from a human?
"Earth is the only known place where life exists" (Written by a human, therefore from a human perspective. Since humans do have proof of life elsewhere)
"Los Angeles is the only known place where life exists" (Written by an anonymous person who does not know of any life existing outside of Los Angeles. In theory this is okay to say to because it is assumed that when we say "Known" it means known by that person?
-What is consensus? Please explain this to me. What are the rules for edting? Why is it called Vandalsim for putting correct information? How do we know what is assumed? If I write something and say Los Angeles is the only known place where life exists is that okay, since it must be assumed that we are talking about me, since I edited it? How do we know? I am so confused as to these rules. How many people must agree with your revision for you to be able to edit? What are the rules? Are there any, or is it just that people will block you if they don't agree with you? If people don't agree with you and you are right is it fair to be blocked? Thank You. Maldek ( talk) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
As another proposal to help resolve the dispute, I suggest attaching a note such as the following to the statement that, "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist":
The purpose of this is to avoid modifying the sentence to a pedantic form, while still satisfying the same goals that are driving the debate. Of course there is probably a better way to word it, but I just want to see if the community is open to this approach.— RJH ( talk) 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me to be somewhat pedantic - if and when the public discovers alien life, sapient or not, I am sure Wikipedia will be updated within minutes. :). Otherwise, it's quite safe to make the assumption that "is known" refers only to humans. Saying that we need to be explicit about such a triviality seems to me somewhat like saying "In the barrel of monkeys, the monkeys are made out of plastic. They're not real monkeys." Nihiltres{ t. l} 01:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Gweneral perception about formation of earth is that primarily it was a hot planet with no life forms and everything gradually started to happen in a phased manner. However if we see that this didnt happen in case of other planets. More then often scientists try to compare the features of earth with our other neigbhouring planets. However if we see there is a very formidable difference in case of our earth and other planets. If we observe the atmosphere of other planets most of them have a very violent form of atmospheric activity. Also apart from this they dont resemble much geological activities. The nature of storms on planets like jupiter shows how furious the weather conditions can be. In comparison to them our most fierce twisters seem to be like a babies breath. When earth was formed the conditions over here were also same. But how come the nature of our earth changed from such a furious form to a calm one? The answer lies in the form of abundant water present on the earth surface. This water was inintially responsible for changing our earths atmosphere as well as it also preserved the geological activity of our planet. The presence of constant water first of all helped in the cooling down of the earths tempearture as well as removal of excess particulate material and depositing the necessary minerals back into the surface. also constant discharge of electricity helped in the formation of various gases beneficial for the survival of life on earth. as regards the geological activity if we see the constant pressure of water on the surface of earth prevented it from gradual cooling of the crust at a fast pace. This water again helped in the formation of various life forms on land and in water both. the abundance of water also points in the direction that it was not by mistake that life appeared on earth and nowhwere else in our solar system. Asim786mrt ( talk) 12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The new picture of a spinning globe is nice, but spinning way too fast. Now it's about one revolution per 2.5 seconds. Would look much better at once per 15 seconds (or more). − Woodstone ( talk) 14:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear about the detail (eg. so that
you can see that the light-blue areas represent shallower water) and so forth:
I've reduced the frame advance rate to one/sec (there are 24 frames, so that's "one hour/sec").
To get a "smooth" animation at a comparable spin rate, I'd need to have three or four times as many frames, so to keep the file size manageable I'd have to reduce the quality and/or dimensions down to that of the "original" (above).
But there does not seem to be much need for me to put much more work into this -- though I do think something incorporating a "lights at night" image would be neat, too!
Also btw
the (unanimated & "flat") NASA images are available here.
Regards,
Wikiscient 09:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it might sound absurd but the Infobox Planet for Earth should or, most probably, it must contain an information about the human population. I wanted to know what is the human population on earth and I thought I could find it at the Earth's infobox but I did not. I never thougt to look at the World population article. Only after, I found out where it is. But I think that some people that had the same question as me, have searched the info on the Earth article. Anyway, it's a good idea to do a new section at the infobox, maybe with all the three values:
Tuloc ( talk) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Placing the "Earth-related topics" infobox at the bottom has resulted in several attempts to create a redundant "See also" section. Should we:
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay here's my thinking behind that section: I agree with the concerns about having a "See also" section too cluttered with too many links and making the navigation/info box at the bottom is a good idea. The problem with that is many users won't notice that navigation box and I'm sure many users find see also sections useful. The four links I added are all articles that contain a list of a lot more articles which is kind of like putting a navigation box (but more comprehensive) into one link. I think perhaps an article could be started titled "List of Earth-related topics" or "List of basic planet Earth topics" or something like that and all those topics in the navigation box could be listed in that article plus any other topics that are Earth-related. The only problem with that is it would share a lot of the same articles in the "List of Earth science topics" but that's not such a big deal. Then we could add that new link into the see also section and it would be like putting that navigation box there as you suggested. If people like this idea I could start making that article when I have the time or anyone else that's interested could. LonelyMarble ( talk) 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, but I'd like to make sure this is a satisfactory consensus as the "other uses" section at the top is still undergoing occasional revisionism. Which of the following is preferred for the "other uses" statement?
This (1):
or (2):
{{three other uses|scientific information on the Earth|the Earth's geography|World|religious beliefs|creation myth}}
or (3):
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the "scientific information" wording is inappropriate. I, without having seen this discussion, changed the hatnote to read
In my opinion, we should not present more than this in the hatnote. If "scientific" refers to the
natural sciences, then it is factually inaccurate as the "Cultural viewpoint" section and parts of the "Human geography" section refer not to natural sciences, but to
social sciences. If "scientific" refers to the union of both
hard and
soft sciences, then it refers primarily to academic work and is redundant given that as Wikipedia is meant to be
verifiable, the article should be using academic sources regardless.
I am similarly concerned that the wording is being used as a subtle
disclaimer against creationists; while they are certainly annoying in multiple ways (the real concern being POV-pushing), this is not an excuse to include something in the article as a deterrent. Problematic additions can be reverted, and the authors of such additions educated about our
neutral point of view. The neutral point of view issue is another problem that I have with the current wording of the hatnote. While I am agnostic and oppose dogma, it is equally important for the sake of NPOV that we not push our own views. It occurs to me that presenting the article as being composed of "scientific information" at very least implies a particular, science-favouring point of view – should not such implications be avoided?
Nihiltres{
t.
l} 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A little ORBITAL CHARACTERISTICS addition for us simple people ? We're also orbiting Sol at 66,622.17 mph . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFSLAKES1 ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Under Physical Characteristics the Earth's density is given as 5.5153 g/cm³. But right above it the mass is given as 5.9736 and the volume as 1.0832073 in the appropriate units. Given that 5.9736/1.0832073 = 5.5147, how was 5.5153 determined and why is it different? It's not a big difference, but I don't see why there should be any difference. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 04:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The source for "The mean height of land above sea level is 686 m" is an 1892 article, which cites its source as an 1888 article. An estimate I've seen in various places is 840 m, anyone have a trustworthy (and relatively recent) source for this quantity? -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 05:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I am a little confused as to what the information on this article and the Earth article says about the end of life on Earth. It says that in 900 million years all plants on Earth will die and in an additional 1 billion years all of the water on Earth will evaporate. Does this mean that in 1.9 billion years the Earth's ocean will evaporate? It is confusing because the sources say in 1 billion years the Earth's oceans will evaporate but the article says a billion years later, meaning 1 billion years after 900 million years the oceans will evaporate. So is it 1 billion years or 1.9 billion years that the Oceans will evaporate? Another thing is that it says also that in only 500 million years all life on Earth will die but this contradicts the place where it says that in 900 million years all plants will die and millions of years later on animals will die. I am so confused by these contradictions. Please help clarify this for me.Maldek (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Maldek ( talk) 01:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The Sun is 4.57 billion years old and will spend 10 billion years as a Main Sequence Star before it becomes a Red Giant. Is it okay to change 5 billion years to a more accurate 5.43 billion years? Thank You. Maldek ( talk) 04:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Who is the moron that wrote "At present, Earth orbits the Sun once for every roughly 366.26 times it rotates about its axis." ?
The earth does absolutely not orbit around the sun each 366.26 days, it is 365. I edited the page, but someone removed my entry and blocked me from editing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven Alexis De Varennes ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
In the first part of the "Earth" article it is stated that life on the planet began some one billion yrs ago. It is not true and, moreover, it is inconsistent with the info given in the same article below (about the first ancestor of all living organisms on the planet). One should keep in mind at least oldest stromatolites etc. or, maybe, oldest remnants of (suggested) bacteria...
I am sorry for this mistake - indeed, the statement is correct. (TM)
It is not true that first multicellular organisms appeared in Cambrian! At least, the pre-Cambrian Ediacara fauna should be taken into account. As far as I remember, the "Cambrian explosion" is partly an illusion: a phenomenon caused by the fact that in Cambrian many animals started to produce carbonate skeletons, making them much more likely to be preserved as fossils. Cambrian absolutely not the begin of multicellular neither tissue-built animals (Eumetazoa).
Tomasz Mardal, Poland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.77.246 ( talk) 10:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
IMO, the Precambrian multicellular, specialized forms of life (incl. the Ediacara fauna) should be at least shortly mentioned - without those the (brief) story of life on Earth seems to be misleading (the same regards oldest stromatolites). The statement that "the Cambrian explosion, when multicellular life forms began to proliferate" seems to be really not perfect, or doubtful, if one takes into account that numerous Ediacara fossils are supposed to precede several Cambrian animal groups evolutionally. I think it can't be definitely stated that the Late Precambrian Eumetazoa did not proliferate. (TM)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.7.109 ( talk • contribs)
I understand your point, but it is possible to avoid the doubtful sentence regarding the Cambrian explosion and the "proliferation" then without making the text much longer. At the moment, the text is misleading. The "summary type" of the text should not substantiate its such disadvantages. I am also of the opinion, that the spectacular and widely found Ediacara fauna could be (very briefly) addressed.
May I also suggest to add (very brief) info on the oldest Earth rocks known and oldest minerals (I gess, zircons preserved unchanged within metamorphic rocks), as well as the oldest remnants of life (incl. oldest Precambrian stromatolites).
By the way, the incorrect term "continental plate" is used at least twice in the section "Surface". First, this all stuff regarding the "tectonic plates" (or, better, "litosphere plates") should be moved to the previous section, regarding the plates themselves. Second, there is nothing like a "continental plate" - as you surely know, a specific plate of lithosphere may contain both oceanic and continental lithosphere. So, the term used, "continental plate" seems to be a remnant of the old Wegener's theory and should not appear in the Wikipedia at all. Koci Tata ( talk) 21:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
When Earth orbits the Sun, the angle between the plan of the Earth terminator and the Earth axis is subject to continuous variation so that it equals zero at the equinoxes and reaches its (absolute) maximal value 23.4° at the solstices of June and December. This subtle oscillation of Earth axis around the terminator plan is the main cause of seasons.
When I added this statement (with 3D representations) to the Earth article (edit of 14:22, 20 June 2008), this one has been immediately deleted by Rracecarr. His argument of this deletion is this is misleading and oversimplified.
My question is: where misleading is in my description? Wikeepedian ( talk) 13:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
At the end, in the future section, it says that even if the sun where to remain constant life on earth would be killed because of decreased volcanic activity. How does this work (the linked article was not very helpful. Thanks, Brusegadi ( talk) 13:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In the "Moon" section; the following text is found:
"Some theorists believe that without this stabilization against the torques applied by the Sun and planets to the Earth's equatorial bulge, the rotational axis might be chaotically unstable, as it appears to be for Mars."
Is there any supporting evidence or citations? This "fact" (chaotically unstable axis) is notably absent from the "Mars" article.
Rusk42 (
talk) 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest changing that sentence to read:
Rusk42 ( talk) 15:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand this may have been talked about before, and that the scientific articles use metric units for measurement, but I do hope that the community realizes that The United States of America does not use metric units for the hoi polloi (however frustrating it may be). Therefore, I do suggest that that American units of measure be added to this article when referencing the radius, circumference etc. There are over 300 million Americans, many of which read and contribute to wikipedia that do not know the conversions. I suggest that many Americans looking up "Earth" on wikipedia are in fact NOT scientists and therefore do need the American conversions. I am willing to edit them in if that is OK, I did not want to do so until I received some sort of consensus. Remember, metric does make more sense and is simpler, but unfortunately a very large percentage of the English speaking world population is dumbfounded by them. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumacdon ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 2008 July 7 (UTC)
see: Earth#Future
I read the 'future of earth' section and believe it to be only tackling the issue from a solar perspective... in other words, the suggested pattern is that due to solar output increase, the Earth will eventually be baked dry. For the moment I will call this perspective 1; but there are two more elements (that I'm aware of) that must be considered.
Granted, the general future of the sun is fairly easy to predict, but it is not the only force active on Earth. Earth, itself, is an active force on Earth, and I don't see any mention of its affect over that very same future. It seems, rather, that the sun's affect is the only variable being considered.
What about the gradual cooling of the mantle and core? What about the eventual halt of tectonics, and the eventual end of vulcanism. I've heard estimates that both will have ended by the end of a billion years, and the results would mean a colder planet, whose water is either wholly frozen (in small part) on the surface, or (primarily) locked deep beneath the surface, in and under a crust too cold to force it back up again. Furthermore, declining vulcanism translates into less atmospheric replenishment/recycling and, finally, a cooling and less dynamic core would almost certainly mean a lessening magnetic field that is less and less capable of fending off the sun's touch... such that at the same time that geological replenishment of certain aspects of the atmosphere wanes, the top would be ever more sheared away and/or ionized. Even if the solar output increases, an internally 'less hot' planet with a thinning atmosphere may still swing climate toward 'icy' rather than 'steamy'
At any rate, what I'm asking for here is for folk who know more about this to persue the topic and help include it as part of the 'future' of the earth. My information on time scale is 2nd hand at best.
~ Jeturcotte ( talk) - July 13, 2008
see: Earth#Future
Hokay then, on to the last variable I am familiar with as being likely to have a dramatic influence over the future and climate of the earth... namely, orbital and rotational changes.]
Again, as I said before, the 'future of the earth' segment only appears to be concerned with solar output changes, which are real enough... but the Earth and Moon are heading toward a probable orbital equilibrium that would have the moon some 40% further away and would also have Earth finally tidally locked to it... at which point a month and day would be the same length at some odd 42 contemporary days in length. Though the planet is cooling internally, and the atmosphere will thin as vulcanism wanes... what effect would it have on the Earth to have a daytime that lasts 21 now-days long?
Again, I'm asking that experts in this area help modify the Earth page to reflect these ongoing changes. It would be interesting to have a more complete scenario (or set of theories) based on all three variables, rather than JUST on solar output increases. Thanks!
~ Jeturcotte ( talk) - July 13, 2008
It has come up a couple of times in the last month, but only briefly, so I wanted to start a focused discussion of whether or not certain sections should remain in the article. I think the article should tighten its focus on the planet, so we could potentially drop the Human geography, Religious beliefs, and Modern perspective subsections (at least/most?). I don't think many readers would come to this article looking for the information contained in those sections, for the most part, but there are some pieces of information that readers might specifically come to this article looking - e.g. the number of human inhabitants. I don't know how we could best deal with that, forcing it into another part of the article where it doesn't belong? modifying the hatnote again? should readers just be expected to know what other search terms to use? I'm really not sure. There is the 'Earth-related topics' template sitting hidden down the bottom, maybe we could use that to our advantage somehow?
While I was writing this I was wondering if standardising the planet articles, regarding sections/subsections, has ever been discussed? I realise the Earth article would be the odd one out when trying to do something like that, but since it's related to this discussion, I thought I'd ask. Cheers, Ben ( talk) 18:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC).
"Home to millions of species,[8] including humans" everyone reading this knows that there are humans on earth with the possible exceptions of the incredible stupid and astronauts, i think it should be removed. 72.83.117.192 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This is my first edit of any scale to this page, and I am not a scientist of any measure, but I have been noting all the debates over one of the opening sentences (guess which one); so, could we just put a little note at the top of page that states that this is written from a human viewpoint so that all the debates as to the wording of that sentence will stop? And include a link to whatever policy or guideline page states that all pages on Wikipedia are written by and for humans, if it exists. ( Justyn ( talk) 06:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC))
<!--This sentence has uses a particular, consensus-picked perspective, and has taken a lot of debate to be settled. Before rewording it, please get consensus on the talk page.-->
to help prevent unnecessary drama. I don't care either way, but this is the solution that you'd probably want. {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
log}} 14:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The image arrangement of this page has been going through more thrashing lately. As a format improvement, I'd like to suggest modifying the table in the "Internal structure" section as follows:
Earth cutaway from core to exosphere. Not to scale. | ||
Depth
[5] km |
Component Layer | Density g/cm³ |
---|---|---|
0–60 | Lithosphere [6] | — |
0–35 | ... Crust [7] | 2.2–2.9 |
35–60 | ... Upper mantle | 3.4–4.4 |
35–2890 | Mantle | 3.4–5.6 |
100–700 | ... Asthenosphere | — |
2890–5100 | Outer core | 9.9–12.2 |
5100–6378 | Inner core | 12.8–13.1 |
(The information about location variation has been converted into notes.) Does this seem reasonable to everybody?
Also, in the "Tectonic plates" section, the location of the various plates is shown by the colored map. It seems reasonable therefore to remove the "Covering" column from the table in that section. The map could also be merged into the table (colspan="2") as per above.
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I reverted several edits made during the past day as they replace a valid reference with an unsourced remark and I could not access the one provided link. It is also unclear that the sigurdhu link is a reliable source. The site just looks like a generic account provider. By contrast, Michael Pidwirny is an associate professor at the University of British Columbia Okanagan. If there are better sources available that can confirm the changes, that would be great. Sorry.— RJH ( talk) 17:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist" Hasn't life been found on comets and whatnot? 69.183.4.168 ( talk) 13:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Os it just me or do these two sentences contradict each other completely?
I didn't want to remove either one of them as I wasnt sure which one was correct...
The Flying
Spaghetti Monster! 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This article should be nominated at WP:TFAR next Earth Day. It is a core article and the only core WP:FA that has not been a WP:TFA from my quick glance.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that scientists have NOT proven that the Earth was formed billions of years ago. If you do have proof, please post it so that we all may see. 24.74.160.28 ( talk) 02:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)September 13, 2008
I might as well post this now before another edit war gets started. User Kwamikagami made multiple changes to the numerical values in this article that do not appear to agree with the format at Wikipedia:MoS#Large_numbers. Some examples:
Before | After |
---|---|
152,097,701 km | 152 097 701 km |
1.0167103335 AU | 1.016 710 333 5 AU |
I think that such a change needs to be introduced via a MoS revision before it is introduced here. Wikipedia has its own standards that don't necessarily agree with particular ISOs. Any thoughts?— RJH ( talk) 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about the idea of moving the "Cultural viewpoint" section to another page and replacing it with a summary? This approach is recommended on Wikipedia:Summary style for long articles.
For example:
With the appropriate citations, of course. Does anybody find this objectionable? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 21:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a few minor concerns regarding the level of precision in the infobox. Wikipedia:MoS#Large_numbers says to avoid over-precise values where they are unlikely to be stable or accurate, or where the precision is unnecessary in the context. The orbital period is given as 365.256366 days, which corresponds to 365d 6h 9m 10.0224s. (Seriously, who has a watch accurate to one second per thousand years?) 365.256 days gives 365d 6h 9m 10s. Per the article, that number is also going to vary by 23μs per year, or 0.000023. So the current value will be off within a year.
There are also a number of fields with multiple values, but the level of precision of the values don't match. Example: 152,097,701 is nine decimals, 1.0167103335 is eleven. I think they should be consistent.— RJH ( talk) 17:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)</ref>I'd like to suggest that we consider replacing the rotating Earth image in the above-named section with the illustration to the right. The latter seems more informative and it may help the reader better understand the text.— RJH ( talk) 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Etymology: Middle English erthe, from Old English eorthe; akin to Old High German erda earth, Greek era. Date: before 12th century earth. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/earth Pawyilee ( talk) 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There are 7 moons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.160.50 ( talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that the word "Earthling" is also appropriate as an adjective. What are your thoughts? Fireleaf ( talk) 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why the longitude of the ascending node is not zero? Isn't the ascending node the same as the vernal equinox and isn't the vernal equinox at longitude zero by definition? Thanks for any help. PAR ( talk) 10:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just began careful reading of this article and I've already noticed some major problems:
I'll update as I find more.-- Adi4000 ( talk) 07:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
polution of ozonelayer occered because of old refrigirators,the rays of the refrigirators can easyily defeat ozone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.129.115 ( talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Per the above review, I put together a tentative fourth paragraph for the lead. Does anybody have issues or concerns with the wording? Perhaps somebody has a better proposal?
There may be a need to modify the second paragraph accordingly. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
A recent picture to replace the blue marble image would be really nice, since we now have the technology to observe the Earth with highly advanced cameras. While that older image is recognized (it should be moved to a more appropriate section), it is 2008... we at Wikipedia could be help promote a new image for the next generation now in school. My specialty is not images though, so someone with that expertise might be able to accomplish this if we have consensus. This is one of the most important leads in all of Wikipedia. Two examples are listed below: All Is One ( talk) 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The article claims that the atmosphere is oxidizing due to the escape of the rudcing element hydrogen. Although this might be considered true in some tortuous sense, free oxyegen is generally considered to be a result of photosynthesis - and ideed, the reference for the se3ntence about reducing and oxydizing atmosphere states this clearly. The sense the escape of free hydrogen could be considered to lead to free oxygen is that if there were more hydrogen in the biosphere, there might be enough to reduce all the oxygen (that is oxidize the hydrogen) to form water.
151.195.3.100 ( talk) 20:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Sol-3 redirects here. Could some discussion on this term be included in the article? __ meco ( talk) 12:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a modification to the 'History' section that will incorporate the 'Future' section. Right now 'Future' seems stuck out on its own, past the culture and geography information, and I think it would provide better article flow by being included with the history. Here's what I'm suggesting:
Any thoughts or concerns about this? Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 22:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Will someone stop protecting this page so we can upload earth.jpg from Yahoo! Images? 66.72.201.167 ( talk) 17:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Just upload the image. 66.72.201.167 ( talk) 18:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
At ptesent, the lead includes the following statement:
However, I think that the word "shows" would be a stronger, less passive wording than "indicates". Thus:
Within the context of scientific investigation, I'm not aware of any significant controversy about the age; at least in terms of the order of magnitude. (This issue seems to have been settled about a century ago. [39]) Thus I think the stronger wording is warranted, under the proviso that this is the scientific viewpoint. Would anybody find this modification objectionable? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 18:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I see the problem with this sentence in Human Geography:
1/8th, which I believe is based on proportions given in the second part of the sentence (1/4 land area * 1/2 suitable land = 1/8th), based on sources, is incorrect. It implies that humans don't settle, for ex. in high mountains. Source [123] says: Mountain environments cover some 27% of the world’s land surface, and directly support the 22% of the world’s people who live within mountain regions. I've been trying to find a source online that approximates amt. of suitable land for humans, unfortunately, I wasn't able to. -- Adi ( talk) 18:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence seems both vague and relative. I think the same sentence can be applied to the Moon and any of the other terrestrial planets.
Do we need this statement? If so, could you suggest how to make it more useful? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The sentence: "...total arable land is 13.31% of the land surface, with only 4.71% supporting permanent crops" doesn't correspond to its source (the CIA factbook) which states: arable land: 10.57% - permanent crops: 1.04% - other: 88.38% (2005).
Also, it is not clear how the next sentence: "Close to 40% of the Earth's land surface is presently used for cropland and pasture, or an estimated 1.3×107 km² of cropland and 3.4×107 km² of pastureland." relates to these figures. I have not access to the source given (the FAO Production Yearbook 1994). -- Sir48 ( talk) 15:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I had a similar discussion with another user about this in the archives here: Talk:Earth/Archive_9#Contradiction. That should explain the definitions. But the problem here is that the World Factbook figures for arable land and permanent crops has changed. When I made that comment in the archives less than four months ago it was the 13.31 and 4.71 figures in the World Factbook, now the figures are 10.57 and 1.04. The odd thing is not only does this change in figures seem a bit large (but maybe it's not I wouldn't know), but also the year was stated as 2005 for the old figures and it's still stated as 2005 for the new ones as well. The World Factbook has to be considered a reliable source though so maybe these numbers should be changed in the article, and it would be nice to find another collaborative source for these figures, especially one that has information on the other types of land like pastureland. LonelyMarble ( talk) 00:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Land use | Percentage |
---|---|
Arable land: | 13.13% |
Permanent crops: | 4.71% |
Permanent pastures: | 26% |
Forests and woodland: | 32% |
Urban areas: | 1.5% |
Other: | 30% |
Alright, after all that blabbering I came to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations official site. That is the same source used in the article (FAO Staff (1995). FAO Production Yearbook 1994 (Volume 48 ed.). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ISBN 9250038445.), but apparently the source from the article uses figures from 1993. This site right here seems to contain all the information we'd need and it's updated to 2005: [41]. Only problem is it might take a little while to convert all the units and get the percentages correct. I'll attempt this some time in the future when I have more free time if no one else does it first. Here's the main site: [42], and I went to ResourceSTAT - Land for the link above. Anyone that wants to update these figures feel free. LonelyMarble ( talk) 00:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Land use | Area (1000 Ha) | Caculated percentage |
---|---|---|
Total land: | 13,013,475.40 | |
Arable land: | 1,421,169.10 | 10.92% |
Permanent crops: | 140,511,70 | 1.08% |
Permanent pastures: | 3,405,897.80 | 26.17% |
Forests: | 3,952,025.70 | 30.37% |
Other: | 4,092,972.40 | 31.45% |
Total: | 99,99% |
The following appear in the article using both upper and lower case forms: North Pole, South Pole, Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle. I think they should be consistently one or the other. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 16:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
How about a section that lists different cultures' alternative names. This is very Western-centric. 24.174.82.195 ( talk) 22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this article seem to have lag issues with scrolling?— RJH ( talk) 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
how many is the earth Synodic period???but the moon Synodic period is know and it is result please yeah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.161.55 ( talk) 08:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This section has a couple of sentences that I'm not sure are in keeping with WP:Summary style:
Will anybody object if these are moved to the Earth's rotation article? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 16:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
A useful addition would be to actually quantify the rate of slowing of the earth's rotational speed, but I'm not qualified to do that myself. The Wikipedia article on Tidal Acceleration quotes a figure of 2 ms / 100 years, but that seems far too small in the light of a TV news article today, that has informed us that since 1972, our clocks have had to be adjusted by 23 seconds, i.e. approx. 0.65 seconds per year. Have I misunderstood this news article? Can anyone supplement the 'Rotation' section with accurate information on this subject? Snookerrobot ( talk) 19:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
In the language box, the uppermost link (for me) is to a Norwegian bokmål template about the person of the year, which doesn't really have much to do with the Earth. I tried to see if I could remove it but I couldn't figure out how. Could anyone help me remove that link? Torswin ( talk) 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I still can't believe things like "the earth is such and such million or billion years old" are still being accepted as fact. I myself believe in the creation described in the Bible, but there is no proof to make either my belief, or these other beliefs SCIENTIFIC. Science has NO part in this, and can NOT prove how old our world is, OR how it was created. Who's to say that the laws of physics were EVEN THE SAME those millions or billions of years ago?! I'm quite frankly appalled that this is in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.171.211 ( talk) 21:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The claim about the age of the earth in this article has sufficient citations. They are entirely valid and scientific. That is all. -- Sadistic monkey ( talk) 10:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The claim that the earth is 4.5bn years old does not, as is commonly thought, contradict the biblical account. The biblical Genesis account talks of a 7 day creation but it must be understood that the word 'day' in the book of Genesis is a translation from the old Hebrew of a word that could mean either a day of 24 hours / one rev of the earth, OR an 'era' or unspecified period of time, possibly of very long duration. Having said that, I think it would be more accurate (speaking as a scientist) to say that the Earth is thought to be 4.5bn years old, rather than saying that it is 4.5bn years old. The reason I say this is because there is a signicant, though admittedly small, body of scientific opinion that believes the earth to be much younger. There are various published scientific papers on this subject. As a comparison example, the scientific evidence for, and consensus of scientists belief in, the existence of the atom, is very much greater than the evidence for and consensus of belief in the age of the earth. Therefore in scientific terms it is reasonable to treat the atom as a certainty, but with the age of the earth, it would be fairer to say that there is a significant level of doubt. Hope this clarifies things a bit. 80.41.138.18 ( talk) 15:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Just because the facts on this page don't adhere to your myths does not mean they are false. If you have no proof that the myths you believe are true then why do you believe them? And there is plenty of evidence that the earth is billions of years old Look up the big bang theory, evolution, fossils, universe. 82.23.62.255 ( talk) 19:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
And also check out wiki pages for "age of the earth" & "History of the Earth". learn something new. 82.23.62.255 ( talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The infobox says "Satellites 1 (the Moon)" However, there are many, many, man-made satellites also orbiting the earth. I propose changing this to say "Natural Satellites 1 (the Moon)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.22.75 ( talk) 18:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
That navbox does not belong in this article. Opinions? -- Sir48 ( talk) 11:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
That looks like an error in the template. The Time Person of the Year article lists environmentalism as having obtained the award and not the Earth. Secondly, looking at the collection of navboxes (Earth-related topics - Earth's location in space - Elements of nature - Times persons of the year) shows a totally different perspective in the latter one, not having anything to do with the subject of the article. -- Sir48 ( talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Without any reactions I've been bold and changed the navbox to link to environmentalism and consequently have removed that navbox from this article. -- Sir48 ( talk) 17:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been reading through the article, and there are some things I would like to change. As it is a featured article, I'd like feedback before I touch it.
I think that's as much as I'll hit at one shot. So anyone want to comment / give me the go-ahead on one or more of the aforementioned issues?
Awickert ( talk) 07:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
All Done! I'll wait a few days for more comments and then archive this as it's mostly just a finished checklist. Awickert ( talk) 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I tried to hunt down the primary source for the data in the second paragraph of the "Chemical composition" section, as well as "F. W. Clarke's Table of Crust Oxides". I think I have it narrowed down to perhaps the first edition, Chapter I of:
The data in this article's table does not quite match the values on page 32 of the above, so my initial inclination was to use the values from the book (which was published the same year as the encyclopedia listed as the reference). However, I understand there were subsequent editions of this book, so those values may differ as well. What do you think? Perhaps there is a final edition sitting in a university library somewhere? :) — RJH ( talk) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The article states that the hydrosphere
"...technically includes all water surfaces in the world, including inland seas, lakes, rivers, and underground waters down to a depth of 2,000 m."
Is it possible to find a source for the limitation to 2,000 m? -- Sir48 ( talk) 17:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The quiantities in the Earth's statistics sometimes have a period instead of a coma when referring to thousands (ex. 6.371.0 = mean radius of the Earth) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.70.130 ( talk) 21:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In the box on the right side of the page, there appear to be inconsistencies in format for some of the numbers. Should the Mean Radius and Polar Radius be written 6.371.0 km 6.356.8 km? 129.49.84.108 ( talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy Apr 1st. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't one sentence in the intro saying Earth is the only known planet with life and liquid water currently on its surface enough? It seems most facts are followed by how unique the Earth is; we only know of about 200 extrasolar planets, and we have only very rough estimate of the atmosphere of 1 or 2 of those 200. This is an article about earth, not the article on the probability of life in the universe. Lets make those statements a little more concise. 98.202.48.28 ( talk) 23:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry I don't know how this is done, but I just wanted to mention that the sentence in question is factually and grammatically incorrect. "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist". It presumes upon facts not in evidence. Neither can the facts be known at this time, nor does all of humanity agree with the assertion as it stands. To know what's known, we'd have to know what in the universe knows things. We don't. Earth is believed by some to be the only place in the universe where life exists. That's as close as you can come. Many cultures assert that there's life on other worlds, in other dimensions, and in different states of being. Many cultures define life in different ways, nor is the definition completely clear in a scientific context. The scientific fact of life not being found on other planets is unremarkable enough to void need of mention, given the tiny cross section of planets we've examined closely enough to detect life. In short, neither do we get to state empirically what is known, nor do we get to make a similar claim for what all of humanity supposedly knows - especially since it simply isn't what everyone thinks they know. [just some guy who read the article] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.71.229 ( talk) 03:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh my god. I can't believe how long this discussion is. The keyword is KNOWN, people. Earth is the only place we KNOW to have life. That's true. End of story! -- 81.97.47.128 ( talk) 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it looks odd to have the .svg image after the text. It looks like it has fallen down or something. How would it be if the image was right-adjusted, hugging the right wall of the browswer and having the text to its left? / Tense ( talk) 13:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Because the image scale on the tectonics world map makes the labels unreadable, my suggestion is to try using the unlabeled map at File:Tectonic plates (empty).svg, then provide a link to a labelled map. Would anybody object to this?— RJH ( talk) 17:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Recent edits have removed Yuri Gagarin as the first person to leave Earth. I believe it should be in because although he did not altogether leave the atmosphere, he went into what is popularly known as "outer space", and what he did would generally be considered as the first person to leave Earth. Based arguments on leaving the atmoshere, if we use the exponential decay model for the atmosphere, we never fully leave it; we must just define some limit. So I propose that either we leave this in, or re-define "atmosphere" and say that he went far out in the atmosphere, and then the Apollo astronauts left Earth altogether (Apollo astronauts leaving Earth seems unarguable to me.) Awickert ( talk) 09:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I replaced with "humans who travelled the farthest from the planet". You said "what he did would generally be considered as the first person to leave Earth." Here what generally considered is factually incorrect unless we can come up with strong and universal definition of "leaving the Earth". That include reasons why leaving just an Earth surface(air planes, balloons) not good enough. Leaving an Earth atmosphere is a good starting point, but, yes, in this case we need to know exact boundaries of it. Vitall ( talk) 10:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
How about this wording: In 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to reach outer space and orbit Earth; he was 327 km above Earth's surface at his highest point. [43] Humans traveled the farthest from the planet in 1970, when the Apollo 13 crew was 400,171 km away from Earth. [44] [45] LonelyMarble ( talk) 18:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just checked the links, it turned up four error 404:s: Layers of the Earth(Cite:88), Terrestrial Impact Cratering and Its Environmental Effects(Cite:87), Canadian Forces Station (CFS) Alert(Cite:154) and Mineral Genesis: How do minerals form?(Cite:146). Gsmgm ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Creation (and challenges to darwinist claims) should be included. This article wrongly presupposes evolutionary theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.190.41 ( talk) 10:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to add this image
to the "Orbit" section, to illustrate and show the vast context of Earth and our Solar system. Since I've only just created a Wikipedia account can someone add this for me? Having an image along with this statement in the Orbit section...
"Earth, along with the Solar System, is situated in the Milky Way galaxy, orbiting about 28,000 light years from the center of the galaxy, and about 20 light years above the galaxy's equatorial plane in the Orion spiral arm."
... will really help people understand and see just where we are in our area of our galaxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotint ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, could someone convert the information about earth's surface area, etc. into Imperial units and put it in the Infobox? I know many people use the metric system, but for those of us living in the countries who haven't started using the metric system, it's a real pain to have to manually convert each thing as we need it.
Thanks much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.181.248 ( talk) 20:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the pronunciation from the first sentence of the lead, but someone reverted me. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article to begin with the pronunciation, unless perhaps the word is uncommon and the pronunciation unobvious. "Earth" is a common word, and the pronunciation of common words is typical material for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yes, one often sees pronunciation given in the lead of other Wikipedia articles. The fact that a mistake has been made in other articles is not good justification for continuing to make that mistake. -- Srleffler ( talk) 00:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This issue exists on other astronomical object pages besides the planets, so I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Pronunciation, hoping for a more general consensus. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 18:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The earth, sun, and moon should not be capitalized unless they are mentioned in relation to other heavenly bodies. Why are they capitalized in the article? Lestrade ( talk) 14:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
infoboxes tend to acquire a life of their own. This is a bad thing and needs to be counteracted. An infobox shouldn't contain any information that isn't explained and referenced in greater detail in the article. In this case, the alleged adjectives pertaining to Earth, not repeated anywhere in the article body,
This is unvoluntary comedy. Of course these are all adjectives, and they all relate to Earth in one way or another, but they are very far from interchangeable. -- dab (𒁳) 07:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
the earth is clearly flat and not round
It says that Earth is the only planet where life is known to exist. It should say that Earth is the only planet where earthling humans know life to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.54 ( talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090612203303.htm
This source states that life could be around for much longer than previously anticipated. I think that this should be put into a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is obviously biased. Why, in the beginning of this article, does it say that the Earth formed billions of years ago? First of all, that is only one of thousands of theories. That makes this article biased. It puts the rest of the theories at the end, as if they're not as true, or important, or are merely other theories aside from the "billions of years ago" theory. At the beginning of this article, it should say that the creation of Earth is disputed, or arguable, or something. Not just that it "formed billions of years ago," which is just another theory like all the others. -- 75.185.109.23 ( talk) 20:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, is it appropriate to categorize these types of arguments under the WP:PSCI policy, and label them as "obvious pseudoscience"?— RJH ( talk) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Why mention only humans on the opening chapter, any species, f.e Tympanobasis, could do? And the notion that humans live on earth isn't referenced, so it is also doubtful.
In the last bit of the human geography section, it says 400 people have visited outer space as of 2004. As of 2009 it's closer to 500. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.11.153 ( talk) 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the future section, in its exposition of when the oceans will evaporate, is giving undue weight to a single worst-case-scenario back-of-the-envelope calculation by a single professor at a shitty state college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.197.106 ( talk) 01:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Related information:
based on an IAU symposium. Some interesting food for thought.— RJH ( talk) 15:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The second paragraph states that life on Earth could possibly be extended up to 2.3Gyrs. The third paragraph talks about "most, if not all, remaining life" being destroyed when the sun becomes a red giant in 5Gyrs.
Both are supported by their sources. Perhaps the 3rd para needs to be rephrased using "any" or a subjunctive? AlmostReadytoFly ( talk) 08:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought the definition of the year was the time Earth took to orbit the Sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.203 ( talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused about the text in the article that says:
"Earth interacts with other objects in outer space, including the Sun and the Moon. At present, Earth orbits the Sun once for every roughly 366.26 times it rotates about its axis. This length of time is a sidereal year, which is equal to 365.26 solar days."
Why are the two numbers of days different (366.26 -vs- 365.26)?
Ojm37a (
talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'd like to see what would be the opinion on modifications to Human Geography section. The current map causes technical problems - one link on top of the other and enlargement of the width of the article. Also, countries are mentioned but not the continents. Another Wikipedia ( mechanical translation here, "Geography") utilizes the use of clickable map with links to Commons Atlas, while wikilinks to continents are provided within the paragraph. Would that idea work?-- Adi ( talk) 22:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The new map looks fine, and thank you for putting that together. It may make sense to put it in a template for maintenance and re-use. 'Template:Continents' is already taken, so perhaps a name like 'Template:Continents navmap' or 'Template:Earth continents' would work?— RJH ( talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it true that the gravitational pull of the sun and moon causes the earths orbit of the sun and the earths rotation to slow down ever so slightly. if it is would it be worth adding to the article. Mr Deathbat ( talk) 10:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The image in the infobox is not the original Blue Marble from Apollo 17 as the caption claims, it's a home-made gif based on a 2001 retake. For reference, File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg is the original, while File:Rotating earth (large).gif (according to its descripton page) is based on on this NASA image (external link). Disregard that, judging from User talk:South Bay, it was apparently a nonsense . 78.34.155.161 ( talk) 11:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist", this does not really have other possible points of view from other planets in mind, as there are probably most definitely other planets with life and I'm sure they know they exist. This should be changed to show that currently to human beings its the only place known to have life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.138.53 ( talk) 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. We've been discussing here whether it should be "Earth" (as in this article) or "earth" (as the MOS implies here). Apologies if this has already been discussed but I would appreciate some of your thoughts. -- John ( talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
* Sun, earth, and moon are not capitalized when used generally: The sun was peeking over the mountain top. They are proper nouns and capitalized when personified: Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god. and in an astronomical context when referring to specific celestial bodies (our Solar System, Sun, Earth, and Moon): The Moon orbits the Earth, but Io is a moon of Jupiter.
The Associated Press observes the lowercase practice world-wide whenever mentioning of the earth, moon, or sun when writing something like this: For civilian night-vision goggles to work effectively, the moon must be above the horizon. Their practice is compliant with the general grammar rule encapsulated at Grammar.ccc.comment.edu, which states as follows:
• [Do capitalize] Names of celestial bodies: Mars, Saturn, the Milky Way. Do not, howver, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun.
Since the Earth article is a scientific article, and specifically in an astronomical context, it seems well justified to always capitalize Earth, Sun, and Moon in this article. My personal opinion on the matter is if Earth is being talked about in any scientific manner, it should be capitalized. I can see not capitalizing the sun and the moon in casual sentences, such as "The sun is hot today," or "There is a full moon tonight."
Actually, those sentences led me to the full moon and Full Moon articles. Seems a bit odd those are two separate articles, and "moon" is alternated from lowercase to capital on the full moon article. Anyway, that's just an example I stumbled across just now that proves the ambiguity of this question. By the way, I wouldn't use a really old reference book for comparisons. I don't know for sure but I'd bet it's become more common to capitalize these terms in scientific contexts, and always writing them in lowercase is outdated. LonelyMarble ( talk) 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
does anyone think that the world human population should be included in the infobox? surely that is at least as important to most people reading this article as some of the other figures already there? Jessi1989 ( talk) 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
All the planets in the solar system use Latin names, except Earth. I realize this is because the IAU has no official scientific name for our dear planet, but as far as I know, IAU doesn't have a scientific name for our moon either. Checking the Moon article it reads "The Moon (Latin: Luna)" at the beginning of the article. A similar thing for the Sun, "The Sun (Latin: Sol)".
I am a bit puzzled why there is nothing similar to this for the Earth. In school I remember being taught the latin name for the Earth was Tellus, and I know some people use Terra (from Terra Mater). Shouldn't we at least mention this in the article, instead of simply stating "It is also referred to as the World and Terra."
How about: "Earth (Latin: Tellus/Terra) ..."
Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skela ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
As it is now, the "Designations" section seems rather empty, there's only some rubbish about Adjectives used. Do you have any arguments against it besides personal taste? Skela ( talk) 20:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This may sound obvious, but I think there should be a section dedicated to the etymology of the word "Earth". I have absolutely no idea how it came into place. If I find info, I'll definitely add it. obento musubi 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The number for the surface area used doesn't seem mathematically correct, using the formula for the surface area of a sphere will give a number in the region of 10^14 meters squared where the number here is 10^11. I actually think that the number from the cia world book might be a typo and the period is supposed to be a comma, also looking for an online reference will usually lead back to hear making the reference circular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.171.165 ( talk) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
oops my bad, did a very silly mistake when changing from meters squared to kilometers squared, thought something was odd about the whole matter. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.44.85.47 (
talk) 21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
earth is the only living planet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.182.137 ( talk) 08:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The article starts sentences by saying "Earth is" as opposed to "the Earth is". Is that correct? Makewater ( talk) 20:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you please add Template:Physical Earth. I am a newbie user and I can't edit this article. Thanks.
-- BSATwinTowers ( talk) 10:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
In my physics book it says it's about 1.496*10^11m, I wonder if it would be a good idea to include this. btw, I'm using the seventh edition of physics for scientists and engineers with modern physics by serway/jewett (for sourcing purposes if anyone needs it). -- Dguenther - DGun ( talk) 10:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to compare the temperatures of the different inner planets looking at their wikipedia articles. Strangely earth of all articles doesn't seem to have this data I found on a NASA website that it's .04 degrees Celsius. I think this should be added to the climate section It seems like an important and basic fact of a planet. The article is locked however so I could not add it myself. A side note I really don't like the fact that the article on the earth itself is locked, please reconsider this.
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#GlobalTemperature
-Doug 68.25.20.16 ( talk) 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Is "blue planet" a logical name for Earth?? I think it more logically fits Neptune. Georgia guy ( talk) 23:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Gaia be in the list too? Where did Tellurian come from? I've only ever heard this planet being called Earth, the World, Terra, and Gaia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.184.220 ( talk) 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Earth's Greek name is Gaea which us married to Uranus.She is the mother of land formations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melzy2022 ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this file restricted for use only on this article? -- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this sentence in the lead:
Does it make sense to say Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist? In the context of discussing life on other planets, it strikes me as a little arrogant, as if humans not knowing of any other life is equivalent to other life not being known to exist. I mean, the existence of any other self-aware being (of which we are discussing the possibility of), whether they themselves are aware of life on other planets, is enough to contradict the sentence. Of course, in any other context (like the discussion of a mathematical conjecture) it must be assumed we're talking about humans' understanding (it is not known if conjecture A is true or not, as opposed to humans don't know ..). We also send out a lot of stuff into space, no doubt some of it living, so does that contradict the sentence too? As you roll your eyes and ask if I'm being serious, rest assured I agree that I'm being very picky, and even feel a little foolish bringing it up. Still, I think the sentence could be worded a little more correctly, if only to avoid the issue than try and deal with the issues I've brought up. Ben ( talk) 10:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This article states that "Earth has at least two co-orbital asteroids, 3753 Cruithne and 2002 AA29.". The Quasi-satellite article states that "Earth currently has four known quasi-satellites: 3753 Cruithne, 2002 AA29, 2003 YN107, and 2004 GU9.". -- 93.167.94.18 ( talk) 23:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Doesnt the earth actually have 5 moons now? Shouldnt this be added?
there are now: The Moon, Cruithne, 2000ph5, 2000wn10, 2002aa29.
Bizzehdee ( talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
shouldn't this be "only example currently known to man" as the current statement - taken literaly - would mean that no other planet harbours life in the entire universe. my proposition would be more accurate. user: XM8 Carbine (my log in memmery isn't working) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.136.236 ( talk) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we sould add a clear qualifier that puts both of these statments in to context i.e. that us and the Earth are the only examples we have of life and therefore the 'habitability' of any part of the universe is completely and arbitarily defined by the sample size of N=1. We could add such a clause as (as we currently know it, which is based on a sample size of N=1, is limited by our current observations and is therefore a completely arbitrary definition). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amore proprio ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
At present, only the circumference of 1 paralell is mentioned; can a list be given for how large the other paralells are ? (eg the parallell on the at 70° N/S is much shorter than the 0° parallell)
In addition, the parallells arent really the east-west equivalents of the meridian's: the parallells run parallell to each other (no intersection), while the meridians run towards 1 central point (Northpole, Southpole) and intersect there. What exactly is the true equivalent of the meridians, and what are the equivalents of the paralells (thus lines running paralell from the north/southpole, and not towards it).
Also, shouldn't the ecliptic meridians and their equivalents be used on maps (I'm guessing the "top" of the earth isn't actually the north pole, but rather the area more left towards the 70° parallell is. See File:AxialTiltObliquity.png .
If the proposed parallells and their equivalents don't yet exist, they need to be drawn on a new image and shown in the earth article (and modifications need to be made at Circle of latitude and Meridians
KVDP ( talk) 09:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently the article includes the following statement:
This result is based upon the Bounama et al. (2001) paper, which uses a geophysical model that posits 27% of the current ocean mass will be subducted within the next billion years. In 2006, however, there was a news story:
that states:
Those rates don't seem compatible. Is that because the continents are larger now and there is much higher rate of subduction? But even that wouldn't seem to account for the difference.— RJH ( talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that all the other planets have Latin names, is then "Terra" not the correct name for this planet? And thus "Terran" as the posessive? RadicalOne ( talk) 02:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that "terra" even belongs in the lead, given that the only note that links to it simply informs the reader that the IAU does not recognise the term as a name for the Earth. Serendi pod ous 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The section Future seems to me to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This might seem at odds with science which clearly can make prediction on the fate of the sun. However: I wish to interpret the policy so that, when modelling and guessing the future of Earth, it must be painstakingly clear that the section Future reflects one or more models. I dislike the simplistic model presented as being truth. Statements such as:
is far too precise. If I'm not wrong, there are various models of early Venus, one claiming that the oceans evaporated for runaway greenhouse effect very early, such as about 3000-3500 Ma ago, and another that claims that the increasing clouding allowed Venus to be oceanic up to about 800 Ma ago. Such variance in models for Venus should have its counterparts for the future of Earth. The number 900 Ma in future should probably be from 500 to 3000 Ma in future or some such, if similar models are applied to Earth as for Venus. Stating 900 million years would require lots of according to and references. I believe the section presents as facts very speculative modelling attempts very early in the science of planetary meteorology. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I've submitted Volume of the Earth for deletion (see here), in case anyone was interested. Cheers, Ben ( talk) 08:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
This might be a suitable piece of information to include on all of the information bars for the planet series on Wikipedia, as it is a relatively common and useful piece of information. I am finding myself having to search on other sites to acquire this data, which is a rarity for Wikipedia. Take this into consideration and perhaps confer with some of the other talk pages on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.134.41 ( talk) 02:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
i can't put this in because i can't edit this page
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/KatherineMalfucci.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.182.192.11 ( talk) 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me it would make sense to include the surface temperatures in the sidebar in Fahrenheit as well, regardless of their scientific acceptance, they are used by one of the largest countries on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarfyperson ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
but, while there is a wiki article for underwater, there is no equivalent article for underground. I can't find an appropriate article to add to the disambig page. Is there one? Serendi pod ous 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)