![]() | 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 18 |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tellur, Telluris, Gaia in the alternate names infobox section have no citation. They appear nowhere else in the article, nor do they link to any explanatory articles (and, to me, seem to be nowhere near common knowledge or inclusion worthy). The attached note only appears to explain why "terra" is not one of the alternate names. At the very least a citation needed tag ought to be added, or these names removed. 89.176.87.169 ( talk) 11:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
For a long time, the Earth article infobox used the Blue Marble photo taken by Apollo 17. Now, however, the infobox uses an artificial computer mosaic created in 2002. The 2002 mosaic is inferior for the following reasons:
1. The Earth, a natural object, is best served by a natural photograph if natural photographs of it exist. They clearly do. Imagine if the infoboxes for humans, animals, plants, and other natural objects used computer-generated images (or computerized mosaics) instead of natural photographs. It would be absurd and unscientific.
2. The computerized image is fake looking. Compare it to natural photos of Earth. The ocean color looks unnatural, the cloud cover is not extensive and dense enough, the coastlines have a fuzzy look to them, etc.
3. The computerized image shows a gibbous Earth (see Japan and the Philippines), whereas the Apollo 17 Blue Marble shows a full Earth (or very close to full).
Recently, the infobox also contained (briefly) the photo of Earth taken by Apollo 8. This photo has the distinction of being the first photograph of the planet ever taken by a human operator. It is also an excellent image and could better serve the Earth infobox, although it does show a gibbous Earth.
Someone with the appropriate privileges should change the infobox image back to a natural photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.25.214 ( talk) 08:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tellur, Telluris and Gaia in the alternate names infobox section have no citation. They appear only once in the article, in a recently added sentence with the rather uncertain wording that "other possible names may be...," again with no source. The attached note only appears to explain why "terra" is not one of the alternate names.
The interwiki link to Tellur leads to a disambiguation page which in turn leads to an article about an ancient agricultural goddess, not a valid source about the name being an alternate designation for Earth. A [citation needed] tag ought to be added to the above names, or a proper source cited, or these names removed.
You might notice this request is similar to an earlier one which has been repeatedly marked "done". However, other than inserting the aforementioned sentence, nothing has actually been done to address the issue. 89.176.87.169 ( talk) 20:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The timestamp for the number of artificial satellites in orbit is October 2014, which hasn't happened yet. Should be October 2013, the date of the source. 76.202.219.123 ( talk) 06:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that there is no largest city on the article. Would someone add largest city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.10.95 ( talk) 02:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Scientists lately say that in a period of millennium, the water surface of earth will rise up and go over Hawaii's land surface.
Earth's scientists and Historians have always thought that the first human bones were from Africa but have now found that there are older human bones in Asia.
Scientists- (pl.noun) A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more physical or natural sciences. Sci-ent-ists
Millennium- (noun) A period of 1000 years. Mill-enn-ium
Surface- (noun) The outside part of something. Sur-face
Historians- (pl.noun) An expert in or student of history. His-tor-ian-s
One would think that the earth's location within the universe deserves it's own section? Everything is located somewhere and so is Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.19.217 ( talk) 20:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is 'Earth' always used in this article, rather than 'the Earth' as in common parlance. It reads swkwardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.144.83 ( talk) 07:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
"Earth, ... is the third-most distant planet from the Sun" Shouldn't that be "the third-closest planet to the Sun" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.223.23 ( talk) 14:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Earth - Mostly Harmless ArcaneCrevalISaveItAll ( talk) 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would simply like to point out that wikipedias use of the word "myth" in the "Cultural and historical viewpoint" section is highly offensive to most people who beleive in sutch things and is therefor counterintuitive to thier policy of maintaining nutral articles to resonable extent, as in "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Wikipedias own disambiguation of the word includes "fable" which follows to an article stating "A fable is a succinct fictional story", from which I am sure you understand the issue with the word "fictional". A much less contraversial word would be simply "story" as in "Creation stories", as that word is far more often veiwed as nutral. I ask that wikipedia would honor thier policy and fix this. Thank you.
unsigned comment added by 174.126.244.103 ( talk) 03:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I thought I covered that with the sentance "Wikipedias own disambiguation of the word includes "fable" which follows to an article stating "A fable is a succinct fictional story", from which I am sure you understand the issue with the word "fictional".". However if this is still not clear, I should state that the Oxford English Dictionary's second definition definition of the word "myth" is " A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing". Although it may not be intentionl, many people (aproximatly 88.33% of the worlds population according to wikepedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations) who believe in sutch things will veiw this as an atempt to undermine and insult their personel beleifs, a thing I am sure wikepedia wishes to avoid, as per their policy. I should also point out that the Oxford English Dictionary's first definition declairs a myth to be a story by the theird word, so there should be no issue swiching the two. If you do some reserch I am sure you will find that the term "Creation story" is much more widly used and recieved among people who believe in sutch things and should not contradict, or insult, those who don't. If you wish to continue to insist that the word myth is nutrall please base it off some sort of evidence sutch as a survey between interested parties or the like. Otherwise I ask that wikipedia would honor thier policy and fix this. Thank you.
A note says there is exactly a 5 million km difference ( to five significant figures ) in the distance of perihelion and aphelion. Here is what other sources give for J2000:
source | a | e | diff in au | in Gm |
---|---|---|---|---|
VSOP2013 | 1.0000010 | 0.0167086 | 0.0334173 | 4.9991654 |
Newcomb | 1.0000002 | 0.0167091 | 0.0334182 | 4.9993012 |
VSOP 87 | 1.0000010 | 0.0167086 | 0.0334173 | 4.9991604 |
And the averages for J2000 ± 1 Millennia and distances
perihelion | aphelion | diff in au | in Gm |
---|---|---|---|
0.983294 | 1.016707 | 0.033414 | 4.998668 |
Saros136 ( talk) 07:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I was so about to change the [[Density|densest]] planet in the [[Solar System]]
into the [[Intelligent life|least intelligent]] planet in the [[Solar System]]
, using the edit summary "'dense' is too informal", but considering that poor Gaia cannot be blamed for our activities, I figure it wouldn't be fair to her. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder how long it would have stood. :D --
Florian Blaschke (
talk)
12:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Removed the overly poetic ones which are epithets but which no one ever uses as a legitimate synonym for "Earth" (WP:UNDUE), but torn about including globe. It's certainly synonymous in some contexts but also certainly not a general synonym the way world, Terra, and Gaia can be... — LlywelynII 17:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There is presently no mention of the Earth's ionosphere in this Wikipedia article. I would suggest that it be given a section independent of "Upper Atmosphere", but that might be discussed.
Also, I think that more needs to be said about the magnetosphere. Presently, there is just a short section under "Magnetic Field".
I note that the article is not open to editing. So, I'm not sure how changes are accomplished. DoctorTerrella ( talk) 14:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
While the world has known about heliocentricism for some time, the old terms cannot be easily dispelled. The whole point is that our ancestors weren't really "stupid." It does appear that the sun, moon and other astronomical bodies "rise" and "set" though we know it is an illusion. I tried to incorporate in some material from Sunrise. It was reverted. "People still refer to sunrise, a perceptual illusion.(citation) The Earth Is the Center of the Universe: Top 10 Science Mistakes(end of citation). I think this should be in the article. It is not merely "popular" culture. These terms, along with "moonrise" and "stars come out" are nearly universally used. Student7 ( talk) 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Perhaps a separate page linking to this.
A list of all the names for 'Earth' in as many languages as possible.
I'll get it started:
Arabic: الأرض، الكُرة الأرضيّه
Chinese (Simplified): 地球
Chinese (Traditional): 地球
Czech: Země
Danish: Jorden; jordkloden; verden
Dutch: aarde
Estonian: maa
Finnish: maa
French: terre
German: die Erde
Greek: γη
Hungarian: a Föld
Icelandic: jörðin
Indonesian: bumi
Italian: terra
Japanese: 地球
Korean: 지구
Latvian: Zeme; zemeslode
Lithuanian: Žemė
Norwegian: jorda, jordkloden, verden
Polish: ziemia
Portuguese (Brazil): terra
Portuguese (Portugal): terra
Romanian: pământ
Russian: Земля
Slovak: Zem
Slovenian: zemlja
Swedish: jord
Turkish: dünya
Spanish: Tierra
Catalan: La Terra
Esperanto: La Terro
Afrikaans: Aarde
Suomi: Maa
Euskera: Lurra
Ido: Tero
Latin: Tellus
Vietnamese: Trái Đất
Hebrew: כדור הארץ
Yiddish: דרערד
Irish Gaelic: Talamh
Mongolian: газар дэлхий
Croatian: zemaljska kugla
Bulgarian: земя
Persian: (فارسی) : زمین
Locrin Iksandr Donnachaidh (
talk)
17:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
NOAA ETOPO1 Global Relief Model lists the surface area as 510,082,000 Km which would equate to a radius of 6371.109 467 Km, to an excessive number of digits. 71.196.151.6 ( talk) 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC) The Earth's Surface of 510,064,472 km is based on a Radius of 6371.0 Km. This would imply an average circumference of 2*pi*R = 40,030.17359 km, but this number is not Equatorial. The WGS 84 Equatorial Circumference would be 2*pi*6378.137 =40,075.01669 km which would be rounded to 40,075.017 Km. 71.196.151.6 ( talk) 23:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
A little typographical error in article (in unit conversion): 1.7 AU (250,000,000 km) 1.7 AU (255,000,000 km) Total surface of the Earth: 510,064,472 km². Equatorial circumference: 40,030.2 km. Source: NASA.
For some reason, the value quoted for surface gravity is the equatorial value, and not the mean value. The nav box says not to change anything without discussion here, but I was bold and changed it anyway. If someone wants to know the strength of gravity of Earth, they want the mean value, not the value at the equator. Having this in the navbox is useless, and worse, misleading. The fact that the previous value had a cite is irrelevant, it was citing the wrong value. No-one uses equatorial gravity in equations unless they're doing experiments that are specifically going to be conducted at the equator. Please do not change it back to the useless value. Quantum Burrito ( talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Currently in intro includes: "It is home to about 8.74 million species." This is absurdly precise. The uncertainty is estimates of the species count is in the millions: there is no point in expressing it to three significant figures. Ordinary Person ( talk) 16:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree too. I just changed the article to say "... over eight million species." I believe "over" is the best usage as "at least" implies a strict floor of precisely eight million which is not the case. Jaywilson ( talk) 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the following from the hydrosphere section:
Seems to be someone's calculation. However, it is rather poorly worded and in need of a WP:RS to support it.
I assume it means something like the following:
The "fact" that the earth is smoother than a cue ball (in this article under Composition and Structure/Shape) has been circulated in reputable articles and books for years, but has been shown to be false. See http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2013/june13.pdf Note that the citation in the Earth article is to the World Pool-Billiards Association rules in regard to the allowable size of a cue ball, not the shape or uniformity of a cue ball, and there is no citation to any source about the shape of the earth. I will remove this text soon if there is no dissenting discussion. If anyone has suggestions as to text that could be used instead, please discuss. Jaywilson ( talk) 01:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
For the purposes of our discussion, there are THREE issues: roughness, roundness, and size. The WPA web site is apparently only defining the limits on the size of the cue ball, as defined by its (spherical) diameter. It is not attempting to define how round it is or how rough it is. Read the Colorado State link I provided to see that a cue ball is actually much rounder and smoother than the earth. So, DoctorTerrella, your calculation is correct, but the 0.22% is not the number to compare to. A typical cue ball is actually smooth within 0.01% (1 part in 10,000 or as measured, around 1-3 microns variation in a cue ball 5.625 cm across.) As to roundness, Woodstone, the Colorado State article covers that, too, in its final paragraph, where it says that a cue ball is spherical to within 0.001 inch or 0.05%
A piece of clear tape is 50-100 microns thick, so a bit of clear tape stuck to a cue ball (a variation of 0.1-0.2%) is about the right scale to represent Mt Everest. You could feel it if you ran your finger over it. And it would definitely be disqualified from use in a match. It would probably get you beat up in some pool/billiards halls. :-) Jaywilson ( talk) 19:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
While I will accept the compliment and invite you to read my latest blog post on this ( http://jayblogwilson.com), I will decline your invitation to grace an encyclopaedia article with the debunking of a persistent science myth. I started my research on this because of Neil deGrasse Tyson's reference to the cue ball earth in The Pluto Files, then in the course of research found a reference to the wikipedia entry. I agree it is a fascinating subject to research, as I have discovered billiard rules, bowling ball scanning technology, and some science blogs that I never knew existed. But it is frustrating how persistent a myth can be when it is disproved with easily known facts and a calculator in five minutes. (Height of Everest/diameter of earth ≈ thickness of clear tape/diameter of cue ball)
As for the wikipedia article, the problem remains that the current text has no scientific reference and is wrong. Currently the only course I can suggest besides deleting "which is less than the 0.22% tolerance allowed in billiard balls" is replacing it with "which is rougher than a billiard ball" and cite the Colorado State article. I would like to say "which is about as rough as a billiard ball with pieces of clear tape stuck on it" but I don't have a source to cite besides my own blog. Jaywilson ( talk) 22:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the following text to replace that sentence: "Local topography deviates from this idealized spheroid although on a global scale these deviations are small: The maximum deviation of only 0.17% is at the Mariana Trench, while Mount Everest represents a deviation of 0.14%. If Earth were shrunk to the size of a cue ball, some areas of Earth such as mountain ranges and oceanic trenches would feel like small imperfections, while most of the planet, including the Great Plains and the Abyssal Plains, would actually feel smoother than a cue ball." (cite Colorado State article http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2013/june13.pdf). Jaywilson ( talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Student7, I don't understand your hearts and minds comment. I'm trying to build consensus to still illustrate how smooth or rough the Earth's topography is, but with a statement that is accurate and has a source that can be cited. I have suggested specific language. I will go ahead and make the edit, as I believe what I've suggested satisfies DrTerella and Grandma. Jaywilson ( talk) 15:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Two suggestions regarding the table "Present-day major heat-producing isotopes":
1) Add a column at the right side containing the percentages of the total internal heat from each isotopes Heat release measured in W/(kg*mantle).
2) Sort the table by descending percentage.
There is a lag between minimum/maximum exposure to the Sun and local temperature. The maximum exposure is on December 23rd or so, or June 23rd or so, depending on the hemisphere. However, the maximum cold or heat (in an "average" year) is achieved maybe six weeks later on February 15 or August 15, depending on the hemisphere. There must be a thermodynamic or climate way of referring to this lag and documenting it here. Anyone know the name for the condition? Student7 ( talk) 19:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Would you say "the Venus" or "the Jupiter", I think not, "...the earth" is the ground we walk upon. Earth is the planet we walk upon ( not "the Earth"). If we were living on Venus we would not say "the Venus". If we are going to use a name for the planet we inhabit then that is Earth (not "the Earth"; you surely wouldn't say "the Venus", would you). If we are talking about a planet we do not prefix the planet's name with "the". We don't say "The Jupiter" or "The Saturn". We just say "Jupiter" or "Saturn"; however, if we were inhabitants of some planets in our solar system we may well say "We were walking on the jupiter" or "I was walking on the saturn" or even "If I were walking on the earth" and if we were those inhabitants, and discussing the other planets we would not talk about "the Earth", (as if it were somehow special), but we on Jupiter or Saturn would refer to the third planet as "Earth", not "the Earth". We might say something like "I saw a gibbous earth today" ( or a half earth or even a full earth) Jodosma (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Add Tellus to the "also known as" list, first paragraph. Both Tellus and Terra are the latin words for the Earth and are both more common than the greek Gaia. Also, for clarification I'd suggest adding that "the earth" is sometimes labeled as ⊕ (which is shown in the title above the image). Lastly, I think that we should add which languages the different words for earth come from. So it could read something like:
Earth, also known as the World, Tellus or Terra (Latin) and Gaia (Greek), sometimes labeled as ⊕, is the third planet...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.53.6 ( talk) 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The lede claims that 71% of the surface is "covered" with water. This is really vague and if you stop and think about it, pretty meaningless. Does it include ice and snow? Does is only include permanent coverage? What depth 1mm, 1 inch, 1 foot, 1 meter ... is the criteria used for inclusion? Technically, except for surfaces above 200°F, the ENTIRE Earth is covered with a layer (film) of water. That's why thickness matters, besides just being clear. In the Surface section, the following text is murky, to be polite:"The Earth's terrain varies greatly from place to place. About 70.8% of the surface is covered by water, with much of the continental shelf below sea level." What does this run-on sentence mean? Does it mean "much of the continential shelf below sea level" is or is not covered? Why is altitude important here? Given our seasons, it is pretty clear that some part of the surface is only covered for parts of the year. Giving a single number fails in describing the complexity and gives a static picture. Incidentially, a recent finding is that the estimates for water coverage in the Amazon basin were off by a factor of 2-3. I don't know if this significantly changes the 70.8% figure. 173.189.78.87 ( talk) 18:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest adding a pair of sentences to the Orbit section that describe the shape of the Earth's orbit. For example:
Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 02:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like this article to include the actual current accretion rate of the Earth. Around my house, the soil seems to be getting deeper at the rate of about 4 inches in 20 years and the house is NOT sinking (on bedrock). It would be nice to know how much new material is being added to the Earth every day/year and how much larger in diameter the Earth is getting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Dell ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have removed one incorrect statement added to the infobox on Jan 6th, but also have doubts (not disproofs) about additions to the "Longitude of ascending node" and "Argument of perihelion" items also originating from that date. Would someone please check those items again for accuracy? Thanks. Evensteven ( talk) 04:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
So, I often go back and forth, writing one essay with "the Earth" and the next with just "Earth", but trying to be consistent within each article, if not amongst them all. This article, however, mixes up the two usages. Is there some usage guidance on this eternal issue? Curious, DoctorTerrella ( talk) 14:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed! Better go with "Earth" or we'll have to change the name of the article as well. Also see my comment (inspired by you) on the talk page of Moon. Jaywilson ( talk) 21:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a bunch of other inconsistencies. In the article, we say "the surface", "the lithosphere", etc., etc., and, yes, etc. So, given this, why not "the Earth"? And, indeed, the Universe uses the for the Universe, but that page (a different subject, I know) make inconsistent use of "the" article for the Earth. ;-( Grandma ( talk) 14:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through the entire article, mostly replacing "Earth" with "the Earth", although there were a few exceptions, such as allowing "Earth" to be an adjective, and some exceptions in the etymology section. Still, as always, things are likely not perfect, and other editors are free to proof read and correct. Thanks! Grandma ( talk) 03:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Why, when questions of this sort arise, is it so common to see the answer in terms of either/or? Both forms are used in English, both are acceptable. Not even consistency is required. Sometimes the language just flows more smoothly with one form, sometimes with the other, which is probably why most of these choices are made. But contexts also differ, so language needs can differ also. I think it is far preferable to beg off this question entirely and let the article be free to apply wording that suits each usage. There is no "best"; there is only preference. This is a solution in search of a problem. Evensteven ( talk) 20:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It should just be "Earth" if you are going for consistency in this article. "The sun" is not necessarily analogous to "the Earth", and saying "the Earth" is slightly questionable since there is only one, and that usage would seem to be a vestige of expressions like "the world" or "the planet". However, given different sentence structure and meaning, sometimes you might indeed prefer "the Earth" for stylistic reasons. Is there a reason this article should have a consistent usage other than capitalization? If there's some dispute over it, who really cares. I'd get rid of the definite article entirely, personally. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 23:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I note that while I was away, the controversy around "the" was "settled" essentially by administrative fiat while putting a stop to edit warring: a good action (to stop warring), but not a good resolution. While the issue of "the" is trivial, the issue of editorial opinion in articles is not. Using "the" is one opinion; not using it is another. It would be best to recognize that neither "side" is correct. English usage is simply English usage, like it or not. Both are used; neither is a bad habit. Fiat leaves disagreements to fester. What is it about this matter that leads to an edit war? Nothing else but a refusal to relent in the face of overwhelming general practice (demonstrating both usages) and to cling to personal preferences. I have no argument with the state of the article either way. I do have a determined stance that any editing (and arguing) based on the personal preference of an editor is inappropriate, be one an administrator or no. It would be a disgrace to consider that this matter has been decided in favor of one "side" or another. Evensteven ( talk) 05:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters Read it and weep. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 14:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Sir/Madam There appears to be some minor discrepencies with your earth topic.
sun equatorial radius = 6.37814×10^6 (metres)
Assuming the earth to be a perfect sphere the volume is given by
Volume = (4×pi×R^3)÷3 = 1.0868529×10^21 (cubic metres)
Again assuming the earth to be a perfect sphere the surface area is given by
surface srea = 4×piR^2 = 5.112084×10^14 (square metres)
Kind Regards Colin Wright 15/02/2015
GreenLadder ( talk) 14:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed a few days ago, on Feb. 11, 2015, that the semi-major axis (a) and eccentricity (e) had been changed. The "latest edit" at the bottom of the page was dated that day, Feb. 11, but I don't know whether the a and e values were changed on that date or earlier. But checking again just now, I find that the error persists.
The "a" value is given both in km (149,513,000 km), and in AU (1.000 000 11 AU). The AU value for "a" looks perfectly reasonable, but the km value is incorrect, I believe. In any case, it is inconsistent with the AU value, together with the definition of the AU (which, in the Wikipedia article for that, is given as 149,597,870,700 m). The previous value of "a" in this article was 149,598,261 km; I don't know whether the AU figure for "a" has changed.
The article is semi-protected, and I can't correct it; in any case, all I could manage in that regard, would be to apply the two definitions above to compute "a" (to 1 part in 10⁸, which is the precision of "a" given in AU), and I feel that a more expert hand is wanted for a more thorough check of these figures with some authoritative source.
So I'm issuing this as a "cry for help," in the belief that this page is blemished, and in hopes that someone who is capable of both determining the correct value and editing the page.
Fredgds ( talk) 09:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and just added that new image in the template. I believe it is a better one; it has more vivid colors. If anyone's got a problem with it or something, feel free to revert. PS: Check the description of the image for more info Tetra quark ( talk) 07:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NASA archivist Mike Gentry has speculated that The Blue Marble is the most widely distributed image in human history.
Should this happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InAndOutLand ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a discussion about what the lead image should be. The two options seem to be the Blue Marble photo and a NASA composite image (both shown at right). Please chime in on which you prefer and why to help build consensus!
I prefer the Blue Marble for two main reasons:
The original Blue Marble is a single, virtually unaltered, true-color photograph taken from between the earth and the moon. As a result, it is a highly accurate depiction of what the earth would actually look like from the perspective in the photo. By contrast, the NASA composite image is a composite of a multitude of images captured by satellites in low earth orbit. By necessity, the image is highly processed and the perspective is artificial-- the photographs were actually taken from much closer than the perspective of the image. As a result, although the image represents geographical features well, is a less accurate depiction of what the earth would actually look like. The NASA page on the Blue Marble next generation project that produced the composite image in question has this to say on its limitations:
Areas of open water still show some “noise.” In tropical lowlands, cloud cover during the rainy season can be so extensive that obtaining a cloud-free view of every pixel of the area for a given month may not be possible. Deep oceans are not included in the source data; the creator of the Blue Marble uses a uniform blue color for deep ocean regions, and this value has not been completely blended with observations of shallow water in coastal areas. The lack of blending may, in some cases, make the transition between shallow coastal water and deep ocean appear unnatural. Finally, the data do not completely distinguish between snow and cloud cover in areas with short-term snow cover (less than three or four months). Source.
Composite images are unquestionably very valuable in planetary science, since they contain more information than is possible with a single photo. I believe, however, that the average Wikipedia reader expects the lead photo of an article to portray the subject as it would actually appear. This philosophy appears to be the general consensus for planet lead images, which are all true-color and all single images except for Mercury (composite of 9), Jupiter (composite of 4), Saturn (composite of 2). It should be noted that even these composite images are composed of very few images (and are thus closer to actual appearance) compared to the hundreds or thousands of images that compose the NASA composite image in question here.
The Blue Marble image has great historical significance. Not only was it taken on the last manned lunar mission, but it also became the iconic symbol of global consciousness. NASA claims that it is among the most widely distributed images in human history.
I conclusion, I believe that the Blue Marble is objectively the better choice for the lead photo. I would happily support the addition of the NASA composite photo the main body of the article. A2soup ( talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I put Earth in vivid colors. XD Jc pag 2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 11:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
190.0.24.2 ( talk) 14:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC) pulga 79
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Noblem88 ( talk) 09:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC) The article states there are 7.2 billion people on the earth. However, the World Health Organization records now estimate 7.3 billion people.
Done - but as you haven't cited a reference, I've used the same source as before
here -
Arjayay (
talk)
09:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
MansourJE ( talk) 07:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
After crashing a mercury-like planet to earth, radioactive elements entered to the earth's core and it makes the electromagnetic s which is useful for us and protects us like a shield in coaxial cables Read more here: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-earth-ate-mercury-like-body-early.html
MansourJE ( talk) 11:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
earth rotates around the sun and spins 365.26 not 366.26 times 2602:30A:C018:C120:2C57:325B:A822:668E ( talk) 00:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a great section! But most of the material seems to be in the higher level article Planet#Axial_tilt already. Maybe the section should describe differences, rather than repeating the same information. In other words, so we want to repeat the same info for Venus, Sirius 6, Andromeda 9, and the other 10,000 "habitable" (or non-habitable) planets the astronomers claim to have discovered?? Student7 ( talk) 19:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added a list and description of every period in the Phanerozoic into the Phanerozoic Article, and I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to place it in this article, or perhaps another article somewhat similar to this.
The Phanerozoic is divided into three eras: the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic, and consisting of 12 periods: the Cambrian, the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, the Carboniferous, the Permian, the Triassic, the Jurassic, the Cretaceous, the Paleogene, the Neogene, and the Quaternary. The Paleozoic features the rise of fish, amphibians and reptiles. The Mesozoic is ruled by the reptiles, and features the evolution of mammals, birds and more famously, dinosaurs. The Cenozoic is the time of the mammals, and more recently, humans.
Extended content
|
---|
Paleozoic EraThe Paleozoic is a time in earth's history when complex life forms evolve, take their first breath of oxygen on dry land, and when the forerunner of all life on earth begin to diversify. There are seven periods in the Paleozoic eras: the Cambrian, the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, the Carboniferous and the Permian. [1] Cambrian![]() Ordovician![]() SilurianThe Silurian spans from 440 million years to 415 million years ago. The Silurian saw the healing of the earth that recovered from the snowball earth. This period saw the mass evolution of fish, as jaw-less fish became more numerous, jawed fish evolved, and the first freshwater fish evolved, though arthropods, such as sea scorpions, were still apex predators. Fully terrestrial life evolved, which included early arachnids, fungi, and centipedes. Also, the evolution of vascular plants (Cooksonia) allowed plants to gain a foothold on land. These early plants are the forerunners of all plant life on land. During this time, there are four continents: Gondwana (Africa, South America, Australia, Antarctica, Siberia), Laurentia (North America), Baltica (Northern Europe), and Avalonia (Western Europe). The recent rise in sea levels provided many new species to thrive in water. [4] Devonian![]() Carboniferous![]() PermianThe Permian spans from 300 million to 250 million years ago and was the last period of the Paleozoic. At the beginning, all continents formed together to form the super-continent Pangaea and had one ocean called Panthalassa. The earth was very dry during this time, with harsh seasons as the climate of the interior of Pangaea wasn't regulated by large bodies of water. Reptiles and synapsids flourished in the new dry climate. Creatures such as Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus ruled the new continent. The first conifers evolve, and dominate the terrestrial landscape. Nearing the end of the Permian, however, Pangaea got drier and drier. The interior was nothing but dry deserts, and new species such as Scutosaurus and Gorgonopsid filled the empty desert. Eventually, they disappeared, along with 95% of all life on earth in an event simply known as " the Great Dying", and is the third mass extinction event of the world. [8] [9] Mesozoic EraAlso known as "the Age of the dinosaurs", the Mesozoic features the rise of reptiles on their 150 million year conquest to rule the earth from the seas, the land, and even in the air. There are 3 periods in the Mesozoic: the Triassic, the Jurassic, and the Cretaceous. TriassicThe Triassic ranges from 250 million to 200 million years ago. The Triassic is a desolate transitional state in Earth's history between the Permian Extinction and the lush Jurassic Period. It has three major epochs: the Early Triassic, the Middle Triassic and the Late Triassic. [10] The Early Triassic lived between 250 million to 247 million years ago and was dominated by deserts as Pangaea had not yet broken up, thus the interior was nothing but arid. The Earth had just witnessed a massive die-off in which 95% of all life went extinct. The most common life on earth were Lystrosaurus, Labyrinthodont, and Euparkeria along with many other creatturesx that managed to survive the Great Dying. Temnospondyli evolved during this time and would be the dominant predator for much of the Triassic. [11]![]() The Middle Triassic spans from 247 million to 237 million years ago. The Middle Triassic featured the beginnings of the breakup of Pangaea, and the beginning of the Tethys Sea. The ecosystem had recovered from the devastation that was the Great Dying. Phytoplankton, coral, and crustaceans all had recovered, and the reptiles began to get bigger and bigger. New aquatic reptiles evolved such as Ichthyosaurs and Nothosaurs. Meanwhile on land, Pine forests flourished, bringing along mosquitoes and fruit flies. The first ancient crocodilians evolved, which sparked competition with the large amphibians that had since rule the freshwater world. [12] The Late Triassic spans from 237 million to 200 million years ago. Following the bloom of the Middle Triassic, the Late Triassic featured frequent heat spells, as well as moderate precipitation (10-20 inches per year). The recent warming led to a boom of reptilian evolution on land as the first true dinosaurs evolve, as well as pterosaurs. All this climactic change, however, resulted in a large die-out known as the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event, in which all archosaurs (excluding ancient crocodiles), synapsids, and almost all large amphibians went extinct, as well as 34% of marine life in the fourth mass exinction event of the world. The cause is debatable. [13] [14] Jurassic![]() The Early Jurassic spans from 200 million years to 175 million years ago. [16] The climate was much more humid than the Triassic, and as a result, the world was very tropical. In the oceans, Plesiosaurs, Ichthyosaurs and Ammonites fill waters as the dominant races of the seas. On land, dinosaurs and other reptiles stake their claim as the dominant race of the land, with species such as Dilophosaurus at the top. The first true crocodiles evolved, pushing out the large amphibians to near extinction. All-in-all, reptiles rise to rule the world. Meanwhile, the first true mammals evolve, but never exceed the height of a shrew. [17] The Middle Jurassic spans from 175 million to 163 million years ago. [18] During this epoch, reptiles flourished as huge herds of sauropods, such as Brachiosaurus and Diplodicus, filled the fern prairies of the Middle Jurassic. Many other predators rose as well, such as Allosaurus. Conifer forests made up a large portion of the forests. In the oceans, Plesiosaurs were quite common, and Ichthyosaurs were flourishing. This epoch was the peak of the reptiles. [19]![]() The Late Jurassic spans from 163 million to 145 million years ago. [20] The Late Jurassic featured a massive extinction of sauropods and Ichthyosaurs due to the separation of Pangaea into Laurasia and Gondwana in an extinction known as the Jurassic-Cretaceous extinction. Sea levels rose, destroying fern prairies and creating shallows in its wake. Ichthyosaurs went extinct whereas sauropods, as a whole, did not die out in the Jurassic; in fact, some species, like the Titanosaurus, lived up to the K-T extinction. [21] The increase in sea-levels opened up the Atlantic sea way which would continue to get larger over time. The divided world would give opportunity for the diversification of new dinosaurs. Cretaceous![]() The Early Cretaceous spans from 145 million to 100 million years ago. [23] The Early Cretaceous saw the expansion of seaways, and as a result, the decline and extinction of sauropods (except in South America). Many coastal shallows were created, and that caused Ichthyosaurs to die out. Mosasaurs evolved to replace them as head of the seas. Some island-hopping dinosaurs, like Eustreptospondylus, evolved to cope with the coastal shallows and small islands of ancient Europe. Other dinosaurs rose up to fill the empty space that the Jurassic-Cretaceous extinction left behind, such as Carcharodontosaurus and Spinosaurus. Of the most successful would be the Iguanodon which spread to every continent. Seasons came back into effect an the poles got seasonally colder, but dinosaurs still inhabited this area like the Leaellynasaura which inhabited the polar forests year-round, and many dinosaurs migrated there during summer like Muttaburrasaurus. Since it was too cold for crocodiles, it was the last stronghold for large amphibians, like Koolasuchus. Pterosaurs got larger as species like Tapejara and Ornithocheirus evolved. More importantly, the first true birds evolved which sparked competition between them and the pterosaurs. The Late Cretaceous spans from 100 million to 65 million years ago. The Late Cretaceous featured a cooling trend that would continue on in the Cenozoic period. Eventually, tropics were restricted to the equator and areas beyond the tropic lines featured extreme seasonal changes in weather. Dinosaurs still thrived as new species such as Tyrannosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Triceratops and Hadrosaurs dominated the food web. Pterosaurs, however, were going into a decline as birds took to the skies. The last pterosaur to die off was Quetzalcoatlus. Marsupials evolved within the large conifer forests as scavengers. In the oceans, Mosasaurs ruled the seas to fill the role of the Ichthyosaurs, and huge plesiosaurs, such as Elasmosaurus, evolved. Also, the first flowering plants evolved. At the end of the Cretaceous, the Deccan traps and other volcanic eruptions were poisoning the atmosphere. As this was continuing, it is thought that a large meteor smashed into earth, creating the Chicxulub Crater in an event known as the K-T Extinction, the fifth and most recent mass extinction event, in which 75% of life on earth went extinct, including all non-avian dinosaurs. Everything over 10 kilograms went extinct. The age of the dinosaurs was officially over. [24] [25] Cenozoic EraThe Cenozoic features the rise of mammals on their conquest to rule the land, as the dinosaurs have now left a huge opening as top dog. There are three division of the Cenezoic: the Paleogene, the Neogene and Quaternary. Paleogene![]() The Paleocene ranged from 65 million to 55 million years ago. The Paleocene is a transitional point between the devastation that is the K-T extinction, to the rich jungles environment that is the Early Eocene. The Early Paleocene saw the recovery of the earth. The continents began to take their modern shape, but all continents (and India) were separated from each other. Afro-Eurasia is separated by the Tethys Sea, and the Americas are separated by the strait of Panama, as the isthmus has not yet formed. This epoch features a general warming trend, with jungles eventually reaching the poles. The oceans were dominated by sharks as the large reptiles that had once ruled went extinct. Archaic mammals filled the world such as creodonts and early primates that evolved during the Mesozoic, and as a result, there was nothing over 10 kilograms. Mammals are still quite small. [26] The Eocene Epoch ranged from 55 million years to 33 million years ago. In the Early-Eocene, life was small and living in cramped jungles, much like the Paleocene. There was nothing over the weight of 10 kilograms. [27] Among them were early primates, whales and horses along with many other early forms of mammals. At the top of the food chains were huge birds, such as Gastornis. It is the only time in recorded history that birds ruled the world (excluding their ancestors, the dinosaurs). The temperature was 30 degrees Celsius with little temperature gradient from pole to pole. In the Mid-Eocene, the circum-Antarctic current between Australia and Antarctica formed which disrupted ocean currents worldwide and as a result caused a global cooling effect, shrinking the jungles. This allowed mammals to grow to mammoth proportions, such as whales which are, by now, almost fully aquatic. Mammals like Andrewsarchus were now at the top of the food-chain and sharks were replaced by whales such as Basilosaurus as rulers of the seas. The Late-Eocene saw the rebirth of seasons, which caused the expansion of savanna-like areas, along with the evolution of grass. [27] [28] The Oligocene Epoch spans from 33 million to 23 million years ago. The Oligocene feature the expansion of grass which had led to many new species to evolve, including the first elephants, cats, dogs, marsupials and many other species still prevalent today. Many other species of plants evolved in this period too, such as the evergreen trees. A cooling period was still in effect and seasonal rains were as well. Mammals still continued to grow larger and larger. Paraceratherium, the largest land mammal to ever live evolved during this period, along with many other perissodactyls in an event known as the Grand coupre. [29] NeogeneThe Miocene spans from 23 to 5 million years ago and is a period in which grass spreads further across, effectively dominating a large portion of the world, diminishing forests in the process. Kelp forests evolved, leading to new species such as sea otters to evolve. During this time, perissodactyls thrived, and evolved into many different varieties. Alongside them were the apes, which evolved into a staggering 30 species. Overall, arid and mountainous land dominated most of the world, as did grazers. The Tethys Sea finally closed with the creation of the Arabian Peninsula and in its wake left the Black, Red, Mediterranean and Caspian Seas. This only increased aridity. Many new plants evolved, and 95% of modern seed plants evolved in the mid-Miocene. [31] The Pliocene ranges from 5 to 2 million years ago. The Pliocene features dramatic climactic changes, which ultimately leads to modern species and plants. The most dramatic are the formation of Panama, and the accumulation of ice at the poles, leading to a massive die-off, India and Asia collide forming the Himalayas, the Rockies and Appalachian mountain ranges were formed, and the Mediterranean Sea dried up for the next several million years. Along with these major geological events, the Australopithecus evolves in Africa, beginning the human branch. Also, with the isthmus of Panama, animals migrate across North and South America, wreaking havoc on the local ecology. Climactic changes bring along savannas that are still continuing to spread across the world, Indian monsoons, deserts in East Asia, and the beginnings of the Sahara desert. The earth's continents and seas move into their present shapes, and the world map hasn't changed much since. [32] [33] QuaternaryThe Quaternary ranges from 3 million to present day, and features modern animals, and dramatic climate changes and features two epochs: the Pleistocene and the Holocene. [[File:Ice age fauna of northern Spain - Mauricio Antón.jpg|thumb|Mega-fauna of the Pleistocene ( mammoths, cave lions, woolly rhino, megaloceros, [[Equus scotti|American horses]] The Pleistocene lasted from 3 million to 12,000 years ago. This epoch features the ice ages which is a result from the cooling effect that started in the Mid-Eocene. As the ice progressively migrated towards the equator, the areas north and south of the tropic line featured intense winters yet mild summers. Meanwhile, Africa experienced terrible droughts which resulted in the creation of the Sahara, Namib, and Kalahari deserts. To cope, many animals evolved including Mammoths, Giant ground sloths, Dire wolves and most famously Homo sapiens. 100,000 years ago marked the end of one of he worst droughts of Africa, and the expansion of primitive man. As the Pleistocene draws to a close, one of the largest die-outs causes many mega-fauna to die off, including the last hominid species (excluding Homo sapiens). All continents are effected, but Africa isn't hit quite as hard. [34] The Holocene ranges from 12,000 years ago to present day. Also known as "the Age of Man", the Holocene features the rise of man on his path to sentience. All recorded history and "the history of the world" lies within the boundaries of the Holocene epoch. [35] Human activity, however, is being blamed for a die-out that has been going on since 10,000 B.C.E. commonly referred to as " the Sixth Extinction" with an estimated extinction rate of 140,000 species per year. [36] |
References
Please write down any comments, questions, or concerns below this sentence. Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I started to replace the sentence about discovering that the earth itself moved, but realized that mine wasn't much better than the original. The problem is to say, as tersely as possible, that people knew for a long time that the planets moved, but didn't realize the earth moved, without saying it negatively. There have been several attempts at this! The current version meets the criteria above but doesn't seem to convey the sense of geocentricism.
How about: "Humans had realized for millenia that other planets moved and discovered that Earth was a planet that moved in the 16th century."" Student7 ( talk) 22:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
As an extension of the discussion in the preceding section, I can only say that the title of this article section is ridiculously represented in the text by a relatively small POV (that is, a POV held by relatively few). It's clearly paying homage to addressing creationists and their beliefs. I think the section requires some real NPOV text initially, forming a length that represents actual cultural and historical viewpoint as held by so many. The existing POV can then be neutralized and incorporated as a balanced representation of the view, probably (in part) by shortening its length as appropriate to its notability. Evensteven ( talk) 01:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change {{val|750|ul=mya}} to {{val|750|u=mya}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.162.73 ( talk) 16:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Please remove the mean anomaly. Mean anomaly changes every day, so it is unhelpful (and incorrect) to list a static value retrieved in December 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.16.3 ( talk) 14:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Why no english measurements in (parentheses)??? Msjayhawk ( talk) 18:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
QUESTION: How Fast Is The Earth Traveling Through The Universe?
Seems one possible suggested Answer (see below) could be better.
Copied from the "Earth" article
Suggested Answer:
"The Earth is moving through the universe at 2,976,000 km/h (1,849,000 mph). [1]"
References
- ^ Fraknoi, Andrew (Spring 2007). "How Fast Are You Moving When You Are Sitting Still? => [Daily rotation at "1,000 mph" + Revolution around the Sun at "66,000 mph" + Revolution around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at "483,000 mph" + Milky Way motion in intergalactic Outer Space at "1.3 Million mph"]". Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Retrieved July 3, 2015.
A Better Answer - with Reliable Reference(s) - would be Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 02:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I would be glad to see a not off-topic explanation about the reverts please??-- Evropariver ( talk) 10:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Quoting the article,
Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%).
The citation for that is as follows:
Turcotte, D. L.; Schubert, G. (2002). "4". Geodynamics (2 ed.). Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 136–37. ISBN 978-0-521-66624-4.
Here's an article that's suggesting different numbers:
That article suggests that it's 50% planetary accretion, 50% radioactive decay. And that article is dated 2011 vs 2002. Should the article be updated with the new source? TerraFrost ( talk) 16:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The culture section is a great place to retain the Blue Marble photo. I was thanked for my efforts to clean it up, but was reverted because I removed some sourced info. But the sourced info I removed was inappropriate. First of all, the previous version was garbled, with statements mixed randomly in no coherent order and the introductory sentence placed last. Secondly, it was a blatant violation of BIAS, as the only religions it mentioned were fundamentalist Protestatism and Islam. If we're going to mention religions, we should do them all. (As I mentioned above, Gaia isn't really notable either except as an example of the third transformation of our conception of the Earth.)
The current organization is as follows: (1) the astronomical symbol, (2) mythological and religious views, (3) scientific transformations of our view, culminating in the photo gallery. — kwami ( talk) 20:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW - I *entirely* agree with the comments by Kwami above - and with the " text currently presented" in the " Earth#Cultural and historical viewpoint" section of the " Earth" article - this text seems excellent - and sufficient imo atm - more text can be presented in the main " Earth in culture" article if more is needed I would think - iac - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 03:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed the addition about the discovery of the geological age of the Earth because it currently asserts nothing about it being culturally transformative. All it shows is a factoid about science history. Praemonitus ( talk) 20:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
BRIEF Followup - Table below may (or may not) be helpful:
1. " Blue Marble-1972"(9?) | 2. " ElektroL1"(Deleted) | 3. " Earthrise"(1) | 4. " BlueMarble-1997" | 5. BlueMarble-2012" | 6. " Blue Marble-1972-CC" | 7. " Earth-2015-USA" (3) | 8. " Earth-2015-Africa" (3?) | 9. " Earth-OceanOnly" (UnAvailable) (1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A2soup Drbogdan EvenSteven? Huntster Joannebogdan Praemonitus Rfassbind Serendipodous SkywalkerPL |
[none] | (70.51.203.69) | [none] | [none] | [none] |
BDS2006 Kwami Ɱ |
Cinemologist? JorisvS PhilipTerryGraham |
Dustin |
In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 21:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The existing discussions regarding the banner image appear to be NASA-centric and do not represent a worldwide view of the issue. We need to consider all options and not just NASA images if the community is to reach an unbiased and well-informed decision on which image is most appropriate for representing the Earth.
Comparing photographs only on their technical and aesthetic merits in so far as those merits help in achieving a vivid and accurate representation of Earth, I'd like to put this up to a vote so the Wikipedia community can decide which image ought to represent this planet we all happen to inhabit.
I will nominate two photos ("1" and "2", respectively) which I believe are strong contenders as they are the only full disk photographs of the Earth on Wikimedia Commons that I'm aware of. "1" is the incumbent banner image captured from Apollo 17 in 1972 while "2" was captured by the Elektro-L No.1 satellite in 2014 from geostationary Earth orbit.
Please feel free to nominate additional image options below. I look forward to hearing from all of you. BDS2006 ( talk) 07:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Done - updated the banner image on the
Earth article to the "
Elektro-L"/Image-2 - which received the most votes (6 of 10; a/o 10:10am/et/usa, 2 July 2015) - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - in any case - Enjoy! :)
Drbogdan (
talk)
14:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a huge fan of this one. It is a CGI image based on real data from disparate sources. It is relatively low-resolution and doesn't look much like either the Blue Marble or Elektro-L, which makes me think that it probably is not very lifelike. Thanks for suggesting it, though :) A2soup ( talk) 22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This very recent, hi-resolution image was taken by the Japanese weather satellite Himwari-8 in October. I don't know what it's copyright status is though. This one's a mosaic, but it does seem to be in true colour. It's also from NASA so it's free to use. Serendi pod ous 13:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
So I know we have a lot of candidates already, but I found one that I think is worth having on the table (added to the gallery at top, with a small version down here to avoid clutter). The criticism of the Blue Marble that resonated most with me so far is BDS2006's assertion that it was taken with a filter/film combo that de-emphasized blue and caused other color artifacts. I can see that the color scheme in the Blue Marble is, in fact, different from the other images (including Earthrise), which are all basically similar to each other. So I found a color-corrected version of the Blue Marble, which has been altered to match the color scheme in Elektro-L, Earthrise, and others. I don't think that the color-correction should be too much of an issue, since consensus supported Elektro-L, which is a non-color image with all the color added in processing. I'm still fine with Elektro-L, but if it turns out to have copyright issues, perhaps this image can be considered as a way to address at least one concern with the original Blue Marble (which is still my first choice, btw). A2soup ( talk) 11:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
NEW - ADDED a recently released " Earth" image for possible consideration - per NASA, 20 July 2015 - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Non-composite? Check. Taken in color? Check. No obvious digital artifacts? Check. I can get behind this one 100%, although I don't necessarily prefer it to the Blue Marble. I look forward to more images from DSCOVR soon! A2soup ( talk) 16:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This new one looks like a good option, for the reasons kwami and A2soup have given. Apollo's Blue Marble is the only other real option, because img#2 has apparently been deleted for being released by Roscosmos, img#3 is not an image of just Earth, img#4 has horrible colors, and img#5 shows North America way too large compared to how it would actually look. The Apollo image is of such historical importance that if we opt for this image in the infobox (which I think we should), it should still be included in body of the article. -- JorisvS ( talk) 08:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
---
Done - updated the banner image on the
Earth article to the new
DSCOVR
"Earth-2015"/Image-7 - which seems to be sufficiently supported at the moment - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - in any case - Enjoy! :)
Drbogdan (
talk)
10:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
According to the Encyclopedia of World Religions, "Though from earliest times heaven was believed to be the residence of a high being or a prominently god, the earth as a personified entity is much rarer; it probably first occurred among archaic agrarian civilizations, and still does in some primitive societies...". This appears to conflict with the above statement. The earth-mother concept is strongly associated with neo-paganism, [3] and I have to wonder if this is the source of some of the wording of the paragraph. In mythology there are any number of mother goddesses, but fewer that are actually associated with the physical Earth—the Earth Mother. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
and Terra in some works of science fiction) in partial reference to science fiction, by that description is not professional editing. The name Terra in science fiction comes from pre-informed reference as a Latin scientific name. If Terra is used in the informative sense as (and Terra in Latin scientific), then those that read it here are thus informed that it is in use in certain fictions.
Is it possible we can change the infobox image to this DSCOVR image of Earth instead? I honestly don't know why the America-centric view of Earth from DSCOVR was plucked and the African-centric view not even discussed. The America-centric one is inferior because:
This image is simply far better as a photograph of Earth than the one being currently used in the infobox. It should replace it. Philip Terry Graham 05:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Done - thanks for the comments - yes - I agree as well - the infobox image has been updated from the
old image to the
new image (although, afaik atm, png may have more raster rendering issues than jpg?) - *entirely* ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce the edit of course - iac - Enjoy! :)
Drbogdan (
talk)
12:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC).
Could the Val template be changed to display gigayear or gyr?
To be consistent with units used in the article?
The template Val seems to be displaying the wrong unit. The unit entry is Gyr for gigayear, but the display is Ga for giga annum. Thank you, -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 13:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
I moved information comparing the two hemispheres from the article Northern Hemisphere to this article. The change was deleted here and restored there!
Of course, we don't place non- WP:TOPIC material in other articles because it would then need to be maintained in both places (or multiple places. My favorite was the article Hoboken, New Jersey which once insisted that it's major airport was Kennedy International Airport!)
The paragraph was perfect for this article which contains information both hemispheres. Student7 ( talk) 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Guess what? Earth is 6k years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoTrack ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Greetings, I would like to know whether I can edit this page with this information and with this reference.If yes pls guide me Earths magnetic north pole is moving northward at a rate of 10 miles per year. [1]
Anjali das gupta ( talk) 08:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
References
When 'The Earth' is searched in wiki search bar, it comes but we're not getting the option to edit it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.103.132 ( talk) 12:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The interior of this planet is divided into three parts :-The Crust,The Mantle and the Core M.Aabid Meman ( talk) 15:30, 30 August 2015 (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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 18 |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tellur, Telluris, Gaia in the alternate names infobox section have no citation. They appear nowhere else in the article, nor do they link to any explanatory articles (and, to me, seem to be nowhere near common knowledge or inclusion worthy). The attached note only appears to explain why "terra" is not one of the alternate names. At the very least a citation needed tag ought to be added, or these names removed. 89.176.87.169 ( talk) 11:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
For a long time, the Earth article infobox used the Blue Marble photo taken by Apollo 17. Now, however, the infobox uses an artificial computer mosaic created in 2002. The 2002 mosaic is inferior for the following reasons:
1. The Earth, a natural object, is best served by a natural photograph if natural photographs of it exist. They clearly do. Imagine if the infoboxes for humans, animals, plants, and other natural objects used computer-generated images (or computerized mosaics) instead of natural photographs. It would be absurd and unscientific.
2. The computerized image is fake looking. Compare it to natural photos of Earth. The ocean color looks unnatural, the cloud cover is not extensive and dense enough, the coastlines have a fuzzy look to them, etc.
3. The computerized image shows a gibbous Earth (see Japan and the Philippines), whereas the Apollo 17 Blue Marble shows a full Earth (or very close to full).
Recently, the infobox also contained (briefly) the photo of Earth taken by Apollo 8. This photo has the distinction of being the first photograph of the planet ever taken by a human operator. It is also an excellent image and could better serve the Earth infobox, although it does show a gibbous Earth.
Someone with the appropriate privileges should change the infobox image back to a natural photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.25.214 ( talk) 08:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tellur, Telluris and Gaia in the alternate names infobox section have no citation. They appear only once in the article, in a recently added sentence with the rather uncertain wording that "other possible names may be...," again with no source. The attached note only appears to explain why "terra" is not one of the alternate names.
The interwiki link to Tellur leads to a disambiguation page which in turn leads to an article about an ancient agricultural goddess, not a valid source about the name being an alternate designation for Earth. A [citation needed] tag ought to be added to the above names, or a proper source cited, or these names removed.
You might notice this request is similar to an earlier one which has been repeatedly marked "done". However, other than inserting the aforementioned sentence, nothing has actually been done to address the issue. 89.176.87.169 ( talk) 20:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The timestamp for the number of artificial satellites in orbit is October 2014, which hasn't happened yet. Should be October 2013, the date of the source. 76.202.219.123 ( talk) 06:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that there is no largest city on the article. Would someone add largest city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.10.95 ( talk) 02:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Scientists lately say that in a period of millennium, the water surface of earth will rise up and go over Hawaii's land surface.
Earth's scientists and Historians have always thought that the first human bones were from Africa but have now found that there are older human bones in Asia.
Scientists- (pl.noun) A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more physical or natural sciences. Sci-ent-ists
Millennium- (noun) A period of 1000 years. Mill-enn-ium
Surface- (noun) The outside part of something. Sur-face
Historians- (pl.noun) An expert in or student of history. His-tor-ian-s
One would think that the earth's location within the universe deserves it's own section? Everything is located somewhere and so is Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.19.217 ( talk) 20:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is 'Earth' always used in this article, rather than 'the Earth' as in common parlance. It reads swkwardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.144.83 ( talk) 07:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
"Earth, ... is the third-most distant planet from the Sun" Shouldn't that be "the third-closest planet to the Sun" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.223.23 ( talk) 14:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Earth - Mostly Harmless ArcaneCrevalISaveItAll ( talk) 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would simply like to point out that wikipedias use of the word "myth" in the "Cultural and historical viewpoint" section is highly offensive to most people who beleive in sutch things and is therefor counterintuitive to thier policy of maintaining nutral articles to resonable extent, as in "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Wikipedias own disambiguation of the word includes "fable" which follows to an article stating "A fable is a succinct fictional story", from which I am sure you understand the issue with the word "fictional". A much less contraversial word would be simply "story" as in "Creation stories", as that word is far more often veiwed as nutral. I ask that wikipedia would honor thier policy and fix this. Thank you.
unsigned comment added by 174.126.244.103 ( talk) 03:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I thought I covered that with the sentance "Wikipedias own disambiguation of the word includes "fable" which follows to an article stating "A fable is a succinct fictional story", from which I am sure you understand the issue with the word "fictional".". However if this is still not clear, I should state that the Oxford English Dictionary's second definition definition of the word "myth" is " A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing". Although it may not be intentionl, many people (aproximatly 88.33% of the worlds population according to wikepedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations) who believe in sutch things will veiw this as an atempt to undermine and insult their personel beleifs, a thing I am sure wikepedia wishes to avoid, as per their policy. I should also point out that the Oxford English Dictionary's first definition declairs a myth to be a story by the theird word, so there should be no issue swiching the two. If you do some reserch I am sure you will find that the term "Creation story" is much more widly used and recieved among people who believe in sutch things and should not contradict, or insult, those who don't. If you wish to continue to insist that the word myth is nutrall please base it off some sort of evidence sutch as a survey between interested parties or the like. Otherwise I ask that wikipedia would honor thier policy and fix this. Thank you.
A note says there is exactly a 5 million km difference ( to five significant figures ) in the distance of perihelion and aphelion. Here is what other sources give for J2000:
source | a | e | diff in au | in Gm |
---|---|---|---|---|
VSOP2013 | 1.0000010 | 0.0167086 | 0.0334173 | 4.9991654 |
Newcomb | 1.0000002 | 0.0167091 | 0.0334182 | 4.9993012 |
VSOP 87 | 1.0000010 | 0.0167086 | 0.0334173 | 4.9991604 |
And the averages for J2000 ± 1 Millennia and distances
perihelion | aphelion | diff in au | in Gm |
---|---|---|---|
0.983294 | 1.016707 | 0.033414 | 4.998668 |
Saros136 ( talk) 07:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I was so about to change the [[Density|densest]] planet in the [[Solar System]]
into the [[Intelligent life|least intelligent]] planet in the [[Solar System]]
, using the edit summary "'dense' is too informal", but considering that poor Gaia cannot be blamed for our activities, I figure it wouldn't be fair to her. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder how long it would have stood. :D --
Florian Blaschke (
talk)
12:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Removed the overly poetic ones which are epithets but which no one ever uses as a legitimate synonym for "Earth" (WP:UNDUE), but torn about including globe. It's certainly synonymous in some contexts but also certainly not a general synonym the way world, Terra, and Gaia can be... — LlywelynII 17:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There is presently no mention of the Earth's ionosphere in this Wikipedia article. I would suggest that it be given a section independent of "Upper Atmosphere", but that might be discussed.
Also, I think that more needs to be said about the magnetosphere. Presently, there is just a short section under "Magnetic Field".
I note that the article is not open to editing. So, I'm not sure how changes are accomplished. DoctorTerrella ( talk) 14:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
While the world has known about heliocentricism for some time, the old terms cannot be easily dispelled. The whole point is that our ancestors weren't really "stupid." It does appear that the sun, moon and other astronomical bodies "rise" and "set" though we know it is an illusion. I tried to incorporate in some material from Sunrise. It was reverted. "People still refer to sunrise, a perceptual illusion.(citation) The Earth Is the Center of the Universe: Top 10 Science Mistakes(end of citation). I think this should be in the article. It is not merely "popular" culture. These terms, along with "moonrise" and "stars come out" are nearly universally used. Student7 ( talk) 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Perhaps a separate page linking to this.
A list of all the names for 'Earth' in as many languages as possible.
I'll get it started:
Arabic: الأرض، الكُرة الأرضيّه
Chinese (Simplified): 地球
Chinese (Traditional): 地球
Czech: Země
Danish: Jorden; jordkloden; verden
Dutch: aarde
Estonian: maa
Finnish: maa
French: terre
German: die Erde
Greek: γη
Hungarian: a Föld
Icelandic: jörðin
Indonesian: bumi
Italian: terra
Japanese: 地球
Korean: 지구
Latvian: Zeme; zemeslode
Lithuanian: Žemė
Norwegian: jorda, jordkloden, verden
Polish: ziemia
Portuguese (Brazil): terra
Portuguese (Portugal): terra
Romanian: pământ
Russian: Земля
Slovak: Zem
Slovenian: zemlja
Swedish: jord
Turkish: dünya
Spanish: Tierra
Catalan: La Terra
Esperanto: La Terro
Afrikaans: Aarde
Suomi: Maa
Euskera: Lurra
Ido: Tero
Latin: Tellus
Vietnamese: Trái Đất
Hebrew: כדור הארץ
Yiddish: דרערד
Irish Gaelic: Talamh
Mongolian: газар дэлхий
Croatian: zemaljska kugla
Bulgarian: земя
Persian: (فارسی) : زمین
Locrin Iksandr Donnachaidh (
talk)
17:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
NOAA ETOPO1 Global Relief Model lists the surface area as 510,082,000 Km which would equate to a radius of 6371.109 467 Km, to an excessive number of digits. 71.196.151.6 ( talk) 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC) The Earth's Surface of 510,064,472 km is based on a Radius of 6371.0 Km. This would imply an average circumference of 2*pi*R = 40,030.17359 km, but this number is not Equatorial. The WGS 84 Equatorial Circumference would be 2*pi*6378.137 =40,075.01669 km which would be rounded to 40,075.017 Km. 71.196.151.6 ( talk) 23:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
A little typographical error in article (in unit conversion): 1.7 AU (250,000,000 km) 1.7 AU (255,000,000 km) Total surface of the Earth: 510,064,472 km². Equatorial circumference: 40,030.2 km. Source: NASA.
For some reason, the value quoted for surface gravity is the equatorial value, and not the mean value. The nav box says not to change anything without discussion here, but I was bold and changed it anyway. If someone wants to know the strength of gravity of Earth, they want the mean value, not the value at the equator. Having this in the navbox is useless, and worse, misleading. The fact that the previous value had a cite is irrelevant, it was citing the wrong value. No-one uses equatorial gravity in equations unless they're doing experiments that are specifically going to be conducted at the equator. Please do not change it back to the useless value. Quantum Burrito ( talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Currently in intro includes: "It is home to about 8.74 million species." This is absurdly precise. The uncertainty is estimates of the species count is in the millions: there is no point in expressing it to three significant figures. Ordinary Person ( talk) 16:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree too. I just changed the article to say "... over eight million species." I believe "over" is the best usage as "at least" implies a strict floor of precisely eight million which is not the case. Jaywilson ( talk) 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the following from the hydrosphere section:
Seems to be someone's calculation. However, it is rather poorly worded and in need of a WP:RS to support it.
I assume it means something like the following:
The "fact" that the earth is smoother than a cue ball (in this article under Composition and Structure/Shape) has been circulated in reputable articles and books for years, but has been shown to be false. See http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2013/june13.pdf Note that the citation in the Earth article is to the World Pool-Billiards Association rules in regard to the allowable size of a cue ball, not the shape or uniformity of a cue ball, and there is no citation to any source about the shape of the earth. I will remove this text soon if there is no dissenting discussion. If anyone has suggestions as to text that could be used instead, please discuss. Jaywilson ( talk) 01:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
For the purposes of our discussion, there are THREE issues: roughness, roundness, and size. The WPA web site is apparently only defining the limits on the size of the cue ball, as defined by its (spherical) diameter. It is not attempting to define how round it is or how rough it is. Read the Colorado State link I provided to see that a cue ball is actually much rounder and smoother than the earth. So, DoctorTerrella, your calculation is correct, but the 0.22% is not the number to compare to. A typical cue ball is actually smooth within 0.01% (1 part in 10,000 or as measured, around 1-3 microns variation in a cue ball 5.625 cm across.) As to roundness, Woodstone, the Colorado State article covers that, too, in its final paragraph, where it says that a cue ball is spherical to within 0.001 inch or 0.05%
A piece of clear tape is 50-100 microns thick, so a bit of clear tape stuck to a cue ball (a variation of 0.1-0.2%) is about the right scale to represent Mt Everest. You could feel it if you ran your finger over it. And it would definitely be disqualified from use in a match. It would probably get you beat up in some pool/billiards halls. :-) Jaywilson ( talk) 19:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
While I will accept the compliment and invite you to read my latest blog post on this ( http://jayblogwilson.com), I will decline your invitation to grace an encyclopaedia article with the debunking of a persistent science myth. I started my research on this because of Neil deGrasse Tyson's reference to the cue ball earth in The Pluto Files, then in the course of research found a reference to the wikipedia entry. I agree it is a fascinating subject to research, as I have discovered billiard rules, bowling ball scanning technology, and some science blogs that I never knew existed. But it is frustrating how persistent a myth can be when it is disproved with easily known facts and a calculator in five minutes. (Height of Everest/diameter of earth ≈ thickness of clear tape/diameter of cue ball)
As for the wikipedia article, the problem remains that the current text has no scientific reference and is wrong. Currently the only course I can suggest besides deleting "which is less than the 0.22% tolerance allowed in billiard balls" is replacing it with "which is rougher than a billiard ball" and cite the Colorado State article. I would like to say "which is about as rough as a billiard ball with pieces of clear tape stuck on it" but I don't have a source to cite besides my own blog. Jaywilson ( talk) 22:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the following text to replace that sentence: "Local topography deviates from this idealized spheroid although on a global scale these deviations are small: The maximum deviation of only 0.17% is at the Mariana Trench, while Mount Everest represents a deviation of 0.14%. If Earth were shrunk to the size of a cue ball, some areas of Earth such as mountain ranges and oceanic trenches would feel like small imperfections, while most of the planet, including the Great Plains and the Abyssal Plains, would actually feel smoother than a cue ball." (cite Colorado State article http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2013/june13.pdf). Jaywilson ( talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Student7, I don't understand your hearts and minds comment. I'm trying to build consensus to still illustrate how smooth or rough the Earth's topography is, but with a statement that is accurate and has a source that can be cited. I have suggested specific language. I will go ahead and make the edit, as I believe what I've suggested satisfies DrTerella and Grandma. Jaywilson ( talk) 15:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Two suggestions regarding the table "Present-day major heat-producing isotopes":
1) Add a column at the right side containing the percentages of the total internal heat from each isotopes Heat release measured in W/(kg*mantle).
2) Sort the table by descending percentage.
There is a lag between minimum/maximum exposure to the Sun and local temperature. The maximum exposure is on December 23rd or so, or June 23rd or so, depending on the hemisphere. However, the maximum cold or heat (in an "average" year) is achieved maybe six weeks later on February 15 or August 15, depending on the hemisphere. There must be a thermodynamic or climate way of referring to this lag and documenting it here. Anyone know the name for the condition? Student7 ( talk) 19:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Would you say "the Venus" or "the Jupiter", I think not, "...the earth" is the ground we walk upon. Earth is the planet we walk upon ( not "the Earth"). If we were living on Venus we would not say "the Venus". If we are going to use a name for the planet we inhabit then that is Earth (not "the Earth"; you surely wouldn't say "the Venus", would you). If we are talking about a planet we do not prefix the planet's name with "the". We don't say "The Jupiter" or "The Saturn". We just say "Jupiter" or "Saturn"; however, if we were inhabitants of some planets in our solar system we may well say "We were walking on the jupiter" or "I was walking on the saturn" or even "If I were walking on the earth" and if we were those inhabitants, and discussing the other planets we would not talk about "the Earth", (as if it were somehow special), but we on Jupiter or Saturn would refer to the third planet as "Earth", not "the Earth". We might say something like "I saw a gibbous earth today" ( or a half earth or even a full earth) Jodosma (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Add Tellus to the "also known as" list, first paragraph. Both Tellus and Terra are the latin words for the Earth and are both more common than the greek Gaia. Also, for clarification I'd suggest adding that "the earth" is sometimes labeled as ⊕ (which is shown in the title above the image). Lastly, I think that we should add which languages the different words for earth come from. So it could read something like:
Earth, also known as the World, Tellus or Terra (Latin) and Gaia (Greek), sometimes labeled as ⊕, is the third planet...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.53.6 ( talk) 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The lede claims that 71% of the surface is "covered" with water. This is really vague and if you stop and think about it, pretty meaningless. Does it include ice and snow? Does is only include permanent coverage? What depth 1mm, 1 inch, 1 foot, 1 meter ... is the criteria used for inclusion? Technically, except for surfaces above 200°F, the ENTIRE Earth is covered with a layer (film) of water. That's why thickness matters, besides just being clear. In the Surface section, the following text is murky, to be polite:"The Earth's terrain varies greatly from place to place. About 70.8% of the surface is covered by water, with much of the continental shelf below sea level." What does this run-on sentence mean? Does it mean "much of the continential shelf below sea level" is or is not covered? Why is altitude important here? Given our seasons, it is pretty clear that some part of the surface is only covered for parts of the year. Giving a single number fails in describing the complexity and gives a static picture. Incidentially, a recent finding is that the estimates for water coverage in the Amazon basin were off by a factor of 2-3. I don't know if this significantly changes the 70.8% figure. 173.189.78.87 ( talk) 18:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest adding a pair of sentences to the Orbit section that describe the shape of the Earth's orbit. For example:
Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 02:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like this article to include the actual current accretion rate of the Earth. Around my house, the soil seems to be getting deeper at the rate of about 4 inches in 20 years and the house is NOT sinking (on bedrock). It would be nice to know how much new material is being added to the Earth every day/year and how much larger in diameter the Earth is getting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Dell ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have removed one incorrect statement added to the infobox on Jan 6th, but also have doubts (not disproofs) about additions to the "Longitude of ascending node" and "Argument of perihelion" items also originating from that date. Would someone please check those items again for accuracy? Thanks. Evensteven ( talk) 04:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
So, I often go back and forth, writing one essay with "the Earth" and the next with just "Earth", but trying to be consistent within each article, if not amongst them all. This article, however, mixes up the two usages. Is there some usage guidance on this eternal issue? Curious, DoctorTerrella ( talk) 14:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed! Better go with "Earth" or we'll have to change the name of the article as well. Also see my comment (inspired by you) on the talk page of Moon. Jaywilson ( talk) 21:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a bunch of other inconsistencies. In the article, we say "the surface", "the lithosphere", etc., etc., and, yes, etc. So, given this, why not "the Earth"? And, indeed, the Universe uses the for the Universe, but that page (a different subject, I know) make inconsistent use of "the" article for the Earth. ;-( Grandma ( talk) 14:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through the entire article, mostly replacing "Earth" with "the Earth", although there were a few exceptions, such as allowing "Earth" to be an adjective, and some exceptions in the etymology section. Still, as always, things are likely not perfect, and other editors are free to proof read and correct. Thanks! Grandma ( talk) 03:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Why, when questions of this sort arise, is it so common to see the answer in terms of either/or? Both forms are used in English, both are acceptable. Not even consistency is required. Sometimes the language just flows more smoothly with one form, sometimes with the other, which is probably why most of these choices are made. But contexts also differ, so language needs can differ also. I think it is far preferable to beg off this question entirely and let the article be free to apply wording that suits each usage. There is no "best"; there is only preference. This is a solution in search of a problem. Evensteven ( talk) 20:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It should just be "Earth" if you are going for consistency in this article. "The sun" is not necessarily analogous to "the Earth", and saying "the Earth" is slightly questionable since there is only one, and that usage would seem to be a vestige of expressions like "the world" or "the planet". However, given different sentence structure and meaning, sometimes you might indeed prefer "the Earth" for stylistic reasons. Is there a reason this article should have a consistent usage other than capitalization? If there's some dispute over it, who really cares. I'd get rid of the definite article entirely, personally. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 23:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I note that while I was away, the controversy around "the" was "settled" essentially by administrative fiat while putting a stop to edit warring: a good action (to stop warring), but not a good resolution. While the issue of "the" is trivial, the issue of editorial opinion in articles is not. Using "the" is one opinion; not using it is another. It would be best to recognize that neither "side" is correct. English usage is simply English usage, like it or not. Both are used; neither is a bad habit. Fiat leaves disagreements to fester. What is it about this matter that leads to an edit war? Nothing else but a refusal to relent in the face of overwhelming general practice (demonstrating both usages) and to cling to personal preferences. I have no argument with the state of the article either way. I do have a determined stance that any editing (and arguing) based on the personal preference of an editor is inappropriate, be one an administrator or no. It would be a disgrace to consider that this matter has been decided in favor of one "side" or another. Evensteven ( talk) 05:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters Read it and weep. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 14:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Sir/Madam There appears to be some minor discrepencies with your earth topic.
sun equatorial radius = 6.37814×10^6 (metres)
Assuming the earth to be a perfect sphere the volume is given by
Volume = (4×pi×R^3)÷3 = 1.0868529×10^21 (cubic metres)
Again assuming the earth to be a perfect sphere the surface area is given by
surface srea = 4×piR^2 = 5.112084×10^14 (square metres)
Kind Regards Colin Wright 15/02/2015
GreenLadder ( talk) 14:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed a few days ago, on Feb. 11, 2015, that the semi-major axis (a) and eccentricity (e) had been changed. The "latest edit" at the bottom of the page was dated that day, Feb. 11, but I don't know whether the a and e values were changed on that date or earlier. But checking again just now, I find that the error persists.
The "a" value is given both in km (149,513,000 km), and in AU (1.000 000 11 AU). The AU value for "a" looks perfectly reasonable, but the km value is incorrect, I believe. In any case, it is inconsistent with the AU value, together with the definition of the AU (which, in the Wikipedia article for that, is given as 149,597,870,700 m). The previous value of "a" in this article was 149,598,261 km; I don't know whether the AU figure for "a" has changed.
The article is semi-protected, and I can't correct it; in any case, all I could manage in that regard, would be to apply the two definitions above to compute "a" (to 1 part in 10⁸, which is the precision of "a" given in AU), and I feel that a more expert hand is wanted for a more thorough check of these figures with some authoritative source.
So I'm issuing this as a "cry for help," in the belief that this page is blemished, and in hopes that someone who is capable of both determining the correct value and editing the page.
Fredgds ( talk) 09:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and just added that new image in the template. I believe it is a better one; it has more vivid colors. If anyone's got a problem with it or something, feel free to revert. PS: Check the description of the image for more info Tetra quark ( talk) 07:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NASA archivist Mike Gentry has speculated that The Blue Marble is the most widely distributed image in human history.
Should this happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InAndOutLand ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a discussion about what the lead image should be. The two options seem to be the Blue Marble photo and a NASA composite image (both shown at right). Please chime in on which you prefer and why to help build consensus!
I prefer the Blue Marble for two main reasons:
The original Blue Marble is a single, virtually unaltered, true-color photograph taken from between the earth and the moon. As a result, it is a highly accurate depiction of what the earth would actually look like from the perspective in the photo. By contrast, the NASA composite image is a composite of a multitude of images captured by satellites in low earth orbit. By necessity, the image is highly processed and the perspective is artificial-- the photographs were actually taken from much closer than the perspective of the image. As a result, although the image represents geographical features well, is a less accurate depiction of what the earth would actually look like. The NASA page on the Blue Marble next generation project that produced the composite image in question has this to say on its limitations:
Areas of open water still show some “noise.” In tropical lowlands, cloud cover during the rainy season can be so extensive that obtaining a cloud-free view of every pixel of the area for a given month may not be possible. Deep oceans are not included in the source data; the creator of the Blue Marble uses a uniform blue color for deep ocean regions, and this value has not been completely blended with observations of shallow water in coastal areas. The lack of blending may, in some cases, make the transition between shallow coastal water and deep ocean appear unnatural. Finally, the data do not completely distinguish between snow and cloud cover in areas with short-term snow cover (less than three or four months). Source.
Composite images are unquestionably very valuable in planetary science, since they contain more information than is possible with a single photo. I believe, however, that the average Wikipedia reader expects the lead photo of an article to portray the subject as it would actually appear. This philosophy appears to be the general consensus for planet lead images, which are all true-color and all single images except for Mercury (composite of 9), Jupiter (composite of 4), Saturn (composite of 2). It should be noted that even these composite images are composed of very few images (and are thus closer to actual appearance) compared to the hundreds or thousands of images that compose the NASA composite image in question here.
The Blue Marble image has great historical significance. Not only was it taken on the last manned lunar mission, but it also became the iconic symbol of global consciousness. NASA claims that it is among the most widely distributed images in human history.
I conclusion, I believe that the Blue Marble is objectively the better choice for the lead photo. I would happily support the addition of the NASA composite photo the main body of the article. A2soup ( talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I put Earth in vivid colors. XD Jc pag 2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 11:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
190.0.24.2 ( talk) 14:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC) pulga 79
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Noblem88 ( talk) 09:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC) The article states there are 7.2 billion people on the earth. However, the World Health Organization records now estimate 7.3 billion people.
Done - but as you haven't cited a reference, I've used the same source as before
here -
Arjayay (
talk)
09:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
MansourJE ( talk) 07:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
After crashing a mercury-like planet to earth, radioactive elements entered to the earth's core and it makes the electromagnetic s which is useful for us and protects us like a shield in coaxial cables Read more here: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-earth-ate-mercury-like-body-early.html
MansourJE ( talk) 11:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
earth rotates around the sun and spins 365.26 not 366.26 times 2602:30A:C018:C120:2C57:325B:A822:668E ( talk) 00:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a great section! But most of the material seems to be in the higher level article Planet#Axial_tilt already. Maybe the section should describe differences, rather than repeating the same information. In other words, so we want to repeat the same info for Venus, Sirius 6, Andromeda 9, and the other 10,000 "habitable" (or non-habitable) planets the astronomers claim to have discovered?? Student7 ( talk) 19:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added a list and description of every period in the Phanerozoic into the Phanerozoic Article, and I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to place it in this article, or perhaps another article somewhat similar to this.
The Phanerozoic is divided into three eras: the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic, and consisting of 12 periods: the Cambrian, the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, the Carboniferous, the Permian, the Triassic, the Jurassic, the Cretaceous, the Paleogene, the Neogene, and the Quaternary. The Paleozoic features the rise of fish, amphibians and reptiles. The Mesozoic is ruled by the reptiles, and features the evolution of mammals, birds and more famously, dinosaurs. The Cenozoic is the time of the mammals, and more recently, humans.
Extended content
|
---|
Paleozoic EraThe Paleozoic is a time in earth's history when complex life forms evolve, take their first breath of oxygen on dry land, and when the forerunner of all life on earth begin to diversify. There are seven periods in the Paleozoic eras: the Cambrian, the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, the Carboniferous and the Permian. [1] Cambrian![]() Ordovician![]() SilurianThe Silurian spans from 440 million years to 415 million years ago. The Silurian saw the healing of the earth that recovered from the snowball earth. This period saw the mass evolution of fish, as jaw-less fish became more numerous, jawed fish evolved, and the first freshwater fish evolved, though arthropods, such as sea scorpions, were still apex predators. Fully terrestrial life evolved, which included early arachnids, fungi, and centipedes. Also, the evolution of vascular plants (Cooksonia) allowed plants to gain a foothold on land. These early plants are the forerunners of all plant life on land. During this time, there are four continents: Gondwana (Africa, South America, Australia, Antarctica, Siberia), Laurentia (North America), Baltica (Northern Europe), and Avalonia (Western Europe). The recent rise in sea levels provided many new species to thrive in water. [4] Devonian![]() Carboniferous![]() PermianThe Permian spans from 300 million to 250 million years ago and was the last period of the Paleozoic. At the beginning, all continents formed together to form the super-continent Pangaea and had one ocean called Panthalassa. The earth was very dry during this time, with harsh seasons as the climate of the interior of Pangaea wasn't regulated by large bodies of water. Reptiles and synapsids flourished in the new dry climate. Creatures such as Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus ruled the new continent. The first conifers evolve, and dominate the terrestrial landscape. Nearing the end of the Permian, however, Pangaea got drier and drier. The interior was nothing but dry deserts, and new species such as Scutosaurus and Gorgonopsid filled the empty desert. Eventually, they disappeared, along with 95% of all life on earth in an event simply known as " the Great Dying", and is the third mass extinction event of the world. [8] [9] Mesozoic EraAlso known as "the Age of the dinosaurs", the Mesozoic features the rise of reptiles on their 150 million year conquest to rule the earth from the seas, the land, and even in the air. There are 3 periods in the Mesozoic: the Triassic, the Jurassic, and the Cretaceous. TriassicThe Triassic ranges from 250 million to 200 million years ago. The Triassic is a desolate transitional state in Earth's history between the Permian Extinction and the lush Jurassic Period. It has three major epochs: the Early Triassic, the Middle Triassic and the Late Triassic. [10] The Early Triassic lived between 250 million to 247 million years ago and was dominated by deserts as Pangaea had not yet broken up, thus the interior was nothing but arid. The Earth had just witnessed a massive die-off in which 95% of all life went extinct. The most common life on earth were Lystrosaurus, Labyrinthodont, and Euparkeria along with many other creatturesx that managed to survive the Great Dying. Temnospondyli evolved during this time and would be the dominant predator for much of the Triassic. [11]![]() The Middle Triassic spans from 247 million to 237 million years ago. The Middle Triassic featured the beginnings of the breakup of Pangaea, and the beginning of the Tethys Sea. The ecosystem had recovered from the devastation that was the Great Dying. Phytoplankton, coral, and crustaceans all had recovered, and the reptiles began to get bigger and bigger. New aquatic reptiles evolved such as Ichthyosaurs and Nothosaurs. Meanwhile on land, Pine forests flourished, bringing along mosquitoes and fruit flies. The first ancient crocodilians evolved, which sparked competition with the large amphibians that had since rule the freshwater world. [12] The Late Triassic spans from 237 million to 200 million years ago. Following the bloom of the Middle Triassic, the Late Triassic featured frequent heat spells, as well as moderate precipitation (10-20 inches per year). The recent warming led to a boom of reptilian evolution on land as the first true dinosaurs evolve, as well as pterosaurs. All this climactic change, however, resulted in a large die-out known as the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event, in which all archosaurs (excluding ancient crocodiles), synapsids, and almost all large amphibians went extinct, as well as 34% of marine life in the fourth mass exinction event of the world. The cause is debatable. [13] [14] Jurassic![]() The Early Jurassic spans from 200 million years to 175 million years ago. [16] The climate was much more humid than the Triassic, and as a result, the world was very tropical. In the oceans, Plesiosaurs, Ichthyosaurs and Ammonites fill waters as the dominant races of the seas. On land, dinosaurs and other reptiles stake their claim as the dominant race of the land, with species such as Dilophosaurus at the top. The first true crocodiles evolved, pushing out the large amphibians to near extinction. All-in-all, reptiles rise to rule the world. Meanwhile, the first true mammals evolve, but never exceed the height of a shrew. [17] The Middle Jurassic spans from 175 million to 163 million years ago. [18] During this epoch, reptiles flourished as huge herds of sauropods, such as Brachiosaurus and Diplodicus, filled the fern prairies of the Middle Jurassic. Many other predators rose as well, such as Allosaurus. Conifer forests made up a large portion of the forests. In the oceans, Plesiosaurs were quite common, and Ichthyosaurs were flourishing. This epoch was the peak of the reptiles. [19]![]() The Late Jurassic spans from 163 million to 145 million years ago. [20] The Late Jurassic featured a massive extinction of sauropods and Ichthyosaurs due to the separation of Pangaea into Laurasia and Gondwana in an extinction known as the Jurassic-Cretaceous extinction. Sea levels rose, destroying fern prairies and creating shallows in its wake. Ichthyosaurs went extinct whereas sauropods, as a whole, did not die out in the Jurassic; in fact, some species, like the Titanosaurus, lived up to the K-T extinction. [21] The increase in sea-levels opened up the Atlantic sea way which would continue to get larger over time. The divided world would give opportunity for the diversification of new dinosaurs. Cretaceous![]() The Early Cretaceous spans from 145 million to 100 million years ago. [23] The Early Cretaceous saw the expansion of seaways, and as a result, the decline and extinction of sauropods (except in South America). Many coastal shallows were created, and that caused Ichthyosaurs to die out. Mosasaurs evolved to replace them as head of the seas. Some island-hopping dinosaurs, like Eustreptospondylus, evolved to cope with the coastal shallows and small islands of ancient Europe. Other dinosaurs rose up to fill the empty space that the Jurassic-Cretaceous extinction left behind, such as Carcharodontosaurus and Spinosaurus. Of the most successful would be the Iguanodon which spread to every continent. Seasons came back into effect an the poles got seasonally colder, but dinosaurs still inhabited this area like the Leaellynasaura which inhabited the polar forests year-round, and many dinosaurs migrated there during summer like Muttaburrasaurus. Since it was too cold for crocodiles, it was the last stronghold for large amphibians, like Koolasuchus. Pterosaurs got larger as species like Tapejara and Ornithocheirus evolved. More importantly, the first true birds evolved which sparked competition between them and the pterosaurs. The Late Cretaceous spans from 100 million to 65 million years ago. The Late Cretaceous featured a cooling trend that would continue on in the Cenozoic period. Eventually, tropics were restricted to the equator and areas beyond the tropic lines featured extreme seasonal changes in weather. Dinosaurs still thrived as new species such as Tyrannosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Triceratops and Hadrosaurs dominated the food web. Pterosaurs, however, were going into a decline as birds took to the skies. The last pterosaur to die off was Quetzalcoatlus. Marsupials evolved within the large conifer forests as scavengers. In the oceans, Mosasaurs ruled the seas to fill the role of the Ichthyosaurs, and huge plesiosaurs, such as Elasmosaurus, evolved. Also, the first flowering plants evolved. At the end of the Cretaceous, the Deccan traps and other volcanic eruptions were poisoning the atmosphere. As this was continuing, it is thought that a large meteor smashed into earth, creating the Chicxulub Crater in an event known as the K-T Extinction, the fifth and most recent mass extinction event, in which 75% of life on earth went extinct, including all non-avian dinosaurs. Everything over 10 kilograms went extinct. The age of the dinosaurs was officially over. [24] [25] Cenozoic EraThe Cenozoic features the rise of mammals on their conquest to rule the land, as the dinosaurs have now left a huge opening as top dog. There are three division of the Cenezoic: the Paleogene, the Neogene and Quaternary. Paleogene![]() The Paleocene ranged from 65 million to 55 million years ago. The Paleocene is a transitional point between the devastation that is the K-T extinction, to the rich jungles environment that is the Early Eocene. The Early Paleocene saw the recovery of the earth. The continents began to take their modern shape, but all continents (and India) were separated from each other. Afro-Eurasia is separated by the Tethys Sea, and the Americas are separated by the strait of Panama, as the isthmus has not yet formed. This epoch features a general warming trend, with jungles eventually reaching the poles. The oceans were dominated by sharks as the large reptiles that had once ruled went extinct. Archaic mammals filled the world such as creodonts and early primates that evolved during the Mesozoic, and as a result, there was nothing over 10 kilograms. Mammals are still quite small. [26] The Eocene Epoch ranged from 55 million years to 33 million years ago. In the Early-Eocene, life was small and living in cramped jungles, much like the Paleocene. There was nothing over the weight of 10 kilograms. [27] Among them were early primates, whales and horses along with many other early forms of mammals. At the top of the food chains were huge birds, such as Gastornis. It is the only time in recorded history that birds ruled the world (excluding their ancestors, the dinosaurs). The temperature was 30 degrees Celsius with little temperature gradient from pole to pole. In the Mid-Eocene, the circum-Antarctic current between Australia and Antarctica formed which disrupted ocean currents worldwide and as a result caused a global cooling effect, shrinking the jungles. This allowed mammals to grow to mammoth proportions, such as whales which are, by now, almost fully aquatic. Mammals like Andrewsarchus were now at the top of the food-chain and sharks were replaced by whales such as Basilosaurus as rulers of the seas. The Late-Eocene saw the rebirth of seasons, which caused the expansion of savanna-like areas, along with the evolution of grass. [27] [28] The Oligocene Epoch spans from 33 million to 23 million years ago. The Oligocene feature the expansion of grass which had led to many new species to evolve, including the first elephants, cats, dogs, marsupials and many other species still prevalent today. Many other species of plants evolved in this period too, such as the evergreen trees. A cooling period was still in effect and seasonal rains were as well. Mammals still continued to grow larger and larger. Paraceratherium, the largest land mammal to ever live evolved during this period, along with many other perissodactyls in an event known as the Grand coupre. [29] NeogeneThe Miocene spans from 23 to 5 million years ago and is a period in which grass spreads further across, effectively dominating a large portion of the world, diminishing forests in the process. Kelp forests evolved, leading to new species such as sea otters to evolve. During this time, perissodactyls thrived, and evolved into many different varieties. Alongside them were the apes, which evolved into a staggering 30 species. Overall, arid and mountainous land dominated most of the world, as did grazers. The Tethys Sea finally closed with the creation of the Arabian Peninsula and in its wake left the Black, Red, Mediterranean and Caspian Seas. This only increased aridity. Many new plants evolved, and 95% of modern seed plants evolved in the mid-Miocene. [31] The Pliocene ranges from 5 to 2 million years ago. The Pliocene features dramatic climactic changes, which ultimately leads to modern species and plants. The most dramatic are the formation of Panama, and the accumulation of ice at the poles, leading to a massive die-off, India and Asia collide forming the Himalayas, the Rockies and Appalachian mountain ranges were formed, and the Mediterranean Sea dried up for the next several million years. Along with these major geological events, the Australopithecus evolves in Africa, beginning the human branch. Also, with the isthmus of Panama, animals migrate across North and South America, wreaking havoc on the local ecology. Climactic changes bring along savannas that are still continuing to spread across the world, Indian monsoons, deserts in East Asia, and the beginnings of the Sahara desert. The earth's continents and seas move into their present shapes, and the world map hasn't changed much since. [32] [33] QuaternaryThe Quaternary ranges from 3 million to present day, and features modern animals, and dramatic climate changes and features two epochs: the Pleistocene and the Holocene. [[File:Ice age fauna of northern Spain - Mauricio Antón.jpg|thumb|Mega-fauna of the Pleistocene ( mammoths, cave lions, woolly rhino, megaloceros, [[Equus scotti|American horses]] The Pleistocene lasted from 3 million to 12,000 years ago. This epoch features the ice ages which is a result from the cooling effect that started in the Mid-Eocene. As the ice progressively migrated towards the equator, the areas north and south of the tropic line featured intense winters yet mild summers. Meanwhile, Africa experienced terrible droughts which resulted in the creation of the Sahara, Namib, and Kalahari deserts. To cope, many animals evolved including Mammoths, Giant ground sloths, Dire wolves and most famously Homo sapiens. 100,000 years ago marked the end of one of he worst droughts of Africa, and the expansion of primitive man. As the Pleistocene draws to a close, one of the largest die-outs causes many mega-fauna to die off, including the last hominid species (excluding Homo sapiens). All continents are effected, but Africa isn't hit quite as hard. [34] The Holocene ranges from 12,000 years ago to present day. Also known as "the Age of Man", the Holocene features the rise of man on his path to sentience. All recorded history and "the history of the world" lies within the boundaries of the Holocene epoch. [35] Human activity, however, is being blamed for a die-out that has been going on since 10,000 B.C.E. commonly referred to as " the Sixth Extinction" with an estimated extinction rate of 140,000 species per year. [36] |
References
Please write down any comments, questions, or concerns below this sentence. Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I started to replace the sentence about discovering that the earth itself moved, but realized that mine wasn't much better than the original. The problem is to say, as tersely as possible, that people knew for a long time that the planets moved, but didn't realize the earth moved, without saying it negatively. There have been several attempts at this! The current version meets the criteria above but doesn't seem to convey the sense of geocentricism.
How about: "Humans had realized for millenia that other planets moved and discovered that Earth was a planet that moved in the 16th century."" Student7 ( talk) 22:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
As an extension of the discussion in the preceding section, I can only say that the title of this article section is ridiculously represented in the text by a relatively small POV (that is, a POV held by relatively few). It's clearly paying homage to addressing creationists and their beliefs. I think the section requires some real NPOV text initially, forming a length that represents actual cultural and historical viewpoint as held by so many. The existing POV can then be neutralized and incorporated as a balanced representation of the view, probably (in part) by shortening its length as appropriate to its notability. Evensteven ( talk) 01:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change {{val|750|ul=mya}} to {{val|750|u=mya}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.162.73 ( talk) 16:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Please remove the mean anomaly. Mean anomaly changes every day, so it is unhelpful (and incorrect) to list a static value retrieved in December 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.16.3 ( talk) 14:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Why no english measurements in (parentheses)??? Msjayhawk ( talk) 18:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
QUESTION: How Fast Is The Earth Traveling Through The Universe?
Seems one possible suggested Answer (see below) could be better.
Copied from the "Earth" article
Suggested Answer:
"The Earth is moving through the universe at 2,976,000 km/h (1,849,000 mph). [1]"
References
- ^ Fraknoi, Andrew (Spring 2007). "How Fast Are You Moving When You Are Sitting Still? => [Daily rotation at "1,000 mph" + Revolution around the Sun at "66,000 mph" + Revolution around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at "483,000 mph" + Milky Way motion in intergalactic Outer Space at "1.3 Million mph"]". Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Retrieved July 3, 2015.
A Better Answer - with Reliable Reference(s) - would be Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 02:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I would be glad to see a not off-topic explanation about the reverts please??-- Evropariver ( talk) 10:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Quoting the article,
Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%).
The citation for that is as follows:
Turcotte, D. L.; Schubert, G. (2002). "4". Geodynamics (2 ed.). Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 136–37. ISBN 978-0-521-66624-4.
Here's an article that's suggesting different numbers:
That article suggests that it's 50% planetary accretion, 50% radioactive decay. And that article is dated 2011 vs 2002. Should the article be updated with the new source? TerraFrost ( talk) 16:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The culture section is a great place to retain the Blue Marble photo. I was thanked for my efforts to clean it up, but was reverted because I removed some sourced info. But the sourced info I removed was inappropriate. First of all, the previous version was garbled, with statements mixed randomly in no coherent order and the introductory sentence placed last. Secondly, it was a blatant violation of BIAS, as the only religions it mentioned were fundamentalist Protestatism and Islam. If we're going to mention religions, we should do them all. (As I mentioned above, Gaia isn't really notable either except as an example of the third transformation of our conception of the Earth.)
The current organization is as follows: (1) the astronomical symbol, (2) mythological and religious views, (3) scientific transformations of our view, culminating in the photo gallery. — kwami ( talk) 20:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW - I *entirely* agree with the comments by Kwami above - and with the " text currently presented" in the " Earth#Cultural and historical viewpoint" section of the " Earth" article - this text seems excellent - and sufficient imo atm - more text can be presented in the main " Earth in culture" article if more is needed I would think - iac - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 03:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed the addition about the discovery of the geological age of the Earth because it currently asserts nothing about it being culturally transformative. All it shows is a factoid about science history. Praemonitus ( talk) 20:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
BRIEF Followup - Table below may (or may not) be helpful:
1. " Blue Marble-1972"(9?) | 2. " ElektroL1"(Deleted) | 3. " Earthrise"(1) | 4. " BlueMarble-1997" | 5. BlueMarble-2012" | 6. " Blue Marble-1972-CC" | 7. " Earth-2015-USA" (3) | 8. " Earth-2015-Africa" (3?) | 9. " Earth-OceanOnly" (UnAvailable) (1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A2soup Drbogdan EvenSteven? Huntster Joannebogdan Praemonitus Rfassbind Serendipodous SkywalkerPL |
[none] | (70.51.203.69) | [none] | [none] | [none] |
BDS2006 Kwami Ɱ |
Cinemologist? JorisvS PhilipTerryGraham |
Dustin |
In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 21:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The existing discussions regarding the banner image appear to be NASA-centric and do not represent a worldwide view of the issue. We need to consider all options and not just NASA images if the community is to reach an unbiased and well-informed decision on which image is most appropriate for representing the Earth.
Comparing photographs only on their technical and aesthetic merits in so far as those merits help in achieving a vivid and accurate representation of Earth, I'd like to put this up to a vote so the Wikipedia community can decide which image ought to represent this planet we all happen to inhabit.
I will nominate two photos ("1" and "2", respectively) which I believe are strong contenders as they are the only full disk photographs of the Earth on Wikimedia Commons that I'm aware of. "1" is the incumbent banner image captured from Apollo 17 in 1972 while "2" was captured by the Elektro-L No.1 satellite in 2014 from geostationary Earth orbit.
Please feel free to nominate additional image options below. I look forward to hearing from all of you. BDS2006 ( talk) 07:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Done - updated the banner image on the
Earth article to the "
Elektro-L"/Image-2 - which received the most votes (6 of 10; a/o 10:10am/et/usa, 2 July 2015) - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - in any case - Enjoy! :)
Drbogdan (
talk)
14:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a huge fan of this one. It is a CGI image based on real data from disparate sources. It is relatively low-resolution and doesn't look much like either the Blue Marble or Elektro-L, which makes me think that it probably is not very lifelike. Thanks for suggesting it, though :) A2soup ( talk) 22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This very recent, hi-resolution image was taken by the Japanese weather satellite Himwari-8 in October. I don't know what it's copyright status is though. This one's a mosaic, but it does seem to be in true colour. It's also from NASA so it's free to use. Serendi pod ous 13:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
So I know we have a lot of candidates already, but I found one that I think is worth having on the table (added to the gallery at top, with a small version down here to avoid clutter). The criticism of the Blue Marble that resonated most with me so far is BDS2006's assertion that it was taken with a filter/film combo that de-emphasized blue and caused other color artifacts. I can see that the color scheme in the Blue Marble is, in fact, different from the other images (including Earthrise), which are all basically similar to each other. So I found a color-corrected version of the Blue Marble, which has been altered to match the color scheme in Elektro-L, Earthrise, and others. I don't think that the color-correction should be too much of an issue, since consensus supported Elektro-L, which is a non-color image with all the color added in processing. I'm still fine with Elektro-L, but if it turns out to have copyright issues, perhaps this image can be considered as a way to address at least one concern with the original Blue Marble (which is still my first choice, btw). A2soup ( talk) 11:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
NEW - ADDED a recently released " Earth" image for possible consideration - per NASA, 20 July 2015 - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Non-composite? Check. Taken in color? Check. No obvious digital artifacts? Check. I can get behind this one 100%, although I don't necessarily prefer it to the Blue Marble. I look forward to more images from DSCOVR soon! A2soup ( talk) 16:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This new one looks like a good option, for the reasons kwami and A2soup have given. Apollo's Blue Marble is the only other real option, because img#2 has apparently been deleted for being released by Roscosmos, img#3 is not an image of just Earth, img#4 has horrible colors, and img#5 shows North America way too large compared to how it would actually look. The Apollo image is of such historical importance that if we opt for this image in the infobox (which I think we should), it should still be included in body of the article. -- JorisvS ( talk) 08:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
---
Done - updated the banner image on the
Earth article to the new
DSCOVR
"Earth-2015"/Image-7 - which seems to be sufficiently supported at the moment - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - in any case - Enjoy! :)
Drbogdan (
talk)
10:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
According to the Encyclopedia of World Religions, "Though from earliest times heaven was believed to be the residence of a high being or a prominently god, the earth as a personified entity is much rarer; it probably first occurred among archaic agrarian civilizations, and still does in some primitive societies...". This appears to conflict with the above statement. The earth-mother concept is strongly associated with neo-paganism, [3] and I have to wonder if this is the source of some of the wording of the paragraph. In mythology there are any number of mother goddesses, but fewer that are actually associated with the physical Earth—the Earth Mother. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
and Terra in some works of science fiction) in partial reference to science fiction, by that description is not professional editing. The name Terra in science fiction comes from pre-informed reference as a Latin scientific name. If Terra is used in the informative sense as (and Terra in Latin scientific), then those that read it here are thus informed that it is in use in certain fictions.
Is it possible we can change the infobox image to this DSCOVR image of Earth instead? I honestly don't know why the America-centric view of Earth from DSCOVR was plucked and the African-centric view not even discussed. The America-centric one is inferior because:
This image is simply far better as a photograph of Earth than the one being currently used in the infobox. It should replace it. Philip Terry Graham 05:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Done - thanks for the comments - yes - I agree as well - the infobox image has been updated from the
old image to the
new image (although, afaik atm, png may have more raster rendering issues than jpg?) - *entirely* ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce the edit of course - iac - Enjoy! :)
Drbogdan (
talk)
12:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC).
Could the Val template be changed to display gigayear or gyr?
To be consistent with units used in the article?
The template Val seems to be displaying the wrong unit. The unit entry is Gyr for gigayear, but the display is Ga for giga annum. Thank you, -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 13:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
I moved information comparing the two hemispheres from the article Northern Hemisphere to this article. The change was deleted here and restored there!
Of course, we don't place non- WP:TOPIC material in other articles because it would then need to be maintained in both places (or multiple places. My favorite was the article Hoboken, New Jersey which once insisted that it's major airport was Kennedy International Airport!)
The paragraph was perfect for this article which contains information both hemispheres. Student7 ( talk) 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Guess what? Earth is 6k years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoTrack ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Greetings, I would like to know whether I can edit this page with this information and with this reference.If yes pls guide me Earths magnetic north pole is moving northward at a rate of 10 miles per year. [1]
Anjali das gupta ( talk) 08:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
References
When 'The Earth' is searched in wiki search bar, it comes but we're not getting the option to edit it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.103.132 ( talk) 12:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The interior of this planet is divided into three parts :-The Crust,The Mantle and the Core M.Aabid Meman ( talk) 15:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)