Talk:Earth

Other data

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.

Heat

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandcenter (talk • contribs) 09:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)‎

Ionosphere and Magnetosphere

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)

Geocentricism

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)

@Student7, I think many (or all) of us appreciate the point you are raising. Your content would seem appropriate for the Sunrise article, or maybe some other Wikipage where humankind's perception of the universe is discussed. It is my opinion (and that is all I'm expressing) that the concept about sunrise is not sufficiently central to the subject of the Earth to warrant inclusion, where a myriad of other important issues need to be discussed. This can be discussed, of course, but that in my opinion. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oddly precise species count

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. That claim has two references. One is a book published in 1988, so way out of date. The other is an article with the headline "8.74 Million Species on Earth", but which, upon reading further, highlights how imprecise that figure is. How about we go with "...at least 8 million species"? HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014

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)

 Not done This does not belong in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree it does not belong, but implicitly a much longer list is already there, in the form of links to WP in other languages. The names can be seen in the URL when hovering over one of the languages.−Woodstone (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Gravity of Earth is wrong

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)

So I went to the cited article (no. 17) and found the information: g = 980.665 cm/s^2, consistent, with round-off, with the result Quantum Burrito has entered. The result, however, is not on page 5 as indicated in the article, but on page 52. Strangely, I can't seem to locate the reference when I pull up the editor for the References section. It seems, somehow, to be hidden. So I can't fix this small problem. DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, that seems to be due to me being unfamiliar with the new-fangled way of doing references round here> I've changed the page number on your recommendation and I think I did the cite properly this time. Quantum Burrito (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Earth smoother than a cue ball?

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 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)

So I used the numbers for the elevation of Mt. Everest and the depth of the Mariana Trench, this gives a difference in altitude-depth of 8.848 + 10.911 km = 19.759 km. I suppose this should be divided in half for a deviation about a "mean", giving 9.879 km. If we divide this by the mean radius of the Earth, 6371.0 km, we get 0.15%, which is pretty much the result quoted in the article (0.17%) and both are less than the 0.22% quoted for the cue ball. I remember hearing this comparison when I was a student. It isn't a really "profound" issue, but it is something that people can kind of relate to. Thank you, DoctorTerrella (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)