Talk:Earth/Archive 6

message: I feel that this article is racist and persecuted towards the members of the Flat Earth Society, as it insists that Earth is closed to sphere shaped.  This is very one-sided and racist, lol.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.27.211.52 (talk • contribs).
:That's not racist, that's shapist :p --Alf melmac 14:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism

message: I have archived this rather long talk page. If I have accidently archived an active discussion please move that discussion back and accept my apologies. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 16 November 2006 archive

message: Q. Should I replace this article with the words "mostly harmless" or "harmless", as per The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
A. No. Every other vandalism to this article is just that, and people who do this will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Share and enjoy!
:I was thinking about doing this myself, but I had a feeling it would have been done before. Oh wells :-) Bennity 11:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Damn! Karlusss 22:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, I thought about it too, but couldn't bring myself to do it... great minds think alike, apparently. 149.161.20.23 15:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seriously, given the frequently made comments on the similarity between Wikipedia and the Hitchhiker's Guide, I feel that the page does need SOME reference to "Mostly Harmless" - it is a good joke, and by being there "officially" it would disuade vandals from doing the "compelete replacement" Medconn 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally I'd say the joke really only works if "mostly harmless" is the entire content of the article -- at least, that was the original joke.  Anyway, although I don't think this particular vandalism is the same as every other, it is the sort of thing better placed in the Uncyclopedia -- and it is there. -- Andy (207.38.160.124 05:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Hitchhiker's Guide references are everywhere  Acererak 14:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''A Very Special Note from the Management -MOSTLY HARMLESS'''

message: I've uploaded a 3D rendered version of the Earth being cut to its core. It labels the areas numerically so as to be language-independent. It also includes the D-double-prime layer.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Earth-layers-01.png
as a replacement for:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Earth_cutaway_USDE.gif
Thangalin 04:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth cut-away 

message: The future section ignores the possibility of human action to either change the atmosphere or move the earth. Perhaps a new section, "Alternate Futures," or a new article linked to the Earth one would be of interest. Science fiction often becomes science fact.
--Dwise75 09:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Vsmith 15:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Needs Editing 

message: The animated rotating earth picture could be replaced with a better one from Wikimedia Commons:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Rotating_earth_%28large%29.gif/120px-Rotating_earth_%28large%29.gif
(from the large version at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rotating_earth_%28large%29.gif ) 144.134.71.109 12:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotating Earth Animation 

message: What is the distance from the sun to earth? (in km) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.59.178.86 (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Approximately 1.4959787e+08 km.  To answer similar questions yourself, use GNU Units 
. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.38.160.124 (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably 150,000,000 km
Is carbon really so rare in the crust that it is not mentioned ? CaO exists in greater quantity than all the carbonate rocks ? Bob Armstrong 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. Encyclopaedia Britannica lists Carbon as the 19th most abundant element in the crust by mass. Given that it is the fourth most abundant element in the Universe, it might be interesting to find out why the abundance is so low. — RJH (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: :This section wasn't relevant to this topic. I've removed it, and am putting it in my removed section on my account Ah2190 12:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Pluto still a planet?

message: So the center of the earth is made of hot iron? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnYoNe! (talk • contribs).
:That's the current (fairly-well-supported) belief, yes. -- Atlant 01:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron core? 

message: It has very large and meaty clustered chunks of great educative data to it, perhaps it could be broken down into smaller peices. Nevertheless it remains an excellent article worked on by many. Just one of several hundreds saved in my watch list. It is actually 17 pages longhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 16:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article

message: The article states that Earth is the fifth largest planet in the solar system. However, as far as I can tell, it is only larger than Mercury, Venus and Mars. Is this a remnant from when Pluto was classified as a planet?
Thanks,
12.219.93.35 20:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Earth is smaller than Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. So it is the fifth largest planet.--JyriL talk 20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Earth the 5th largest planet or not? 

message: How long exactly is a day on Earth, and would it help if I divided the orbital circumference by the orbital speed? Should it be in the article? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that time lapse should be added into the article, but that's just my opinion. --Soetermans 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of day are you talking about? The civil day on our clocks is exactly 86,400 seconds long. Although the words are sometimes used differently, the mean solar day is about 86,400.002 seconds. It must be measured, so is not exact. The apparent solar day, can be up to 29 seconds different from the 86,400 figure during the year, because of our non-circular orbit and tilted axis. The sidereal day, which refers to our rotation relative to the stars, is nearly four minutes less-about 86,164 seconds. Saros136 10:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I meant to ask whether a day on Earth (one rotation of its axis) is longer or shorter than 24 h. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would go for the solar day, which comes to more than 24 hours. That is the rotation of the Earth in relation to our sun, also known as Sol. Ah2190 12:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Day 

message: Why are coordinates on the celestial sphere listed for Earth? Aren't they meaningless? Why should Earth be any more at the north pole of the celestial sphere than anywhere else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.171.232.233 (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 90° declination isn't meaningless. It means a line from the center of the earth through the north pole points to celestial north. On the other hand, the right ascension for matching a 90° dec is undefined. Since the lines of right ascension, which are the equivalent of the lines of longitude on the surface of the Earth, *all* go from the N to S poles of the celestial sphere; a pole can't be identified with just one of them and given a number. Saros136 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should point out that reference frame is critical here. The J2000 reference frame referred to Epoch (astronomy) in the article, makes use of the mean equinox and equator...meaning that nutation, the changing tilt of the Earth's axis, is averaged out or omitted. I was talking about that average North pole. The actual North pole of the Earth doesn't really point exactly  to the the J2000 North, so it does does have a (changing) RA, using J2000 coordinates. Saros136 09:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh, the "of the north pole" applies to declination as well. Why doesn't it say so? That makes some more sense, at least.  76.171.232.233 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be much easier to specify the coordinates of the Earth using alt-azimuth notation (j/k). SheffieldSteel 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declination and right ascension 

message: The picture that says 'The first time an "Earth-rise" was seen from the moon.' needs rotating 90' to the left I think. I saw a documentary on TV about a year ago which had one of the astronaughts in it. He said it always bothered him how that photo was always displayed on its side. -OOPSIE- 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture needs rotating 

message: That odd looking box floating at the top of the article makes a weird space, and contains information that you'd hope the article would get to quickly anyway. It's not on mars, neptune, or pluto, (though I guess pluto isn't much of a planet anymore) and its pushing down on the introduction text. Homestarmy 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's with the weird template?

message: After looking over this article it seems to me that there are entirely too many penny-packet sections with less than a paragraph of content. The overall structure also seems a little random. So I tried to put together an organizational structure by grouping common content into major headings:
# History — past, present and future.
# Structure — shape, composition, internal structure and tectonic plates.
# Surface — surface, extreme points, pedosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and climate.
# Habitability — natural resources, land use, natural and environmental hazards, and human geography.
# Outer space — solar system, phases, magnetic field, and moon.
# Human viewpoint — descriptions, lexicography, and earth day.
If these makes sense, it should be possible to consolidate a number of the sub-topics as well. Any thoughts? — RJH (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I implemented something like this organization: hopefully it is acceptible. There sure is a lot of redundancy in this article—it needs a good edit. — RJH (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents need a re-org. 

message: We know that the earth isn't quite spherical. It would be great to have an exaggerated picture of the earth to show where the bulges are. This could include the mountain ranges, to get a sense of how much of the earth's nonsphericalness is due to mountains and how much is due to large-scale shape. Perhaps NASA has that dataset? —Ben FrantzDale 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good idea in principle, since the Himalayas reach about 9km higher than the geoid and Earth's oblateness yields an equatorial radius of about 20km more than at the poles, so mountain range effects on this are appreciable. The only problem I foresee (apart from actually finding such a diagram) is that it would have to be a video of a rotating Earth to account for all the significant mountain ranges. Kris 09:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This page has some info:  —Ben FrantzDale 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that this is a summary-style article, and it's already quite large. A more in-depth coverage of that nature would seem more appropriate for the Figure of the Earth "main article" page. — RJH (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shape 

message: I don't think there's a place for a paragraph on "Earth Day", at best it should be cross-referenced with a link in a "See Also" section. I propose we delete this bit. Kris 10:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. —Ben FrantzDale 13:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - it's a global event, well-established, it's not very long (five sentences) and fits well within the "Human viewpoint" section. --Ckatzchatspy 17:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The brief Earth Day section was converted to a link in the "See also" table. — RJH (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth Day 

message: "The moon formed soon afterwards, possibly as the result of a Mars-sized object, known as Theia, impacting the Earth in a glancing blow.[2] Most of this object's mass merged with the Earth, nearly doubling the planet's radius."
Doubling Earth's radius means quadrupling its volume, which a Mars-sized object cannot do since Mars has only a quarter of Earth's volume.  --Bowlhover 21:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you make edits on the article regarding a point brought up on the discussion page, wait for some responses and a consensus. I could be wrong here, because I'm no maths whizz, but I think perhaps you'd octuple the volume of a perfect sphere (given the formula for the volume of a sphere (V) is V = (4/3)πr3) if you double its radius. This is by using: (4/3)*π(2r)3 = (4/3)*π8r3. Kris 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with the point and thanks for bringing it up. The recent models only add about 10% to the Earth's mass, so the radius increase should have been relatively small (~3%?). — RJH (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we have some confirmation of the change in Earth's radius or mass? Reference 2 & 3 don't mention any change (only the size of the likely impactor and proto-moon). --JamesHoadley 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah the various articles on this topic are pretty fuzzy about the details, and the mass accretion varies based on the model selected. I'll weaken the text so it's not an issue. — RJH (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good, fine. --JamesHoadley 08:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait, why would it increase the Earth's volume? Sure, some Ejecta would land on Earth, creating numerous craters, but don't forget that the asteroid would also destroy fragments of the Earth, not all of which would add to the Earth's volume, as some fragments would burn up in Earth's atmosphere, descend on the moon, or get blasted into space away from Earth's gravity. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asteroid? This was a planet-sized body. Are you talking about the same topic? — RJH (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, do you know what burning up is? Burning something doesn't destroy it, the total mass of the reaction remains relatively unchanged, that's a law isn't it? It would make sense to assume that if a planet sized object collided with the earth and became the moon (Which is significantly smaller than a planet) the excess mass would have to go somewhere, and since the closest, and most applicable gravitational pull would be the earth, it is safe to assume that most of this mass was imparted onto the earth. Hence, the radius increased. Furthermore, I am quite distressed to think that mass could be destroyed, as it most definately cannot. It can be converted into enegry however, but the type of energy youre talking about, and the amount of it in question would probably be enough to blow a hole in the space time continuum. Therefore, I believe, (since no such hole exists at our current location) that the mass would be mostly conserved. thanks Glooper 08:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubling Earth's radius? 

message: I've noticed that in some places the text gives both metres (or km) and feet, while in others only the metric values are shown. Should the page be consistent one way or the other? I would have no heartburn over dumping the old-English units but others may disagree. — RJH (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I'm all for ditching the imperial units and introducing the more universal metric units consistently throughout. I doubt several million Americans would agree though, perhaps the traditional "m (ft)" format is the best way to go. The article definitely needs consistency in this regard though. Kris 09:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't even ask how I managed to meander here, but for what it is worth to have a Canadian point of view, the "m (ft)" format is a good compromise, or go with "m" as being the 'scientific' preference. -- Kavri 23:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metres and feet 

message: To be comprehensive, I think this page should cover most of the core topics described on the NASA World Book article. I don't think the page is quite there yet. For example, currently the Hydrosphere section doesn't cover the roles of the oceans as a heat and chemical reservoir. — RJH (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I think the Earth article now covers most of what is on the NASA/World Book article, although the later goes into much more detail and takes a simpler approach. Since this is a summary-style article, the somewhat brief approach in the wikipedia article is probably not an issue. (Readers can always drill down for more information.) Probably what's left now are to finish up the citations and perform a thorough copy editing. — RJH (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good catch. I restored the correct value using the cited reference. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA Worldbook 

message: "Earth does not have a sovereign government with planet-wide authority. Independent sovereign nations claim all of the land surface except for some segments of Antarctica. There is a worldwide general international organization, the United Nations. The United Nations is primarily an international discussion forum with only limited ability to pass and enforce laws."
What the **edited out** is this? It sounds like it has been written for interplanetary space travellers. - Abscissa 18:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you re-write that paragraph, sans the bar-room vernacular, so that the article is still comprehensive? — RJH (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "All land on earth is divided into countries. Almost all countries are members of the United Nations." KEEP IT SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Abscissa 00:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the simple English version of the article. Check the "In order languages" box to the left of the article page, then look for "simple English". I don't think there is any good reason to simplify this article's text to the extent you appear to prefer. — RJH (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Abscissa, it is an overview of the political units and governmental structure on Earth. Please moderate your language. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question #2: who is it directed at? is it necessary? - Abscissa 00:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  The implication of saying "Earth does not have a sovereign government with planet-wide authority." is that there exists presently, or did exist at one time, intergalactic sovereign governments with planet-wide authority. You could also say, "Earth does not choose the leader of the planet by holding martian elections." This is, by the way, a true statement, but notice how this implies that there are other planets that choose a planetary leader through martian elections. - Abscissa 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To extrapolate that statement into an implication concerning an intergalactic sovereign government is logically absurd. One could be comparing it to groups of nations, for example. E.g. the European Union, the British Empire or the Autran-Hungarian Empire. Also this article could be considered part of a series on the Solar System planets, so I don't think an outside perspective is necessarily a bad thing. The layout, for example, is similar to the FA'd articles for Mercury, Venus, & Jupiter. — RJH (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the goal then of the "non simple English" Wikipedia to be as convoluted and confusing as possible? - Abscissa 00:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess, Abscissa, that the rest of us don't consider the text to be confusing. I personally think it's pretty clear. I don't see how any reasonable person could make any sort of inference about intergalactic governments from that; that's a ridiculously large jump. The version you proposed above does have merits, and it would fit the format of the Simple English Wikipedia. It's not easy to write in simple, clear terms, explaining the fundamentals, and perhaps you should consider contributing there. It might fit your goals better than this version does. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien race? 

message: The following versions of this paragraph have appeared over the past couple of days:
# Original:  There are 267 administrative divisions, including nations, dependent areas, other, and miscellaneous entries. Earth does not have a sovereign government with planet-wide authority. Independent sovereign nations claim all of the land surface except for some segments of Antarctica. There is a worldwide general international organization, the United Nations. The United Nations is primarily an international discussion forum with only limited ability to pass and enforce laws. 
# Rewrite #1 by RJHall: There are 267 administrative divisions, including nations, dependent areas, other, and miscellaneous entries. Historically, Earth has never had a sovereign government with authority over the entire globe, although a number of nation-states have striven for world domination. Independent sovereign nations claim all of the land surface except for some segments of Antarctica. The United Nations is a worldwide general international organization, but it is primarily an international discussion forum with only limited ability to pass and enforce laws.
# Rewrite #2 by Abscissa : All land on Earth (with the exception of part of Antarctica) is divided into 267 nations or special regions. Almost every nation is a member of the United Nations. The United Nations is more of an official international forum for discussion, with no ability to enforce international law. 
# Rewrite #3 by RJHall: All land on Earth (with the exception of part of Antarctica) is divided into 267 nations or special regions. Although there is no sovereign government with authority over the entire globe, most nations are signatories to treaties of International law that, to some degree, govern their relations. The United Nations is a worldwide general international organization, but it is primarily an international discussion forum with only limited ability to pass and enforce laws.
# Rewrite #4 by Ckatz: Independent sovereign nations claim all of the planet's land surface, with the exception of some parts of Antarctica. There are 267 distinct administrative divisions, including nations, dependent areas, and other entries. Historically, Earth has never had a sovereign government with authority over the entire globe, although a number of nation-states have striven for world domination. The United Nations is a worldwide intergovernmental organization, but it serves primarily as an international discussion forum, with a limited ability to pass and enforce laws. (this was based on RJHall's first rewrite, as I didn't notice RJ's second rewrite until it was posted here - Ckatz) 
The paragraph was then reverted to Rewrite #1 by Ckatz. I've been attempting to compromise between the viewpoints expressed, but apparently not successfully. We need to reach a consensus on how to write this paragraph before this turns into an edit war. Please comment. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abscissa, please don't put words into my mouth, or presume my intentions. Remember, you're the one who went and changed the text despite opposition from other editors. As to RJHall's note above, I've amended it slightly to better reflect the path to the current version, which is actually a reworking version of his first rewrite - and not just a revert. Now that I see RJHall's second version, I think it gives a good starting point for continuing this process. (I'm more than willing to participate in refining the section to help alleviate Abscessa's concerns, provided it is not oversimplified to the degree of what he/she originally presented.) --Ckatzchatspy 02:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-write #4 is even worse than what was there before. After I have asked serveral times (including on his talk page), Ckatz is unable or unwilling to tell me what the paragraph is trying to say, or the advantages of an unnecessarily complex paragraph. I am not sure that he is able to recognise the distinct ideas within the paragraph. If one cannot realise how absurdly stupid the paragraph is, it's his own loss. Maybe get a second opinion from an English or Philosophy teacher.  - Abscissa 04:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you think I am going to take this apparent flamebait, you are sorely mistaken. Almost 5 years on Wikipedia and I have never seen such poor writing defended so passionately, especially since it is evident I have no bias nor am I trying to disrupt the article. Please be kind enough to solicit the peer-review of some of your real life colleagues. Mine had this to say: "That is the biggest piece of 5!@7 paragraph I've read in a while. So yes, I would say that needs re-writing." - Abscissa 16:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ckatz. The paragraph encompasses five ideas, rather than three as Abscissa suggested. All are related to the important topics of nation-states and international government, and each is appropriate (at this high level) to a section on human geography. The page has undergone peer review and group collaboration, so it has been reviewed by multiple people. As long as the current elements are retained by the paragraph, I have absolutely no issue with having it rewritten into a better form. But I find it objectionable to have relevant information removed from the article, and I acted accordingly. — RJH (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One particular user, who I will not name, has contributed to various anti-Semitic articles and his/her intentions are quite clear. Therefore I will abstain from further discussion, and therefore I will leave it amongst yourselves to decide what to do with that horrible paragraph. RJHall did very well, I thought. An example of an outstanding Wikipedia user who tries for a comprise between reality and consensus. - Abscissa 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-semitic? I'm not sure I follow... but no matter. Given your somewhat combative attitude earlier I'm not sure why you're being flattering now. Thanks though. — RJH (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of paragraph on sovereign nations 

message: Please add  in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA in zh.wikipedia 

message: Can we left align some of these images? The reader with a high resoltion computer screen is treated to no less than an eight inch blank gap in the early section of the text. Yeesh, talk about ugly. Quadzilla99 03:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to address this. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: I noticed that since the protection has been removed this page has already been subjected to a mass of vandalism. The wide scope of the topic probably makes it an attractive target, so it will always suffer an undue amount of these unhelpful "revisions". I'm expecting that whatever quality the page possessed will now start to slide, at least without a lot of constant monitoring. So I don't think the removal of the protection status will prove helpful. — RJH (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent vandalism 

message: The following paragraph appears in the "Human viewpoint" section:
:A 19th-century organization called the Flat Earth Society advocated the even-then discredited idea that the Earth was actually disc-shaped, with the North Pole at its center and a 50 m (150 ft) high wall of ice at the outer edge. It and similar organizations continued to promote this idea, based on religious beliefs and conspiracy theories, through the 1970s. Today, the subject is more frequently treated tongue-in-cheek or with mockery.
This doesn't seem a very notable entry in the wider context. It appears that at best this group had a few thousand followers and the particular views don't represent a wide-spread belief. The topic is also covered on the Flat Earth article page. So is there any objection to the removal of this paragraph from the Earth article? — RJH (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection, so the paragraph was yanked. — RJH (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on [[Flat Earth Society]] paragraph 

message: Wouldn't Terra match the other planets' names better? -Working for Him 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Earth" comes from words for the ground, land, etc. that predate Old English. —ptk✰fgs 03:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Earth" is also common usage, and is the more likely search term. "Terra" is french/latin. — RJH (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ooh I don't know, all my freinds refer to as "Terra" i'd say that is by far the most commen usage in fact I don't even thing Earth is in the dictionary.--Wiggstar69 11:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, it is. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that it is only listed as the 4th meaning. Personally I find Sol3 a better alternative as name for for Earth. After "Earth" of course. --Walter  Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not call it "Big blue/green place where we live, it looks round but it is really bumpy"? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not appear to be a serious discussion. Good day. — RJH (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well thank-you for the straight answer instead of making me feel like a moron like what these *Edited Out* did! -Working for Him 17:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. My name probably makes me look rather hypocritical. I cause some rather unnecessary confrontation. -Working for Him 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it called Earth? 

message: The article says: "But even if the Sun were eternal and stable, the continued internal cooling of the Earth would have resulted in a loss of much of its atmosphere and oceans (due to lower volcanism).[91] More specifically, for Earth's oceans, the lower temperatures in the crust will permit water to leak more deeply into the planet than it does today. (At present, water evaporates at a sufficient depth due to increasing temperature.)"
This statement is highly intriguing, and I want to know more. However, the reference doesn't point to anything substantial. What I want to know, is where is this information from (reference)? Specifically, I am interested in how the cooling of the core would result in loss of the atmosphere and the oceans. I crawled the web and have found no information on this. Any insight would be helpful. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This (PDF) article suggests that only a portion of the Earth's oceans will be subducted. The remainder will be outgassed in 1.3 Gyr due to solar luminosity increases. I'm not sure which of these two references is more accurate. But it should probably be reflected in the article. — RJH (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the link. This is quite interesting. I agree, things could be clarified slightly in the article. Thanks again. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's possible. There are a number of scenarios for how the world might end within that time frame, such as a gamma ray burst, a nearby supernova event, a grazing encounter with another star, &c. — RJH (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future, reference?

message: ===The Earth's Satellites.  Ambiguous?===
I believe, and I could be wrong, but I believe that the moon is the Earth's only natural satellite (and that's if we're being fussy and not including Cruithne) but we have many man made satellites, so shouldn't that be included in the concise facts on the top right?  Or at least changed to : Natural Satellites: 1. (The Moon)."   As oppose to "Satellites: 1. (The Moon)".
I would agree with this (note that the same will have to be done to Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn!) Spaceman13 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't feel that this is the right place for a list of the Earth's artificial satellites. That could get unwieldy and I think the information is at too detailed a level for the scope of this article. (Just have a look at :Category:Earth observation satellites, for example.) However, some (referenced) mention of artificial satellites would probably be appropriate for the Observation section. Would that make sense? — RJH (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hate to add the same comment twice to the talk page.  Perhaps someone should delete the first paragraph of the talk page, since it covers the same as this paragraph?  In any case, while I don't think we should list all the artificial satellites, for correctness the facts box should say "Natural Satellites" as the earth does have thousands of artificial satellites (or satellite/rocket parts).  Spaceman13 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay they have been merged into a single section. I didn't want to just blank out the comments. — RJH (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Earth's satellites

message: I believe, and I could be wrong, but I believe that the moon is the Earth's only natural satellite (and that's if we're being fussy and not including Cruithne) but we have many man made satellites, so shouldn't that be included in the concise facts on the top right?  Or at least changed to : Natural Satellites: 1. (The Moon)."   As oppose to "Satellites: 1. (The Moon)".
I would agree with this (note that the same will have to be done to Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn!) Spaceman13 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Earth's Satellites.  Ambiguous?

message: I believe, and I could be wrong, but I believe that the moon is the Earth's only natural satellite (that is if we're being fussy and not including Cruithne) but we have many man made satellites, so shouldn't that be included in the concise fact on the top right?  Or at least changed to: "Natural Satellites: 1. (The Moon)." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthewhaworth (talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't feel that this is the right place for a list of the Earth's artificial satellites. That could get unwieldy and I think the information is at too detailed a level for the scope of this article. (Just have a look at :Category:Earth observation satellites, for example.) However, some (referenced) mention of artificial satellites would probably be appropriate for the Observation section. Would that make sense? — RJH (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hate to add the same comment twice to the talk page.  Perhaps someone should delete the first paragraph of the talk page, since it covers the same as this paragraph?  In any case, while I don't think we should list all the artificial satellites, for correctness the facts box should say "Natural Satellites" as the earth does have thousands of artificial satellites (or satellite/rocket parts).  Spaceman13 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay they have been merged into a single section. I didn't want to just blank out the comments. — RJH (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Earth's Satellites. 

message: After all, some people may actually not be aware our planet is called Earth. I mean seriously, someone might not know that (not likely, sure). Like, they might come to this page and think we're talking about some planet made of dirt, hence the name earth, but where's home?
I just think it makes sense, even if it's obvious, to state early in the lead that Earth is the planet on which we/humans live. Just the same as how the article on Milky Way points out that it is the home of the solar system (even though most people know this). --Alfakim-- talk 02:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The third sentence reads "The Earth is the first planet known to have liquid water on the surface and is the only place in the universe known to harbor life." Do you find this statement insufficient? — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a very brief mention. But if the wording of that blurb starts to become an issue (due to a discussion of the space station for example), then it would be best just to lop it back out. — RJH (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked your note slightly, moving it to the first paragraph. (As it was, the preceding text said "...only place in the universe known to harbor life, including the human race." If it's the only place, it would have to include humanity.) Check out what I've done, and please modify if need be. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 09:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ckatz, that works for me. Yes I was aware of the logical redundancy. — RJH (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this article mention that earth is our home planet? 

message: "The Hill sphere (gravitational sphere of influence) of the Earth is about 1.5 Gm (930,000 miles) in radius.[62][63] This is maximum distance at which the Earth's gravitational influence becomes stronger than the more distant Sun and planets. Objects must orbit the Earth within this radius, or they can become unbound by the gravitational perturbation of the Sun."
This is wrong.  The Sun's gravity becomes stronger around 258,000 km.  G*Msun/150,000,000,000^2 =~ G*Mearth/258,000,000^2 (in meters).  Also saying that "this is the maximum distance at which the Earth's gravitational influence becomes stronger" implies that there are lesser distances where the Earth's gravity becomes stronger.  Perhaps rephrase to "This is the distance at which...".  Also, the gravity of the other planets are insignificant when considering Earth's Hill Sphere.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony873004 (talk • contribs) 
:I may be wrong, but I believe the Hill sphere is looking at gravitational perturbations rather than just the magnitude of the gravitational force. So it falls off as the cube-root of the masses rather than the square. This gives a different result than just looking at the net force. (It strikes me as being similar to the tidal force in that sense.) The influence of the planets can be significant at large distances from the Sun. (Neptune has the largest Hill radius, for example.) — RJH (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hill Sphere 

message: "The rotation of the Earth creates the equatorial bulge so that the equatorial diameter is 43 km (27 mi) larger than the pole to pole diameter."
Since earth circumference numbers are provided (Equatorial 40,075.02, Meridional 40,007.86 km), why not replace the above quote with "The rotation of the Earth creates the equatorial bulge so that the equatorial _circumference_ is 67km (xx mi) larger than the pole to pole circumference"? In this case, I find shifting from circumference to diameter less intuitive than sticking with circumference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slawek7 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both radius and circumference are listed in the infobox. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving Clarity