Talk:Earth/Archive 4

message: Isn't it redundant to describe the earth as the only place known by humans to support life? Most readers assume that encyclopedia articles reflect human knowledge... Sceptre Seven 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known by Humans 

message: Te picture states that "Earth and Moon to scale." ,Distance included in the scale?
if so ,it should be stated in the article...
: After a quick ruler check, I've updated the caption to reflect that both the sizes and distances appear to be to scale. Specifically, on my display, an 8-mm Earth = 8,000 miles => 223 mm distance = 223,000 miles, which is about right for a rough check. A similarly rough check on sizes (8-mm Earth to 3-mm Moon) seems to have the Moon a bit bigger than it should be (0.273 Earth diameter, according to The Moon, instead of 0.38), but I'll assume the image creator was more accurate than my quick measurements for now. In any case, we should update the image description to confirm exactly what is to scale. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Earth#The_Moon]] 

message: Look you all I'm not vandalizing the article....I'm just removeing an eyesore from it to improve its quality.  How about this if I find a better one would that work? 138.163.0.37 00:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The poor quality animated GIF image

message: Hey how do I add a caption to that image? any help would be great Aeon 00:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use something like , which I used to display the image at right. Aeon, where did you get the animation of the rotating Earth? — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Where did you get this image? Could you supply the URL? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a caption to the rotating earth image

message: Article states: "Scientific evidence indicates that the Earth and the moon were formed around 7,000-10,000 years ago."  Obviously, this is not true.  
In fact, all scientific evidence points to an earth that is about 4.6 billion years old, along with the rest of the solar system.  An earth younger than 10,000 years exists only in the belief system of certain religions, and is not based on scientific analysis.  If someone experienced with Wikipedia could correct this, we would all appreciate it.  Thanks.66.243.43.98 21:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct; an anonymous user changed it and I didn't notice it until fifteen minutes later. It should be correct now. Thanks for pointing it out! — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help correcting factual error re age of Earth 

message: (near the winter and summer solstices, which are on about December 21 and June 21, respectively). 
With respect the Earth had two hemispheres last time I check and that this statement referrs only to the northern hemisphere, for the southern Hemisphere this is factually incorrect as summer solstice occurs about December 21 and the winter solstice occurs about June 21.   Gnangarra 14:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  two hemispheres 

message: In the chapter named "Earth's future" it says both "billion years" and "Gyr". 
I believe it should be corrected. Only one term should be used. --Idan Yelin 04:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to clarify the use of the term in the text. Repeatedly saying a "thousand million" seems excessively wordy. Thanks. — RJH 17:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth's future 

message: The section of Pangaea, while well written, doesn't really belong in this article, in my opinion. It seems out of place and a bit arbitrary—why a section on Pangaea and none of the other continents or supercontinents? Perhaps a section on continental movements could be included instead, or perhaps relevant information discussed briefly in the Earth#History section. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The subject is already covered at a higher level in the History section. I think the Pangaea section should be merged into the Pangaea page. — RJH 19:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it appears to be the introduction of that article, I removed the section. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pangaea 

message: Perhaps somebody knows the answer to this question: If the Moon continues to recede from the Earth, at what point (time or distance) will it no longer exert a significant influence in stabilizing the axial tilt of our planet? Thank you. — RJH 03:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ~2 Gyr.  .  Dragons flight 04:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon and the Earth's Axial tilt 

message: Isn't the pressure 101.325 kPa? 203.218.86.162 11:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure 

message: Is anybody but me struck by how silly it is to write Precipitation patterns vary widely ... or The Earth's terrain can vary greatly ...?   Precipitation varies widely compared to what?  Precipitation on Mars?  Jupiter?  My back yard?  I could be wrong here but I bet Jupiter has a lot more variation in precipitation, just becuase it probably has a lot more precipitation overall.  Things can only vary widely or greatly in comparison to something else.  When you're talking about the whole Earth itself there really isn't much to compare against.  Just making the sentences longer to make them look good buys us nothing.
I tried removing an adverb once, writing just Precipitation patterns vary ... but somebody put it back.  Rather than start an edit war I figured I'd point out the sillyness here.  --kop 05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're trying to say here. I agree with you that it's absolute rubbish to compare something with... absolutely nothing. People should rather stop writing BS on all the articles in order to express their ideologies. We want a Wikipedia with factuous information that can be and has already been proven. People should also be more careful when edititing articles because they never know what simple-minded person they might influence with this BS of them. --Scotteh 17:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about removing the adverbs? 

message: "The Earth was formed around 4.57 billion (4.57×109)[1] years ago (see Age of the Earth) and its largest natural satellite, the Moon, was orbiting it shortly thereafter, around 4.533 billion years ago."
This part is nonsense and cannot be proven. Therefore I have removed it. --Scotteh 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not remove well sourced valid content. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you saying that because some fool wrote a book about how old the planets are that is enough reason to believe this nonsense? I believe you are ignorant, therefore you are ignorant. What's the logic within that? Stating the Earth is how many ever billion years old, is foolish because the author of this hypothesis has not beared in mind the factors of  thermodynamics, to say the least. Also, stating that the Earth is so many billions of years old, is in contrast with the beliefs of Christians, and is therefore discriminating that specific group. Until someone climbed into a time machine and visited the time when the Earth began existing, and confirmed it's age, the "billions of years"-statement is bogus. Therefore such utter nonsense must be removed off this Wikipedia. I will not go on an immature edit war, so I'll leave ignorant Wikipedia articles to the ignorant Wikipedia community. Also, I do not understand who tagged that citing as well sourced and valid. Must be the author himself. --Scotteh 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say, if you want to challange the scientific evidence, provide alternative scientific evidence that shows the page is incorrect. Just your assertion will not do. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And who suddenly gave science so much authority? This planet is not inhabited solely by scientists. It seems Europeans always want to do away with what God says, nevermind their own contrasting so called evidence. Why, you know I'm just a kid and I don't have much knowledge about these stuff, but if you go ask other people who don't lurk around Wikipedia for their whole lives, you'd be surprised about what you'd found. Hereby I settle this. Wikipedia has proven itself unworthy of providing sourceful information, and it's only reason for existense is to be a message board for atheists to agree on nonsense. Unless this would change in any way, Wikipedia would remain a foolish resource, or dumpsite, for any reasarch done. --Scotteh 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that is your view of wikipedia, so be it. Because if we would base the entries in religeon, we will need a long discussion about which religeon, because mine gives a very different picture than yours for example. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. --Scotteh 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, until that is settled in this world, I suggest to leave religeon out of the equation for articles like this. :-) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not about winning as far as I am concerned. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as far as I am concerned, it is. So then it is all about winning. Oh please, you know what I mean. --Scotteh 20:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if that is the way you want to see it. In my view, winning is with a loser, and I do not view you as the loser of our discussion. In this context, you might be interested in Age of the Earth page, especially under prescientific concepts. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was the loser. But thanks anyway. And thanks for the articles. --Scotteh 21:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideology

message: The Lexicography section gives cognates to "earth" which is interesting in its own right (although it might show the need for an article on earth - although this might be too similar to soil) but what I'd be interested in names other cultures use for "Earth". I assume most Indo-European languages also use their equivalent to "earth" but what about elsewhere? Some of it is touched on in the first paragraph of the Descriptions of Earth section but are there more? It may be that it is all as mundane as our own naming system but there may also be interesting information that could be drawn together. So would some kind of new section ("Names for the planet Earth" perhaps?) be worth considering? (Emperor 17:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names for the planet Earth?

message: "distance from the Sun, and the fifth in order of size. We are mostly harmless."
what is that comment about? --Dan 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment in opening paragraph 

message: It's a great article, however it contains units of measure that are virtually meaningless to roughly 5% or so of the world's population. I propose to add English/Imperial measurements to all the figures given, using google calculator. Any objections?
Supercam 21:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the number of units in the article, it will make it longer (particularly the infobox) and possibly harder to read. Who are the 5% who would find them meaningless? Perhaps a link to a page about the units would be better. I'm sure there's one here somewhere. Kevin 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an American who has difficulty with with metric/SI units, I still strongly support their use in scientific (and other) contexts. In my opinion, providing conversions for all the units would make the article needlessly bloated; readers who are unfamiliar with SI units may use Google Calculator or their method of choice to convert to their desired measurement system. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we add units in English/Imperial? 

message: Added a brief paragraph on the word for "Earth" in other languages, since I was curious about this and couldn't find it in other articles, or via Wiktionary. The best that I could come up with is this, via Google search. The examples are therefore all transliterated into English. Anyone with more experience in these languages or with linguistics, please feel free to add or revise the paragraph. --Brasswatchman 22:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Word for "Earth" in other languages

message: Shouldn't this page be titled Terra? Its the scientifically and politically correct term for Earth,same for the moon being called Luna. While some think it's just Latin, its also the proper scientific term.
:There's nothing scientific correctness in the name Terra, as our planet does not happen to have an "official" name. Terra it is the Latin name for Earth, however this is the English Wikipedia and we should use English names if possible.--JyriL talk 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Terra

message: I change the whole layout, added hydrosphere, changed plate tectonics (which is theory) to facts about tectonic plates on Earth, added pedosphere and some other minor changes. To write article about Earth is quite though task. There's too much information taht should be included and many other articles on Wikipedia related. GeoW 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some changes

message: I beleive that most current discussions are resolved. HighInBC 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for another archive soon