Talk:Internal structure of Earth

The percentages of the elements that comprise the Earth add up to 102.159%

Earth Layers Cutaway

3D rendering of the Earth, exposing its main layers. Feel free to add it to the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Earth-layers-01.png

Thangalin 22:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Percentage over 100%

I don't feel that this is an error, let me explain :

I already see something like that on the periodic table of the cows. T. Check on this webpage : www.cow.org

After all, the percentage of the composition of the earth may be the better estimate available. By example, we could have 2% less iron but we could also have 2% less silicon, we don't know.

It can be an error, but I don't know enough about it to be sure. Sammy212 19:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No mention of temperatures and poor discussion of temperature gradients

There needs to be a discussion of what the temperatures are within the mantel, inner and out core and at the center of the earth. As I understand the current center of the earth temperature range you can find in the literature varies from a low of 2000 degrees C to a high of 7300 degrees C. Thermal gradients particularly in the crust need to be discussed. Also the fact that we all don't live on a planet with either a very hot surface temp, or a very low one is due to the wonderful insulating qualities of the the thin crust. This keeps us insulated from the hot interior and keeps the interior from lossing all its heat to space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R Stillwater (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Teach the Controversy

Why should alternative views on the shape of the Earth not be mentioned? // Liftarn

Lack of evidence perhaps. The flat concept might fit in an historical development of our understanding section or some such. The hollow part - hmm, a section on wacko ideas - or maybe mythology, seems to have been a fictional cult thing rather than serious - or have I missed something? Yeah, I know there was a Hollow Earth book put out back some 50 years or so ago - but was it seriously considered by anyone credible? To sum up: if you think it worth mentioning then create a historical/mythological section about Earth shape & such. Vsmith 13:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence that both views (flat and hollow) exists even today (not so sure about the flat theory, but possibly[1][2]). That the theories don't match observations is another issue. I don't think it's important enough to create a section about it, what is needed is just a small pointer to the articles on flat and hollow Earth theories. The history is covered in those articles. // Liftarn

People believe Bush created Hurricane Katrina to kill the black people in New Orleans too, but that doesn't mean that such unscientific (i.e. not supported by science) theories deserve to be mentioned alongside scientific descriptions as if they were equally credible. Dragons flight 15:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No such thing is done. It just say that some people believe this. Some people believe strange things and there's little point in trying to ignore it. // Liftarn

And, as I said above, if it must be in the article, then the bits should be added as part of a section or two sections on historical development of our understanding and/or mythological - fictional beliefs. The weasely some people believe doesn't cut it in the main part of the article. Also, Wiki already has articles about those theories (choke, gag) - more correctly speculations and science fiction/fantasy stuff. Vsmith 16:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The flat Earth theory is actually quite modern from the 19th century and hollow Earth is even more modern. I'm aware that we have articles on the subjects, what I want is a wikilink from this article to those articles. But OK I have added a section on alternative theories. // Liftarn

It's more than just flatters & hollowers. As it concerns myth and fiction as well as some historical stuff it belongs toward the end and needs expanding for more traditional historical development - not just crackpotism. Vsmith 13:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The views presented are not valid alternatives. They are either historical ideas or fictional stuff or religiously promoted hoaxes. Nothing there is a valid alternative. Once again, if this section is to remain and have significance beyond just linking to irrationalisms, then considerable info re the serious historical development of the modern ideas needs to be included. The UFOologists and religious hoaxers need to be minimised. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia - not a supermarket tabloid. Vsmith 16:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

They are views (or theories) in the sense that there are actually people who think they are correct. It's the same think with those crackpots people who don't believe in the evidence for, for instance, biological evolution or global warming. To be NPOV it has to be presented in a neutral way, hence the label "Alternative views". // Liftarn

The section has potential for expansion as Wetman has done into the historical development of our understanding of the Earth's interior from ancient concepts through modern geophysics. This includes your alternate views in context. A good portion of the section as you started it was either simple fiction or myth - and the hoax stuff is still there, hardly fits as an alternative view. Or should hoaxes be included in the section header? - don't think so. Vsmith 13:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It may have started as a hoax, but there are people who actually believe it. I still maintain that to be NPOV it has to have a better label. "Historical, mythical and fictional conceptions" is way to POV. "Alternative views" may not be the best label, but unless you can come up with something better it's what's best. // Liftarn

I Agree that we should strive for NPOV articles. However, we should also be careful when deciding between what should be labeled an 'alternative theory'. If you were search through the articles looking at this issue in the major scientific journals, you would not find too many articles supporting things like a flat earth, etc. NPOV is important, but it's also important to be careful not to mislead people into thinking that there are scientists who accept these ideas, or large amounts of evidence supporting those ideas. This is my 2 cents. --Keith 00:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Request

Would anyone be up for expanding on some of the topics in this article, to make it more accessible? There is a lot of useful information in the article, but some of it is difficult to grasp without a deeper understanding of geology, etc. For example, in the section on the Earth's crust, the sentence discussing "chemical discontinuity" uses a lot of jargon without much explanation. Overall is a great article though. gj!

--Keith 00:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Inner core

I've added the discovery of the inner core and a link to Inge Lehmann to the article, but I'm not sure if (or how) to reference the original publication: Lehmann, I. (1936) Bur. Cent. Seismol. Int. 14, 3-31 Inner Earth 17:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggest adding latest estimate for the central pressure and density. Should be something like 362 GPa for the central pressure, and something like 13 to 17 gm/cm^3 for the central density, but check the primary literature for latest estimates and convert to MKS units. Suggest adding comparison of central pressure/density to articles on Sun and Neutron star. ---CH 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to editing on Wikipedia but would like to point out that I don't think Professor Kei Hirose was the first to simulate core conditions in a diamond anvil cell; people have been doing so for many years. He certainly didn't do so on August 30th 2011 - that was the date of a BBC TV Horizon broadcast that featured his work. I think it is his work on the crystaline nature of the inner core that is new. Can someone more experiened than me update accordingly? Oldmanbeaver (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How far have we dug down?

Stupid question alert. How far have we drilled/dug into the planet? Which layers? Malamockq 16:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not stupid at all. I think 12,000 m is about the deepest so far (http://geology.com/news/2005/07/deep-sea-drilling-to-earths-mantle.html), but the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program is preparing to drill into the mantle sometime soon (http://geology.com/news/2005/07/deep-sea-drilling-to-earths-mantle.html).

Some disparity on the asthenosphere

"Earth's composition (by depth below surface): · 0 to 60 km - Lithosphere (locally varies 5-200 km) o 0 to 35 km - Crust (locally varies 5-70 km) o 35 to 60 km - Uppermost part of mantle · 35 to 2890 km - Mantle o 100 to 700 km - Asthenosphere · 2890 to 5100 km - Outer core · 5100 to 6378 km - Inner core"

In my opinion there is some disparity between this and the separate article about the asthenosphere: "The asthenosphere (from an invented Greek a + sthenos "without strength") is the region of the Earth between 100-200 km below the surface — but perhaps extending as deep as 400 km — that is the weak or "soft" zone in the upper mantle."

It says 100 to 700 km in the first article and 100-200 in the second. From the main article I also inferred that the asthenosphere is not directly under the lithosphere as the article about the asthenosphere claims:"It lies just below the lithosphere, which is involved in plate movements and isostatic adjustments." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyez2k1ss (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 July 2006

As an aside, the conversion from km to miles for the upper mesosphere does not seem to be correct. 100 - 200 km. vs 210 - 270 mi. I didn't correct since I do not know which is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.173.123.146 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

How can something be 'partially to scale'?

I'm referring to the caption on the main image. I mean, either it IS to scale or its NOT. There is no in between here.Nnfolz 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Doesn't look to scale to me. —Keenan Pepper 08:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What do the notes on the image say? The cutout is not to scale and the global view is to scale. I'd suggest removing the scale bit from the caption unless you want to modify the image. Vsmith 13:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Disparity on the layer sizes?

Mean radius of the Earth ~= 6372.797 km. Inner core radius ~= 1220 km. Liquid core radius ~= (3400 - 1220) = 2180 km. Mantle radius = 2800 km. Crust radius ~= (70 + 5) / 2 = 37. Total ~= 6237 km. Granted the numbers are approximations, but a difference of 135 km seems a bit much. There seems to be a missing layer, the D' ' layer, perhaps?

From http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/earth.html

• 0 - 40 ... Crust
• 40 - 400 ... Upper mantle
• 400 - 650 ... Transition region
• 650 - 2700 ... Lower mantle
• 2700 - 2890 ... D' ' layer
• 2890 - 5150 ... Outer core
• 5150 - 6378 ... Inner core

Thangalin 06:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mantle thickness and layers

Currently, the article states that the mantle is the thickest layer in the Earth; which isn't true, the core is thicker (but much smaller in volume). This leads to a common misconception that the core is quite small compared to the mantle.

You could argue that the core is in fact two layers, but then the mantle is also portrayed as two layers (upper and lower). Which also doesn't seem to be a very modern view—current models treat the mantle as a single convecting entity. --Furrfu (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not good at all

Uhmm why is the Herndon core model used here as the sole explanation for the inner core heat source when his theories are anything but fully accepted in the mainstream? I am going to remove this whole section and put it in its own Herndon article if no one objects. --Deglr6328 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

RoddyYoung (talk · contribs) seems to have added it all as a block a few weeks ago and no one noticed. We have an article on georeactor where it can go, but I'd say Herndon's views should be stripped down to about one sentence in this article. Dragons flight 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is confusing

First paragraph says This discussion of the Earth's structure is an overview of its geology and the nature of its atmosphere.

And in the text is also hydrosphere. What is actually Structure of the Earth. Is this term needed to be in encyclopaedia. When I search for this term in Google, every article is actually about Internal Structure of the Earth. BTW, there are other spheres on Earth - pedosphere or biosphere. Hydrosphere is not a layer, since it is also in the atmosphere or under the surface of the Earth. This article is confusing. I recommend to write a new one only about the internal structure.GeoW 17:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Also WTH does the shape of the Earth has to do with its structure? GeoW 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And also Historical development and alternative conceptions section is only about internal structure. I've decided to remove the section about atmosphere and hydrosphere. It's really confusing. There should be an article about Earth's spheres instead.GeoW 17:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some illicit language in the article regarding Joe Hill. Have a look at paragraph 2 in the "Core" section. I tried to edit the article to remove the text, but for some reason I was unable to.

Most of us think the georeactor is a bunch of nonsense. I toned it down, but it's funny, so I didn't delete.(John 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

I agree with John that this article is confusing AND it has so little information in it that it is almost a stub. Something that adds to the confusion is the mixture of concepts; chemical layering vs. the physical strength. For example, "Crust" is a chemical concept whereas "lithosphere" is defined as the rigid outermost layer of the solid earth, and contains the crust and the upper mantle. Then we need two tables, not one, that separate these concepts. And the definition of the Asthenosphere is not totally correct: under the mid-oceanic ridges it may begin at depths as little as 5 Km, but I need to find a good modern reference before I change it.

Also it would be a good idea to add a few more references to the more accessible books on earth structure and plate tectonics, and a few links to some of the educational pages. I'll add as time permits. PN 32955 14:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Structure of the Earth : Internal structure + atmospherical structure ?

I personally think that we should include the both. (but I study Chinese and History). Some peoples studying geology astronomy may them help please, or need we to contact the Portal:astronomy's members. Yug 12:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Lehmann discontinuity

According to the article Lehmann discontinuity, the use of this term to describe the discontinuity between the outer and inner cores is now obsolete; the term refers to a possible discontinuity at a depth of 200 km.

Eroica (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Metallic hydrogen hypothesis

The mentioned book is not the only source, please do a search before removing stuff. It's just handy to use as such because the information needed to use it as a reference is easily found, whereas for some other ones it is - at least for me - not. And there's something else I haven't added that is (even) more notable, that being the hypothesis that the core also consists of a small fraction of hydrogen, about 1% as far as I recall. The latter hypothesis appears to be more common and sources are more easily found, so you could add that as well. Lunus (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(The latter stuff would somehow have to be added to the main part, though, as it doesn't fit with the rest of the section I've added the former to. Lunus (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

I suppose, considering it's in the wacko section with flat & hollow earthers... will leave it for now. Still It has been suggested that... seems lacking a bit. The ne-do Press seems like a real bastion of scientific research :-) And, from an Amazon review of his other book: ...his cold-core model also matched catastrophic events reported in the Bible and future events prophesied in Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Isaiah; they obviously used his cold-core model. Wow, used by those astute scientists... Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but 'a bunch of nutcase's hypothesizes' just didn't sound fitting for neither the material, nor the article, either. Somewhere in between there would be best. Lunus (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

new scientific article on this subject

http://www.physorg.com/news121692398.html

fyi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.219.3 (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

According to their simulations, they think the core is iron in a certain crystalline form. I think "iron" is sufficient at present for this article. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

99.27.175.54 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC) The body-centered cubic crystal structure forms a cube with atoms in each corner and a further atom in the middle of this cube. It is oriented in such a way that its great diagonal is directed along the earth’s axis of rotation, which makes it possible for the iron to evince sound propagations with the velocities observed.

Source: Uppsala University

This is from the article above & I think it should be combined with the discussion on "inner core". Also there is a distinct E/W gain/loss in mass along the equator with the increase off Equador & loss off India. I would comment more but I am banned from Physics.org as a 'crackpot.'

Broken text

I'm hoping someone monitoring this page can fix the second paragraph of the article. It's mark-up is exposed and I don't know how to fix it. CFMWiki1 (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society?

I was reading the article, and it laughably ends with a bungled inclusion of a pseudo-political group attempting to lampoon Christian beliefs as crazy. It is rather disingenuous, and perhaps nothing more than an attack on the Christian religion itself, to include in a scientific article that any person, Christian or non-Christian, believes that the earth in flat or that Christians "resisted the idea of a spherical Earth on theological grounds." The website which is sourced for this "information" is, at best, wildly anti_Christian (evidenced in this quote: "All this proves is that one can support virtually any statement imaginable from Scripture."), and nonetheless, a handful on anecdotal quotes does not give grounds to say "some" Christians believe in anything. None of us would expect to read an article about basketball and find "some people believe white men can't jump" due to the fact that we found four people how hold this opinion. Facts are facts, and the fact is that no one can say such a thing about "some" Christians. Let us keep our beliefs out when we present information. And that goes for both sides. As such, I'm removing that part of the article and hope that maturity will prevail.

99.228.133.99 (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review?

I really don't think that this article is ready for GA review. Although it's decent in many ways,

1. The grammar needs some help
2. It has some sections in 2nd person
3. It's choppy and has holes in some places, and especially contains single sentences about hypotheses without any additional information.

So while I think it's a decent B-class article, I think it could use some cleanup before GA-nomination. Awickert (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It needs significantly more citations. Nergaal (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Structure of the Earth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. This is mainly due to a lack of referencing in the article, but here starter list of problems:

• This article needs significantly more references. There are large swaths of the article that are unreferenced.
• The Historical development section needs expansion. How was the Hollow Earth theory proven wrong? What was wrong about it? Give us more information on the hydrogen theory - why people think it's right or wrong. The last sentence of the first paragraph needs to be referenced - which conspiracy theory cited it (and why is this relevant), and who proved it wrong?
• Ref #10 (Uni-Jena) deadlinks
• References need to be formatted consistently, either always using or never using cite templates. Websites must have a title, publisher and access date, and should never have just the bare link.
• Prose needs some work. Watch out for first person ("we must conclude"). Small paragraphs should be combined or expanded. All of the parenthetical inserts make the prose choppy and harder to read.

I have not done a complete review of the prose or images, so this list is not exhaustive. I would suggest that the nominator put a little more time into the article (they have only one edit to the article, as far as I can tell) and make sure that it is fully references and includes all relevant information before bringing it back to GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we know the composition of the Earth

Despite a sentence in the first paragraph, there's no in-depth mention of how we acquire knowledge about Earth's composition. This is something that would tremendously benefit the article and should be thought about including. Voice99 (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'll be working on this, but as I have lately been tending to drop projects as my real life schedule fills, please poke me if I don't do it. I just fixed up the lede to include some more sources of information. Awickert (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to follow

"The average density of Earth is 5,515 kg/m3. Since the average density of surface material is only around 3,000 kg/m3, we must conclude that denser materials exist within Earth's core."

I don't think this conclusion follows. The denser materials needed to bump up the average could be in the mantle, not the core. I know it's reasonable to assume that the densest stuff must be at the centre, but that's not actually what it says. 86.176.209.74 (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Curie Temperature Inner Core

On descriptions of the Curie Temperature of various magnetic materials (less than 1200 Celsius for highest listed Curie Temperature for Cobalt) like Iron and Cobalt, they imply that the inner and outer core are too warm (more than 4000 Celsius listed for the outer core) to sustain magnatic fields. 76.167.47.5 (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

An old theory somewhere from at least the 1970's placed a percentage of radioactive Uranium having settled by gravity in the inner core, approaching a plasma state of thermonuclear chain reaction that is moderated with inner core iron, gold, cobalt and other materials, reaching a thermonuclear plasma equilibrium, which may be capable of producing the high velocity plasma charge separation and current flux required for the direct current based magnetic field generation, in an older decade's thermonuclear dynamo theory. 76.167.47.5 (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Although this older explanation has issues with the combination of natural radioactive decay over billions of years, rapid thermonuclear fission chain reaction element conversion and depletion, and the otherwise very hot surrounding core temperatures far beyond all common element Curie Temperatures, which makes even the old thermonuclear dynamo generation and support of the earth's surface magnetic field, a very peculiar high temperature solely electromagnetic effect. 76.167.47.5 (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

These issues all suggest an alternate mode of a constant influx and collection of neutrons from the sun, with the neutrons being constantly trickle absorbed into the core's fusion reactions, to continue the extremely high temperature plasma charge separation and current required for a dynamo generation model, after the earth core's natural Uranium chain reaction fission becomes depleted. (LoneRubberDragon SET) 76.167.47.5 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The observed stability over millions of years of a fission plasma based dynamo core, may be sustained through induced crust magnatism averaging, mutually interacting with such a plasma core, to produce an enduring stable field. Though that average mutual interaction still has issues, to explain that there are no observed fluctuations to date, of short time scale fluctuations of such a plasma based dynamo core, like on months down to seconds time scales, of such a plasma based dynamo core field. 76.167.47.5 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_Temperature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_core

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Osiris (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The title needs to change to Structure of Earth

Our home planet's name is Earth. In grammatical terms 'Earth' is a proper noun, and so does not have a definite article attached to it. To highlight this example, NASA didn't send rovers to 'the Mars', or Cassini to investigate 'the Saturn'.

By contrast, when writing about the soil, dirt, etc in our fields and gardens we are talking about 'earth', and might say/write that 'the earth in our fields is dry'. In this context it is entirely possible that we might talk of 'the earth' on other planets when referring to their soil.

At any rate, we must drop 'the' and endeavour to respect this amazing chunk of space junk that gives us air to breathe, food to eat, and incredibly cute furry animals to admire. Ottadini (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add an opposing viewpoint to the above: There are three astronomical bodies that have historically taken the article "the." These are: the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth. It is not at all incorrect to continue with this convention. I prefer this convention because it is more accessible to most people - this usage is natural. Why introduce a technical convention (such as dropping "the") when it is unnecessary?Daniel Helman (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2013 (UCT)

They have layers.

For your information, there's a lot more to Earth than people think. Example... uh... Earth is like an onion! Layers. Onions have layers. Earth has layers. Onions have layers. You get it? They both have layers. Earth is like onions! End of story! Bye-bye! See ya later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.176.192 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"Historical development of alternative conceptions"

That is an odd choice of a section name. I propose this be expanded to a complete "History" section. Surely Halley was not the only scientist interested in the Earth's structure before the 20th century? 93.136.93.243 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I have made the change. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)