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 elements. The oxygen average mass was lower than the lowest oxygen isotope in nature. It seemed weird, but after explanation, it was logical. Check on this webpage : http://www3.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/chemistry/atomic_mass.html

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 desciptions 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 belive this. Some people beleive 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 fromt he 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 suposed to be and 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 beleive 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 concets 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 beleive 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 alot 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 alot 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 kgs units. Suggest adding comparison of central pressure/density to articles on Sun and Neutron star. ---CH 01:01, 19 July 2006 (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 Inegrated 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."

how can something be 'partially to scale'?

I'm refering 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)

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, is everywhere also in 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 Eart'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 personnally 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, Jermiah 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 nutcases 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)