Why is Earth considered round despite its bumpy surface?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacinta
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the shape of the Earth, specifically addressing the question of why it is considered round despite its uneven surface features such as mountains and valleys. Participants explore theoretical, conceptual, and observational aspects of Earth's shape.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the Earth cannot be fully spherical due to its bumpy surface, questioning the validity of describing it as round.
  • Others suggest that the Earth's shape is close enough to a sphere for practical purposes, citing the small percentage of height differences relative to its overall size.
  • There are mentions of the equatorial bulge and how the Earth's spinning affects its shape, with a radius increase of about 13 miles at the equator compared to the poles.
  • Some participants propose that the perception of the Earth as round is a simplification used in popular science, while scientists may use more precise terms.
  • One participant suggests conducting an experiment to analyze high-resolution images of Earth to detect differences in diameter between the equator and the poles.
  • There is a discussion about the comparison of Earth's roughness to that of a billiard ball, with some arguing that Earth's surface irregularities are negligible when scaled down.
  • Participants express differing opinions on whether the Earth can be considered a sphere, with some emphasizing the distinction between rolling and spinning objects.
  • Some participants challenge the accuracy of images representing Earth's shape, suggesting that they may be artificially created or exaggerated.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the characterization of Earth's shape. There are multiple competing views regarding the implications of its bumpy surface, the appropriateness of describing it as round, and the accuracy of visual representations.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on specific definitions and assumptions about shape and surface roughness, which remain unresolved. The discussion includes references to various images and their interpretations, but the accuracy and context of these images are debated.

  • #31
Baluncore said:
There are 2D figures and coins that are not round, but that have a constant diameter and can roll between two lines with fixed separation. In polar coordinates, the radius would be a constant term + odd harmonics.

Is there a 3D version of that? A non-spherical solid with constant diameter that fits neatly between two planes with fixed separation.
This?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodecahedron
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #32
Baluncore said:
The Earth has a very thin and fragile crust on a fluid mantle and a solid core. The crust floats on the surface and cannot handle tension. If you tried to roll the Earth on a flat surface it would immediately collapse, (like a fried egg), into a glob of red hot stainless steel, in the middle of a puddle of lava.
The outer core is liquid. The mantle is solid that “flows” on geologic time scales. The mantle also makes up the vast majority of the earth’s volume. This is verified readily by seismometry: the S waves radiated from earthquakes do not propagate through liquid, which would have easily observable effects of the mantle were liquid.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
9K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
35K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K