you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

So you’re saying the earth is a very smooth ball bearing. This despite being classified as an oblate spheroid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'm guessing smoothness doesn't consider the non-spherical shape of the planet, just the bumpiness of it. But I'm also some random on the Internet, so who knows

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I think I’m missing what the smoothness of the planet has to do with it being basically an iron-nickel ball covered by a bit of rock, but being a meat popsicle, I tend to miss a lot of things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    The difference in diameter between the pole and the equator is only about 26 miles.

    7926 miles vs 7900 miles

    So a difference of about 0.03%

    Yeah I'd say that's pretty spherical

    Edit: Rereading this it comes of a bit rougher than I intended. Basically what I'm saying is something can be spherical without being a perfect sphere, infact if to be a sphere (in common usage of the word) only applied to perfect examples of a sphere than nothing would be a sphere. Definitions are pretty wishy-washy a lot of the times, especially when it comes to describing the world as it is.

    Earth is an oblique spheroid, technically. But calling it a sphere is true enough to observers that I'd say it still counts.

  • source
  • parent