Here's an Easy One

Let me make this really easy for you.  Antarctica is roughly (very roughly) a circle. Now, you should be able to figure this out even with your Middle School math: if the coastline (circumference) is 11,165 miles, how big is the circle?

Have you figured it out yet?

Yes, if the coastline of Antarctica is roughly 11,165 miles then the circumference of Antarctica is approximately 11,165 miles and should reach nearly 1/4 of the way up the globe or half of the southern hemisphere. It clearly does not.

Why is my post being ignored? It contains the answer to why you can't see Antarctica at all in the OP picture.

Yes, if the coastline of Antarctica is roughly 11,165 miles then the circumference of Antarctica is approximately 11,165 miles and should reach nearly 1/4 of the way up the globe or half of the southern hemisphere. It clearly does not.

No no no, you misunderstood the math problem. Let me be more specific.

What is the diameter of a circle with a circumference of 11,165 miles?

It would be approximately 3,553 miles which is close to half of the earth's Diameter said to be 7,926.3352 miles.

It would be approximately 3,553 miles which is close to half of the earth's Diameter said to be 7,926.3352 miles.

'kay.

So what's the problem?

Well the problem, for one, is that Antarctica is missing from the majority of Space shots when it should clearly be visible as in the first picture I posted. For an object with nearly half of the circumference of the earth and close to half of the diameter it sure is a shy little fella!

Why is my post being ignored? It contains the answer to why you can't see Antarctica at all in the OP picture.

So you're saying in the first picture and the link to the Nasa satellite photo Antarctica is simply on the other side of the world from the United States and South America and not visible? You mean it's not at the south pole?

Clearly you cannot trust "Space Photos" from "Astronauts"

For an object with nearly half of the circumference of the earth and close to half of the diameter it sure is a shy little fella!

You're doing it wrong. You don't compare the circumference of Antarctica to the circumference of Earth or the diameter of Antarctica to the diameter of Earth. The body of Antarctica is wrapped along the surface of the earth, so you should be comparing Antarctica's length to Earth's circumference to see how much of Earth it should take up.

You with me so far?

Now, as you've ingeniously discovered all by yourself, Antarctica would have a diameter of about 3500 miles if it were a circle.

3500 / 25000 = 14%

That is not 1/4.

And of course, Antarctica isn't really a circle, even the length between its farthest points doesn't quite reach 3500:



Problem?

Even with your techmologically advanced computer 3d renderings and calculation of 14% of the total circumference of the globe does not explain why Antarctica is not visible in many a Satellite/Space photograph?

Covering 14% of the bottom of the earth would be visible in the first 2 examples.

Since when does circumference have anything to do with surface area?  The total surface area of the round earth is approximately 510 million km² and the surface area of Antarctica is approximately 14.2 million km² or about 2.8% of the total surface area of the round earth.

That definitely explains why it's not visible in the first two examples. <-- Sarcasm =/

Gee, and I thought it was because you deliberately chose photographs where Antarctica was not visible.  [/sarcasm]

Even with your techmologically advanced computer 3d renderings and calculation of 14% of the total circumference of the globe does not explain why Antarctica is not visible in many a Satellite/Space photograph?

Your OP said that Antarctica should cover a quarter of the circumference of the earth. I was correcting that. It should only cover (less than) 14%.

And yes, my 3D rendering and calculation does explain why you can't see Antarctica in your image. Because since we've established that Google Earth's measurements don't contradict the 11,165-mile-circumference figure, we can see what it really should look like based on those measurements and then compare to your image:



Problem?

You have a really, really short memory don't you?

Quote from: iWitness on February 11, 2012, 06:22:45 PM

For an object with nearly half of the circumference of the earth and close to half of the diameter it sure is a shy little fella!

You're doing it wrong. You don't compare the circumference of Antarctica to the circumference of Earth or the diameter of Antarctica to the diameter of Earth. The body of Antarctica is wrapped along the surface of the earth, so you should be comparing Antarctica's length to Earth's circumference to see how much of Earth it should take up.

You with me so far?

Now, as you've ingeniously discovered all by yourself, Antarctica would have a diameter of about 3500 miles if it were a circle.

3500 / 25000 = 14%

That is not 1/4.

And of course, Antarctica isn't really a circle, even the length between its farthest points doesn't quite reach 3500:



Problem?

You made a minor error in your calculations. The recorded coastline of Antarctica is 11,165 miles. The diameter or width in some places reaches 3500 miles. So the circumference of Antarctica compared to the earth 11,165/25,000 is around 44.66%.

Why exactly does that require magic? Have you read about projections?

First, feel free to get a globe and view it looking directly at the south pole. Or view this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Antarctica.svg

C = 11,165 miles
 The area of Antarctica is 5,100,000 miles^2
The area of the World is 57,308,738 miles ^2

percent of the world Antarctica covers 5100000/57308738 *100% = 8.899%

Not much really and if you view the above image, you will see that Antarctica is not centered on the south pole but is skewed to one side.

Quote from: The Knowledge on February 11, 2012, 05:31:34 PM

Why is my post being ignored? It contains the answer to why you can't see Antarctica at all in the OP picture.

So you're saying in the first picture and the link to the Nasa satellite photo Antarctica is simply on the other side of the world from the United States and South America and not visible? You mean it's not at the south pole?

No, idiot, I'm saying that not every photo in which you can see the whole globe of the planet shows 50% of the planet like you assume it would.
One thing that's very apparent on this forum is that there's very few people who really understand anything about photography.

Topology is hard! (stamps foot).

Come on guys you're supposed to be Scientists! Do you honestly believe that Antarctica can have a recorded coastline of 11,165 miles, at the South Pole and not be visible in the 1st two pictures?

And I'm not even getting paid for this! LOL

So the circumference of Antarctica compared to the earth 11,165/25,000 is around 44.66%.

Good grief! Your memory is so awful that you can't even remember the beginning of a post by the time you get to the end of it.

Pay attention:

You're doing it wrong. You don't compare the circumference of Antarctica to the circumference of Earth or the diameter of Antarctica to the diameter of Earth. The body of Antarctica is wrapped along the surface of the earth, so you should be comparing Antarctica's length to Earth's circumference to see how much of Earth it should take up.

You can also compare Antarctica's area to Earth's surface area, as DonaldC showed you.

Do you honestly believe that Antarctica can have a recorded coastline of 11,165 miles, at the South Pole and not be visible in the 1st two pictures?

Yes it can, and I proved it.

Do you deny that Google Earth depicts Antarctica with a 11,165-mile coastline?
Do you deny that Google Earth depicts Earth as a sphere with a 25,000-mile circumference?
Do you deny that these images are both looking at the sphere from the same angle and Antarctica is visible in neither?

I think I see your point now. You are saying that since the circumference of the Sphere is measured Straight (across globe) and the Coastline of Antarctica goes UP (around the globe) then they will not be easily comparable based solely on visual appearance thus making it possible that Antarctica is behind the Globe when viewing North and South America from outer space?

Maybe you should be comparing Area of Antarctica with Total Area of Earth?

It has already been mentioned in this thread, but I drew a rough picture to illustrate how your view is also limited by the distance from the earth.
I was hoping the picture would end up being self-explanatory, but I realized it could be a bit confusing.
It shows that you will have difficulty seeing both poles simultaneously, unless from a really really really far distance.
http://i.imgur.com/jT89Y.png
Distances were easier to measure horizontally so 250, 500, 1000 and 3000 miles were just done that way to show the increasing visible portion of the earth. 6000 mi was done in line with the equator to more accurately show an attempt to view both poles simultaneously.
At 6000 miles, the Antarctic Circle (Antarctica) is just out of view.

Come on guys you're supposed to be Scientists! Do you honestly believe that Antarctica can have a recorded coastline of 11,165 miles, at the South Pole and not be visible in the 1st two pictures?

And I'm not even getting paid for this! LOL

Some epic trolling going on in this post. 

I'm pretty sure the continent of Africa has a coastline of 16,000 miles and it was not visible in the photos either.

This is when a thread should be locked.