It's 2015 and we aren't even close to knowing the true shape of the Earth

It is so pathetic we don't have actual real honest to goodness pictures of the planet we live on. After all we went to the moon. Or did we? We should have real believable pictures that haven't been doctored to make them look real. Some say it's ball shaped. Some say it is oblate spheroid shaped. Some say it is pear shaped and some say it is flat. I wonder what shape it will be next. I guess we'll just have to keep on arguing about it's shape.

It is kind of funny that for the last 40 years, they could only present one picture that was not a composite.  Now, all of a sudden, they want to show you pictures from all angels.  lol.  It is like they just figured out how to master Photoshop. 

Yes, we are. It's an oblate spheroid (which 'ball' is shorthand for). Willful ignorance and paranoia does not outdo truth. When you are capable of explaining the movements of air, the Sun's light and the length of day, and observable measurements without appealing to clear fantasy, you may insist that there is a controversy. Until then, there is none.
The world is round.

It is kind of funny that for the last 40 years, they could only present one picture that was not a composite.  Now, all of a sudden, they want to show you pictures from all angels.  lol.  It is like they just figured out how to master Photoshop. 

If I create a wide composite picture of a landscape is it any less real? No.

So why is a composite picture of the earth not real?

I did not say it is not real.  I said it is suspect.  Is English your native language?  If not, I will start using small words. 

It is so pathetic we don't have actual real honest to goodness pictures of the planet we live on. After all we went to the moon. Or did we? We should have real believable pictures that haven't been doctored to make them look real. Some say it's ball shaped. Some say it is oblate spheroid shaped. Some say it is pear shaped and some say it is flat. I wonder what shape it will be next. I guess we'll just have to keep on arguing about it's shape.

There are many photos of Earth and they all seem to agree that it's round.  Precise measurement shows that it's not perfectly round but that's no big shock because of things like mountains and other imperfections that are very obvious.  It is theoretically possible to measure Earth's oblateness in photos because it's radius will differ by a few pixels, which is not a lot.  There is no disagreement about weather Earth is round, oblate, or pear shaped.  All three are more or less correct: Earth is round but it has pear shaped imperfections and it's rotation makes it slightly oblate, but the effects are so small that there is often no point in considering them.  Earth is not a perfect geometric shape which is made evident by all the imperfections on it's surface.

Another thing that there is no disagreement about among scientists is that Earth is round.  Faking space travel is impossible for mere humans to fake space travel because it would require recruiting tens of millions of people and not having a single whistle blower.

It is kind of funny that for the last 40 years, they could only present one picture that was not a composite.

Who told you this lie?

Quote from: Yendor on August 31, 2015, 10:29:44 AM

It is so pathetic we don't have actual real honest to goodness pictures of the planet we live on. After all we went to the moon. Or did we? We should have real believable pictures that haven't been doctored to make them look real. Some say it's ball shaped. Some say it is oblate spheroid shaped. Some say it is pear shaped and some say it is flat. I wonder what shape it will be next. I guess we'll just have to keep on arguing about it's shape.

There are many photos of Earth and they all seem to agree that it's round.  Precise measurement shows that it's not perfectly round but that's no big shock because of things like mountains and other imperfections that are very obvious.  It is theoretically possible to measure Earth's oblateness in photos because it's radius will differ by a few pixels, which is not a lot.  There is no disagreement about weather Earth is round, oblate, or pear shaped.  All three are more or less correct: Earth is round but it has pear shaped imperfections and it's rotation makes it slightly oblate, but the effects are so small that there is often no point in considering them.  Earth is not a perfect geometric shape which is made evident by all the imperfections on it's surface.

Another thing that there is no disagreement about among scientists is that Earth is round.  Faking space travel is impossible for mere humans to fake space travel because it would require recruiting tens of millions of people and not having a single whistle blower.

Here is an actual pic of Earth. See how bright green the whole land mass is? Go up in an airplane 30,000 ft. The ground doesn't look like this. Why is it round, the latest word from your buddy Neil is it is pear shaped?


Earth Science is the study of earth and its neighbors in space. The image above is the first full hemisphere view of Earth captured in the 21st Century. It was acquired by NOAA's GOES-8 satellite on January 1, 2000 at 12:45 AM Eastern Standard Time. Image by the GOES project.


Here is another one. Just look how big South America is. I never realized it covered almost the whole side of the Earth. It doesn't appear as big on the picture above.


EARTH - SOUTH AMERICA
In 2005, NASA created the "Blue Marble: Next Generation", a composite of images from several satellites showing the land, sea, cloud cover and night-time lights of our planet. This view is centred on South America. Seen from space, the defining feature of our planet is its blue colour.



This is the real deal, no composites here. Look at all the pretty colors. It sure does look like it was painted to me. It also looks perfectly round to me, not pear shaped at all. They must have not gotten the memo from Neil.

A few weeks ago we showed you NASA’s Blue Marble photo, the most high-resolution photo ever taken of planet Earth from space. One problem though, their image wasn’t taken in one shot. It was actually a composite cobbled together out of many different images.

This one is the real deal…

There is no disagreement about weather Earth is round, oblate, or pear shaped.  All three are more or less correct: Earth is round but it has pear shaped imperfections and it's rotation makes it slightly oblate, but the effects are so small that there is often no point in considering them.

I'm not going to add anything new. It is just rather striking how many of Yendor's questions are answered in the very post he is quoting.

Asking for answers means nothing if you refuse to listen.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 31, 2015, 11:19:41 AM

There is no disagreement about weather Earth is round, oblate, or pear shaped.  All three are more or less correct: Earth is round but it has pear shaped imperfections and it's rotation makes it slightly oblate, but the effects are so small that there is often no point in considering them.

I'm not going to add anything new. It is just rather striking how many of Yendor's questions are answered in the very post he is quoting.

Asking for answers means nothing if you refuse to listen.

John, I believe your clock has stopped ticking. You better wind it up. Do you see a question mark in my post? I made a statement. Of all the supposedly real pictures of Earth on the internet, none show it anything but round. However, most say it is flat on the top and bottom and bulged in the center around the equator. Neil deGrasse Tyson says it is pear shaped. Fatter below the equator than above the equator. Some say it is even flat. And of course Mikey says it is round, oblate, or pear shaped. It doesn't matter to him as long as it is not flat. Maybe John with your infinite wisdom and I believe I read where you were from another planet, can actually tell us all the real shape of the planet Earth and maybe show us a picture or two or don't they have cameras where you come from? 

Look at a basketball.  Would you use the word "round" to describe it?  Of course you would.

Deformations and imperfections in the average basketball are proportionally even more extreme then those on Earth.

You call the Earth flat, but that doesn't mean you think the Earth is perfectly flat without any thickness.  It is clear that Earth is not a perfect geometric shape as it has many imperfections and deformations on it.

These deformations and imperfections make the Earth slightly pear shaped and it's rotation causes a tiny amount of oblateness.  If an object has to be a perfect sphere to be called round then no object man made or otherwise would fit that description because even the roundest object in the world has small imperfections that are at the atomic scale but still there.

In short, you could call Earth round, oblate, or pear shaped and all of these descriptions are correct.  If you consider relativity then it actually is possible for the Earth to be flat relative to an object going nearly light speed.  It may be round from our frame of reference but that's certainly something to consider.

Quote from: JohnTitor on August 31, 2015, 12:26:39 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 31, 2015, 11:19:41 AM

There is no disagreement about weather Earth is round, oblate, or pear shaped.  All three are more or less correct: Earth is round but it has pear shaped imperfections and it's rotation makes it slightly oblate, but the effects are so small that there is often no point in considering them.

I'm not going to add anything new. It is just rather striking how many of Yendor's questions are answered in the very post he is quoting.

Asking for answers means nothing if you refuse to listen.

John, I believe your clock has stopped ticking. You better wind it up. Do you see a question mark in my post?

Why is it round, the latest word from your buddy Neil is it is pear shaped?

You mean this question in your post?

Of all the supposedly real pictures of Earth on the internet, none show it anything but round. However, most say it is flat on the top and bottom and bulged in the center around the equator. Neil deGrasse Tyson says it is pear shaped. Fatter below the equator than above the equator.

Still directly answered in the post you quoted, and which I specified for you. If you would take the time to take in what is being said, you might realize you're just wasting time.

Maybe John with your infinite wisdom and I believe I read where you were from another planet, can actually tell us all the real shape of the planet Earth and maybe show us a picture or two or don't they have cameras where you come from?

I'm from Earth, just a different time. You can find pictures far more eaisly than I, I still struggle with search engines.

There are many photos of Earth and they all seem to agree that it's round.  Precise measurement shows that it's not perfectly round but that's no big shock because of things like mountains and other imperfections that are very obvious.  It is theoretically possible to measure Earth's oblateness in photos because it's radius will differ by a few pixels, which is not a lot.  There is no disagreement about weather Earth is round, oblate, or pear shaped.  All three are more or less correct: Earth is round but it has pear shaped imperfections and it's rotation makes it slightly oblate, but the effects are so small that there is often no point in considering them.  Earth is not a perfect geometric shape which is made evident by all the imperfections on it's surface.

Another thing that there is no disagreement about among scientists is that Earth is round.  Faking space travel is impossible for mere humans to fake space travel because it would require recruiting tens of millions of people and not having a single whistle blower.

Here is an actual pic of Earth. See how bright green the whole land mass is? Go up in an airplane 30,000 ft. The ground doesn't look like this. Why is it round, the latest word from your buddy Neil is it is pear shaped?


Earth Science is the study of earth and its neighbors in space. The image above is the first full hemisphere view of Earth captured in the 21st Century. It was acquired by NOAA's GOES-8 satellite on January 1, 2000 at 12:45 AM Eastern Standard Time. Image by the GOES project.


Here is another one. Just look how big South America is. I never realized it covered almost the whole side of the Earth. It doesn't appear as big on the picture above.


EARTH - SOUTH AMERICA
In 2005, NASA created the "Blue Marble: Next Generation", a composite of images from several satellites showing the land, sea, cloud cover and night-time lights of our planet. This view is centred on South America. Seen from space, the defining feature of our planet is its blue colour.



This is the real deal, no composites here. Look at all the pretty colors. It sure does look like it was painted to me. It also looks perfectly round to me, not pear shaped at all. They must have not gotten the memo from Neil.

A few weeks ago we showed you NASA’s Blue Marble photo, the most high-resolution photo ever taken of planet Earth from space. One problem though, their image wasn’t taken in one shot. It was actually a composite cobbled together out of many different images.

This one is the real deal…
[/quote]

If you look at the sources for those images you find that they are composite images.  You have to check to make sure an image is actually a photo before you try to prove that it's not a photo.  If you think those are photos then tell me exactally what space crafts took them, that information is generally very easy to find when it comes to real photos that are not composite images.

I have also already told you many times that the oblateness of the Earth only effects it's aperent radius to differ by 2-3 pixels.  That's only the case with real photos though and not the ones that you posted which are composite images that have never at any point been passed off as photos by anybody except you.  Basketballs have imperfections many times more pronounced then those on Earth and you still them round.

Quote from: Yendor on August 31, 2015, 12:20:59 PM

There are many photos of Earth and they all seem to agree that it's round.  Precise measurement shows that it's not perfectly round but that's no big shock because of things like mountains and other imperfections that are very obvious.  It is theoretically possible to measure Earth's oblateness in photos because it's radius will differ by a few pixels, which is not a lot.  There is no disagreement about weather Earth is round, oblate, or pear shaped.  All three are more or less correct: Earth is round but it has pear shaped imperfections and it's rotation makes it slightly oblate, but the effects are so small that there is often no point in considering them.  Earth is not a perfect geometric shape which is made evident by all the imperfections on it's surface.

Another thing that there is no disagreement about among scientists is that Earth is round.  Faking space travel is impossible for mere humans to fake space travel because it would require recruiting tens of millions of people and not having a single whistle blower.

Here is an actual pic of Earth. See how bright green the whole land mass is? Go up in an airplane 30,000 ft. The ground doesn't look like this. Why is it round, the latest word from your buddy Neil is it is pear shaped?


Earth Science is the study of earth and its neighbors in space. The image above is the first full hemisphere view of Earth captured in the 21st Century. It was acquired by NOAA's GOES-8 satellite on January 1, 2000 at 12:45 AM Eastern Standard Time. Image by the GOES project.


Here is another one. Just look how big South America is. I never realized it covered almost the whole side of the Earth. It doesn't appear as big on the picture above.


EARTH - SOUTH AMERICA
In 2005, NASA created the "Blue Marble: Next Generation", a composite of images from several satellites showing the land, sea, cloud cover and night-time lights of our planet. This view is centred on South America. Seen from space, the defining feature of our planet is its blue colour.



This is the real deal, no composites here. Look at all the pretty colors. It sure does look like it was painted to me. It also looks perfectly round to me, not pear shaped at all. They must have not gotten the memo from Neil.

A few weeks ago we showed you NASA’s Blue Marble photo, the most high-resolution photo ever taken of planet Earth from space. One problem though, their image wasn’t taken in one shot. It was actually a composite cobbled together out of many different images.

This one is the real deal…

If you look at the sources for those images you find that they are composite images.  You have to check to make sure an image is actually a photo before you try to prove that it's not a photo.  If you think those are photos then tell me exactally what space crafts took them, that information is generally very easy to find when it comes to real photos that are not composite images.

I have also already told you many times that the oblateness of the Earth only effects it's aperent radius to differ by 2-3 pixels.  That's only the case with real photos though and not the ones that you posted which are composite images that have never at any point been passed off as photos by anybody except you.  Basketballs have imperfections many times more pronounced then those on Earth and you still them round.
[/quote]




This picture is suppose to be the real deal. It is not a composite. Below is the site I found it.


http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/sci/photo-planet-earth-space.html


This is supposed to be the first view of Earth from space thought to have been taken by a camera on a V2 rocket in 1946. Notice the date on the picture. I can see the oblateness in this photo, it is plainly more than 2-3 pixels.

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 10:34:46 AM

It is kind of funny that for the last 40 years, they could only present one picture that was not a composite.

Who told you this lie?

  Please, show us a picture of the entire Earth from some time between 1970 and 2010 that is not claimed to be a composite and not the Blue Marble picture, markjo.  Either you are lying, or you are admitting that NASA is lying.  Which is it?

This is supposed to be the first view of Earth from space thought to have been taken by a camera on a V2 rocket in 1946.

Thought by whom? And, maybe more important, why? Is it because it's B&W?

Notice the date on the picture.

Yeah, there's that, too. Along with a credit for a far more likely source, which is consistent with the date. And the fact that it's taken from much further than V2s were remotely able to fly.

I can see the oblateness in this photo, it is plainly more than 2-3 pixels.

It's not fully illuminated, either. Did you notice the sharp edge at the limb on the upper right, and the more gradual fading at the terminator at lower left? Apparently not.

Seriously, it must be fun trying to think up this stuff, otherwise, why do it?

Returning to the thread title, and the OP and comments contained therein for a bit.

"It's 2015 and we aren't even close to knowing the true shape of the Earth."

No, actually, we're quite close to knowing the true shape of the Earth, unless you don't consider roughly one part in six million "close".

<Uninformed opinions about pictures of earth, etc.>

Some say it's ball shaped. Some say it is oblate spheroid shaped. Some say it is pear shaped and some say it is flat.

Those first three are all correct to varying degree of precision; the last one is wildly incorrect. "Ball shaped" is vague, though. A "ball" can vary quite a bit in shape.

For instance, considering only "footballs", there are at least four distinct shapes, but, by definition they are all "ball shaped" because each is a ball.

To wit...

Various leagues and games use different balls, though they all have one of the following basic shapes:

• a sphere: used in Association football and Gaelic football
• a prolate spheroid
  
•    either with rounded ends: used in the rugby codes and Australian football
•    or with more pointed ends: used in American football and Canadian football

The precise shape and construction of footballs is typically specified as part of the rules and regulations.

Further (same source):

The football used in Australian football is similar to a rugby ball but generally slightly smaller and more rounded at the ends, but more elongated in overall appearance, being longer by comparison with its width than a rugby ball.

Did you mean "spherical" when you said "ball-shaped" by any chance? Why not just say "spherical"?

Realistically, even the spherical footballs are going to differ far more from a perfect sphere than the Earth does, due to manufacturing limitations. A soccer (Association football) ball would have to have uniform diameter to within about 700 microns to be closer to truly spherical than the Earth is.

"Flat" is just flat-out wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Earth is flat.

I wonder what shape it will be next.

It will be something very close to what we already know, varying by some fraction of a meter, perhaps up to a very few meters.

I guess we'll just have to keep on arguing about it's shape.

For some reason you seem to think so. There's no rational reason for it though, unless you're looking for centimeter-level accuracy, which I seriously doubt you are.

"It's 2015 and we aren't even close to knowing the true shape of the Earth?" Nope. Only in your imagination.

This picture is suppose to be the real deal. It is not a composite. Below is the site I found it.


http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/sci/photo-planet-earth-space.html


This is supposed to be the first view of Earth from space thought to have been taken by a camera on a V2 rocket in 1946. Notice the date on the picture. I can see the oblateness in this photo, it is plainly more than 2-3 pixels.

You should have read a bit more because the site explicitly says the following:

"It uses three different visible light spectrums and also photographs in infrared. Because of that, all the orange you’re seeing in the photo is actually vegitation. This is actually Earth the way no human could ever see it, with the naked eye."

It is a photo, but it is not entirely in the viable spectrum so it looks a bit unusual and if you were to look at Earth from space with your own eyes it would not look like that.

In that second photograph I am pretty sure that the aspect ratio of the image has been messed with causing it to appear squished, but I will have to look into it more to be sure.

Quote from: Yendor on August 31, 2015, 03:19:19 PM

This picture is suppose to be the real deal. It is not a composite. Below is the site I found it.


http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/sci/photo-planet-earth-space.html


This is supposed to be the first view of Earth from space thought to have been taken by a camera on a V2 rocket in 1946. Notice the date on the picture. I can see the oblateness in this photo, it is plainly more than 2-3 pixels.

You should have read a bit more because the site explicitly says the following:

"It uses three different visible light spectrums and also photographs in infrared. Because of that, all the orange you’re seeing in the photo is actually vegitation. This is actually Earth the way no human could ever see it, with the naked eye."

It is a photo, but it is not entirely in the viable spectrum so it looks a bit unusual and if you were to look at Earth from space with your own eyes it would not look like that.

In that second photograph I am pretty sure that the aspect ratio of the image has been messed with causing it to appear squished, but I will have to look into it more to be sure.

No Mikey, they did not do that. Someone simply drew it and filled it in with water colors. They tell us this BS, "It uses three different visible light spectrums and also photographs in infrared" because they know it looks fake and people are not going to believe it is real. So, they used that excuse to try and fool people. I guess they fooled you.

Do you know why the aspect ratio is looks wrong? Because it is not real.

No Mikey, they did not do that. Someone simply drew it and filled it in with water colors.

Any evidence that supports this claim that they painted it with water colors?

No?  Didn't think so.

Here is the earth in true colours,   Japanese Himawari 8

Earth’s true colour has been revealed in amazing detail by a Japanese weather satellite.

From a distance of 22,240 miles (35,790km), the satellite shows what our planet looks like before any filters or image enhancements are made to the shot.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2883739/The-GREY-planet-True-colour-image-reveals-Earth-really-looks-like-space-without-filters-editing.html#ixzz3kVX741vu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

No Mikey, they did not do that. Someone simply drew it and filled it in with water colors. They tell us this BS, "It uses three different visible light spectrums and also photographs in infrared" because they know it looks fake and people are not going to believe it is real. So, they used that excuse to try and fool people. I guess they fooled you.

Do you know why the aspect ratio is looks wrong? Because it is not real.

"That BS" makes perfect sense to anyone who understands photography and it perfectly explains why the image looked like that.  If the image were fake then they could have just not released the image if they were not happy with it.  That information was from the same source as your information that it's a real image, so please decide if that site is credible or not.

Also, if messing with the aspect ratio makes an image fake then this person must not exist:


Perhaps messing with the aspect ratio of your profile picture would make you not exist...

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2015, 12:02:53 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 10:34:46 AM

It is kind of funny that for the last 40 years, they could only present one picture that was not a composite.

Who told you this lie?

  Please, show us a picture of the entire Earth from some time between 1970 and 2010 that is not claimed to be a composite and not the Blue Marble picture, markjo.  Either you are lying, or you are admitting that NASA is lying.  Which is it?

Do you mean something sorta like this:

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 05:03:08 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2015, 12:02:53 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 10:34:46 AM

It is kind of funny that for the last 40 years, they could only present one picture that was not a composite.

Who told you this lie?

  Please, show us a picture of the entire Earth from some time between 1970 and 2010 that is not claimed to be a composite and not the Blue Marble picture, markjo.  Either you are lying, or you are admitting that NASA is lying.  Which is it?

Do you mean something sorta like this:

Well, that sure doesn't show a sphere now does it?  It is like the bottom half of the sphere is missing.  Seems like this could be used to support Scepti's dome earth theroy

Quote from: markjo on September 01, 2015, 08:29:37 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 05:03:08 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2015, 12:02:53 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 31, 2015, 10:34:46 AM

It is kind of funny that for the last 40 years, they could only present one picture that was not a composite.

Who told you this lie?

  Please, show us a picture of the entire Earth from some time between 1970 and 2010 that is not claimed to be a composite and not the Blue Marble picture, markjo.  Either you are lying, or you are admitting that NASA is lying.  Which is it?

Do you mean something sorta like this:

Well, that sure doesn't show a sphere now does it?  It is like the bottom half of the sphere is missing.  Seems like this could be used to support Scepti's dome earth theroy

The front fell off.

Here is an actual pic of Earth. See how bright green the whole land mass is? Go up in an airplane 30,000 ft. The ground doesn't look like this. Why is it round, the latest word from your buddy Neil is it is pear shaped?


Earth Science is the study of earth and its neighbors in space. The image above is the first full hemisphere view of Earth captured in the 21st Century. It was acquired by NOAA's GOES-8 satellite on January 1, 2000 at 12:45 AM Eastern Standard Time. Image by the GOES project.

Okay that's pretty funny. That admittedly, looks terrible. You would think you'd go back further in time and it would get worse, right? But no, the earliest pictures of the Earth are simply amazing. This 'turn of the century' one, I blame on them messing with the images in a weird way?? Maybe they first sucked at making composites.

Here is another one. Just look how big South America is. I never realized it covered almost the whole side of the Earth. It doesn't appear as big on the picture above.

Okay you gotta understand perspective here. If you're close up to a sphere but your field of view is wide enough to see from edge to edge you're gonna get a view of a round shape just as if you were far away. Round is round. However the properties of the sphere will appear blown up. And you're used to seeing nearly 50% of the properties of the round earth, which acquires the viewer to be at a significant distance.

It is so pathetic we don't have actual real honest to goodness pictures of the planet we live on. After all we went to the moon. Or did we? We should have real believable pictures that haven't been doctored to make them look real. Some say it's ball shaped. Some say it is oblate spheroid shaped. Some say it is pear shaped and some say it is flat. I wonder what shape it will be next. I guess we'll just have to keep on arguing about it's shape.

Instead of arguing about it, you could just ask some of the people who make their living at measuring the shape of the earth.
http://www.iag-aig.org/