So you think the earth is round?

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

If you think the earth is a round sphere, think again. Below is a picture of the true shape of our terra firma.

 

what the source of picture and what you think about the idea of flat earth

 

Quote a properly refereed paper and I will listen. And no, The Earth is not round, but it is not flat. While not directly relevant, you may like to look up Kepler's planetary laws. It will inform you in areas that you are may be deficient in.

 

Over 2000 years ago, the Greeks knew the earth was not flat. What I found fascinating about the photo above (assuming authentic) is that it shattered my misconception that our terra firm (earth) is perfectly round. But that apparently is not the case. It has protuberances, carbuncles if you will. Not very attractive.

By the way, I do not claim to be an expert in the area of astronomy, just an interested observer. And I was not aware that Kepler's laws predicted the shape of Earth if that was what you were applying. I am aware that he and Galileo received an admonishment from the Church for challenging their position that the Sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth.

 

On a similar theme to the Sun moving around the Earth, people used to think that shoes didn't weaken feet and that the intrinsic foot muscles were vestigial.

But what aspect of modern shoe design causes reduced activity and weakening of intrinsics, an important point to consider when designing shoes, especially for the elderly.

People like shoes with support and cushioning, generally preferring these to more minimal designs. I don't think that's a problem but I do think toes springs and stiff soles probably are, especially with regard to balance.

Also, with regard to the publication of a recent paper on footwear for the elderly, conceptions around footwear design seem to be polarized in the minds of some. Shoes don't need to be minimal or modern, they can have features of both designs.

 

I agree. Toe springs and stiff soles, IMO, should not be incorporated into shoes sold to the general population. In certain pathological issues (trauma, amputation), they might be indicated.

 

Kepler's laws address the issue of spheroidal morphology, applicable to all orbiting bodies. Law one (paraphrased) states that all orbits are spheroidal and that the centre of rotation is at one the spheroidal poles. Law 2 (again paraphrased), states that the area swept by an imaginary pole supporting the orbiting object to the centre of roation is the same in a given time, no matter where in the orbit it is. Law three states that T2/R3 is a constant for that particular orbital system.

 

I thought Keplers first and second laws dealt with the path and speed planets take when orbiting a sun respectively.
And his law of harmonies (3rd law) dealt with comparing the motion characteristics of the different planets.
If my memory is correct, none of his laws define the shape of the planets. Kindly correct me if my memory fails me.

 

His third law was T2/R3 - that is the time of orbit squared, divided by the radius of orbit qubed = a constant (for that particular solar system). Thus, is you have the data for one planet - eg Venus, and have the radius of orbit for another - eg Jupiter, one can calculate the time of orbit of the latter from the constant. First year unifersity stuff. What I was pointing out was that Kepler addressed spheroidism, and of course all rotating planets are speroids, bulging in a mild manner about the 90' angle to their axis of rotation. The other, issues such as plate tectonic driven subtlelys in crustal altitude are both transient and minor. That is, they come and go with geological time.

 

I believe Kepler was describing the orbital paths of planets not their shapes. But it has been nearly 60 years since my course in physics at the University of Detroit. And you are quite right, that course was taught in my first year at the University.