Great that you covered this, I too made a video recently about how the Earth isnt round... and in comparison focusing on how Neutron Stars are the most perfectly round spheres in the known universe!!
If you made a globe that is a perfect oblate spheroid with that 40 km distance and put it next to a perfect sphere globe, could anyone tell the difference? I doubt it.
Sorry, i think I’ve made a mistake. You’re measuring vertical, from north to south. I’ve meant measuring horizontal.
2 роки тому
@@TVARecordings The Equator is SLIGHTLY larger. 40 075 km. And, well, they didn't measure the from pole to pole distance, so the north south circumpherence is, in fact, 40 007 km. So, a difference of 68 km over 40 000. About a 0,17%
How come BBC bring new theory about Mount Everest is not being tallest mountain but there are still BBC reporters climbing Everest thinking it's the tallest in the world. You guys are so confusing yourselves.
Mount Everest is the highest mountain from sea level. Chimborazo is only higher because the land around it is also higher, it's still smaller than Everest as a mountain. Major difference.
you're right. and the moon slightly larger (in angular size, of course) when it's directly overhead as opposed to when it's on the horizon. iirc it's about 2% larger
2 роки тому
Or farther, depending on the moment of the day. They should have compared with the antypodes or with the centre of the Earth.
yes, it's the pull of the moon, and the sun when the earth is in between them, the sides of the earth bulge, and that's how you get tides or maybe not, idk
I was a flat earther, but then I Became a hexagon earther then I was a triangle earther for about a Month. Then I Matured and found out the earth is really a cube but then I Realized the earth is a cylinder. But my ant told me it is an ellipse, but I learned it is a trefoil but then I found out it is really a square on top of a heptagon.
Round, when applied to Earth, is not a precise term and does not mean only spherical. If a speaker wants to describe a more precise shape, he uses a precise term, not one known to be approximate. To say the Earth is not round because it bulges a bit is to ignore commonly understood English. That's the kind of trick con artists, trolls, and conspiracy loons use and, so, should be avoided.
This sort of exaggerated nonsense is how people end up being woefully misinformed and not understanding the realities of the world. The earth is as perfectly spherical as a snooker ball. The deviances you show in this video are utterly negligible on the scale of the planet. The earth is a sphere, and as close to a perfect sphere as to be indistinguishable for any reasonable purpose.
Were it the size of a snooker ball, it would be perfectly spherical and perfectly smooth, yes. Blow a snooker ball up to the size of a planet and it'd likley be just as topographically featured as the earth. Start it spinning, and its equator would bulge in time.
@@Graytailremove atmosphere and oceans and look how close the a ball is This is complete nonsense. The earth looks like a ball because of an optical illusion not because it is
@@EPICSOUNDTRAX No its completely right. the average depth of of the ocean is 3,682 meters, wich is a 0,0288% deviation in diameter. i dare you to make a sphere as round as this.
Chapter An-Nazi'at (79), Verse: 30 وَالْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ دَحَاهَا In English it is translated: “And after that, the earth: wide has He spread its expanse” amazingly, the word “دَحَاهَا” can also be translated: ”extended in egg shape.” so the translation can be: “And the earth, moreover, hath he extended in egg shape.” either way, both translations are correct. more amazingly, the word “دَحَا” (dahaa) is derived from word “دحية” (duhyah) wich specifically means ”egg of ostrich” (not just any egg). Come to the right path my fellow brother and sister of human.
Kurt Lambeck, you need to go back to school mate... comparing the earth to a rugby ball? A RUGBY BALL? That is upto twice as long as it is tall, and it has a circular cross section, the thing is a damn air torpeedo. How about comparing it to a cream filled donut, thats a closer shape than a damn rugby ball. A slightly squashed orange perhaps? Hell a fat flying saucer would be a better description! A rugby ball is a prolate spheroid, not an oblate spheroid.
Dictionary definition.... 1. shaped like a circle or cylinder. "she was seated at a small round table. 2. *shaped like a sphere.* "a round glass ball" Perhaps you are confusing "round" with "circle". Even then you are wrong. A circle is two dimensional. It does not exist in 3D. An "object" would have three dimensions. Therefore in the case of the Earth, the flat model (assuming the underside would be similar to the topside) would be a disc. The "round" Earth would be a sphere. A disc resembles a circle when seen from directly above or below. A sphere resembles a circle from any angle.
How can you trust this video, when they don't know that there's way more than 1200 years between 5th century BCE and the 17th century CE? My license fee is paying for numbskulls. Lol
@@Grauenwolf of course! You're right ....the B.C. has been changed to A.D. in the brain of the journalist. But it is only that his and my brain, and clearly the editors have not corrected the flaw, as yours and your upvotes did. I wouldn't remove funding on that. The man needs to be told he may have a bunch of science types watching his reports, and he better not get a single thing wrong. In particular, mathematical errors. Maybe you could write a comment to the journalist to say he has made a mathematical error. It was interesting though, you have to admit.
2 роки тому
Have you really heard yourselves? «A person standing on the Equator is 20 km closer to the Moon than one standin on the Pole». Do you mean the Moon sorrounds the Earth? That the Earth is inside an empty Moon? Otherwise this statement makes no sense.
@@kilimanjaro1893 A person on the Equator is 20 km farther of the centre of the Earth than one standing on the Pole. That is correct. The other one is nonsense. It's perfect to confuse kids, for example, who will think physics is weird. Who will even ask «what if its during the day and the Moon is in the other side of the Earth?»
@ bruh, is that what u are confused about? Ofc if the moon is on the other side it will be farther LMAO. What the video meant is that if the moon is NOT on the other side but facing both the person from the pole and the equator, the person in the equator will be 20km closer than the person on the pole.
2 роки тому
@@kilimanjaro1893 Of course the person on the equator will not be 20 km closer.The Earth radius is 6 378 km on the Equator. There's at least this difference. Unless, as I've said, the Moon is an empty sphere and we are inside it.
You know what, comprehension kills. You are so uneducated wothout realizing yourself
2 роки тому
This guy, Kurt Lambeck, has never in his life seen a rugby ball. «the short axis is the rotational axis and the long axis in the equatorial plane». Ok. A rugby ball has: ONE long axis and INFINITE short axis, so it can rotate easily around the long one. The earth has ONE short axis and INFINITE long axis, so it can rotate easily around the short one. I mean, try to imaginate a rugby ball rotating around a short axis. It would be la having it on a table and making it spin while flat. That's NOTHING like what earth looks like. In fact, if you make it spin fast enough, it will try to stand and rotate around the long axis, the stable one.
Obliquity of Earth makes is wider (that it should be if it was perfect sphere) 50 Km at equator. You really expect to see that difference from couple thousands kilometres...
😂😂😂 got this recommendation after watching a bbc video about trains needing a flat surface to properly work.
Great that you covered this, I too made a video recently about how the Earth isnt round... and in comparison focusing on how Neutron Stars are the most perfectly round spheres in the known universe!!
If you made a globe that is a perfect oblate spheroid with that 40 km distance and put it next to a perfect sphere globe, could anyone tell the difference? I doubt it.
You are correct. Scalling down the earth will give you a smoother and more round shape than the perfect sphere.
With 42km being a small fraction of Earth's 40,000km circumference I'll give it the benifit of the doubt and call it round.
45.000km to be more precise. Imagine how many rides around the earth your car has driven.
A Tesla would easily do 7 cycles around the equator
@@TVARecordings 45 000 km??? Sorry? By definition from the Equator to one Pole there are exactly 10 000 km. So, the circumpherence is 40 000 km.
@ Last week, and I’ve rechecked it. In Dutch papers they’re claiming that the Equator is approx 45.000km.
Sorry, i think I’ve made a mistake.
You’re measuring vertical, from north to south. I’ve meant measuring horizontal.
@@TVARecordings The Equator is SLIGHTLY larger.
40 075 km.
And, well, they didn't measure the from pole to pole distance, so the north south circumpherence is, in fact, 40 007 km.
So, a difference of 68 km over 40 000. About a 0,17%
Thanks so much for this video...❤️❤️
Flerfs are terrified by this, and they'll deny it.
I knew it was oblate spheroid
How come BBC bring new theory about Mount Everest is not being tallest mountain but there are still BBC reporters climbing Everest thinking it's the tallest in the world. You guys are so confusing yourselves.
Its a bad video, but this is wilful misunderstanding.
It is highest referencing sea level, but its peak is not farthest from planetary centre.
Mount Everest is the highest mountain from sea level. Chimborazo is only higher because the land around it is also higher, it's still smaller than Everest as a mountain. Major difference.
I'd have thought someone standing on the equator is waaay closer to the moon than someone on the north pole. More like 6400km closer than 20km!!
They're trying to educate us but we're having to educate them ...... 🤦♂️🤦♂️
It also depends on the position of the moon.
That orbit animation with it dodging the mountain triggered me as well!
you're right. and the moon slightly larger (in angular size, of course) when it's directly overhead as opposed to when it's on the horizon. iirc it's about 2% larger
Or farther, depending on the moment of the day. They should have compared with the antypodes or with the centre of the Earth.
0.34 percent bulgier around the equator? That sounds pretty perfectly round to me.
I'm definitely going to equador and jump to the moon.
bring along a 15foot ladder along just in case
Of course not. It's an oblate spheroid
Short answer : Not exactly
@James Henry Smith yes it is and if you disagree show me a working model that works
Loved this
@James Henry Smith 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Why don’t we see the imperfections from space? Why does it appear circular?
Because the scale is so massive
You still would need to measure the height of a mountain from sea level. Who is going to start climbing from the center of the planet? Right?
So, am i correct that the Earth changes it's size every 12 hours, 20cm?
yes, it's the pull of the moon, and the sun when the earth is in between them, the sides of the earth bulge, and that's how you get tides
or maybe not, idk
@@rumourhats ALL YOU PEOPLE SO RIDICULOUSLY IGNORANT IN BELIEVING THIS NON SENSE...WOW!!!
I was a flat earther, but then I Became a hexagon earther then I was a triangle earther for about a Month. Then I Matured and found out the earth is really a cube but then I Realized the earth is a cylinder. But my ant told me it is an ellipse, but I learned it is a trefoil but then I found out it is really a square on top of a heptagon.
Round, when applied to Earth, is not a precise term and does not mean only spherical. If a speaker wants to describe a more precise shape, he uses a precise term, not one known to be approximate. To say the Earth is not round because it bulges a bit is to ignore commonly understood English. That's the kind of trick con artists, trolls, and conspiracy loons use and, so, should be avoided.
This sort of exaggerated nonsense is how people end up being woefully misinformed and not understanding the realities of the world.
The earth is as perfectly spherical as a snooker ball. The deviances you show in this video are utterly negligible on the scale of the planet.
The earth is a sphere, and as close to a perfect sphere as to be indistinguishable for any reasonable purpose.
Were it the size of a snooker ball, it would be perfectly spherical and perfectly smooth, yes.
Blow a snooker ball up to the size of a planet and it'd likley be just as topographically featured as the earth. Start it spinning, and its equator would bulge in time.
ok good this comment is actually facts unlike the rest that keep saying bbc is BS
@@Graytailremove atmosphere and oceans and look how close the a ball is
This is complete nonsense.
The earth looks like a ball because of an optical illusion not because it is
@@EPICSOUNDTRAX No its completely right. the average depth of of the ocean is 3,682 meters, wich is a 0,0288% deviation in diameter. i dare you to make a sphere as round as this.
You are wrong at 1:12
Units can never be plural.
ie. KMS/KGS are wrong.
it is not wrong
@@dontspikemydrink9382 Not wrong if you want to mean kilometres x seconds
If you want to mean kilometres, it's km.
Earth is round ✅
Earth is hair ❌
Earth is flat ❌
The earth has the shape of two human embryos in the 8th and 9th week. And no, I'm not a troll. I mean that seriously.
The long axis is on the equatorial plane is what my mum calls me
Bulges in the middle
Greek philosophers came out with these ideas far later. Give due credits to other superior civilizations which found these facts before greeks!
The Chimborazo in Ecuador ist the highest point in earth.
🐱👍🏿
Allahuma barik,In Quran it's already explained that earth is egg shaped "and we have made the earth egg shaped" 79:30
Stfu, we’re not talking about your silly religion.
Ostrich egg shaped* 😊
The earth is totally round. It's not a perfect sphere, but that's not what round means. Stop misusing words
This channel is called earth SCIENCE 🤦♀️
The earth is like a cube.
6 flat sides? ^_^
It's a potato
nah
Chapter An-Nazi'at (79), Verse: 30 وَالْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ دَحَاهَا
In English it is translated: “And after that, the earth: wide has He spread its expanse”
amazingly, the word “دَحَاهَا” can also be translated: ”extended in egg shape.”
so the translation can be: “And the earth, moreover, hath he extended in egg shape.”
either way, both translations are correct.
more amazingly, the word “دَحَا” (dahaa) is derived from word “دحية” (duhyah) wich specifically means ”egg of ostrich” (not just any egg).
Come to the right path my fellow brother and sister of human.
Merry christmas🎄🫂
Thats why quran says that earth has shape of an arabian ostrich.❤
Why would someone make it round and make people believe it is 🙄
😊
Kurt Lambeck, you need to go back to school mate... comparing the earth to a rugby ball? A RUGBY BALL? That is upto twice as long as it is tall, and it has a circular cross section, the thing is a damn air torpeedo. How about comparing it to a cream filled donut, thats a closer shape than a damn rugby ball. A slightly squashed orange perhaps? Hell a fat flying saucer would be a better description! A rugby ball is a prolate spheroid, not an oblate spheroid.
Stand down. It's a metaphor.
How can a sphere be round?. Only a flat object can be round
Dictionary definition....
1.
shaped like a circle or cylinder.
"she was seated at a small round table.
2.
*shaped like a sphere.*
"a round glass ball"
Perhaps you are confusing "round" with "circle". Even then you are wrong. A circle is two dimensional. It does not exist in 3D. An "object" would have three dimensions. Therefore in the case of the Earth, the flat model (assuming the underside would be similar to the topside) would be a disc. The "round" Earth would be a sphere. A disc resembles a circle when seen from directly above or below. A sphere resembles a circle from any angle.
@@moggpiano8043 why say a ball is round? It's a ball, and therefore spherical by default
How can you trust this video, when they don't know that there's way more than 1200 years between 5th century BCE and the 17th century CE? My license fee is paying for numbskulls. Lol
5th century till 1687..." till around 1200 years later" said in relaxed tones.
Is that not correct?
@@Grauenwolf of course! You're right ....the B.C. has been changed to A.D. in the brain of the journalist.
But it is only that his and my brain, and clearly the editors have not corrected the flaw, as yours and your upvotes did. I wouldn't remove funding on that.
The man needs to be told he may have a bunch of science types watching his reports, and he better not get a single thing wrong. In particular, mathematical
errors.
Maybe you could write a comment to the journalist to say he has made a mathematical error.
It was interesting though, you have to admit.
Have you really heard yourselves? «A person standing on the Equator is 20 km closer to the Moon than one standin on the Pole». Do you mean the Moon sorrounds the Earth? That the Earth is inside an empty Moon? Otherwise this statement makes no sense.
Lmao, you really don't get it?
@@kilimanjaro1893 A person on the Equator is 20 km farther of the centre of the Earth than one standing on the Pole. That is correct. The other one is nonsense. It's perfect to confuse kids, for example, who will think physics is weird. Who will even ask «what if its during the day and the Moon is in the other side of the Earth?»
@ bruh, is that what u are confused about? Ofc if the moon is on the other side it will be farther LMAO. What the video meant is that if the moon is NOT on the other side but facing both the person from the pole and the equator, the person in the equator will be 20km closer than the person on the pole.
@@kilimanjaro1893 Of course the person on the equator will not be 20 km closer.The Earth radius is 6 378 km on the Equator. There's at least this difference. Unless, as I've said, the Moon is an empty sphere and we are inside it.
You know what, comprehension kills.
You are so uneducated wothout realizing yourself
This guy, Kurt Lambeck, has never in his life seen a rugby ball. «the short axis is the rotational axis and the long axis in the equatorial plane». Ok. A rugby ball has: ONE long axis and INFINITE short axis, so it can rotate easily around the long one. The earth has ONE short axis and INFINITE long axis, so it can rotate easily around the short one. I mean, try to imaginate a rugby ball rotating around a short axis. It would be la having it on a table and making it spin while flat. That's NOTHING like what earth looks like. In fact, if you make it spin fast enough, it will try to stand and rotate around the long axis, the stable one.
Hinduism already knew this bbc should learn about hinduism bruh
Flerfs unite 😂🤣
Meh 😑
Hellllllllllllllllllo tassssim
Hellllllllo
And the proof that the earth is spinning is?????
The proof is that it's a oblate spheroid. If it didn't spin, then it would quite round.
FLAT, THE EARTH IS FLAT.....
only in circles of stupid people
Someone liked this..
The earth is flat
zero pics from nasa show oblique.............try again
Obliquity of Earth makes is wider (that it should be if it was perfect sphere) 50 Km at equator.
You really expect to see that difference from couple thousands kilometres...
Yes they do. Try again.
The amount of pseudo science in this video is interesting. Use your minds people, they work individually.
1st
What a bs ! But ok, I got it, it’s BBC 😜😂🤣
BBC :- earth is flat
the earth is flat and stationary
That would be a lie.
@@moggpiano8043 prove it
@@theworldisastage7553 because the sun and moon are around
@@brightax7502 it is known that a round but they are not a sphere
@@theworldisastage7553 then why are our balls round and the earth isn’t