The shape of Earth

[polymath257]

It's an absolute wonder that all of those faked satellite images just so happen to coincide with the actual state of affairs on the ground to the point that they can be used to direct successful artillery.  As if a map of mordor was a perfect fit for some actual ao.

Who told you that?

I've heard some people, who can actually put lead on a dinner plate at distances exceeding a mile, that they need to factor in the rotation of the Earth, I've also heard that some snipers say it has a negligible effect.

I'm not necessarily claiming that I know anything, but what I do know is that people are quick to defend the sphere which supposedly rotates, but we don't feel it. Even when we fly from the equator to the North Pole (change in speed) while our plane is attached to the outer sphere by the magic of air, which, as far as I know; has never been proven as a great way to attach one physical object to another.

And what about the vaccume of space which we hurle ourselves through at >66,000 MPH? I find that people are far more reluctant to defend the motion of earth than they are it's supposed curve.

What about our newly discovered a-centric model which features a Galaxy that move at about 1/1300th the speed of light? Such that we are now more than 2 light-years away from where we still obeserve constellations which were documented more than 2600 years ago?

Nasa claims that all of our constellations were replaced with new fully identical ones. They also claim that we cannot go back to the moon and that their technology (and telemetry) hase gone backwards. Hopefully we will make it out of low-earth orbit soon.

So, are you on a spinning sphere where up could be down based on relativity? Or are you on a plane, with a functioning gyroscope, where up really is up?

Well, it is far easier to verify the shape of the Earth than it is to verify its motion. part of the reason for this is called relativity: motion is always relative, not absolute.

No, we don't feel it. The coriolis and centrifugal forces are small compared to the force of gravity. The effects are easy to calculate and the centrifugal force is part of why the Earth is oblate as opposed to a perfect sphere.

I'm not sure what your point is about flying from the north pole to the equator. Yes, airplanes stay above the ground using the motion of the air past the wings of the aircraft.

Up and down are defined by the direction of the gravitational force. On Earth, that is always towards the center of the Earth. Relativity has nothing to do with it.

I am not sure what you mean by your statement about some galaxy. it is very confused. The Earth moves around the sun at approximately 18 miles a second. But we no more directly detect that motion than you do when in an airplane going at 600 miles per hour. That is what relativity is all about. the sun, in turn, orbits the center of the galaxy at about 220 kilometers a second (which is about 1/1360 the speed of light). of course, stars close by are *also* orbiting at about the same speed, so the relative positions stay very similar.

In other words, the sun and planets may have moved a few light years during recorded history, but so have the nearby stars. So the basic configuration of the constellations would be very similar. That said, we *do* detect relative motions of the nearby stars: Barnard's Star is a very good example, being one of the fastest moving stars in the sky. But others do move.

We can't go back to the moon because we decided to fund the space shuttle (a low earth vehicle) and not the heavy lifters like the Saturn V. To go back now would require rebuilding the infrastructure to build such engines. Given the changes in technology, it is far better to redesign, which is actually happening currently. The main question is still funding.

We do make it out of low earth orbit with some probes, but the rockets used do not have enough power to carry everything needed to keep humans alive for the journey 9and bring them back).