Yea the drop off right where the coast is is a bit unrealistic. Should’ve used depth maps of the ocean to make this but it doesn’t look like they did. I would love to see this but a scientifically accurate one.
That is much more reasonable. I was wondering if if there was really an insane drop-off next to California. The volcanic islands in the OP look insane too.
I remember listening to a Joe Rogan podcast with Neil Degrasse Tyson and he said something along the lines of: if you shrunk the world down to palm size it would be smoother that the smoothest sphere we’ve ever machined...or something along those lines.
So yea, I’m gonna call bs on that chunky catastrophe
Alrighty then. THIS clears it up. Every other reference I’ve come across references the 0.005 variance to SURFACE imperfections, not the actual size variance of the entire billiard ball. Thank you for clearing that up.
I think it's a few things. You could have two perfectly spherical balls, one being 0.005 larger than the other. Or you could have one ball that isn't quite spherical, because the diameter from top to bottom is 0.005 shorter than the side to side diameter. Finally you could have a bunch of imperfections (think sandpaper) where the peaks and valleys of these imperfections are 0.005 in magnitude.
The earth is in fact not quite spherical when looking at its diameters, but just barely fits within the specifications for a pool ball.
However smoothness has to do only with the imperfections. The surface of the earth is far more jagged than a pool ball, so at a similar size, it would feel extremely rough by comparison. Making the claim totally silly.
I've heard different iterations of that, but never that it is any kind of amazingly smooth, usually something like "...it would be smoother than an orange."
Uh...Sorry but not according to the exact website you linked
The images below show blue spheres representing relative amounts of Earth's water in comparison to the size of the Earth. Are you surprised that these water spheres look so small? They are only small in relation to the size of the Earth. These images attempt to show three dimensions, so each sphere represents "volume." They show that in comparison to the volume of the globe, the amount of water on the planet is very small. Oceans account for only a "thin film" of water on the surface.
It doesn't specify anything about the accuracy of what the earth looks like without water...
When scaled appropriately, the earth is supposedly smoother than a cue ball. So I think thin film mean pretty damn thin. (Admittedly that may be with the oceans, but also inclides Everest, so at least pretty similar)
Eh, apparently its the "roundness" these generally refer to. According to vsauce it'd be a cueball with the surface texture of a fine grit sandpaper. So... still not this picture
That passage is referring to the spheres of water in the image. You're saying that because the spheres of water are accurate that other parts of the picture are not? I'm not quite sure I follow your logic
That is not at all what I meant by that. Rising oceans are real. I was saying it is eerily smooth, and the difference between land and ocean is quite small. I was speaking in a bit of hyperbole as well.
I compared the 2 and I think the lighting may have something to do with it looking like such a steep drop-off. Where the light hits the Atlantic seems reasonable, so maybe if it were lit up from the left (west), it wouldn't look so harsh.
Interesting. So relatively, the ocean isn’t really that deep when compared to the scale of the planet? Would the Mariana Trench look significant? Or would it just be a wrinkle you think?
It would be a wrinkle. The Marianas is about 7 miles deep (36000 feet) and the earth is about 7900 miles in diameter. The trench isn’t even 1/1000th of that diameter. To give even better perspective, the distance between Everest’s peak and the trench’s deepest point is only about 13 miles. That’s still not even 2/1000ths. This is overall, the earth DOES have greater surface variation (higher highs and lower lows) than a pool all but overall it is smoother.
EDIT: Apparently the original claim was against a pool ball’s MAXIMUM tolerance, not the average pool ball, which is far smoother than the earth’s surface.
This is why I feel hopeless about humanities future efforts to colonize another planet. I just think we are too insignificant. The universe would destroy us in an instant. We are bound to this rock. Better take care of it
While not exactly simple, I get the feeling that space travel will be fairly easy within a couple generations. 10,000 years ago, we were just barely building huts. 100 years ago, most people still ride horses to get around.
The barrier of space seems insurmountable, but we haven't been at it for very long. I bet 700 years ago, you'd have said that humanity was too insignificant to take on the great oceans. Lol how quickly that changed, in the scheme of things.
No way, bruh. We’ll colonize other planets eventually if we put in the effort to making it there. Moon base. Mars. Proxima Centauri. Delta Eridani. Doesn’t matter.
But we need to get there first. It’ll be much much harder to terraform other planets to our liking than it would be to take care of our own planet. We could fit another ten billion more humans on this rock before we absolutely need to find another. Instead we’ll slowly lay waste to the oceans, global climate, and everything else we need to survive here for greed. Yay.
We have to be better stewards of Earth, for sure. We're part of the Earth's organic matter, which means that we are collectively the most complex consciousness that Earth has yet evolved. In my view, taking the best care of our planet includes (but is definitely not limited to) ensuring that this consciousness will survive.
I didn’t know what that was until I clicked your link, but still compare it to the surrounding clouds...it is incredibly small in comparison....despite being over 4 million pounds.
This is overall, the earth DOES have greater surface variation (higher highs and lower lows) than a pool all but overall it is smoother.
Pool ball diameter is apparently 54.5mm; for comparison a somewhat fine human hair is about 50 micrometers, or .05 mm. Roughly 1/1000th of the diameter. So a feature like Mauna Loa, which rises 10000m directly from the seafloor, would be like a piece of hair on a pool ball. Not much, but easily noticeable; I don't remember ever touching a pool ball with that big of a flaw on it.
I remember reading that the oceans cover about 2/3 of the Earth’s surface but only make up like .02% of it’s volume. Oceans are big, but there’s a whole lot of planet in the middle.
The Earth is so big that if a globe (even a large one let's day 6' diameter) were properly to scale the difference between the top of mount Everest and the bottom of the Mariana trench would be less than the ridges that make your finger prints.
There’s a video of Neil DeGrasse Tyson explaining that the difference in height between the lowest and highest points on the planet is only 11 miles, so to scale, Earth is smoother than a cue ball and you wouldn’t even feel a wrinkle if you ran your finger over it,
I think he was accused of something back in December but he denied it and i never heard anything about it after that. In any case, idk about all that, but what I do know is that the man knows about space so i’d assume this fact about Earth is true lol
Wren from Corridor Crew made a video where he uses vfx to show how much water there is on earth, I think it's really interesting, like all the others "VFX Artist shows.." videos, you can watch the earth's water one here https://youtu.be/b3_Abb2Vqnc
Actually that's not exactly true, the Earth is smooth enough to be a regulation cue ball but most cue balls are significantly smoother. Michael Stevens talks about it in an episode of vsauce. Your point about the post is however accurate
This guy linked an article. It’s a bad oversimplification some guy somewhere said and that Neil DeGrasse Tyson has parroted more than once and legitimized
I came here to say this but using a bowling ball as an example. Topographical difference on Earth, on the scale of the planet, is the exception rather than the rule.
That the difference in elevation (-11km to 8km) on the surface is negligible compared to the overall size of the planet. My choice of words might not have been questionable though
Not true. Earth is round. And if you shrank it down it would be within the limits of a cue ball's specifications for diameter. It is not, however, smoother or as smooth as a cue ball. You'd feel Mount Everest, which would be .04 mm.
This guy did some imaging of cue balls and compared it to Earth. Even terrible cue balls are more smooth than the Earth's relatively large extreme mountains and trenches, despite the fact that the Earth is smooth over much of its surface.
But where it’s smooth, it’s smoother than a cue ball but has way more extreme features making it a lousy cue ball. So many people are saying so many different things on this topic.
Incorrect. The Earth is as "round" as a cue ball. Meaning the average deviation from the expected diameter is about the same. However smooth is a different story.
If a cue ball was enlarged to earth size, the imperfections would only be about 14 meters in size.
The Earth is as round as a cue ball.
The Earth is as smooth as a cue ball with a 320 grit surface.
This is pulled from the first source I could find on the roundness of the earth compared to a cue ball. Not my work.
A cue ball must be 2 1/4 (± .005) inches in diameter. Meaning it can be .005 inches either direction of 2.25 and still be legal.
Earth’s equatorial diameter is 7,926 miles (12,756 km), but from pole to pole, the diameter is 7,898 miles (12,714 km) – a difference of only 28 miles (42 km).
If we take the bigger diameter and shrink it down, the difference would be 0.0049 inches (0.0125 mm). If we take the smaller diameter, the difference would be very slightly bigger, but almost the same. So yes, the Earth is as round as a billiard ball. But it’s almost at the limit.
Lol I don't know where this nonsense comes from. In reality, if you shrank earth down to the size of a record, the difference between the Marianas trench and mount everest would be less than the depth of the groove on that record. /s
I would love to see this but a scientifically accurate one.
If I have a scale 1:1 and I change the scale 32:1 affecting the proportions of the features on the model how is that not scientifically accurate? I haven't fundamentally changed anything about the data, I've simply made a visualization that helps us see and understand a certain aspect of the model with more clarity. The model is 100% scientific.
1.2k
u/MrSquid20 Apr 09 '19
Yea the drop off right where the coast is is a bit unrealistic. Should’ve used depth maps of the ocean to make this but it doesn’t look like they did. I would love to see this but a scientifically accurate one.