The original is a exaggerated estimate (projection) based on a assumed sphere, probably WGS84, because a lot of the global satellite data is formatted as such.
“reality” as in extremely exaggerated deviations from the ellipsoid. Otherwise it would just look like a smooth sphere. Earth has 12’700 km diameter. From the shallowest point to mount everest are just about 20 km. That is a 0.15 % change. You would see nothing.
I think that would be too much. A bowling ball is really smooth. It would not roll as well with such deviations all over the place.
At a diameter of 22 cm, the roughness would have to be in the order of 0.3 mm, which would not just be visible due to the distorted reflections, it would even be audible while rolling.
That’s not to scale, right?
It’s the Instagram filter.
https://ourplnt.com/earth-without-water/
The original is a exaggerated estimate (projection) based on a assumed sphere, probably WGS84, because a lot of the global satellite data is formatted as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections?wprov=sfla1
“reality” as in extremely exaggerated deviations from the ellipsoid. Otherwise it would just look like a smooth sphere. Earth has 12’700 km diameter. From the shallowest point to mount everest are just about 20 km. That is a 0.15 % change. You would see nothing.
To put in perspective how shallow a 0.15% change is, a dimple on a golf ball is roughly 4 times deeper than that (0.60% of a difference in depth).
Bang on, the Pacific is not 250 miles deep…
“Smoother and rounder than a bowling ball” is my usual comparison
I think that would be too much. A bowling ball is really smooth. It would not roll as well with such deviations all over the place.
At a diameter of 22 cm, the roughness would have to be in the order of 0.3 mm, which would not just be visible due to the distorted reflections, it would even be audible while rolling.
deleted by creator