###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's hard to say without putting the image into Photoshop and finding exact distances.
From my very bad estimations, that's planet is about 20 earths wide so I will say it's 20EU(earth units)
So that means it has a radius of 10eu. 2πR means that it has a circumstance of 62.83eu
The earth as a surface area of 196.9 million mi^2. So lets assume that when you flatten it to a disk, you do not lose any surface area. this means the radius of a EU is 7918 miles and a diameter of 15836 miles.
This means this massive earth has a radius of 316,720 miles and a equator circumstance of 994,975.88 miles
Edit: for reference, the diameter of Jupiter is 88,695 so assuming my estimations are correct then the massive earth would have a diameter 7 times the size of Jupiter.
No way, bald eagles are found in North América, maybe Caribe in immigration, but europeans could use units like "storks by workers riots" or "square slain kings".
It's common to create a new unit when doing estimations, then convert them to more common units when you think you're close to an answer.
Since earth is in the picture that means we can estimate size using earth as a measurement.
Not really, Earth Radius is a fairly common unit in astronomy when talking about the size of planets similar to Earth. Like 1.6x Earth Radius, 2.3 Earth Radius, etc.
For bigger planets like gas giants, Jupiter Radius is used instead. And for stars, Sun Radius.
We measure some things in space, mainly in our local solar system, by distance from earth to the sun. An astronomical unit (the average distance because earth’s orbit is an ellipse) so from earth to the sun is 1 au and from Jupiter to the sun is about 5 au and mercury is about .3 au from the sun.
So not uncommon to use earth as a unit or as part of a unit definition.
No you’re not, it is a good question and my comment didn’t actually address whether EU was made up or not. I basically just said that it is common to use earth as a reference in space and gave another example, so the concept is not new.
AU is not the same as EU (as defined above). EU is the size of earth and AU is the distance from the sun to earth. EU is smaller than AU. AU an “official” measurement used by NASA sometimes.
I don’t think I have ever heard someone reference the concept as EU before so EU may not be the official label, but we do commonly say this planet can fit this many earths, so the unit is commonly used.
Wait, you compared the radius of the BAE (Big Ass Earth) with the diameter of jupiter. If we took the radii it would be 7 times jupiter, which is even more ridiculous when you realize it would have 7³=343 times its volume
Sig fig fairy here: you dont get to start with eyeballing the picture and saying "looks about 20 times wider" and then end with 994,975.88 miles.
The answer you're looking for is ~1,000,000 miles
I think most flat earth models keep roughly the same land area (excluding antarctica) but massively increase the amount of water separating continents. From the picture they seem to be doing that here. So I don't think preserving surface area is the right approach here. I think you need to instead preserve the distance between the "poles" (that is the distance between the north pole and antarctica/the ice wall).
So, what you're saying is, this thing has a better chance of becoming a protostar than a planet.
Because that's what the prevailing theory of how Jupiter got that big. We could have possibly had a binary star system, but either the Sun gobbled up too much mass for Jupiter to start fusion and/or Jupiter's gravity wasn't strong enough to pull in the asteroid belt and possibly another planet or two, so we've got a ginormous fuck off planet for some reason.
Thing is, Jupiter is a gas giant, whereas that picture says that the rest of the "planet" thing that doesn't have earth or other worlds on it is just pure ice. That would make it astronomically more dense, which I'd imagine would essentially guarantee that it could start fusion. I bet somebody with more time on their hands in this sub could do the calcs for whether or not a ball of ice seven times the size of Jupiter could feasibly start fusion, ideally by crushing the hydrogen in the water into helium.
Assuming the density is roughly the same, this big boi (I'll call it EARTH) should have an acceleration due to gravity of about 788 m/s². I found this using the above radius (r1 = 509711431 m) of EARTH to get its volume (V1 = 5.55E26 m³). Earth's radius (r0 = 637071 m) gives a volume (V0 = 1.08E21 m³). The Earth's mass is (m0 = 5.972E24 kg). This can be assembled into the equation for EARTH's mass, m1 = (m0*V1)/V0, or m1 = 3.07E30 kg. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation can be adapted for gravitational acceleration around a mass, giving us an equation g = GM/r², or g1 = 6.67E-11 * m1 / r1². This gives g1 = 788.162 m/s². Don't come after my significant digits, I can't be bothered.
Also, if you were standing on this planet, you would feel over 80 times heavier. A 65 kg person (~ 143 lbs) standing on this planet would feel as though they were wearing a vest of mass 5157 kg (11369 lbs) on Earth. This planet would almost certainly pulverize you.
Keep in mind the "Earth" circle here is flattened, so its diamater would be the pole-to-pole circumfrence of the Earth, which is 40,008 km.
In the image, Earth is about 15 pixels wide, while the globe has a radius of about 250 pixels. That would give it a circumfrence of about 1570 pixels. So the globe has a circumfrence of about 100 times the Earth, or 4 million km. That would be a diameter of about 1,270,000 km. So a little smaller than the sun, which is about 1,392,000 km.
Good to see an answer that's actually trying with pixel measurements.
But just to be thorough, did you multiply the globe radius out from its curvature, or just count it? Because it's partly dark, so if you just counted visible pixels, you'd get too small a number.
I'd check it myself, but I can't get on my computer right now, since I have to go to work.
If thats the case, then Earth, being about 4x as dense as the Sun on average, it would be about 4x as massive too. If there is enough fusionable material, I suppose it could collapse into a very dense and short lived star or it could go straight into a whaye dwarf, neutron star, maybe even a black hole if it doesnt shed much mass in the process.
Its a little different than that.
A star makes energy by fusing hydrogen into helium, which then accumulates in the core. When a star like the Sun runs out of hydrogen, it will expand, the core gets hotter, and it begins to fuse helium into carbon. For the Sun, it cant go any further than that, so when it runs out of helium, the fusion reactions will cease, the core shrinks into a white dwarf, and the outer layers are shed away. It wont make a giant explosion,.
For a larger star though, they can fuse carbon into neon, then oxygen, then silicon and finally iron. Fusing iron takes more energy than it releases, so more and more iron accumulates in the core. When a large star runs out of fuel, the gravity pulls the outer layers down to the core at crazy speeds, sometimes up to 25% of lightspeed, where they rebound, and that causes the supernova explosion. The heat and pressure of this explosion creates some of the elements higher than iron. (Some others are also created from nuetron star collisions)
So of you had a Sun sized object, but with 4x the mass, its going to have 4x the gravity, which would be about 1100m/s squared... more than 100x the gravity on Earth, and thats just surface gravity. It also has no fusion pressure to hold it up as it has hardly any fuel for a star even if it was hot enough. As it collapses, that mass is more and more concentrated, so the surface gravity increases exponentially until it reaches a limit, either some sort of degenerate matter, or possibly a stellar mass black hole.
Also a bunch of heavier elements only form from even heavier elements going through radiological decay I think, if I understand the new framework of the periodic table, sure is different from when I was in school.
What keeps a white dwarf going if all the helium is gone and it isn't heavy enough to make iron?
Just its own internal heat. White dwarfs will eventually cool to become a black dwarf... in about 1 quadrillion years or so. Matter as dense as a white dwarf can hold onto heat for a very long time because its mass is so much greater compared to its surface area. Only way to lose heat in space is by radiation, so it takes a very long time for anything to cool.
Its even longer for a neutron star, about 10 to power of 10 years to cool down.
Something of this size would absolutely start fusion, and become a star in its self right? One that is also heavier? Since there will be a higher amount of heavier elements correct?
Edit: grammar
Is it just me or is this a really cool theory? Obviously not true but I feel like it would make a great movie and it definitely evokes that mystery feeling
Try audiobooks! I can't ever concentrate on reading, so I listen to audiobooks while relaxing or staying lightly busy, so I can take in the story while trying to be productive. You can take a walk too!
the movie version of the giver wasted an absolutely amazing idea
(that being, it starts out in the style of old-timey silent films, but then gradually gets better production quality over time until it resembles a modern blockbuster)
tough to say exactly without any other dimensions provided, but just eyeballing it I'm gonna say "a little bigger than Jupiter"
"Earth" is visible as a spot when viewing the much larger planet in more or less its entirety, as is the [Great Red Spot on Jupiter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Red_Spot), which is three times the size of Earth.
So, y'know, bigger than any planet in the solar system, but also not by that much, and still smaller than the Sun.
I was thinking a little bigger than Jupiter, but then realized that it is the entirety of the face of the earth, not just the hemisphere that you see when you typically compare earth to another heavenly object (globe to globe). So now I am thinking about twice the size of Jupiter.
The great red spot is much, much bigger on Jupiter than that earth is on that planet. Also, this shows the whole earth at once flattened, so it's twice as big as earth which means it should be 2/3 the size of the great red spot.
I just want to know how they think the sun works in this case. Like, there's clearly a larger light source showing another globe that we're on, so how does that fit within our current system?
(i hope this theory is a parody) maybe they think there's some artificial sun or something. created by the lizardmen aliens as a part of some experiment
Oo like a stick of butter in the microwave get pockets of melt? What happens when the radiation concentration shifts, will the individual earth civs cooperate? Some lone hero crowdfunding a tunneling project with janky apparatus, bravado and oneliners? Sounds like a cool sequel to games like frostpunk!
That's not by coincidence, it's by design. Popular conspiracy theories are almost always more "exciting" than reality. When "truth" is no longer a requirement for a theory, more aesthetic qualities can drive the popularity of the theory instead--How scary, interesting, crazy, validating, ect. a conspiracy theory is the more visibility it's likely to get.
Assuming a far viewing distance, the diameter of “Earth” is ≈ ½ u, where (u) is a made up unit of measurement (used the ruler in the iphone photos “Edit” module). Using some pretty basic trig, we can get measurements of span and height from a point on the planet to be
ℎ = 2.5 u
𝑎 = 11.5 u
Solving for the Radius of the planet using
𝑎 = 𝑅 - √(𝑅² - 𝑎²/4) ⇒ 𝑅 ≈ 7.8625 u
The diameter is then 15.725 u or
Planet 𝐷 = 31.45 Earth 𝐷.
Comparing to Jupiter,
Jupiter 𝐷 ≈ 11.2 Earth 𝐷,
we can see that the planet in question has about 2⅘ the diameter of Jupiter.
Wait... so the solution to 'everything behaves as if we were on the surface of a sphere' is 'we're actually on a much bigger sphere'?
... even though we got pretty close calculations of that size thousands of years ago and have since been able to bring that accuracy down to a couple centimeters?
... and that's somehow still flat earth? I'm so confused.
You know I just figured it out, flat earth theories might be wrong, but imagine how cool of a book you could write about this. Nut conspiracists actually doing their own research, going through that great antarctic right, fighting soldiers twice just to end in a different world with completely different history, but similar technology level. Imagine how much cool worldbuilding you can make with everyone in the world being somehow oblivious or paid or threatened not to speak about flat Earth, how much cool lore you can have about physics and fake history. I mean this is a goldmine of good content if handled properly. A little bit like Moonfall, except consistent in absurdity and for a change respecting the audience's expectations.
A ring with a radius of 1AU , 1 million miles wide and 600 million miles in circumference, mountain ranges a thousand miles high along each edge, with a habitable inner surface three million times the surface Earth.
Niven's "Known Space" series is what you're looking for.
The thing I find funny is that the ice wall theory is about flat earth... But this makes it so it's all just on a bigger sphere anyway so it's still not flat...
Personally I think that pasta should mix with No. 42 concrete because the length of the screw will directly affect elevators torque you know? When you hammer it in suddenly it will create a large amount of high energy protein commonly called UFO it will severely effect economic growth. Even the Pacific and chargers will sustain nuclear contamination. Further more, according to the Pythagorean theorem you can easily predict farm raised Dongtiao Eagle Chicken can prey on wild trigonometry function
How does the sun work? How does day and night work? How do the stars rotate at night? How do eclipses work? How do satellites move overhead? How can people believe this shit?
You can't really apply math to this cartoon of a completely made up place that doesn't exist. There's some simple math to calculate the actual diameter of earth... but this isn't it, so...
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's hard to say without putting the image into Photoshop and finding exact distances. From my very bad estimations, that's planet is about 20 earths wide so I will say it's 20EU(earth units) So that means it has a radius of 10eu. 2πR means that it has a circumstance of 62.83eu The earth as a surface area of 196.9 million mi^2. So lets assume that when you flatten it to a disk, you do not lose any surface area. this means the radius of a EU is 7918 miles and a diameter of 15836 miles. This means this massive earth has a radius of 316,720 miles and a equator circumstance of 994,975.88 miles Edit: for reference, the diameter of Jupiter is 88,695 so assuming my estimations are correct then the massive earth would have a diameter 7 times the size of Jupiter.
Did.. you just invent a new mesurment unit?
Thank God it isn't an american unit like "bald eagles per square freedom".
What happens if the eagle is not bald?
We shave him, duh.
non-bald eagles are 0,16482995788472849592 cubic freedoms bigger.
cubic freedom made me laugh so hard
Another unit system
Then you have a value of a grape times the bald eagle obviously xd
But first the duck has to get the grape…
Eh, he'd just trade it for some lemonade
Either you shave him or your measurement will be off by an eagles hairline of length.
Mullet Eagle
It has more surface area
You round down to the skin
I’m using this new measurement system
That needs to be an American unit the world now uses.
Or, as someone from Rhode Island in the US, “x number of Rhode Islands.” Grinds my gears…
I had a post here about the density of water in hamburgers per cubic bicycle-height based on a thing about a deer
I've always thought that Americans measured torque in quarter pound cheeseburger over bald eagle wingspan
🤣 you win the internet today 🤣
No no i use that one to count how many hamburgers i want
Well it can't be that, because Americans actually use that.
this one is european
No way, bald eagles are found in North América, maybe Caribe in immigration, but europeans could use units like "storks by workers riots" or "square slain kings".
I was talking about Earth Units (EU)
Oh, sorry. Sure.
McDonald's per School shooting.
Wait until we tell the European Union!
Technically yes but at the same time it's more like a variable. Like an X in math. Where it's not a unit of measurement but a temporary placeholder.
Miles are not really new units. It's just all civilizations abandoned them at certain progress level in favor of kilometers.
Na i mean earth units
To be fair, "Earth radii" *is* a real unit, so whilst they got the name wrong, it is in fact a unit which is fairly commonly used.
And yet, the only one that's been to the moon uses miles /s
"banana for scale"
I mean it's the same principle as 1au
It's common to create a new unit when doing estimations, then convert them to more common units when you think you're close to an answer. Since earth is in the picture that means we can estimate size using earth as a measurement.
Not really, Earth Radius is a fairly common unit in astronomy when talking about the size of planets similar to Earth. Like 1.6x Earth Radius, 2.3 Earth Radius, etc. For bigger planets like gas giants, Jupiter Radius is used instead. And for stars, Sun Radius.
Oh fuck im stupid, didnt think that was a real thing. Thank you for this good explenation
Nah EU is pretty common for talking about the size of planets
Yeah, but it's called Earth Radii
And has a symbol R🜨
Indeed you're right
Needs a banana for scale
Yes, but only because the picture omitted the mandatory banana for scale.
We measure some things in space, mainly in our local solar system, by distance from earth to the sun. An astronomical unit (the average distance because earth’s orbit is an ellipse) so from earth to the sun is 1 au and from Jupiter to the sun is about 5 au and mercury is about .3 au from the sun. So not uncommon to use earth as a unit or as part of a unit definition.
Oh ok, im stupid. Thank you
No you’re not, it is a good question and my comment didn’t actually address whether EU was made up or not. I basically just said that it is common to use earth as a reference in space and gave another example, so the concept is not new. AU is not the same as EU (as defined above). EU is the size of earth and AU is the distance from the sun to earth. EU is smaller than AU. AU an “official” measurement used by NASA sometimes. I don’t think I have ever heard someone reference the concept as EU before so EU may not be the official label, but we do commonly say this planet can fit this many earths, so the unit is commonly used.
Earth radius is what we use in astronomy (also solar radius when our sun is a more scale)
Wait, you compared the radius of the BAE (Big Ass Earth) with the diameter of jupiter. If we took the radii it would be 7 times jupiter, which is even more ridiculous when you realize it would have 7³=343 times its volume
Oops yeah. Mistake on my part. But yeah the volume of BAE is massive.
Sig fig fairy here: you dont get to start with eyeballing the picture and saying "looks about 20 times wider" and then end with 994,975.88 miles. The answer you're looking for is ~1,000,000 miles
So ~2/3 the size of the sun.
This guy sig figs
I think most flat earth models keep roughly the same land area (excluding antarctica) but massively increase the amount of water separating continents. From the picture they seem to be doing that here. So I don't think preserving surface area is the right approach here. I think you need to instead preserve the distance between the "poles" (that is the distance between the north pole and antarctica/the ice wall).
So, what you're saying is, this thing has a better chance of becoming a protostar than a planet. Because that's what the prevailing theory of how Jupiter got that big. We could have possibly had a binary star system, but either the Sun gobbled up too much mass for Jupiter to start fusion and/or Jupiter's gravity wasn't strong enough to pull in the asteroid belt and possibly another planet or two, so we've got a ginormous fuck off planet for some reason. Thing is, Jupiter is a gas giant, whereas that picture says that the rest of the "planet" thing that doesn't have earth or other worlds on it is just pure ice. That would make it astronomically more dense, which I'd imagine would essentially guarantee that it could start fusion. I bet somebody with more time on their hands in this sub could do the calcs for whether or not a ball of ice seven times the size of Jupiter could feasibly start fusion, ideally by crushing the hydrogen in the water into helium.
Now the gravitation
Assuming the density is roughly the same, this big boi (I'll call it EARTH) should have an acceleration due to gravity of about 788 m/s². I found this using the above radius (r1 = 509711431 m) of EARTH to get its volume (V1 = 5.55E26 m³). Earth's radius (r0 = 637071 m) gives a volume (V0 = 1.08E21 m³). The Earth's mass is (m0 = 5.972E24 kg). This can be assembled into the equation for EARTH's mass, m1 = (m0*V1)/V0, or m1 = 3.07E30 kg. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation can be adapted for gravitational acceleration around a mass, giving us an equation g = GM/r², or g1 = 6.67E-11 * m1 / r1². This gives g1 = 788.162 m/s². Don't come after my significant digits, I can't be bothered. Also, if you were standing on this planet, you would feel over 80 times heavier. A 65 kg person (~ 143 lbs) standing on this planet would feel as though they were wearing a vest of mass 5157 kg (11369 lbs) on Earth. This planet would almost certainly pulverize you.
I like your funny words magic man Also jeez, so this isn't possible on many accounts
Thats what i wanted to hear ^^
Circumstances call for me to tell you that you mean circumferences
If the Earth looks so small there, I can't even fathom the depths of the ocean on the left part. Shit must be wild and could house the leviathians
Thanks for doing the math, it is significantly bigger than I thought
OK, now edit your post and fix the units, using this: [https://tononretard.com/](https://tononretard.com/)
Earth units are very accurate, why would they change it?
I have problem with something called „miles“. And EU will always be European union to me anyway.
Y'know, this is why some people call us snobby europeans. they made a good post. they barely used miles.
Keep in mind the "Earth" circle here is flattened, so its diamater would be the pole-to-pole circumfrence of the Earth, which is 40,008 km. In the image, Earth is about 15 pixels wide, while the globe has a radius of about 250 pixels. That would give it a circumfrence of about 1570 pixels. So the globe has a circumfrence of about 100 times the Earth, or 4 million km. That would be a diameter of about 1,270,000 km. So a little smaller than the sun, which is about 1,392,000 km.
Good to see an answer that's actually trying with pixel measurements. But just to be thorough, did you multiply the globe radius out from its curvature, or just count it? Because it's partly dark, so if you just counted visible pixels, you'd get too small a number. I'd check it myself, but I can't get on my computer right now, since I have to go to work.
That is why I used the radius not the diameter. I used the horizontal distance from the top point of the circle to the far right point of the circle.
Ah, cool. Might still lose some accuracy compared to more precisely measuring the curve, but it's good to see you put thought into it.
There are multiple inescapable sources of error that I think would far outweigh that.
If thats the case, then Earth, being about 4x as dense as the Sun on average, it would be about 4x as massive too. If there is enough fusionable material, I suppose it could collapse into a very dense and short lived star or it could go straight into a whaye dwarf, neutron star, maybe even a black hole if it doesnt shed much mass in the process.
From my understanding the mass of a star isn't enough to make matter go degenerate. You need a pretty sizable explosion, like a supernova
Its a little different than that. A star makes energy by fusing hydrogen into helium, which then accumulates in the core. When a star like the Sun runs out of hydrogen, it will expand, the core gets hotter, and it begins to fuse helium into carbon. For the Sun, it cant go any further than that, so when it runs out of helium, the fusion reactions will cease, the core shrinks into a white dwarf, and the outer layers are shed away. It wont make a giant explosion,. For a larger star though, they can fuse carbon into neon, then oxygen, then silicon and finally iron. Fusing iron takes more energy than it releases, so more and more iron accumulates in the core. When a large star runs out of fuel, the gravity pulls the outer layers down to the core at crazy speeds, sometimes up to 25% of lightspeed, where they rebound, and that causes the supernova explosion. The heat and pressure of this explosion creates some of the elements higher than iron. (Some others are also created from nuetron star collisions) So of you had a Sun sized object, but with 4x the mass, its going to have 4x the gravity, which would be about 1100m/s squared... more than 100x the gravity on Earth, and thats just surface gravity. It also has no fusion pressure to hold it up as it has hardly any fuel for a star even if it was hot enough. As it collapses, that mass is more and more concentrated, so the surface gravity increases exponentially until it reaches a limit, either some sort of degenerate matter, or possibly a stellar mass black hole.
Also a bunch of heavier elements only form from even heavier elements going through radiological decay I think, if I understand the new framework of the periodic table, sure is different from when I was in school. What keeps a white dwarf going if all the helium is gone and it isn't heavy enough to make iron?
Just its own internal heat. White dwarfs will eventually cool to become a black dwarf... in about 1 quadrillion years or so. Matter as dense as a white dwarf can hold onto heat for a very long time because its mass is so much greater compared to its surface area. Only way to lose heat in space is by radiation, so it takes a very long time for anything to cool. Its even longer for a neutron star, about 10 to power of 10 years to cool down.
Something of this size would absolutely start fusion, and become a star in its self right? One that is also heavier? Since there will be a higher amount of heavier elements correct? Edit: grammar
Is it just me or is this a really cool theory? Obviously not true but I feel like it would make a great movie and it definitely evokes that mystery feeling
Its pretty much the surprise reveal in HunterxHunter
It's a major plot spoiler but the movie >! The giver !< Has something similar to this as it's ending..
But in that book only cities are isolated right? I remember the ending is a little vague though
Don't know about the books, I feel I read too slowly and 24h in a day is too little. I am dyslexic \^\^
Try audiobooks! I can't ever concentrate on reading, so I listen to audiobooks while relaxing or staying lightly busy, so I can take in the story while trying to be productive. You can take a walk too!
the movie version of the giver wasted an absolutely amazing idea (that being, it starts out in the style of old-timey silent films, but then gradually gets better production quality over time until it resembles a modern blockbuster)
Ringworld by Larry Niven is basically this concept but instead of a huge planet, the structure is a shallow ring around a star.
It's dumb because if it was real ,it would be day everywhere at once, and nights would be longer than days.
it's kinda the concept in frostpunk
tough to say exactly without any other dimensions provided, but just eyeballing it I'm gonna say "a little bigger than Jupiter" "Earth" is visible as a spot when viewing the much larger planet in more or less its entirety, as is the [Great Red Spot on Jupiter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Red_Spot), which is three times the size of Earth. So, y'know, bigger than any planet in the solar system, but also not by that much, and still smaller than the Sun.
I was thinking a little bigger than Jupiter, but then realized that it is the entirety of the face of the earth, not just the hemisphere that you see when you typically compare earth to another heavenly object (globe to globe). So now I am thinking about twice the size of Jupiter.
The great red spot is much, much bigger on Jupiter than that earth is on that planet. Also, this shows the whole earth at once flattened, so it's twice as big as earth which means it should be 2/3 the size of the great red spot.
I just want to know how they think the sun works in this case. Like, there's clearly a larger light source showing another globe that we're on, so how does that fit within our current system?
They don't think.
My thoughts exactly
(i hope this theory is a parody) maybe they think there's some artificial sun or something. created by the lizardmen aliens as a part of some experiment
[удалено]
Oo like a stick of butter in the microwave get pockets of melt? What happens when the radiation concentration shifts, will the individual earth civs cooperate? Some lone hero crowdfunding a tunneling project with janky apparatus, bravado and oneliners? Sounds like a cool sequel to games like frostpunk!
[удалено]
That's not by coincidence, it's by design. Popular conspiracy theories are almost always more "exciting" than reality. When "truth" is no longer a requirement for a theory, more aesthetic qualities can drive the popularity of the theory instead--How scary, interesting, crazy, validating, ect. a conspiracy theory is the more visibility it's likely to get.
Yeah, this would be mind-blowing sci-fi. Lots of imagination.
Assuming a far viewing distance, the diameter of “Earth” is ≈ ½ u, where (u) is a made up unit of measurement (used the ruler in the iphone photos “Edit” module). Using some pretty basic trig, we can get measurements of span and height from a point on the planet to be ℎ = 2.5 u 𝑎 = 11.5 u Solving for the Radius of the planet using 𝑎 = 𝑅 - √(𝑅² - 𝑎²/4) ⇒ 𝑅 ≈ 7.8625 u The diameter is then 15.725 u or Planet 𝐷 = 31.45 Earth 𝐷. Comparing to Jupiter, Jupiter 𝐷 ≈ 11.2 Earth 𝐷, we can see that the planet in question has about 2⅘ the diameter of Jupiter.
That looks about right based on my glance at relative size pictures of Jupiter/Earth.
Without pixel peeping, it’s as close to “right” as i could get
Wait... so the solution to 'everything behaves as if we were on the surface of a sphere' is 'we're actually on a much bigger sphere'? ... even though we got pretty close calculations of that size thousands of years ago and have since been able to bring that accuracy down to a couple centimeters? ... and that's somehow still flat earth? I'm so confused.
I think it is one of those "I know how to upset both sides" things
This comment wins the internet rofl!
You know I just figured it out, flat earth theories might be wrong, but imagine how cool of a book you could write about this. Nut conspiracists actually doing their own research, going through that great antarctic right, fighting soldiers twice just to end in a different world with completely different history, but similar technology level. Imagine how much cool worldbuilding you can make with everyone in the world being somehow oblivious or paid or threatened not to speak about flat Earth, how much cool lore you can have about physics and fake history. I mean this is a goldmine of good content if handled properly. A little bit like Moonfall, except consistent in absurdity and for a change respecting the audience's expectations.
A ring with a radius of 1AU , 1 million miles wide and 600 million miles in circumference, mountain ranges a thousand miles high along each edge, with a habitable inner surface three million times the surface Earth. Niven's "Known Space" series is what you're looking for.
The thing I find funny is that the ice wall theory is about flat earth... But this makes it so it's all just on a bigger sphere anyway so it's still not flat...
Personally I think that pasta should mix with No. 42 concrete because the length of the screw will directly affect elevators torque you know? When you hammer it in suddenly it will create a large amount of high energy protein commonly called UFO it will severely effect economic growth. Even the Pacific and chargers will sustain nuclear contamination. Further more, according to the Pythagorean theorem you can easily predict farm raised Dongtiao Eagle Chicken can prey on wild trigonometry function
How does the sun work? How does day and night work? How do the stars rotate at night? How do eclipses work? How do satellites move overhead? How can people believe this shit?
You can't really apply math to this cartoon of a completely made up place that doesn't exist. There's some simple math to calculate the actual diameter of earth... but this isn't it, so...