oblate

If it's an oblate spheroid, then it's not a sphere.

If it's slightly pear-shaped, then it isn't an oblate spheroid.

The Earth is neither flat, nor perfectly spherical, but an oblate spheroid.

They just appear not to be on 2d projections of an oblate sphereoid — you know, a "map" of a "planet".

An oblate spheroid shaped globe for that extra degree of accuracy.

Unfortunately it was assumed that the earth was a prolate spheroid, when actually it is oblate.

Saying the earth is flat is more wrong than saying the earth is a sphere, and saying the earth is a sphere is more wrong than saying the earth is oblate spheroidal.

Earth's Equator is a human construct distinct from an oblate spheroid's equator, as are the specific locations of the poles.

For a simple example, the surface of the Earth is approximately an oblate spheroidal surface, not even a 2-sphere.

Then, over the next 2250 years, we've gotten a more accurate measurement of the size of the planet, and noticed that it's a bit oblate rather than a perfect sphere.

If "moving" includes "rotating": We can tell the Earth is rotating because its shape approximates an oblate spheroid, not a sphere.

> The earth is an oblate spheroidTo a first order approximation, such as would be suitable for a discussion on an Internet forum, the earth is basically a sphere...

There is no point where they all meet at the same time, if the planet is oblate rather than spherical, or has other irregularities in pressure or temperature or surface terrain.

I'm confused about the use of "in the Mercator projection" in #4:> In the Mercator projection, the Earth - which, in reality, is an oblate spheroid - is projected as a simple cylinder.

Do they lose just as many points as the person who said sphere or do they get partial credit for being closer to the correct answer of "oblate spheroid"To put it differently, would I get a better score in OS design than Linus Torvalds?

I recently read Gleick’s biography of Newton and highly recommend it. It’s pretty short, quotes part of this article by Keynes with a lot more context, and paints a portrait both fascinating and disturbing: to come from nothing, to start with nothing, not even having the concepts of velocity or force; to invent them, and calculus, and to develop such a deep understanding of nature to successfully compute the shape of the earth as an oblate spheroid, all from first principles, in the 1600s; to conceal nearly all of these discoveries; and then pursue things that “should all seem a crass and empty ambition once you have written a Principia.”