For many of you the answer will be obvious... But think twice.

Do we forget about the importance of ourselves in the relation between us and the universe ?

If our eyes were flat, how would the world look like, if our eyes were cubes, how would it look like ?
Isn't it a proof that earth, planets and many finite things looping themselves have no special shape, except the shape we're able to give them ?

Isn't universe a big mirror of what we think it is ?

I don't mind if you flame me or say I'm completely wrong, this thing is meant to be discussed.

The Earth is not round but a spheroid. And that was known since 300 BC. (See: Alan Kerpa, Footnotes in History) Just some people cannot even believe what they see.

the earth is an oblate spheroid.

The earth being "round" has nothing to do with the shape of our eyes. The earth is round, because extremly large masses spinning get pushed into a spheroid. Our eyes are spherical because it is a successful design to form a lens, thanks evolution!

On a purely abstract level the OP has a good point though, despite the fact that things are spheroid simply because their purpose (swiveling in a socket like an eye) and origin (forming under gravity while rotating like a planet) demands it.

Something I've been obsessed with for a while has been the fact that we percieve the universe in a very different way to how it actually is - as different as a computer screen is to the workings of a microchip. This is been the view of people like Martin Rees and others for a while.

We make our image of the universe as we understand it from the viewpoint we are at. But that does not mean that because the form of the universe is slightly different of what we assume that in the same token all other elements change with it.

To prove that the earth is round all you you to do next time you go south (or north) on vacation is to put a stake into the ground and measure the length of the shadow at noon. Then you take the stake with you on vacation and same procedure. If you traveled more than a few hundred miles south (or north) you will see that the shadow has a considerable size different that cannot be explained by the day's change in length. Now a little triangulation and bingo, within a reasonable margin of error you do not only establish that the earth is "round" but also how big the circumference is.

This was done somewhere in between 10 BC and 10 AD by a guy named Erathostenes. That the Earth was round was established 300 years before that but we don't know much about the method.

Yes, I believe we often do, though not in the way your example suggests. Things like the shape of a sensory organ really aren't the problem. Each such organ evolved in such a way as to best receive some sensory input. There's a physics professor at the University of Chicago, Riccaro Levi-Setti who likes to dabble in paleontology and simply adores trilobites. He showed a while back that the unique shape of trilobite eyes was similar to a lens that had been designed centuries ago by Huygens and Descartes. Levi-Setti showed that trilobites had such eyes because they reduced aberration underwater--in other words, they were well-suited to the trilobite's underwater environment. So the question isn't really what shape something's eyes are but there is definitely a good question you're hitting on here, if you're saying what I think you are.

I suppose it depends on your viewpoint, to an extent. I tend to think our physical concepts each map to something in the physical universe. But we don't know that physical part, we can't touch it. We can only touch our conceptions of it. So when you say "Isn't universe a big mirror of what we think it is ?" I would agree, in a sense. The mirror goes both ways--our understanding of the universe is intended to mirror what's "really" going on, despite us not knowing or understanding what's actually happening behind many of the mathematical relationships (which work well in practice regardless). We can make predictions and say what will happen but that doesn't mean we really understand what we're talking about. I often wonder if the universe is comprehensible and I tend to settle on "only to an extent" as the likely answer to that question.

But we cannot ignore the element of perception in the information that the OP presented.

Sheesh... perspective has nothing to do with the reality of the facts. Perspective merely has to do with their interpretation...

You can say it's square if you want to though

*getting bow & lighted arrow ready to flame* LOL


No, seriously though, it's very interesting what you state in your post. Have you ever heard of "Maya" (the Cosmic Illusion)?

Have you ever heard of the Holographic universe, MANNI?

A blind man dosnt need to see a ball, to know its round. He feels it with his hands. It has no edge.

I think that about sums it up right there. Our perception can be tricky, but we dont see the world as round because we have round eyes. If that were the case would even know what a square was? And lets not forget that study that said the universe may be shaped like a dodecahedron: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...teuniverse.html really not very round.

Whatever people think is wrong until proven right. The human mind has tendancies to make things up. So people used to think the earth was flat because they liked it that way. And they were not aware of many pieces of evidence that would prove contrary. Then we found the evidence, which is all physical evidence.


Also, if humans werent here, the universe still would be. So humans depend on the universe not the other way around.

Ultimately, humans are insignificant in the universe. If not almost irrelevant.

Bit harsh Captain Kolak, everything counts, everything we say and do

Back to the OP, I think the world is triangular, prove me wrong

Easy, read above

I've always favored a trapezoidal model myself.

lol, maybe a bit harsh sounding but hey. The truth ain't always beautifull .


But still, people change their minds on everything. The human mind is easy to influence so whatever we think cannot be said to be the truth. There must be evidence and it must be tested and weighed. Thats why I love science so much... lol. Thats like the motto of Science.




As for the guy who said the world is a triangle....... I can only imagine how things would work if it was.... I can't even imagine unfortunetly....

Yes i think it is round but no proof ur idea couldnt be wrong

I'm glad people are discussing about this, that's what I wanted. I can understand what you say about lenses and such but aren't lenses based on our own perception, aren't every things linked to perception limited to our own ? Except what is used to see frequencies we aren't able to feel or see.

As for physical and material proofs, these are also limited to our own perception and it's obvious a sense is linked to another one so our brain can understand what's going on. When you've got a ball inside your hand, how do you know it's really round ? You assume it or you have learnt it that way. Our physical proofs are linked to calculations we created with the help of what we see everyday. Even our abstraction is limited to our point of view.

I don't say the earth is not round, it's round for us. But what about the absolute shape of things ?

To answer Isis2200 : I've heard about holographic universe but don't really read things about it yet.

I would like to see earth with cubic eyes

difficult, first you need to square a circle.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere.. but squashed..or as my science teacher says "The Earth is shaped like a elephant's sh**..which is very apt because most people who live on Earth are sh**s.."

I think he's a little bitter

To me, Manni's question really has nothing to do with the apparent roundness of the earth. Manni's question is more about perception and how we relate to those things that we see. When we observe something, we can only apply labels or descriptions based on what we know or think we know. If we can't explain something we see, often we apply perception based on fantasies such as gods or other supernatural forces.

What I think many people have missed when responding to this post is the discussion about perception. Manni specifically mentions the eyes, which is probably the single greatest sensory system we have. Step back a bit, and realize that humankind, with the capacity to literally see beyond our world, has existed more a mere flash of time in terms of the evolution of the earth. Our senses evolved to help us survive, so each sense has been fine-tuned towards a specific strategy to aid in our safety, feeding, procreation and other needs as the human animal we have become. Therefore, our senses have evolved to perceive specific inputs and process them to meet those demands.

We are capable only of seeing and experiencing our "universe" -- which used to be our immediate surroundings -- in those terms. No we have the capacity to experience the greater universe itself, and we find that our own senses put limits on our observations. We cannot see infrared, for example. However, we are able to build machines and equipment that can sense things that we cannot -- we have radio telescopes and cameras that can detect wavelengths of light beyond the capability of our own survival-necessary vision. Our mind has evolved to see beyond our limited senses and it is only now that humans have ever needed to do this because our universe has expanded to be, well, the universe!

So, indeed, Manni, you are correct. We have, to a point, assigned certain "visions" or "perceptions" to how things actually look in the universe. This does not make it wrong, however. We are not limited to our sensory perceptions, because our brain has evolved to understand that what we see, hear, feel, taste etc., may not be the whole picture.

To the question of whether or not the earth is round, well, that has nothing to do with perception or idealism, Manni. The shape of the earth is completely measurable, as many folks have already stated. We do not force the shape of the earth into an oblate spheroid because our senses "force" us to, rather we are able to take observations and measurements that help us come up with an accurate description of something to which we apply labels like "oblate spheroid". Because most of us can relate to that shape, we can see that in our minds and we move on to the next thing in our current "universe".

Fundamental laws of physics or biology or chemistry are what they are, no matter how they are described or perceived. Two hydrogen atoms bonding with one oxygen atom make water, but even though a million different sentient species may perceive "water" a million different ways, the bottom line is that is it simply still two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. It is what it is, and regardless of our perceptions, the physical nature of the molecule is still the same. What we think of water does not give it its chemistry, so what we think of our universe does not give it a shape or mass or age or anything. Our perceptions are used only to put something into terms that we can understand within the realm of our experiences.

Good question, Manni.

Then why is my computer monitor square and not round when going by your logic ???