[Tron]

Hi guys,

We've all seen photos of the earth that look round or flat depending on which lens you use (fish-eye or regular). At low altitudes I can understand the earth looking flat no matter its shape because it's just so big.  But there's obviously in my view alot of photos and eye witness testimony of astronauts that say the earth looks round or at least curved from way up there.

I have a simple idea which may explain this if you consider the idea that earth is more flat (or concaved) then it is spherical.

Its just the fish-eye lens or dome magnifying glass effect of the earths many layers of atmosphere.  See the attached two images.  It's not impossible to assume that the earth may look curved in space but it's partially explained by the earths atmosphere.

[scomato]

Unless the earth is perfectly flat, uni-directional Universal Acceleration would not keep us planted on the ground, right?

[Tron]

I don't really think so.  I believe density and bouency are the primary driver of gravity like effects.

[Tron]

Unless the earth is perfectly flat, uni-directional Universal Acceleration would not keep us planted on the ground, right?

To answer your question more direction I suppose your right.  If force was applied in one direction on a spherical earth then only some would be able to stand on it while others would be pushed or left behind, lol.  Oddly enough I believe in directional force but I suspect it is pushed in all directions outward by the sun.  And therefore water can accumulate in basins like on a flat earth or craters and such on other spherical planets.  Can liquid be found on the dark side of planets?  I don't suspect it can.

[Tron]

If i might continue talking to myself here,  i found some interesting photos of ice deposits on the moon (See attachments)   Now what's interesting is there are ice deposits at the north and south poles of the moon, within dark craters.   I think Nasa is suggesting It's the low temperatures in the shadowy craters that allow the ice to survive and not to melt in the sunlight.  Id argue that liquid was deposited there because of the suns directional force on the surface of the moon.  The best way to see who's right is if there were ice on the dark side of the moon which hasn't been proved.   

Under the sun buoncy and densuty theory, there shouldn't be much ice on the dark side.

Under the Universal Acceleration theory, there should be a chance for water to fall into craters and freeze up on that side.

Under the theory of Gravity, there should be Alot of water on the dark side because of the cold temps and universal application of inward force.

Theres also another photo of Titan (see attachment) which is a huge moon orbiting Saturn.  In the photo, to the left, you can see what some believe is liquid methane at its poles.  I personally think it could be ice,  because if it's liquid,  then my theory of directional force coming from the sun,  would have that methane flow over the poles and not exist.    You can argue that the huge atmosphere Titan has creates the "Dome magnifying effect" I talked about above,  and maybe makes Titan look more spherical then it is,  or maybe I'm wrong and gravity does pull the liquid around it.  Air pressure, friction, craters, all might help explain liquid on Titan.

For my sources please see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakes_of_Titan

[fortytwo]

Under the theory of Gravity, there should be Alot of water on the dark side because of the cold temps and universal application of inward force.

The "dark side of the moon" isn't dark. "Dark" in this context is a synonym for "unknown", because it is not visible from earth. The so called "dark side" is facing towards the sun the same amount of time as the "front side".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon

[Tron]

Thanks Forty two for clearing this up.   So it does seem that there are huge deposits of Maria Basalt (lava residue) on the near side of the moon facing us and almost none on the far side.  It's funny how the ancients named these dark spots "Maria" or "Seas".  Sea of tranquility, Ocean of storms, etc (see attached).

This also raises unknowns to me.  Mainstream science is unsure why Maria  is mostly on the near side and not on the far side.   I personally thought it was because of sunlight until you pointed out both sides get sun rays.  I dunno.

[JSS]

Thanks Forty two for clearing this up.   So it does seem that there are huge deposits of Maria Basalt (lava residue) on the near side of the moon facing us and almost none on the far side.  It's funny how the ancients named these dark spots "Maria" or "Seas".  Sea of tranquility, Ocean of storms, etc (see attached).

This also raises unknowns to me.  Mainstream science is unsure why Maria  is mostly on the near side and not on the far side.   I personally thought it was because of sunlight until you pointed out both sides get sun rays.  I dunno.

The current theory is the deposits were caused by a massive asteroid impact on that side of the moon, causing huge lava flows that created the basins. There is a considerable amount of data supporting this idea, but it's still just a best guess. We can't actually go back in time to look after all, but it does explain why the Moon looks the way it does.

So they probably were seas, seas of lava.

[Iceman]

To add to that, those lavas are denser than the surrounding rocks. This gives the moon a very irregular density profile - the side with the more abundant mare (lavas) is pulled more strongly toward earth due to gravity, which is likely why we see this side of the moon, now that it is tidally locked to us.

That's pulling from memory of 2nd year planetary astronomy course though - take it with a fistful of salt.

[Tron]

Fist full of salt, or basalt?  Lol.  I know the theories on this are great,  it's still a Scooby doo mystery to me.