The technical term is "oblate spheroid". Which means a bulging sphere that flattened slightly at the poles. That is the only shape that can mathematically fit the data. So yes, a spinning sphere. The spinning is what causes the bulge.
These are interesting questions. I am not the right person to ask though. I have not personally investigated the earth to that level of detail. I have no reason to doubt the standard model, and nobody has ever given me any reason to doubt the standard model. The standard model as I understand it actually defines 3 or 4 different poles.
But I state this with a completely different level of conviction than the mathematically rigorous proof the says the earth must be some kind of a sphere and cannot be flat.
I have not personally investigated details beyond proving to myself it must be a type of sphere, no. No other topology will work. Not a torus. Not flat.
You can find the standard model by searching on something as simple as Wikipedia. As already stated, I accept the complete standard model with a different level of conviction than I do the information I have personally proven, which is that the earth must be a sphere of some kind due to positive curvature everywhere. I am already very aware of the mathematics behind curvature detection, so I do not need to research that. The triangle method I stated earlier is absolutely definitive.
The exact details you mention do not particularly interest me. They are irrelevant to my life, and nobody has ever given me a valid reason to care about the relevant accuracy the standard model. But if this is of significant interest to you, I definitely encourage you to follow your curiosity.
The technical term is "oblate spheroid". Which means a bulging sphere that flattened slightly at the poles. That is the only shape that can mathematically fit the data. So yes, a spinning sphere. The spinning is what causes the bulge.
Interesting photos when you look up images of "spheroids".
How fast is it spinning?
Do you think the north pole could be right in the middle of it, on top?
And the south pole is on the bottom in the middle?
Is the spheroid horizontal or vertical?
These are interesting questions. I am not the right person to ask though. I have not personally investigated the earth to that level of detail. I have no reason to doubt the standard model, and nobody has ever given me any reason to doubt the standard model. The standard model as I understand it actually defines 3 or 4 different poles.
But I state this with a completely different level of conviction than the mathematically rigorous proof the says the earth must be some kind of a sphere and cannot be flat.
Interesting.
So you haven't personally looked into this stuff?
You have no reason to doubt the standard model.
Sounds like some sort of spheroid is outside the standard model.
You should research people "detecting curvature".
What is the math? What is the standard model you are referring to?
I have not personally investigated details beyond proving to myself it must be a type of sphere, no. No other topology will work. Not a torus. Not flat.
You can find the standard model by searching on something as simple as Wikipedia. As already stated, I accept the complete standard model with a different level of conviction than I do the information I have personally proven, which is that the earth must be a sphere of some kind due to positive curvature everywhere. I am already very aware of the mathematics behind curvature detection, so I do not need to research that. The triangle method I stated earlier is absolutely definitive.
The exact details you mention do not particularly interest me. They are irrelevant to my life, and nobody has ever given me a valid reason to care about the relevant accuracy the standard model. But if this is of significant interest to you, I definitely encourage you to follow your curiosity.