The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Earth is a cube, or supermassive, not a sphere!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 518 times Debate No: 107093
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (52)
Votes (0)




A sphere you can hold can be perceived by one half or two thirds.

Earth cannot be perceived in this way because of it's mass; it's supermassive.

Earth can only be constructed to be spherical if we take at least four pictures; that's four quadrants of the Earth perceived to guess it's a sphere.

What's really constructed is cubic, or supermassive; it can't be defined as a singular and must be composed of multiple harmonious parts - in Earth's case, four quadrants.

A cube shouldn't be thought of as a drawn cube, as a drawn cube can easily be said to be an Earth rather than vice versa. Instead, assume cubic time in which all things relate.


Your fancy schmancy scientific jargon is no match for the undeniable facts which I'm going to bring to the table! Let's get this thing going! The earth is not a cube, it is a sphere. It is a big sphere, with a lot of mass, but still a sphere. Not a perfect sphere, there are mountains and valleys, of course, but still a rough sphere.
Debate Round No. 1


Earth can only be constructed with multiple photographs or a video that covers four quadrants, into what looks like a sphere.

The fact it requires geographical construction to look like a sphere means that it's shape is truthfully a supermicro cube.

Yes, when looked at closely Earth is lots of shapes but if we are to discuss what geographical nature Earth is best understood by it's a cube; because of the geographical construction process.

It's not how it's perceived from a collection of four photos, but from someone's standard perception.

The best answer for understanding the geographical nature of Earth is a cube because that's how the supermassive is fathomed - it's logical opposite!

I ask Con to provide evidence that Earth can be understood as a sphere without multiple photos or a video that covers four quadrants.

I ask Con to tell me how constructing a shape in this way creates a sphere rather than a cube? It's not how

If he cannot provide evidence or answer my question, it would have to be considered that my argument the winner.

I hope Con doesn't become ignorant and arrogant and post more information on Earth without contesting my claim or providing the evidence, or providing an answer to the question I asked for.


Earth can actually look like a sphere with just ONE photograph:

See, it's a SPHERE. In other words, a three dimensional circle. Now, since you haven't finished preschool, I'll run you through the basics of geometry. A CIRCLE is a round shape with no sides, a diameter, and a circumference. A SQUARE is a four sided polygon with equally long sides and equally angled corners. When you take a circle, and make it three dimensional, you get a SPHERE. SPHERES can be seen anywhere, they're the shape of most sports balls. Equally curved and rounded on all sides. Now, If you take a SQUARE and extrude it, so that the HEIGHT is equal to the LENGTH and the WIDTH, then you get a CUBE, which is a six -sided, three dimensional shape. The shape of a rubik's cube, or a die. Now, as you can see from the picture, The EARTH is ROUND and SPHERICAL. It has no angles, or corners, or edges, like a CUBE would have. Here are the articles on both shapes, cube and sphere.

It is not a "supermicro" cube. You use fancy scientific words to pretend like you know what you're talking about, but you're evidently a naive dolt. Now, I'll try to show you, as easily as I can, what the world WOULD be like if it WAS a cube. Bear in mind, these are just rough sketches, and they do not factor in things like physics, gravity, or the many other things which would be affected if the Earth was the shape you say it is.

Figure 1:

Now, see, here's the thing. If the Earth WAS a cube, then, at some point going around it, you'd find a sharp, 90 degree angle below you, somewhat like a sharp cliff. However, you would not fall off it, you'd simply turn ninety degrees OVER it, because of how gravity holds you on an astral body, and the plane you were ON would become the new face of the cliff. It would be a bizarre experience. But there are no sharp ninety degree angles on the Earth, so it is not a cube. It is a sphere with a very wide diameter, so it seems flat. The curve is very gradual and we can't notice it unless we're orbiting the Earth. This is basic geometry, and you make it seem so hard.

Figure 2: Cube Earth Vs. Spherical earth:

Remember the real picture from before? Here's a diagram, laid out VERY simply, that shows how a cube Earth would look like when compared to a spherical Earth. The SPHERE Earth looks fine, round, just like it is in real life. Your insane CUBE Earth, on the other hand, is angled, and it's all square. Earth is not like that. It is not a cube. You're an idiot.

None of this has anything to do with any sort of "geographical construction process". Do you just put a bunch of fancy words together and expect them to be accepted? No way, Jose. People know what real smartness is. Quit using those pseudo-intellectual tidbits. It's only making you look bad.

From someone's "standard perception," as you put it, they'd see a sphere. Go up into space, right now, go ask NASA if they'll send you up to the International Space Station. Go up a few thousand feet, and you'll notice exactly what I've been trying to tell you. You'll just see a big, blue sphere, floating around in the universe. That's all there is to it. We are not a cube. Go and look. Just a sphere.

Now, you say "The best answer for understanding the geographical nature of Earth is a cube because that's how the supermassive is fathomed - it's logical opposite!" But that is not how it works, and I don't know what the Hell a "supermassive" is. The spellchecker says it's not a real word, and I don't think it is. In the next round, please provide a short dictionary for all your fake words, OK? earth is not a "supermassive"- just a pretty big rock, floating in space- and the same laws of geometry apply to it just as much as they apply to a standard golf ball. You can't say that something is the opposite of what it is. That's like saying day is night or up is down. Things are what they are. Also, spheres and cubes are not OPPOSITES- just different three dimensional shapes.

Of course, Earth is NOT a perfect sphere- it has some irregularities, and bumps, that keep it from being a PERFECT sphere. Still technically a sphere. But there are no REAL perfect spheres. math, in some ways, can't always apply to our world- because our world is imperfect and unexact. If you measure an inch, you're really measuring an inch and an infinite number of nanometers, there can be no perfections in an imperfect world. Math is an abstract concept, it exists in a world where everything is perfect. We will never have just one orange- we will have 1.000000000000000000000000000001 oranges, and on into infinity. The Earth is not a PERFECT sphere because there is no such thing as a REAL PERFECT SPHERE. But it's much more like a sphere than a cube, since it has no flat faces, no edges, and no corners.

I have provided evidence with only one photo, and without a video, and with a few perfectly logical diagrams, and a few simple Wikipedia articles, and I have told you why Earth is a sphere, not a cube, and your argument does not win just because you say it does, and if you deny all my sources, and call them invalid even when they're obviously true, then you would be committing a logical fallacy. (And no, that is NOT a fancy made up word!)

Please, do better with your burden of proof and rebut everything I've said right here in a rational and reasonable manner. Your claim is insane, it cannot be proven, you are loony. Also, give me a few articles where EXPERTS claim that Earth is a cube.

Why do so many people on here try to prove impossible things? I just don't get it.
Debate Round No. 2


When taking less that four photos only a partial Earth is constructed but we can guess then that Earth is a sphere.

If we take two photos, we have 1/2 of the information, we need the other 1/2 to confirm it's a sphere; if we take three photos, we only have 2/3 of the information, we need the other 1/3, to confirm that it's a sphere.

Your argument that we can construct Earth in less that four photos doesn't stand, it's impossible and requires guesswork.

As I mentioned before, there is a difference between a sphere and Earth's sphere effect.

A sphere you can construct on Earth will always be perceived at one side to show 1/2 or 2/3 of it's shape, whereas Earth's sphere effect can only be perceived to show 1/4 of it's shape, meaning that it's supermassive, and therefore not a sphere, but a supermassive planet.

Earth can't be defined as a single sided shape, given it is supermassive, it must be defined by it's supermassive quality.

A drawn cube is not the same as a supermicro cube; drawn cubes can only be understood when slanted at an angle.

A supermicro cube, such as our heads and minds, do not require a slant to understand.

You can't see the front of someone's head and the back of someone's head simultaneously, it's what differentiates the supermicro cubic human beings, from cube objects we have created.

Understand the technical barrier between us creating a shape that's created naturally. artificially.

Earth has many effects: mountains, animals, seas, etc.; a primary effect of the cubic time continuum is Earth's perceptive sphere effect which allows Earth to spin and orbit.

Earth's spin and orbit is equally due to the Sun's mass and the stimuli in it's Solar System, as it does by itself; this process is actually a great harmony of opposite Stars and Planets, and as Earth is constructed cubic we can say that this harmony is cubic harmony.

A star moves in vertical orbit in the universe; the process of Earth's horizontal orbit and spin is more complex than it seems from a video in Earth's orbit.

The continuum of all solar effects surrounding Earth allows it's supermassive shape to exist, and it's supermassive shape is a cube.

You're correct in saying what's perceived from a photographic construction of Earth is a sphere, but that's because of Earth's spin, orbit and perceptive sphere effect; it's geographical nature and how it's geographical nature is perceived are different.

My case is that Con has not proved that Earth can be constructed without four photos or a video of four quadrants, and he has not answered why a shape constructed this way is a sphere; therefore Con hasn't shown wisdom, and it must be considered that my argument is the winner.


As the guys from OK Go once said, "Here it goes again". Let's have at it. I hope you've devised something logical that I'll have a tough time working around. Nah. Probably just the same old nonsense. Yup. here we are. Round 3, and still nothing.

I still don't understand anything you're saying, sir, you seem to be talking gibberish. This is a new spin on that old "flat earth" baloney, I'll give you that. Very new and very weird. I don't get what you're trying to prove here. You can't prove it anyway, but you could try a little better.

Your math is actually pretty flawed, sir, because, see, I gave you just ONE photo, that proves Earth is s sphere. I ROVED it in less than four photos, because you do not need four photos of a sphere to prove that the object is a sphere. Just one will suffice. Your math is flawed. I can take a picture of a tennis ball, and I can see, just from that ONE photo, that it is a sphere. It's all about the lighting. Now, I'll post another photo, once again taken from space, by some astronauts, and it might prove to you how Earth is a sphere. OK?

That picture is from NASA, very reliable source, taken from some spacecraft. Right? look at how the shape we see is not a SQUARE, but a CIRCLE. It's a 3-dimensional circle. In other words, it's a SPHERE. It's a big, rocky sphere in the middle of space. When the solar system formed, little chunks of rock became bigger chunks of rock. Gravity, in its most natural state, does not have the ability to form complex 3-dimensional shapes like cubes. As gravity pushed in from all sides, equally, we were left with the shape of a SPHERE. This is not hard to grasp, sir.

That photo is only of ONE half of Earth, but we can still see that it's a circle, so the other side must be circular, too. For gosh sakes, man, we can't document the entire surface of the Earth in one photo, that's geometrically impossible. We can only take one half at a time. To see the whole surface of the Earth, it would have to be made of hollow glass. And it's not.

There is NO difference between a SPHERE and "Earth's sphere effect"-whatever that means. Still using those fancy scientific buzzwords, aren't ya? EARTH is a SPHERE, no matter how many ways you slice it- a THREE DIMENSIONAL CIRCLE WITH AN EQUAL DIAMETER AND CIRCUMFERENCE ALL OVER. This isn't hard, man. Why are you making it so hard?

Spheres on Earth are exactly the same as the sphere that IS Earth. You can't take two-thirds of a tennis ball in one picture. Again, that's mathematically impossible. You can only take half, not MORE than half. Same with Earth- you can't only get 1/4 in a picture, that's LESS than half. You can ONLY get HALF of a sphere in one picture, unless 1/4 of the sphere is excluded from the picture or something like that.

Since all these fractions are a bit confusing, I'll post some fractions here for reference:

Earth IS a planet. It's not a "SUPERMASSIVE" planet, though, whatever that means. Just a planet, and, like 99.99999999% of all the planets in the universe, it's pretty spherical. i mean, why call it "supermassive"? that makes it sound BIG. it's not a very big planet in the grand scheme of things, even though WE perceive it to be big. It's pretty small for a planet. According to Google, 1,300 Earths could fit inside Jupiter. It's a tiny little ball of dust. Not SUPER-MASSIVE or whatever you call it. The biggest planet we've discovered, though, as of late, outside our own solar system, is TRES4, which is talked about in this article, WAY bigger than Jupe.

Is "supermassive" just how you say "big"? Well, just so you know, the laws of geometry apply EVERYWHERE in the universe. No matter how BIG earth is, it's just a sphere, just like any soccer ball or baseball. This must be pretty astonishing for a dimbulb like you. It CAN be defined as a single sided shape. A SPHERE IS A SINGLE SIDED SHAPE. It sure isn't a cube- cubes have SIX SIDES. Earth does not have six sides. And it is NOT "supermassive"- so it CAN'T be "defined by it's supermassive quality." Also, you used the wrong kind of "ITS" there. Just thought I'd point that out.

A DRAWN cube is NOT the same as a "SUPERMICRO" cube-you're right, there- because "SUPERMICRO" cubes don't freaking EXIST- just another fancy scientific buzzword you made up in order to give yourself credibility. You're not Neil DeGrasse Tyson, man. You never will be. Drawn cubes CAN only be understood by their features- their number of faces and vertices and edges- and so can REGULAR cubes. If something doesn't have six equal sides, it's not a cube. our heads and our minds are not cubes. They're irregular little lumps of flesh. they look nothing like cubes. HERE'S what we'd look like if our heads were CUBES:

Just thought I'd point that out. I just HAD to. You made it too easy for me.

Human beings are not "Supermicro cubic-" and we can't see through our own heads. What did you take before starting this debate? LSD or something? Also, cubes in nature are the same as cubes we make- except there are very few cubes in nature. Thee are some circles, maybe a few triangles, but very few natural cubes with 6 equal sides. I can't think of any, but if there were any, they'd be subject to the same undeniable laws of geometry as a man-made cube.

Earth has mountains, and seas, and it is not affected by the "cubic time continuum"- because that thing is fake- and it's a sphere that spins around the sun. Really, how have I written twenty paragraphs about this already? It's so simple to understand. So insanely simple. Kindergarteners know this stuff. Why don't you get it? Why do you refuse to learn anything, you ignorant lout?

Earth's orbit IS due to the mass of the sun, you have that right. but it has nothing to do with "a great harmony of opposite stars and planets"- that sounds like L. Ron Hubbard to me- and there are no OPPOSITE stars and planets, just DIFFERENT stars and planets- and we only have ONE star near us- and earth is NOT constructed cubic and the harmony is NOT "cubic" harmony". I feel like I'm grading the test paper of a class clown.

A star does not move in "vertical" orbit in the universe- because in space, there is no "up" or "down". Stars move in all kinds of directions, but they don't orbit around much-mainly, it's the PLANETS who orbit around THEM. The process of Earth's horizontal orbit and spin around the sun IS pretty complex- there are entire books dedicated to its physics- and a video taken from Earth's orbit can't capture all the complex processes it goes through- some of those processes take MILLIONS of years, after all.

The gravity of all the things around Earth all Do have a say in how Earth moves around- every planet exerts a little tugging on everything around it- But Earth is not supermassive, and its supermassive shape- I repeat- is NOT a cube. Earth is nothing like a cube, it is NOT a cube. It is a sphere. Plain and simple.

What's perceived in a photo of Earth IS a sphere. and, since photos are an accurate representation of reality, unless they're photoshopped, Earth ITSELF IS A SPHERE. You're doing what I asked you not to, sir, you're refusing to accept any of the evidence I've provided and you're calling it invalid. You're a twit, sir. Earth does not have any "perceptive sphere" effect"- we PERCEIVE it to be a sphere, because it IS a sphere. Its geographical nature and how its geographical nature is perceived are NOT different, what we see is what there is. We don't PERCEIVE Atlantis, so, therefore, it doesn't exist. You don't see to have much faith in completely accurate human perception.

Your argument does not win. It is completely invalid. If you want to win, then give me some sources about this cube thing and tell me what "supermassive" means. I can only hope that you have something to bolster your weak argument and give it a shred of credibility. I'll be waiting-one last picture, for you:
Debate Round No. 3


What do you think? Is it worth making the worldwide upgrade of believing in Earth's cubic time continuum?

We should accept the fact it's a matter of perception where Earth, a continuum, has a sphere effect, Earth is a monumental shape in a solar system of monuments, the Sun is a Light God to monument planets.

The planet is a supermassive shape and therefore is great, to be great it excels by universal standards.

If we consider it's shape, we consider more than a sphere, which in a planet's case is a cube, that greater than a particle, a cube logically.

It has spin and orbit, therefore is already more advanced than a man-made sphere.

The total organism of Earth is cubic, so to define it's shape, we use a cube; a sphere in principle but not in shape, where it is with it's own devices it has cubic property, but is perceived by our eyes as a sphere.


I don't think the world is ever going to "upgrade" to believing in "Earth's cubic time continuum"- mainly, because that thing does not exist. You're just making things up. It seems you need some more education on what a cube is. I'll inform you a bit.

0th dimension- A single point. No width, height, or length.
1st dimension- A line. Length only.
2nd dimension- A square. Length and Width. A flat surface.
3rd dimension- A cube. Length, width, and height. Our dimension.
4th dimension- Some call it time, but others say it's yet another direction, perpendicular to the other three, that our minds can't comprehend. Shadow of a 4-dimensional hypercube is called a "tesseract".

Heck, I'll even put a video here, for you.

It's a badly made video, but it's easy for imbeciles like you to grasp.

I don't know if you're talking about the 4th dimension or not. What are you saying?

Earth is not a "monumental shape" in a "solar system of monuments"- and the Sun is NOT "a Light God to monument planets". The Sun is not a God. Is this some insane melding of religion and science? I've had it up to HERE with that Scientology stuff, so if that's what you're into, just go and put some more money at the feet of L. Ron Hubbard's corpse. Don't bug me about it. The planets are not "monuments". They're just big clumps of dirt and rock, molded together by gravity through millions of years. MONUMENTS are a dedication to a famous historical event- or a deity of some kind. You know, a statue. The Sun is a big ball of Hydrogen and Helium. It's not a light god. Here's a map for you.

The planet is not a supermassive shape- and it's not "great"- For gosh sakes, man, our planet, Earth, is subject to the same universal laws which we experience every day. You're a toddler in preschool, so the world might seem huge to you. It's not THAT big as far as the universe goes. The universe is freaking huge, and we might not be able to explain dark matter or anything like that- there are REAL mysteries out there- but you're stupid to say that Earth is somehow magical, and not a sphere, just because it's big to US. We've gone up there, and we've taken pictures, and what we see is a sphere. OK?

Go ask John Glenn.

If we DO consider its shape, we can see that it's a sphere- you know, the shape of a football. No planet is cube shaped. Almost every planet in the universe is sphere shaped. Some of them are a little bumpy- Mars, for instance- and they can develop some angles if they get hit by a big asteroid- but gravity eventually presses and compacts the rock fragments back into a sphere. And what do you mean by "greater than a particle"? WE'RE bigger than particles- molecules and atoms. The laws of geometry are the same no matter how you slice it-EARTH IS NOT A CUBE.

Earth has spin and orbit, but that's because of gravity, and physics, and the huge mass of the Sun- it does not mean that it is more "advanced" than a man made sphere. It moves around on its own, but if we shoved a soccer ball up into space, it would orbit too. It just doesn't because it's here on Earth, trapped by the gravity of Earth, and if we kick it up, it'll come back down. Earth is not any different from a man made sphere. Just bigger and a little bumpier. It may not have the same circumference all over- it might be a little bumpy, but it's more similar in shape to a SPHERE than to a CUBE.

Earth is not an "organism"- it's not alive- and it's not cubic. We do not "use a cube" to define the shape of things- we just see what the shape looks like and call it that shape. Earth is a sphere, so we call it a sphere. Its shape is a sphere. It has no angles or corners. It is perceived as a sphere by our eyes because IT'S A SPHERE.

This is so easy. Unless you begin to debate in round 5, you're going to lose. Please, sir, use less buzzwords. They're not helping you out any. I await your next argument.
Debate Round No. 4


Earth is a shape that is not a pointless lump of rock; it is also a shape; too broadly defined as a sphere. A supermassive planet in a system of other's of the same type of supermassive; as if a supermassive birth occurred.

Earth's gravity links to a greater universe, gravity is not a pointless entity as separate from the shape of Earth; gravity is created from the Earth's cubic nature.

The spherical Earth is wrong as it is more a certain shape which fits a system rather than an entity separate to a system; Earth as a sphere is an outcast shape that doesn't have a logical connection to the shape of the universe.


Alright. Last round. Here we go. And don't be disappointed if you lose, it's inevitable. This whole debate has been one big long dung heap and I can't wait until it's over. Thank gosh. You have provided no evidence for your claims, you have driveled on without really rebutting any of my statements, and you seem to believe something that you just won't explain. I'd appreciate it if you explained your garbage in the comment section once all this is done. Here we go. Last round. Never debating this again.

Earth is just a big rock. Just a big rock that's sat in an infinite black void for a very long time, and you can't give it supernatural qualities, because it possesses none. It IS a shape. And it IS a sphere. A big, round sphere. It is not "too broadly defined" as a sphere," it is defined as a sphere because it is a big ball, a big, three dimensional circle. It's a big, spherical planet, with a few other spherical planets, and NONE of them are "supermassive". And NONE of them resulted from a "supermassive birth". They were formed from a big, swirling nebula about four billion or more years ago. Earth is actually about 1/3 the age of the universe. It's been around for a long time.

Here's a cosmic calendar for you:

And here's an article about the formation of the solar system:

Somebody's got to teach you this mind-bogglingly easy science.

Earth's gravity, in a sense, does link to a greater universe. I'm sure the sun, on the outer rim of the Milky Way, does exert a slight tug on some nearby stars, but remember, the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is still 4.22 light years away. Earth's gravity probably doesn't mean much at all to close stars like Proxima Centauri. Gravity is not a pointless entity. It's certainly not pointless, but it's not an entity, just a physical force, with no life in it. Gravity exists everywhere within the universe, and it is NOT created from the Earth. The Earth does not produce all the gravity in the universe. Every planet and star creates some gravity. Go to Jupiter and there'll be some gravity there. You'd feel like a cement block, though. See, the bigger a planet or star is, the more gravity it exerts upon objects close to it. It's not just a thing here on Earth. Here's yet another article for your mentally challenged brain to try and absorb:

The spherical Earth is correct, and agreed upon by 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all serious scientists, because you can go up above the Earth, take a picture, and see that the shape of the Earth is a sphere. It's not that hard to figure out. The sphere is a certain shape, which fits a certain system, the system of astronomy and mathematics, and since Earth is subject to that system, the system of physics and mathematics, and is not separate to that system, and is not an entity with magical powers, or a "supermassive," as you put it, it can without a doubt be defined as a sphere, and to deny that is to say that beef soup is made from gummy worms.

Earth as a sphere is not an "outcast shape," a sphere is just as much a valid shape as a cube, and since the Earth does not have six equal sides, or four corners, it can't be a cube. It's a sphere. Earth as a sphere absolutely has a logical connection to the shape of the universe. It's spherical, like all other planets, and it orbits around the Sun, like the other planets in our solar system, and it's subject to gravity just like anything else. You don't know what any of what you're saying means, do you?

Didn't think so.

Judges, vote however you want, if you REALLY want to vote for this loon, then go ahead. But that would be the wrong decision. This man makes a mockery of science and that's inexcusable. He's a fool. Go ahead and vote- I'm prepared to see the outcome of this. I'm outta here.
Debate Round No. 5
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 3 weeks ago
Yeah, I can see that.
Posted by Actions_Speak 3 weeks ago
Fun fact if you had an ordinary marble and could expand it to the size of the earth, the earth would be smother.
Posted by WOLF.J 4 weeks ago
I heard Earth is a lemon shape. And it is made out of magic beans!
Posted by Trapeeze 4 weeks ago
I agree that it's a sphere only when I'm assessing it's effect(s) in the solar system, but not when it's a stand-alone shape, because what allows Earth to stand-alone is cubic time!
Posted by Trapeeze 4 weeks ago
Earth would wobble out and cease to exist without it's cubic time continuum.
Posted by Trapeeze 4 weeks ago
Converting the supermassive quality of Earth's perceptive sphere effect into a sphere you can hold is wrong; it's converting a naturally occurring shape to an artificial shape!
Posted by frankfurter50 4 weeks ago
Wow. 35 comments in under an hour. Looks like a viral debate. I'll have to be appealing.
Posted by Trapeeze 4 weeks ago
Posted by EmeryP 4 weeks ago
Just an education note.

cubic time continuum - Undefined, and does not reference anything scientific.
Cubic shape - a cube is a three-dimensional solid object bounded by six square faces, facets or sides, with three meeting at each vertex.
Sphere effect - Undefined, and does not reference anything scientific.
Posted by Trapeeze 4 weeks ago
Not exactly Son_of_Titan, but sort of, it depends in what context you are using space and it's dimensions.

Earth is kept in a cubic time continuum by the Sun and it's Solar System.

In other words, for time, Earth reacting to various stimuli; Earth maintains a cubic shape to be a planet in the solar system, by reacting to various stimuli, such as the Sun's mass and it's Solar System effect.

This harmonious process causes the Earth to produce an array of effects, one of them being a sphere effect - the most prominent, planet defining effect, because it's geometrically opposite, often confused with Earth's geometrical shape.
No votes have been placed for this debate.