Is there a truly rationale basis here (other than “magnetic north” which is equally arbitrary and has rotated)? I’d argue since the vast majority of the world’s population lives in the northern hemisphere, it generally makes sense to put that at the top, all else being equal.

On the contrary, it makes the most sense to place some point of the equator on top, so that you can rotate to look at any part of the globe you want, surely?

It's a lot easier to add the rest of the solar system if it rotates around the Earth horizontally, and you need that to explain the day/night cycle, seasons and tides.

Call me weird if you must, but I would prefer a globe rotate in the same fashion as the planet does: around the poles.

That's perfectly compatible with the poles being on the sides and the equator being on a vertical plane. In fact, many globes can be tilted to this position and the main rotation still happens around the poles.

Granted, but surely that would place "all points" on the equator "on top" rather than "some point"?

You're right, I spoke imprecisely. Some point on top to begin with, any other equatorial point you want with a quick spin.

They all do, but you can have more than one dimension of rotation.

Look at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B085K2ZPWB/ .

You're still free to spin the earth backwards, though.

Interesting, so a globe on a 90 degree axial tilt rather than a 23 degree one. I'm sure I've seen such (either fixed at 90 degees or variable from 0-90 degrees), but I can't see any after a quick browser online.

But if the majority of the population lives in the northern hemisphere, shouldn't that make it heavier and thus flip the earth, placing the south pole on the top?

For one, the southern hemisphere is mostly water.

I think there is, actually: The Milky Way Galaxy. South is "down" towards the center, North is "up" towards the exterior. It was a revelation to realize this after growing up looking at the Milky Way in Northern Europe, that we're somewhat stationary in relation to the galaxy.

Can you explain this more? I do not understand this

The galactic center roughly aligns with the constellation Sagittarius, which is considered a southern constellation.

If you try to do milky way astrophotography in the northern hemisphere you quickly find out you are limited to the late spring / early summer, because you want to be seeing the southern sky at night. Most of the year the sun is too close to Sagittarius during daylight hours, making viewing impossible.

no, just most people lives on top that's all.

That would be cruel. The turtles would be unable to right themselves and could possibly die.

Hahaha. I was wondering if I shd mention this. Of course north is up (like on any map :-)). On a more serious not this is probably really a political bias, but a lot of globes can be taken out and rotated in the frame (maybe with tooling). So one shd check before buying if the north bias can be cured.

But then you need to stand on your hands to read the labels

Sports is good, isnt it

On what basis do you pick a definition for a globe being "upside down"?

The claim there is no distortion all depends on one’s perspective. Top, bottom and, obviously, size have been chosen.

Distortion shares a root with torsion, twisting.

Scaling something evenly is not distortion, nor is placing it upside down, or otherwise changing its orientation.

There is no sense or perspective in which the orientation of a globe can be said to distort the shape of its features.

I honestly thought I must have missed something big until I got to your comment... It seemed painfully incongruous in my mind to equate the demonstrably geometric ‘distortion’ artifacts directly resulting from a lower dimensional representation of a sphere ... to the mathematically unrelated notion of orienting the observational frame of reference. 2D maps literally distort and misrepresent the spatial arrangement of our planet’s surface in a metaphysical sense. Globes do not suffer from this distortion of space in their spherical approximate representation of the planet. The latter seems to be the the most salient point of the thread given whether you use an actual globe or a virtual one such a Google Earth... both of which are ubiquitously common and available ... it seems practically irrelevant (if nevertheless interesting) to consider the distortion of a 2D map as an actual “problem”. And whether or not one agrees with that, it’s wholly unrelated to whether you choose to hold your 2D map or 3D globe upside and any other orientation relative to your observational frame of reference—the former remains geometrically distorted in an egregious manner and the latter not.

I believe the other commenter is referring to a distortion of mental perspective, not geometry, and honestly I’m buying it. It’s so strange to look at a globe upside down, even though there’s nothing unnatural about it.

certainly not the right-hand rule.

right hand rule for orital motion instead (or am i as usual getting this wrong)

it was mostly a joke, since the right-hand rule is itself an arbitrary convention.

I think you are right though; "up" and "down" are defined by applying the right-hand rule to the orbits of the planets around the sun, not their rotation about their own axes. this is why we consider venus to spin "backwards" as opposed to being "upside down". this does lead to an odd conundrum in the case of uranus, whose axial tilt is almost a right angle. which of uranus's poles is north?

> the right-hand rule is itself an arbitrary convention

This may not be true - if magnetic monopoles exist, choice of handedness becomes linked to choice of magnetic sign convention.