I think it has to do with natural resources and outside influences. Tribes in Africa tend to be small due to food, disease, and other dangers of jungle living, leading to an isolationist lifestyle. This way of life tends to stagnate.
People that moved to temperate zones had more resources as the land is easier to work with, less disease and predators, and because moving around is easier they had more outside influences.
I think you better go read that part again
Because the Mercator projection preserves shape but not area. Many rumor it also has to do with white colonial rule trying to add importance through false size on this projection, which is still the standard in schools today.
For a more accurate projection that preserves size:
http://www.petersmap.com/
or check out the Mollweide/Eckert here:
http://www.equal-area-maps.com/mollweide.php
Unfortunately there isn't a way to preserve all four aspects (shape, distance, area, direction) which is why there are so many projections that will accentuate one or two of the 4 aspects. Mashing a round surface onto a flat surface will always have distortion (3D-->2D plane).
If that's the true size of Africa, why is it always so small on all maps?
On google map, America is more than half the size of it, not a third.
If that's the true size of Africa, why is it always so small on all maps?
On google map, America is more than half the size of it, not a third.
Africa is 24% larger than North America.This map is stupid.
Show me an overlay of the entire North American continent (Canada, USA, and Mexico) and Africa for comparisson. Im betting they are very close is size.
This map is stupid.
Show me an overlay of the entire North American continent (Canada, USA, and Mexico) and Africa for comparisson. Im betting they are very close is size.
Because the Mercator projection preserves shape but not area. Many rumor it also has to do with white colonial rule trying to add importance through false size on this projection, which is still the standard in schools today.
For a more accurate projection that preserves size:
http://www.petersmap.com/
or check out the Mollweide/Eckert here:
http://www.equal-area-maps.com/mollweide.php
Unfortunately there isn't a way to preserve all four aspects (shape, distance, area, direction) which is why there are so many projections that will accentuate one or two of the 4 aspects. Mashing a round surface onto a flat surface will always have distortion (3D-->2D plane).
This map is stupid.
Show me an overlay of the entire North American continent (Canada, USA, and Mexico) and Africa for comparisson. Im betting they are very close is size.
If you can f_ a globe, maybe you should audition to be the next goatse man.It's called a fucking globe.
Because the earth is round, and method of representing its surface on a flat drawing will always introduce some form of distortion. The main types of distortion are shape, area and length. Different methods of drawing maps have been designed to minimize different types of distortion, or to alter the balance of distortions for special purposes.
The most popular method of drawing maps for "general" use is the Mercator projection. This is popular because it is very simple, and minimizes distortion of shape and distance (along the lines of latitude and longitude). The problem with the Mercator projection is that it severely distorts areas - the further from the equator you get, the more the area is magnified. This means the ice caps (and arctic countries) appear massive.
So, compared to Africa (most of which is close to the equator), the USA which is mostly further North, appears massively magnified on Mercator projection maps.
There are many different "equal-area" projections available for maps, which preserve areas, but tend to distort shapes or distances.
e.g. The Gall-Peters projection which preserves area and preserve straight lines of longitude/latitude, but distorts shape.
Mollweide projection which gives a different type of shape distortion.
There are more complex versions like:
the interrupted Good homolosine projection which is a "cut" version of the Mollweide projection, designed for less distortion of continents, at the cost of "cutting" the oceans.
Africa should be bigger than all other land mass combined, if size were based off of prevelance of AIDS.
I haven't posted here in over 2 months, and won't be back after this. I just wanted to remind you 1 last time how you're an unfunny cuntflap.
have a blessed day...
The Continents: Land Area
Continent Area in Square Miles
(Square Km) Percent of Total Land Area on Earth
The World 57,308,738 Sq. Miles (148,429,000 Sq. Km) 100%
Asia (plus the Middle East) 17,212,000 Sq. Miles (44,579,000 Sq. Km) 30.0%
Africa 11,608,000 Sq. Miles (30,065,000 Sq. Km) 20.3%
North America 9,365,000 Sq. Miles (24,256,000 Sq. Km) 16.3%
South America 6,880,000 Sq. Miles (17,819,000 Sq. Km) 12.0%
Antarctica 5,100,000 Sq. Miles (13,209,000 Sq. Km) 8.9%
Europe 3,837,000 Sq. Miles (9,938,000 Sq. Km) 6.7%
Australia (plus Oceania) 2,968,000 Sq. Miles (7,687,000 Sq. Km) 5.2%
This map is stupid.
Show me an overlay of the entire North American continent (Canada, USA, and Mexico) and Africa for comparisson. Im betting they are very close is size.