/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11528706
What did you do to Antarctica?

>>11528706
Eurasia should be split into 5 continents:
Europe
South Asia
Middle East
East Asia
Southeast Asia.

>>11528715
Ignore it no one will live there or lives there because Antarctic Treaty and it that turns out to be Archipelago under that ice so lets not talk about it.

>>11528716
Why? We are talking about continents not tectonic plates.

Why not split America into 7 continents
Top America
middle top America
middle middle top America
true middle America
middle middle bottom America
middle bottom America
bottom America.

Makes as much sense as anything else.

>>11528706
>Afro-Eurasia
Just Afrasia, it sounds better and Europe is too small to be included in the name of the continent
Australia is an island.

>>11528719
kek, he doesn't know about the Russians sending pregnant women there.

I want to sage your thread for forgetting beautiful Antarctica. But you're not wrong with the rest.

>>11528706
Panama canal, America is literally two separate landmasses

>>11528731
Based.

>>11528731
Europe is the only relevant part of that Supercontinent besides East Asia. Why not simply call it Eurasia since Africa will only be an useless appendix that is being colonised for the fourth time or so.

>>11528719
>it that turns out to be Archipelago under that ice
Only because the weight of the ice pushes a lot of it below sea level.
Without the Ice it would look like this.

>>11528779
Because we're labeling continents based on geography, not sociology. Otherwise, we might as well combine Europe with North America and Australia.

>>11528782
Source? That looks like someone just recolored Antarctica, though that bottom part near the south pole looks like it changed if I'm not wrong?

>>11528748
Man made also the distance is smaller then from France to Britain.

Also you can literally walk over the connection its not like its water there.

>>11528779
based

>>11528706
Try justifying uniting Eurasia and Africa in one first.
They're tectonically distinct landmasses separated by an oceanic strait.

It depends on the field. I am no expert, but i guess that from the point of view of geology, considering tectonics and so forth, there is no real justification (the separation would be arbitrary). Now, from the rest of fields you can think of (e.g. human history), even in conjunction with geology (e.g. availability of valuable ores for making tools) , it is clear that humanity thrives at the extremes of a west-east axis, where conditions for crop production, shepherding, metallurgy, etc. are met. Continental climate towards the east of the ural ridge, arabian peninsula etc. are an exclusion region.

>>11528844
>They're tectonically distinct landmasses
Sorry anon there are 3 tectonic plates in what you call Asia already.
Yet magically you don't call these regions different continents.

Tectonic plates are for tectonic plates and earth quakes and these things continents are a division based on travel and you realize that no one did travel by see to America and it took a shit load of effort. This is the basis for my classification.

Also explain the old/new world happening in history.
People where walking over Euro-afro-asia all the time unlike with america these worlds where separated from one another.

>>11528882
>Yet magically you don't call these regions different continents.
Not magically. Logically, because they're not separated by the ocean.
Is you brain unable to handle categories based on more than one property ?

>>11528882
I really like that picture; never seen a map of the plates before. Thanks, anon!

>>11528881
>but i guess that from the point of view of geology, considering tectonics and so forth
I agree with this there is no debating where to put the lines of tectonic plates.

My division is based on sea travel times and availability. You notice that the people from Euro-afro-asia (I hate this name personally) where in contact all the time from their perspective they lived on the world island.

To travel by sea to America it took extreme effort and America Australia and Euro-afro-asia where separate worlds to this point. hence the name new world and old world.

This is also reflected in the biological makeup of the animals of these continents.

This is how people where thinking how the world island looks like (excuse mapping errors because old times).

>>11528903
>never seen a map of the plates before.
Didn't you go to school ?

>>11528910
Yeah, but we never covered this. Also, I never payed attention or did any work.

>>11528904
>My division is based on sea travel times and availability.
>America Australia and Euro-afro-asia where separate worlds to this point. hence the name new world and old world.
Then why aren't you satisfied with these very names and must redefine continents to fit the old world/new world dichotomy ?

>>11528903
No problem check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uBcq1x7P34

It also goes into the tectonic plate discussion.

>>11528898
>Logically, because they're not separated by the ocean.
And Europ is? You see the problems and literally special pleading.

Produce a algorithm of what a continent actually is and then run it, pro tip people will check your execution of this algorithm and find problems.

Trust me keeping the USA-ian 7 continent model is next to impossible without ultra arbitrary special rules to push what was indoctrinated to you by the USA-an education system.

>>11528919
>Yeah, but we never covered this
I'm surprised. By curiosity, where did you go to school ?

>>11528924
>And Europ is?
No, and I don't consider europe to be a separate continent, like many other people. No problem there.

>>11528726
You really suck at naming things

>>11528928
Australia. Probably the weakest 1st world country in terms of education.

>>11528924
Thanks.

>>11528921
Because the old and new world where merged into one world since the 1800. Or do you seriously think its super difficult to travel from Australia to America in this day and age?

They stopped being separate worlds a long time ago.

>with these very names and must
We are trying to define what a continent is. And I'm pointing out that there is a difference between traveling by sea to Britain and traveling by sea to America from Spain. This is all and I'm using this distance as the norm.

>>11528904
Also this is one of these old time maps of Euro-afro-asia mistakes where made because lack of information and old times.

>>11528937
Ok. what model do you propose then?
Is America split into 2 continents?

>>11528939
>You really suck at naming things
The names are ironic to make fun of the south and north america division.

>>11528947
>We are trying to define what a continent is.
No, you are. We're fine with the traditional definition.
There's also a difference between travelling by foot from north africa to central africa and from east africa to west africa. There's lots of differences between a lot of things and a lot of names to describe them.
Why must you redefine the word continent to describe differences it didn't cover ?
>They stopped being separate worlds a long time ago.
They never were separate "worlds". "World" is a poetic term not meant to be taken literally. It bothers no one except you that travel got easier, we still know what is meant and it still corresponds to the
>difference between traveling by sea to Britain and traveling by sea to America from Spain
and its consequences.

>>11528904

I agree, that is a nice way to put it. In fact, i think i read about the "sea travels" proposed in "The Critical Path", one of the famous books written by Buckminster Fuller (incidentally it is here where he also discussed the production of bronze as a key factor for the onset of civilizations at different spots).

Definitively "continent" is not a concept constrained to particular fields; it is just a division (sometimes a replacement) of the concept of "world" in all its dimensions as it functions for civilizations.

>>11528964
Trying to spin the USA-ian nonsense this hard.
Just admit that its nonsense and move on.

>We're fine with the traditional definition.
Produce the algorithm to determine this and lets see the results of it.

The USA-an 7 continent shit makes no sense whatsoever.

>travelling by foot from north africa to central africa and from east africa to west africa
WEW. Like pointed out this is trivial since historically no one knew of Australia and America. There was a difference between going to Britain and going to America.

>travelling by foot from north africa to central africa
And yet all of history disproves you people of Euto-afro-asia did travel on their world island and established trade routs. Someone from the Europ region did know about china in the Asian region and communication and trade was possible however time consuming and difficult.

>World" is a poetic term not meant to be taken literally
The word world is extremely specific however never properly used by most people. World literally describes the available space to a civilization.

Meaning this planet is our world because traveling beyond it is extra hard. And if we manage to establish colonies on Mars our world expands in size (see definition) and Mars becomes a part of our world.

in contrast if there is a civilization somewhere in space its a separate world from ours since we have no contact with them. If we establish contact and have the means to travel these 2 separate worlds will merge into one world.

Do separate Petri dishes also trigger you anon? Basically the same with the concept of the world/worlds.

nah this one is obviously the most sensible one

>>11528999
>Let's arbitrarily cut this landmass right here. Yep, sounds perfectly reasonable.

>>11529005
it makes asia niggers SEETHE

>>11528999
Why is europ separate?

>>11528999
>>11529013
>it makes asia niggers SEETHE
Not as much as this.

>>11529053
Actually the Nazis placed Hyperborea (where the Aryans came from) at an island off the coast of Norway.

>>11529076
You should hang out in /pol/ more they literally say that white people came from Antarctica.