That outline is like the entire continental shelf, or all the area where the glaciers are directly over rock (as opposed to having ocean in between), or something like that.
But if the ice weren't there, not all of it would actually be above sea level:
Might actually be smaller than Australia if the ice were gone, give or take things like sea level rise and isostatic rebound.
Continents is a human made construct that's later rationalized with tectonic plates and other criteria. Basically, people around the Mediterranean Sea divided the Mediterranean Coast into 3 parts and later extended this concept.
If you go by the geological definition, Australia is a continent, as is Zealandia. That’s right, New Zealand has equal geological footing with the entirety of Eurasia.
I may be mistaken here, but I think the concept of a "continental shelf" is pretty well defined geologically. That is: Outside a land mass, the ocean floor extends a certain distance before dropping off to the deep ocean floor. An island would be a piece of land that sticks out of the sea from this continental shelf, while the "continent" includes the entire shelf, and all the land masses that stick out of the ocean on that shelf.
Of course, this seems to break down a bit for e.g. the Europe/Asia divide (and probably a lot more), but the concept of "continents" vs. "islands" can make sense geologically, although the "continents" are then different from the geopolitical borders ones we usually talk about.
That definition however does some weird things like saying that Tokyo and parts of Siberia are in North America, but Panama and Los Angeles aren't.
A continent is mostly just a social convention for a bigass geographic and geological structure that is above sea level and largely geologically and culturally separated. North and South America are connected by a land bridge, but that's really recent in evolutionary time and it's a real pain in the ass to cross. Europe and Asia are historically separated by the Ural mountains, but it's hard to look at them in modern day and say "these are two distinct landmasses" especially if you're saying India isn't, but historically getting from Europe to what's worth going to in Asia has involved crossing the Mediterranean much like getting to Africa or sailing around Africa in the early modern period. Australia is a giant landmass with not much else around as is Antarctica.
Not all continents, no. Islands are bodies of land surrounded by water on all sides, no? Wouldn’t Antarctica and Australia then qualify by that definition?
https://niy.ai/worldmap lets you reproject Mercator to put any landmass you want in the middle by clicking on it, but it doesn't have that overlay thing.
Fun fact, Mercator would in principle be even more distorted than it is, but almost every map that uses it crops at least the top and bottom 5 degrees to hide it. Mercator's original cropped to 66°S - 80°N, which shifts Europe towards the middle.
Another fun-fact: The Mercator projection was, at its inception, the first map that could be used for long-distance sea navigation over the mediterranean and Atlantic in the sense that axes are scaled such that courses plotted on the map actually match the compass course you need to follow to get somewhere. This also happens to be the reason it became popular, and the reason it was made, rather than the commonly quoted reason of "making Europe big at the expense of things closer to the equator".
And Mercator means merchant in Latin. I thought that was because of the projection's purpose, but turns out that the inventer's name was actually Mercator, which was a latinisation of his Flemish birthname Kremer (meaning grocer or merchant).
Now that is a fun-fact! I knew the guy was called Mercator, but didn't know about the Latin origin, and can definitely see the origin of the name spreading as a misconception.
If India is a continent then so is Somalia! And Arabia, but for some reason Arabia being it's own continent feels kinda right considering it really feels like neither Eurasia nor Africa, just a large mass between them
Are we going with Eurasia or an Afro-Eurasia distinction? I feel like if someone were to insist on Afro-Eurasia then they also have to accept The Americas, or I guess it would just be a simple "America" which would get confusing since that's a pretty common verbal shorthand for USA. Under that sort of definition I think if you still insist on North and South America as regions then you'd have to also accept North and South Afro-Eurasia.
It'd also be pretty funny to try to argue that since North America was connected to Asia within the human timeline it should also be added. Imagine trying to refer to the continents: AfroAmeriEurasia, Australia, and Antarctic, with an optional Oceania thrown in the mix.
For clarity, I usually just go with North/South America, Australia, Antarctica, Africa, and Eurasia as the continental landmasses
47 Comments
bdonvr@thelemmy.club · 109 pts · 161d
I mean it's greatly exaggerated on Mercator but it's definitely not tiny.
It's bigger than Australia
Fleur_@aussie.zone · 46 pts · 161d
Fake map north should be pointing away from Antarctica dumbass. Read a book.
grue@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 161d
That outline is like the entire continental shelf, or all the area where the glaciers are directly over rock (as opposed to having ocean in between), or something like that.
But if the ice weren't there, not all of it would actually be above sea level:
Might actually be smaller than Australia if the ice were gone, give or take things like sea level rise and isostatic rebound.
marcos@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 161d
TIL that Antarctica is an archipelago.
prettybunnys@piefed.social · 3 pts · 160d
You’re an archipelago
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 160d
If the ice weren't there a lot of the other continents would also be below sea level
ryannathans@aussie.zone · 16 pts · 161d
Does that mean Australia is not the biggest island
bdonvr@thelemmy.club · 28 pts · 161d
Are continents islands?
ryannathans@aussie.zone · 26 pts · 161d
There is no agreed upon definition or set of continents globally
It might as well be a made up word
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 161d
the just be making up words now
MrVilliam@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 161d
All words are made up
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 161d
no i'm doesn't
Town@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 161d
What will they think of next?
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 161d
ook
ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 160d
All words are made up words...
damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 161d
The Australia thing is something we were taught in high school.
bdonvr@thelemmy.club · 13 pts · 161d
I think I remember being told Greenland was the largest island, while Australia was a continent
Something to do with tectonic plates
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 161d
Continents is a human made construct that's later rationalized with tectonic plates and other criteria. Basically, people around the Mediterranean Sea divided the Mediterranean Coast into 3 parts and later extended this concept.
JayDee@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 161d
Yeah, but so is an island. It's all human constructs. we see patterns and make up sounds for them.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 161d
Yes of cause
nightlily@leminal.space · 4 pts · 161d
If you go by the geological definition, Australia is a continent, as is Zealandia. That’s right, New Zealand has equal geological footing with the entirety of Eurasia.
Zorque@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 161d
Probably why they keep getting left off maps, jealousy.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
I may be mistaken here, but I think the concept of a "continental shelf" is pretty well defined geologically. That is: Outside a land mass, the ocean floor extends a certain distance before dropping off to the deep ocean floor. An island would be a piece of land that sticks out of the sea from this continental shelf, while the "continent" includes the entire shelf, and all the land masses that stick out of the ocean on that shelf.
Of course, this seems to break down a bit for e.g. the Europe/Asia divide (and probably a lot more), but the concept of "continents" vs. "islands" can make sense geologically, although the "continents" are then different from the geopolitical borders ones we usually talk about.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 160d
That definition however does some weird things like saying that Tokyo and parts of Siberia are in North America, but Panama and Los Angeles aren't.
A continent is mostly just a social convention for a bigass geographic and geological structure that is above sea level and largely geologically and culturally separated. North and South America are connected by a land bridge, but that's really recent in evolutionary time and it's a real pain in the ass to cross. Europe and Asia are historically separated by the Ural mountains, but it's hard to look at them in modern day and say "these are two distinct landmasses" especially if you're saying India isn't, but historically getting from Europe to what's worth going to in Asia has involved crossing the Mediterranean much like getting to Africa or sailing around Africa in the early modern period. Australia is a giant landmass with not much else around as is Antarctica.
pHr34kY@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
By definition, a continent and an island are mutually exclusive. Nothing can be both.
Australia isn't a continent either. It's in the continent of Oceania, which includes New Zealand.
Antarctica is a continent in its own right. It's not a country and not a nation.
dohpaz42@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 161d
Not all continents, no. Islands are bodies of land surrounded by water on all sides, no? Wouldn’t Antarctica and Australia then qualify by that definition?
bdonvr@thelemmy.club · 6 pts · 161d
I mean every landmass is surrounded on all sides by water though
dohpaz42@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 161d
But most of the land that are considered continents are connected to one or kore other land, and thus couldn’t be defined as an island.
Though, after reading a few other comments, it seems the definition of what makes a continent a continent is apparently subject to debate.
This is why we can’t have nice things.lordbritishbusiness@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 161d
Apparently Greenland is considered the largest island. The difference between a continent and island is a little arbitrary.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 161d
Hence "most other continents"
bdonvr@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 161d
Yeah it's smaller but not tiny
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 161d
Nice. What did you use for that one?
https://niy.ai/worldmap lets you reproject Mercator to put any landmass you want in the middle by clicking on it, but it doesn't have that overlay thing.
bdonvr@thelemmy.club · 7 pts · 161d
https://thetruesize.com/
ptu@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 160d
Also bigger than Texas
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 160d
It's just like they say: "everything's bigger than Texas!"
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 161d
Fun fact, Mercator would in principle be even more distorted than it is, but almost every map that uses it crops at least the top and bottom 5 degrees to hide it. Mercator's original cropped to 66°S - 80°N, which shifts Europe towards the middle.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 160d
Another fun-fact: The Mercator projection was, at its inception, the first map that could be used for long-distance sea navigation over the mediterranean and Atlantic in the sense that axes are scaled such that courses plotted on the map actually match the compass course you need to follow to get somewhere. This also happens to be the reason it became popular, and the reason it was made, rather than the commonly quoted reason of "making Europe big at the expense of things closer to the equator".
katkit@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
And Mercator means merchant in Latin. I thought that was because of the projection's purpose, but turns out that the inventer's name was actually Mercator, which was a latinisation of his Flemish birthname Kremer (meaning grocer or merchant).
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 160d
Now that is a fun-fact! I knew the guy was called Mercator, but didn't know about the Latin origin, and can definitely see the origin of the name spreading as a misconception.
damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 161d
Friendly reminder that Europe is not a continent.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 161d
If Europe isn't a continent then neither is India!
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz · 5 pts · 161d
It gets called The Indian subcontinent for
exactly that reasonbut not Europe because of colonialism.captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 160d
damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 161d
How dare you! Oh, wait, I agree!
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 160d
If India is a continent then so is Somalia! And Arabia, but for some reason Arabia being it's own continent feels kinda right considering it really feels like neither Eurasia nor Africa, just a large mass between them
MufinMcFlufin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 161d
Are we going with Eurasia or an Afro-Eurasia distinction? I feel like if someone were to insist on Afro-Eurasia then they also have to accept The Americas, or I guess it would just be a simple "America" which would get confusing since that's a pretty common verbal shorthand for USA. Under that sort of definition I think if you still insist on North and South America as regions then you'd have to also accept North and South Afro-Eurasia.
It'd also be pretty funny to try to argue that since North America was connected to Asia within the human timeline it should also be added. Imagine trying to refer to the continents: AfroAmeriEurasia, Australia, and Antarctic, with an optional Oceania thrown in the mix.
For clarity, I usually just go with North/South America, Australia, Antarctica, Africa, and Eurasia as the continental landmasses
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
So long as we include Hokkaido in North America that's good by me
NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 160d
Excellent Map Men video about this: https://youtu.be/hrsxRJdwfM0