• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The true size of Africa

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fritzo said:
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.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Too busy dealing with food and shelter demands on a daily basis.

I've often thought there would be no civilization as we know it if not for nagging women.

Cave woman: I'm sick to death of trying to keep this fvcking cave clean!!! Can't we figure out a better way? :twisted:

Cave man: Oh Fvck you, it's good enough! :awe:
 
SP33Demon said:
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).
Click to expand...

I prefer the Mollweide projection to the Peters. The Peters distorts the shapes so much more just to have parallel longitude lines. Also, it makes Canada actually look smaller than the US.
 
The Peters Projection should have been made the standard years ago. Not sure why we cling to these old standards, that do nothing to reflect actual land area.

peters_475h.jpg
 
Shall we mention that despite its massive land area - that a huge chunk of Africa is either inhospitable and completely barren desert, or really dense jungle teeming with dangerous wildlife and disease?
 
Zeze said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
SP33Demon said:
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).
Click to expand...

It's called a fucking globe.












😀
 
Mark R said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let us not forget Bucky's horrid Dymaxion Map.
 
OCGuy said:
Africa should be bigger than all other land mass combined, if size were based off of prevelance of AIDS.
Click to expand...

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...
 
QueBert said:
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...
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself...you will be back the minute someone posts a thread calling an obese whale of a woman "fat." You can't help it. 😉

But go ahead and have some unprotected sex in sub-saharan Africa.
 
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%
 
iGas said:
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%
Click to expand...


tldr. Can you put that in infographic form?
 
FuzzyDunlop said:
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.
Click to expand...

uhhhh... no.

Africa is the world's second largest continent. North America isn't close in size at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top