Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote:

Nitpicker wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Certainly, if by "center" you mean centering the longitude on central Australia. I think a world map with any latitude other than the equator in the center is pretty silly, though.

Yes, I meant centred on a longitude. Though I'll note in passing that many world maps, dare I say a majority, are centred on a latitude that is North of the Equator. Many ignore the world South of South America.

People create all sorts of maps with odd projections, for all sorts of reasons. But I don't recall seeing any world maps that didn't have their latitude centered on the equator (and certainly no classroom maps). I did a quick blast through Google images of world maps, and didn't see any that were centered north of the equator. I think such maps are quite rare.

Huh, I did the same quick google image search for "world map" and saw loads:

Even this one, which is a common style in classrooms in this part of the world, isn't quite centred on the equator. It extends closer to the north pole than it does to the south:
http://www.mapworld.co.nz/maps/world/superworld.jpg

Nitpicker wrote:Even this one, which is a common style in classrooms in this part of the world, isn't quite centred on the equator. It extends closer to the north pole than it does to the south:

Click to view full size image

http://www.mapworld.co.nz/maps/world/superworld.jpg

Maybe. It's pretty close to centered. As are most all the ones you show above, if they actually show the entire world.

I'm sticking by my original assessment that world maps not centered on the equator are pretty rare.

Well, that's the point ... most don't show the entire world. I would agree that a world map that does show the entire world, without being centred on the equator, is truly silly.

Nitpicker wrote:Well, that's the point ... most don't show the entire world. I would agree that a world map that does show the entire world, without being centred on the equator, is truly silly.

There's nothing wrong with a map that only shows part of the world. But I thought the discussion was about world maps.

Goodness me this is a stupid discussion. This discussion is on world maps. Most even bear the title "World Map" on them. And my point is that most do not include the entire world. You're just bloody wrong, okay?

Nitpicker wrote:Goodness me this is a stupid discussion. This discussion is on world maps. Most even bear the title "World Map" on them. And my point is that most do not include the entire world. You're just bloody wrong, okay? :P

Personally, I would not call a map that doesn't include the entire world a "world map", regardless of how it was labeled. And personally, I don't recall ever encountering a world map in the wild that didn't show the whole world.

I'm sticking by my original assessment that you're wrong.

The north and south poles are clearly missing on a bunch of those. I'd guess it's more about cutting off the top and bottom "blank" areas to make the pertinent (Antarctica is useless in many contexts) continents larger and more visible than it is about focusing on the northern hemisphere, but I'm not going to say there isn't a lot of bias for the northern hemisphere or that no one ever did that. It also just so happens that, once Antarctica is cut off, there is also a lot more extra water in the southern hemisphere.

How do you suppose to remove the conflation of this fact with possible northern bias by map illustration makers? Keep in mind also that many of those illustrations, while probably based originally on comprehensive world maps, were cropped by devious and evil website makers who needed to make them smaller and made some sacrifices at the edges. I can't even see the latitudinal lines on most of them.

I don't think the slight northern bias on most world maps is unwarranted (nor do I think there might be some evil conspiracy). Aside from Antarctica, there is a lot more going on at extreme northern latitudes than there is at extreme southern latitudes. I was merely pointing out that most world maps (whether printed on posters, or uploaded on the web) tend to show more of the northern hemisphere, than the southern, and so the equator is not at the centre of these maps. I am of the opinion that many people don't notice this. For example, many people think that all of South America is in the southern hemisphere.

One of the most popular world map projections is the Mercator, which offers the advantage of true bearings between points. But it is impractical to extend this map to the poles, so it is typically truncated and most commonly more truncated in the south.

I originally made this observation as a passing note, of no great importance ... and then Chris disagreed with it ... in case I haven't said it already, Chris is wrong.

I think the two of you should have a good brawl and settle your differences.

What differences? I'm wrong every now and again, too.

(There are differences of course ... I don't know as much about science ... but I don't think that is a problem.)

You butt heads with Chris a lot. Then again, so does Art. I think you disagree more passionately, though!

geckzilla wrote:I think the two of you should have a good brawl and settle your differences.

Honestly, I can't even figure out what the issue is here, so I have nothing else to say.

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote:I think the two of you should have a good brawl and settle your differences.

Honestly, I can't even figure out what the issue is here, so I have nothing else to say.

Exactly, which is why I suggest a duel. May the best man win.

geckzilla wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote:I think the two of you should have a good brawl and settle your differences.

Honestly, I can't even figure out what the issue is here, so I have nothing else to say.

Exactly, which is why I suggest a duel. May the best man win. ;)

With wits or with swords? Or perhaps with the tubes that large world maps are shipped in? Or...

I would suggest utilizing an online video game in which fighting is allowed to minimize the expenses of the duel.

geckzilla wrote:I would suggest utilizing an online video game in which fighting is allowed to minimize the expenses of the duel.

Well... my idea of online gaming is FreeCell.

Freecell is an offline, single player game. Maybe try Minecraft. There was a combat update last month!

geckzilla wrote:Freecell is an offline, single player game.

Exactly (although there are also online versions, as well as online tournaments).

May as well just play chess. Freecell is supposedly a solitaire variant!

geckzilla wrote:May as well just play chess. Freecell is supposedly a solitaire variant!

Yup. I like solitaire. And I like games against a computer. I've never played any online game where there were other human players. And I have no interest in doing so.

Chris Peterson wrote:Honestly, I can't even figure out what the issue is here, so I have nothing else to say.

Really? It is the same issue that comes up every time (not that many) that we butt heads butt heads.

Chris, you are a fount of knowledge, but you very occasionally make stupid statements that are demonstrably wrong. This is not my issue (hell, I make stupid statements with much greater frequency). Rather, it is your habit of not conceding a point that is plainly there to be conceded. You will instead drop the discussion, or change the context in a pathetic attempt to make your original statement look less stupid. Example:

Personally, I would not call a map that doesn't include the entire world a "world map", regardless of how it was labeled.

That's a response in dire need of some integrity, especially coming quite a few posts after I had made the (unimportant) observation that:

... many world maps, dare I say a majority, are centred on a latitude that is North of the Equator. Many ignore the world South of South America.

It is a matter of style.

Pretty much every "World" Map you see shows more North than South. This results with 0deg (Equator) not shown across the middle of the map. This is called bias. The fact that people still believe that all these maps still show the 'entire world' is exactly the problem and the point.


This gives a warped impression. It goes all the way back to the wrong premise that there must be a great southern landmass to 'balance' out the Earth otherwise it would flip over due to gravity. Obviously that premise is wrong on a few accounts.

All hemispheres are not created equal. If Mars ever had an ocean, it would have been located in the northern hemisphere, because that is where you find the lowlands of Mars. On Earth, I think there is a little more land north of the equator than south of it.

In any case, most of the great civilizations of the Earth have arisen north of the equator: Sumer, Egypt, China, Greece, Rome, Spain, France and England. Of course you know that, Nit.


















But of course we are biased when we think of the Earth, and when most map-makers make depictions of the Earth, they focus on the "central parts" of it, which to most of them is the northern hemisphere. But the Earth itself has no such preferences. A great reminder is the gorgeous photos of Earth from space. I think the picture at right is especially stunning, but look at the "face" that the Earth is showing us here: Africa, Saudi Arabia and Antarctica. There aren't many maps that focus on Earth like that.

Then again, even this stunning picture is biased. Because there is no reason why NASA couldn't have shown us the Earth with "Antarctica up".

Ann