The debate "Why are world maps disproportionate" was started by
March 22, 2017, 4:03 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
thereal posted 6 arguments, administrator posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
thereal, Hippocrates, administrator, blue_rayy, redstar, irwndedi, makson and 9 visitors agree.
ProfDoke and 2 visitors disagree.
haha actually math is one of my best subjects. I just don't care to count the exact days u were banned.
neveralone, now i know why you failed maths.
Sorry for removing the ban earlier, welcome back.
yet u didn't post anything for two weeks...
im banned for 14 days? lmfao somebody needs to go on youtube and learn how to code properly...HACKER!
scaling and measuring maybe more difficult, but the proportionality will be perfect.
But that isn't always the best choice either. If I need to know the distance between two cities, measuring a globe is more challenging than a flat projection that preserves scale.
If I am planning to hike across a mountain range, a globe is less practical to pack than a map. I am also less likely to care if the projection distorts shape or scale at a large scale since I am only using a local piece of it.
you know, you can always get a globe...
Yes, I have seen it. The Gall-peters projection maps the continents so that they are the right sizes by distorting their shapes.
I know you won't be able to respond for 2 weeks, but flat projections of a spheroid earth can will always distort something. Whether it is shape, scale, distance, bearing, or area depends on what the projection is trying to preserve.
You were warned before, you're banned for 14 days.
have you seen the gall-peters projection? the countries are much more proportional and the oceans are not even that much different in shape or proportion, goatf***er.
I forgot, logic is a foreign concept to you. Why have everything consistent and logical when you can slap something together?
The answer to your question was in the link I sent you. Try reading it before you respond.
Aside from that, there are better approximations of scale on different forms of map. If you are interested in learning, here is a list of them. Each one has a description of what it does well and poorly.
it's called hope. but it was hopeless.
you going to explain your position before everyone stops paying attention to your posts again? I'm curious to hear your story.
oh sorry, i forgot that the proportion of the oceans is more important than the land...besides they wouldnt be disproportionate anyway.
If the countries were proportionally accurate, the ocean would be even more disproportionate.
If you don't know the answer, look it up. As Nemirof said, this isn't really a debate.
"was about answer when I noticed it was posted by thereal...." *proceeds to answer* you just proved my theory that you are moraless psychopath that cant control his impulses LMFAO. At least stick to what you say, pussy bitch dog!
The disproportionality has nothing to do with it being on a flat piece of paper, the countries can still be drawn in the right proportions. On top of that if youve ever seen a globe in your life, youd notice that the countries are also disproportionate ther as well.
you may also want to look up the controversy over the DC mosque. it was supposed to point to mecca, but was instead built pointing slightly north... which is the closest real life route to mecca but looked nonsensical on a map.
take that flat earth conspiracy theorists.
I'm sorry. I know your a troll, but I like to give chances. although I'll probably ignore any trolling afterwards. I'll also forgive the barrage of insults your probably typing in response to my previous post.
it's disproportionate because a round globe doesn't translate well into square paper. the north and south poles are stretched to make a square, objects near them are made bigger.
there is also a proportionate map, but the positions of the continents are all screwy instead.
was about answer when I noticed it was posted by thereal.... not in the mood for whatever game he is planning.
I'm sure Google has the answer. It isn't exactly a subject of debate.
For example on world maps, Africa looks atound the same size as Greenland but slightly bigger but in reality, Africa is 15 times larger than Greenland. In world maps Scandinavia looks bigger than India but in reality India is 3 times bigger than the entirety of Scandinavia combined (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland)! Another example is that on world maps, South America looks around the same size as Africa when in reality, Africa is double its size. What is the reason for this?