crazietalk.net

Or a geologist or topographer or whoever studies why Earth is the way it is.

My question: Why do continents, large land masses, tend to become broad as they approach the North Pole, but tend to taper off as they approach the South Pole? Example: South America and Africa and India are all tapered on the south end. North America and Asia tend to broaden as you go further north.

Also, why are most groups of islands found on the bottom right of these "tapered ends?" Examples: Cuba and the Bahamas and more to North America. Faukland Islands to South America. Sri Lanka to India. All that crap to the lower right of Asia. Madagascar to Africa. New Zealand to Austrailia. The pre-dominance of existence of islands, yes, with some exception, are that they exist to the lower right of large land masses.

I'm guessing it's simply rotation of the Earth when land masses were cooling? German engineering? Fong Toong?

-EarlJam

Damn you . Damn you and your fucked up questions to hell. I'll be up all night now.

Centrifugal force, maybe?

I'm curious as to why people weigh less at the equator than at the poles....

lawgrad91 wrote:Centrifugal force, maybe?

I'm curious as to why people weigh less at the equator than at the poles....

.

I'm moving to the equator.

CathyCA wrote:

lawgrad91 wrote:Centrifugal force, maybe?

I'm curious as to why people weigh less at the equator than at the poles....

.

I'm moving to the equator.

I'm with you, Cathy!

lawgrad91 wrote:Centrifugal force, maybe?

I'm curious as to why people weigh less at the equator than at the poles....

They sweat more 12 months a year?

EarlJam wrote:My question: Why do continents, large land masses, tend to become broad as they approach the North Pole, but tend to taper off as they approach the South Pole? Example: South America and Africa and India are all tapered on the south end. North America and Asia tend to broaden as you go further north.

You are conveniently forgetting two continents... AUSTRALIA and ANTARCTICA, which are actually broad on their southern ends.
Madagascar is broad in its south; it's more pointy in its north.
Europe doesn't broaden the further north you go... at least, Scandinavia doesn't appear that way.

As for islands being on the lower right, the British Isles and Iceland don't fit that model. And while you cite the Falklands for South America, why didn't you cite the Galopagos (sp?)? And North America has many more islands to its north than it does in its "lower right."

You should be asking for a geologist and a geographer. More specifically, ask for someone who studies tectonics.

lawgrad91 wrote:Centrifugal force, maybe?

I'm curious as to why people weigh less at the equator than at the poles....

I believe this is what you're referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule

Or are you saying that a person weighs one thing in New York, but then if you sent the person instantly to Equador, they would weigh something less?

Lavabe wrote:

lawgrad91 wrote:Centrifugal force, maybe?

I'm curious as to why people weigh less at the equator than at the poles....

I believe this is what you're referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule

Or are you saying that a person weighs one thing in New York, but then if you sent the person instantly to Equador, they would weigh something less?

I vote that we have my high school reunion in Equador.

Lavabe wrote:

EarlJam wrote:My question: Why do continents, large land masses, tend to become broad as they approach the North Pole, but tend to taper off as they approach the South Pole? Example: South America and Africa and India are all tapered on the south end. North America and Asia tend to broaden as you go further north.

You are conveniently forgetting two continents... AUSTRALIA and ANTARCTICA, which are actually broad on their southern ends.
Madagascar is broad in its south; it's more pointy in its north.
Europe doesn't broaden the further north you go... at least, Scandinavia doesn't appear that way.

As for islands being on the lower right, the British Isles and Iceland don't fit that model. And while you cite the Falklands for South America, why didn't you cite the Galopagos (sp?)? And North America has many more islands to its north than it does in its "lower right."

You should be asking for a geologist and a geographer. More specifically, ask for someone who studies tectonics.

As I said, there ARE exceptions but look at the globe. The general rule applies. As for Madagascar, I know it's not tapered on the south end. I was talking about the continents. But Madagascar DOES fit the islands to the lower right theory. And Anarctica? Well, it is physically impossible for IT to be tapered because its very center is at the pole. Maybe "continents" was the wrong word. I'm talking about land masses in general. "Europe" is a man-defined" area, but it is connected to the overall land mass that tends to broaden as you move north. Can you look at a globe and honestly argue that land doesn't tend to broaden to the north, and taper to the south?

Or argue that many more islands do NOT exist to the lower right of large land masses than the lower left? I will ask Gotulla about this tonight during my Yingalla ritual.

-EarlJam

I would ask you "Why shouldn't they be that way?" Perhaps you will find an answer to your original question.

I'm going to guess it's all gravity's fault.

Look at the evidence! HERE IT IS! Large land masses "tend" to taper to the south! I even forgot Greenland! YES, there are exceptions. But dammit, look at the taperage! The evidence is as clear. And hey, while we're at it, look at where most of the large islands are. Not "all" of the large islands, but "most." I have talked to God about this and he assures me that I am correct. Still, he will not give me a clear answer as to why. But please spare me any trivial arguments that the trends are not there. Here is the evidence. See for yourself.
-WorldJam

EarlJam wrote:As I said, there ARE exceptions but look at the globe. The general rule applies. As for Madagascar, I know it's not tapered on the south end. I was talking about the continents. But Madagascar DOES fit the islands to the lower right theory. And Anarctica? Well, it is physically impossible for IT to be tapered because its very center is at the pole. Maybe "continents" was the wrong word. I'm talking about land masses in general. "Europe" is a man-defined" area, but it is connected to the overall land mass that tends to broaden as you move north. Can you look at a globe and honestly argue that land doesn't tend to broaden to the north, and taper to the south?

Or that many more islands exist to the lower right of large land masses than the lower left? I will ask Gotulla about this tonight during my Yingalla ritual.

-EarlJam

Factually, the European land mass hits the Asian land mass in the Urals.

South America, Africa, Antarctica, India, and Australia were all part of the southern supercontinent, Gondwanaland (Europe, Asia, North America were part of Laurasia), which separated from the one large land mass (Pangaea... which is what the DogfishHead brew is named after) some 180 million years ago. Gondwanaland was pretty broad on its southern end. The fracturing/splitting of the land masses in Gondwanaland occurred, and give you pretty much the thin ends that you are mentioning. As for India, it's thin end was not its southern end during the breakup of Gondwanaland; its southern end was pointed to the west. As India drifted to Asia, it rotated somewhat, so that its former west end became the modern southern end. As for Antarctica, it doesn't really have a pointy end... which is why I made my remark. When half of the southern continents don't follow your observations, it suggests that what you stated is not a rule.

The island business you mention seems less of a rule than you hinted at in your initial question, as it doesn't apply to Europe, Australia, North America, and maybe even South America. If you remove Antarctica from the discussion, that's HALF the continents that don't apply to what you stated. If you view these as merely exceptions, then I would also argue that the Yankees are the only championship baseball team, and that years in which they don't win the World Series are merely exceptions.

Here's a good map of the modern continents during the fracturing of Gondwanaland of Laurasia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurasia
India isn't "tapered" in the south, but in the west.
Perhaps my baseball analogy is wrong. Perhaps I'd have you believe that the Orioles are a championship team, and when they don't win the World Series, those years should be viewed as exceptions. ;)

Lavabe wrote:Here's a good map of the modern continents during the fracturing of Gondwanaland of Laurasia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurasia
India isn't "tapered" in the south, but in the west.
Perhaps my baseball analogy is wrong. Perhaps I'd have you believe that the Orioles are a championship team, and when they don't win the World Series, those years should be viewed as exceptions. ;)

Holy Academia run amuck!

Don't get too "booky" here. I couldn't care less what "used to be east or west. Come down to the poor masses world for a moment and just use your standard eyeballs. Look at a current map. The one I posted. Yes, you are much more knowledgable than I am. You are a very smart man. Okay? I'm just making a general observation that IS true. I mean, just look at it. Any professer can argue, through science, that the daytime sky is NOT, in fact, Carolina Blue. But it is. I mean, come on dude. Just look at a current map. Not looking for a lesson in techtonic plates and barthinglongdooging and such. I know science can prove any observation "wrong."

Beside, God agrees with me. He's here, in my coffee cup, posing as half-in-half!

-EarlJam

EarlJam wrote:Any professer can argue, through science, that the daytime sky is NOT, in fact, Carolina Blue.

Any sane person can argue that the sky is NOT in fact Carowhinea blue, but I prefer Ozzie's explanation/joke about it.

Lavabe wrote:

EarlJam wrote:Any professer can argue, through science, that the daytime sky is NOT, in fact, Carolina Blue.

Any sane person can argue that the sky is NOT in fact Carowhinea blue, but I prefer Ozzie's explanation/joke about it.

On this, I agree completely!

-EarlJam, the Taperite

Lavabe wrote:

EarlJam wrote:Any professer can argue, through science, that the daytime sky is NOT, in fact, Carolina Blue.

Any sane person can argue that the sky is NOT in fact Carowhinea blue, but I prefer Ozzie's explanation/joke about it.

Can you imagine coming to blows over this argument (tapered continents, islands)? 6'7" vs. 6'3" in the parking lot. Fists fly. Rolling on the ground. The cops break it up.

"What the hell is going on here?!"

EarlJam: "Officer, that mother f*cker doesn't think the continents are tapered more to the south!"

Lavabe: "Well, they AREN'T, and EarlJam was just pissed that I destroyed his argument with science!"

Officer: "EarlJam?"

Lavabe: "Well, Dan."

EarlJam: "Sir, he was making a mockery of a simple observation I made! And the islands. THE ISLANDS! He disagreed that large bodies of land favored islands to the lower right! I HAD to fight him!"

Officer: "This is strange, but I have to agree with EarlJam."

Officer 2: "No, No, No. I studied for three years at Yale. Lavabe is right. What looks like 'south' now is really 'west."

Officer 1: "What!? I will fight you! I know a thing or two about techtonic plates!"

Anyway....

-EarthJam

EarlJam wrote:Don't get too "booky" here. I couldn't care less what "used to be east or west. Come down to the poor masses world for a moment and just use your standard eyeballs. Look at a current map.

You asked WHY it is this shape...
Why do continents, large land masses, tend to become broad as they approach the North Pole, but tend to taper off as they approach the South Pole?

I argue that Europe, Asia, Australia, and Antarctica don't follow your rule. I also gave you evidence about India, South America, and Africa and their taper-tude. I also provided a response to your WHY, at least regarding South America, Africa, and India. Just the facts, Jack.

And this doesn't even begin to discuss your use of a Mercator projection of the earth...