|
Qwo posted:Hypothetical uncolonized Africa. Just out of curiosity, where's this from? Is it the setting to some story, or is it just a piece of speculative cartography? Either way, I really like it.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:46 |
|
|
Rincewind posted:Just out of curiosity, where's this from? Is it the setting to some story, or is it just a piece of speculative cartography? quote:Made by the Swedish artist Nikolaj Cyon, the map asks what Africa would look like today if colonialism had never happened. Cyon drew these boundaries based on a study of political and tribal units in 1844, the eve of Europe's "scramble for Africa." He oriented it with south at the top to subvert the traditional Europe-on-top orientation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
That speculative Africa map is very interesting, although things would have to get pretty weird from a divergence point of 1844 if Spain got swallowed up again by a North African empire and for literally all pre-1844 European outposts and colonies to disappear completely (I'm mainly taking of Cape settlers here, who've been around for a long-rear end time).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
I don't really get it anyway. Why would Spain or Sicily be African? And why would Egypt be independent of the Ottoman Empire if the French did not drive them out of it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I don't really get it anyway. Why would Spain or Sicily be African? And why would Egypt be independent of the Ottoman Empire if the French did not drive them out of it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
Lycus posted:I guess in this alt-history, the Reconquista and the Norman conquest of Sicily didn't happen. And I guess the Turks are classed with the European empires as far as foreign empires not holding a part of Africa. But... but Turks are ASIANS? Caucasian Asians to be sure, but it doesn't make sense. The Muslim Caliphates ruled big parts of Africa long before the Age of Colonialism. And even Carthage was a country of semitic (thus Asian) Phoenicians. Which brings me to Spain: So neither the Phoenician Nova Carthago, nor the Roman conquest of Hispania, not the Norman conquest of Hispania happens, but the Umayyads conquer it while the Reconquista doesn't happen. What does that have to do with colonialism? Similar deal with Sicily, where Rome, Carthage and Greek Syracuse coexisted until the Romans conquered it all. When has any African power held the Island before the Muslims? Even if the point is to show Africa without any form of colonialism, that would obviously invalidate the Muslim conquest, yet the whole of Northern Africa is ruled by various sultanates, and somehow the Muslim conquests of Spain and Sicily still happened. It is still a very neat map, but these inconsistencies are a bit strange. And I really wish he would not have drawn it upside down, it is more difficult to overlay it with the current Africa map to see how hosed so many countries are. The European colonial powers sometimes seem to have worked really hard to form states that surely must explode because of ethnic tensions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:But... but Turks are ASIANS? Caucasian Asians to be sure, but it doesn't make sense. The Muslim Caliphates ruled big parts of Africa long before the Age of Colonialism. And even Carthage was a country of semitic (thus Asian) Phoenicians. Which brings me to Spain: So neither the Phoenician Nova Carthago, nor the Roman conquest of Hispania, not the Norman conquest of Hispania happens, but the Umayyads conquer it while the Reconquista doesn't happen. What does that have to do with colonialism? Similar deal with Sicily, where Rome, Carthage and Greek Syracuse coexisted until the Romans conquered it all. When has any African power held the Island before the Muslims? It's a work of art, not a scholarly piece of Alternative History.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 12:24
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:But... but Turks are ASIANS? Caucasian Asians to be sure, but it doesn't make sense. The Muslim Caliphates ruled big parts of Africa long before the Age of Colonialism. And even Carthage was a country of semitic (thus Asian) Phoenicians. Which brings me to Spain: So neither the Phoenician Nova Carthago, nor the Roman conquest of Hispania, not the Norman conquest of Hispania happens, but the Umayyads conquer it while the Reconquista doesn't happen. What does that have to do with colonialism? Similar deal with Sicily, where Rome, Carthage and Greek Syracuse coexisted until the Romans conquered it all. When has any African power held the Island before the Muslims?  Who loves maps and thinks southern orientation is "upside down"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:
I don't know exactly what you are saying, and maybe I did not express myself correctly (English not being my first language). I meant that it would have been easier to compare that map to most others if he had used the much more common "north is up" orientation. I do love maps, and in my bedroom I have a huge "Upside down World Map" that I bought in Australia, with Australia at the center. Although it does make sense for north to be up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I do love maps, and in my bedroom I have a huge "Upside down World Map" that I bought in Australia, with Australia at the center. Although it does make sense for north to be up. That's the thing--it doesn't make any more sense for north to be up than for south to be up. They are orientations parallel to the surface of a sphere and both at right angles to the actual direction "up."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I don't know exactly what you are saying, and maybe I did not express myself correctly (English not being my first language). I meant that it would have been easier to compare that map to most others if he had used the much more common "north is up" orientation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
You can even have east on top!
Lord Hydronium fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
I think Islamic maps traditionally had South as up, with Mecca at the center. Since this map of uncolonized Africa would probably have a large Islamic presence, it makes sense that this map would have South as "up".
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:That's the thing--it doesn't make any more sense for north to be up than for south to be up. They are orientations parallel to the surface of a sphere and both at right angles to the actual direction "up."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:That's the thing--it doesn't make any more sense for north to be up than for south to be up. They are orientations parallel to the surface of a sphere and both at right angles to the actual direction "up." It does make sense for north to be up. Because most land mass is in the northern hemisphere. And the human inhabited continents go further north than they go south. The southernmost tip of South America is about 56. The northernmost tip of mainland Russia is about 77° northern latitude. Even if you exclude inhabited islands (which would tilt it even more in favor of the northern hemisphere), the land extends farther north than south. On a typical 2D map it doesn't make that much of a difference, but on a globe it is strictly logical to have north up. Since non-Antarctic land on the southern hemisphere does not extend too far south it is generally not a problem that it lies on the underside, since you can still see the land without turning the globe upside down or contorting your body to look under the globe. And if you have standardized maps, why should the 2D maps be oriented differently than the 3D globes? It is a bit similar to the prime meridian. It is rather arbitrary to orient maps north, or to have the prime meridian run through London, but both were good choices in hindsight (and really inevitable in the case of the prime meridian). Lycus posted:Can't you just flip it around yourself in any image viewing program? The writing will be upside-down when you're comparing, but that shouldn't be a huge problem if you really want to do that. I did just that, but I really wanted the writing with it to look up the various people. Abilifier posted:I think Islamic maps traditionally had South as up, with Mecca at the center. Since this map of uncolonized Africa would probably have a large Islamic presence, it makes sense that this map would have South as "up". So it was a map how Africa might have looked without European colonialism, but with Arabian/Muslim colonialism? Ok, understood. What kind of religion were the Berber of North Africa following anyway, before the Muslim conquests? I know the Ethiopians were Miaphysite Christians, was Christianity the main religion in the rest of North Africa as well? Torrannor fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:So it was a map how Africa might have looked without European colonialism, but with Arabian/Muslim colonialism? Ok, understood. What kind of religion were the Berber of North Africa following anyway, before the Muslim conquests? I know the Ethiopians were Miaphysite Christians, was Christianity the main religion in the rest of North Africa as well?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
North is up because compasses point that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
What is logical about the prime meridian running through Greenwich? That its opposite side goes basically clear through the Pacific? Actually reading on wiki I bet this is your reasoning, because it is along the International Date Line that you add or subtract an entire day, to keep in time with the rest of the world. Having this line run through inhabited territory (aside from small islands) would be cumbersome. Is that right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:North is up because compasses point that way. Compasses align North-South, not Up-Down. So that's no reason to put it at the top of the map.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:North is up because compasses point that way. Mine points south. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Abilifier posted:I think Islamic maps traditionally had South as up, with Mecca at the center. Since this map of uncolonized Africa would probably have a large Islamic presence, it makes sense that this map would have South as "up". You can either just have lines of bearing, and pick the one nearest your location:  (A good use of Mercator, since you can measure the local bearing.) Or the same map, but with the regions where each bearing works:  Or you can get into cartography! There's the azimuthal projection with Mecca at the center, which shows the true bearing of all points on Earth from Mecca:  But that only helps if you're at Mecca and want to point somewhere else. If you're at any other point, and want to know the angle to Mecca, you need a retroazimuthal projection:  If you connect any point to Mecca, and measure the angle from the meridian, it will be the angle you'd need to face from that point. That portion of the projection only includes Eurasia and Africa, but it's cropped; you can keep extending the projection until it forms four very distorted arms stretching to infinity, if you want to include all points on earth (except the antipode). Or nowadays you can just find an app. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:What is logical about the prime meridian running through Greenwich? That its opposite side goes basically clear through the Pacific? Actually reading on wiki I bet this is your reasoning, because it is along the International Date Line that you add or subtract an entire day, to keep in time with the rest of the world. Having this line run through inhabited territory (aside from small islands) would be cumbersome. Is that right? It is not logical to have it run through Greenwich, but it was not a bad choice. If the prime meridian is roughly at the center of the world map and it's opposite marks the edges of the map (as it is with the standard eurocentric world maps), then you can only have the prime meridian run through a narrow band in either Europe/Africa or through Australia/Japan, so that the map edge cuts through the Pacific or Atlantic instead of a big populated continent. So having India or America at the center of a world map would be a map-making failure. Both methods of assigning the prime meridian are of equal value, but the sea faring and conquering civilizations that first standardized maps around the world where the Europeans, so they would of course use the map with the prime meridian in Europe, instead of the maps with center on the much less explored other side of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:What is logical about the prime meridian running through Greenwich? That its opposite side goes basically clear through the Pacific? Actually reading on wiki I bet this is your reasoning, because it is along the International Date Line that you add or subtract an entire day, to keep in time with the rest of the world. Having this line run through inhabited territory (aside from small islands) would be cumbersome. Is that right? The prime meridian is completely arbitrary, but by happenstance it's not in a poor location at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Is there any consensus on what the Qiblah should be, say, in low-earth orbit? It seems like something people would've at least discussed in the past half-century or so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Yes, such as the horrible horrible location of the original prime meridian through Paris. Wait, why did we change that, again? E. ^^^^^ I think there is. I read somewhere that they added a religious law saying that while in orbit, pick whatever direction you feel comfortable with. I mean, the ISS orbits at 28000 km/h, you'd be spinning around like crazy trying to keep up with the position of Mecca. Carbon dioxide fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
made of bees posted:Is there any consensus on what the Qiblah should be, say, in low-earth orbit? It seems like something people would've at least discussed in the past half-century or so. quote:From space[edit]
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Yes, such as the horrible horrible location of the original prime meridian through Paris. The British were a lot more important for sea trade and they were powerful when the standards were set down. I actually have a map which has the prime meridian going through DC, although it's early 1800s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
I thought there was debate on weather you had to pray the most direct... direction to Mecca, so through the Earth if you are in Australia for example, or the most direct surface direction. With these apps and the cool projections, I guess it is settled in favor of the surface direction?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Wikipedia posted:In recent years, Muslims from North America have used two rules to determine the direction of the Qiblah. According to spherical calculations, a Muslim praying from Anchorage, Alaska would pray almost due north if determining the Qiblah. However, when one looks at the world on most Mercator map projections, Mecca appears to be southeast of Anchorage. The shortest rhumb line (line of constant bearing) from most points in North America to Mecca will point toward the southeast, but the distance to Mecca along this route on the actual surface of the earth is longer than the great circle route. Oh by the way, the inside of the Kaaba (the small building in the middle of the Mecca mosque towards which muslims pray) is cleaned once every few years. I read that if a muslim needs to pray while inside the Kaaba, there is no preferred direction, either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Yes, such as the horrible horrible location of the original prime meridian through Paris.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Oh by the way, the inside of the Kaaba (the small building in the middle of the Mecca mosque towards which muslims pray) is cleaned once every few years. I read that if a muslim needs to pray while inside the Kaaba, there is no preferred direction, either. So just outside the cube can you pray towards any part of it or do you supposed to aim for the cube center of mass?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Every year during the pilgrimage, they walk around it a certain number of times, touching the walls if they can. Let's be clear, I'm not a muslim so I can only tell you what I heard. It seems that muslims scholars have 'decided' that a) the Kaaba is just a focal point for their prayers. It's not something they pray 'to', because they only pray to their God. And b) as one of them said while discussing the orbit thing "praying is not supposed to be a gymnastics exercise and God does not expect us to do the impossible". So basically, they have to pray facing the building when they can, but other than that the details do not matter all that much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:It seems that muslims scholars have 'decided' that a) the Kaaba is just a focal point for their prayers. It's not something they pray 'to', because they only pray to their God. And b) as one of them said while discussing the orbit thing "praying is not supposed to be a gymnastics exercise and God does not expect us to do the impossible".
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:That's the thing--it doesn't make any more sense for north to be up than for south to be up. They are orientations parallel to the surface of a sphere and both at right angles to the actual direction "up." No, North absolutely should be the 'up' direction, because then the Earth's rotation will be positive according to the right hand rule. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 22:51
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
^^^^^ I forgot what that rule exactly was, but I think it had to do with magnetism. So, did you take the fact that the geographic North pole is at the magnetic South pole of the Earth in consideration? (That's why the North of any magnet is attracted by Earth's geographic North. It's magnetic South.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:^^^^^ I forgot what that rule exactly was, but I think it had to do with magnetism. So, did you take the fact that the geographic North pole is at the magnetic South pole of the Earth in consideration? (That's why the North of any magnet is attracted by Earth's geographic North. It's magnetic South.)  The rule shows up in lots of physical concepts, including angular momentum and torque. North or south on the top make sense for globes as well, a east/west aligned globe would be somewhat more susceptible to uneven wearing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:^^^^^ I forgot what that rule exactly was, but I think it had to do with magnetism. So, did you take the fact that the geographic North pole is at the magnetic South pole of the Earth in consideration? (That's why the North of any magnet is attracted by Earth's geographic North. It's magnetic South.) The compass points North/South because of movement of molten iron in the mantle not because of the earth's rotation. I mean, the compass is rotating at the same rate as the earth after all. Moreover the Earth's magnetic field has reversed several times in the Earth's history. The direction of rotation of the Earth has not. Moreover, the right-hand-positive rotation is just as arbitrary as north-up. On the other hand, if you happen to be in the Northern Hemisphere it's easy to notice that all the North-South lines converge at a point and the one special star that doesn't move in the night sky happens to be in that direction too. One can see how they might have though of that way (towards the star) as "up".
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
The right-hand rule is just an arbitrary way to define a positive direction for an axis of rotation. All of the math works the same way if you use the left-hand rule instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
withak posted:The right-hand rule is just an arbitrary way to define a positive direction for an axis of rotation. All of the math works the same way if you use the left-hand rule instead. What a hosed up and perverse that would be indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:46 |
|
|
withak posted:The right-hand rule is just an arbitrary way to define a positive direction for an axis of rotation. All of the math works the same way if you use the left-hand rule instead. That's true, and when we all switch to left handed systems, we can put South on top. Carbon dioxide posted:^^^^^ I forgot what that rule exactly was, but I think it had to do with magnetism. So, did you take the fact that the geographic North pole is at the magnetic South pole of the Earth in consideration? (That's why the North of any magnet is attracted by Earth's geographic North. It's magnetic South.) Like Bensa and KernelSlanders said, my use of the right hand rule here has nothing to do with magnetics. It's simply which direction the Earth happens to turn in. The right hand rule certainly does show up with electro-magnetic fields, but not what we're talking about here. Also, while we're on North-up talk, does anyone know off hand when we actually started doing that? Roman maps were always East up, I'm curious as to why we changed. I suppose I can think of a few reasons, relating to how having the north pole (where you can't sail) at the top of the map would be good since the projection distortion won't matter, but I'm not sure if that's when it started, or what order these things happened in. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 00:59
|
|