4 ms·
Absolutely, need we not mention when maps mention something like Terra Australis which clearly denote a continent that hasn't been discovered by historians then
by pyinstallwoes 3y ago
Absolutely, need we not mention when maps mention something like Terra Australis which clearly denote a continent that hasn't been discovered by historians then it must clearly be a moral fable. May we trust in the dogma of the great interpreters of history.
Example of the beautiful wash of mind (see talk page):
> Terra Australis is a legendary/theoretical continent, not based on sightings of the real Antarctica
Ah, such conviction for someone to have of a past that they never directly experienced. It's remarkable! Especially when the map is the same size of the object it represents. Lest you not think in haste, it is certainly not that which it is.
- Cpoll 3y ago> Especially when the map is the same size of the object it represents. Which map? Most maps that have the hypothetical landmass place it with the South Pole at its center, with land spreading outward as far as will fit with the known landmasses. They also make it many times larger than Australia (usually to conform to the theory that the hemispheres should have equal landmass).
- chatmasta 3y agoI'm guessing OP is referring to the Piri Reis map and the various claims around the identity of its "Southern Continent": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map
- ffgjgf1 3y agoWell.. for centuries going back to the Ancient Greeks at the very least some people believed that earth must be balanced and that land must be more or less equally distributed across its surface otherwise because.. I guess that how they thought physics worked. > Especially when the map is the same size of the object it represents. On an extremely superficial level.