Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
"To be a continent you need to not be connected to another "continent" by a large piece of land... and be the largest owner of a teconic plate. (For example how North America owns more of the North American Plate then the afore mentioned east russia."
This doesn't make sense to me. As in, I literally don't know what point you're trying to make. What does it mean that North America owns "more of" its plate than east Russia, which isn't a continental component at all? Is this a jumbled way of saying (as I was saying) that that land belongs to the NA plate and hence to NA? |
What I meant though, was that there is more landmass in North America with there is Russia. Otherwise I believe North America would be consdiered an Island of Eurasia... or more percisely an Island of the subcontinent of East Russia. Much how Andama Island is an Island of the Indian sub continent.
Same plate, not connected, but more of the plate belongs to the continent of Eurasia then the Island.
|
I think I see what you were trying to say. But all I wanted to dispute is which continent gets credit for ownership of the area, in terms of geology or plate tectonics. And it's clearly North America, just by looking at the map IMO. But you, I, and everyone else consider it part of Asia. Which was my point that that's not the only thing geography considers.
|
No, the other thing it considers is if it's connected to another piece of land by a large area... like I said above. It's large connection to Eurasia prevents it from being an Island of N.A. while North America having more of the plate prevents it from being a sub continent.
Although, i have to ask you... why do you consider it part of Asia and not part of Europe. Assuming you support the 7 continent theory.
What about East Russia makes it more Asian then Europeon?
