we were born into a world where books and schools teach us the numerous names which are traditional names of "continents", "oceans" and "seas". is that good? the obvious flaw in that system is that those names fail to accurately describe the PHYSICAL FEATURES of the planet.
the REALITY of the sea is that the water truly connects and continues. not more than one ocean and certainly not many seas insted at most there are many gulfs but "sea" see below. the true description is the sea is one sea. even replacing the name "atlantic ocean" with amazon is only a partial improvement. insted we can and should describe the physical features of the planet so the names describe those realities and that means UPDATING the sytem in away that removes many of those flaws.
i emphasize that the sea is so vast that even saying a ship or island is in the north of ocean does not tell me the location where. even a smaller sea with a name for example "my ship is in DANGER in "bering" sea" does that tell the other ships my location? that water is so vast millions of square kilometers that the name does not identify the location anyway and even worse is the severity of namaing shared water by any country name we must remove-urgently the names of countries from any sea or ocean and replace it with names that describe the reality of the planet. i dare not even repeat the names that need fixing.
althoe it s tempting to simplify the name of the long river for the same name as the ocean i must admit that is not objective reality because the surface of the planet is truly covered with water that CONNECTS and CONTINUES and truly surrounds each and every exposed land wether as vast and broad as the ural continent or a small islet.
the only accurate manner to describe a division of sea which is truly one sea considering the water continues is based on the largest continent the island truly surrounded by water where the long mountain called ural mountain and therefore url continent. then the one sea can be subdivided into north ural sea with no country name and east ural sea which truly does conect to the south ural sea and west ural sea so one sea.
when we consider the DEEPEST point in the sea there is only one deepest point because the water continues connects except for true gulfs with narrow connectioins so the subdivision is not truly the deepest point for example in the water north of ural there are deep points yet the deepest point in that water is not significant considering that the same sea extends and continues east of ural where the deepest point is 9 kilometers hence anything less deep is obviously "many points less deep" in one sea. so this not nly simplifies by removing the obvious but more accurately describes the physical feature because one sea must have only one deepest point and the water on any side of the ural continent is connected as one sea which defines the continent as an island.
the most detail that is reasonable is categorizing the islands by size as in previous post but the sea is water that connects and surrounds every island wether vast or small and relative to the sea which is truly one sea even ural continent is simply an island not only because it is truly surrounded by water and hence we can and must describe the physical feature of the planet but also it is not vast in relation to the area of the water called sea.
as above the traditional subdivisions will not aid any ship in danger for example bering sea despite the fact that it lacks the flaw of a bad name for any country it is still not helpful and we must update and improve the system insted of stubbornly preserving names that not only do not describe the physical features but are often bad and evil by attaching to shared water a country name which does not assist a ship in danger anyway. anyway we must use the lines of latitude and truly without electronic satellites we did and will fail in helping a ship in danger so the names are just only inaccurate without benefit and we can and should remove any bad name and simplify names in a manner that describes the physical reality of the planet so the most possible names would be at most subdivide based on the largest continent as above.
so simply there is one sea because the water truly connects. not more than one ocean nor sea and certainly not any name of country for shared water.
as above relative to the one deepest point the fact that many other points in the one sea are less deep becomes blatantly obvious and does not describe the planet for example to say a certain place in the sea which is not separated in the manner of a true gulf has a "less deep point" than 9000 meters is obvious because there are many innumerable less deep points or trenches in the one sea.we would need the system of the sphere called latitude even if we kept the bad country names and inaccurate non-evil names such as bering sea simply wrong because it is not a separate sea and instead truly one sea of connected water surround the relatively smaller island wither it is as vast as ural or smaller.
obviously the reffort of learning the area of any subdivision is inaccurate because the water truly continues and connects so no point in saying my sea is more area in square kilometers than your sea or gulf.
imagine mexico boasting our "gulf" is bigger than china sea. those waters are not only shared and must be shared but the water is not separated that is why the word "sea" was traditionally used for one sea and the fact that the bible got this detail wrong is no excuse to preserve any inaccuracy fix those many traditions wether in a book that does not describe the reality of the planet as well as the traditional names of water and land "land and sea"
we can and should fix the details and remove the many names because they do not accurately describe the reality of the physical features of the planet.
which is better to name the water east of amazon river east amazon ocean and the water west of the amazon continent west amazon? yet the amazon continent is truly not the most significant continent. the ural continent is a larger island than amazon continent even without the nile region. for example 50 million square kilometers is far more than 42 msk.
therefore the description of the planet must be based on the reality that ural continent is larger and the water surrounds the ural continent to north and south of it as well as east and west of it and each of those areas truly connects with the other in ones sea absurd to pretend the area in kilometers or deep points arre worth emphasizing in one connected sea.
so in conclusion tthe replacement to improbe the traditional system is to focus on describing the physical feateurs fpr that reason and removing the numerous names and details [wether less area or less deep than deepest] which are obvious as above and do not aid a ship in danger anyway and do not accurately describe the planet anyway.
instead based on the largest i sland we can and should say the surface is "land and sea". one sea surrounds the surface of the planet and surrounds the two largest islands, because the water not only connects but only true gulfs have narrow knecks to justify a separate name which as above must not be a country name. in terms of islands see previous post that even antarctica is significantly smaller to be in the same island category of the "continents" and educaters can and should improve the tradition by using these improvemets because not only does it simplify the details but more importantly it more accurately describes the physical featues of the planet as decided by the reality of those physical features.
isnt truth more important between the options? certainly yes so the reality of the physical description must guide us to update and improve the description from the flawed data currently taught to more accurate descriptions.
No comments:
Post a Comment