Why is end of all continents in the form of V ?
108123
the answer above me is correct...i will add that if you look at all of the places around the edges you will see many wedges...even look at the sidewalk cracking on the city street and you will see a microcosm of the macrocosm you speak of in your question..a bunch of the same either zoomed in or out...that idea is commonly called 'fractals'
1011772
continents - yes\n\ncountries - no
1006650
Simply answer:\n\nLongitude is "long ways around the Earth"\n\nLatitude is "Latter up the Earth"\n\nIf you are circumnavigating you are traveling along the Latitude or going around the Earth on a line.  So if you move left or right on that line your change your latitude - typically referred to as North or South.  \n\nYour longitude incidentally is always changing as you circumnavigate around the Earth.  But that changes even if you don't make a course change.  :p\n.\nOh, dah, I get it, l had it backwards, sorry, like if you go over the poles of the earth.  Okay.  Dah.  \nYou are traveling North to South or South to North.  Once you reach that point (one of the poles) it changes
340473
Well w is sometimes pronounced like a v in germanic areas, so valdkowski,woldkowski.waldkowski wollkowski also sky ending, you could probably find a lot of varients at ellis island.org search wolkowski and ask for other spellings see what it generates.
243693
I think you are making connections which are not really there.  If you look hard enough, you cant find numeric connections with a lot of things which are coincidence and have no meaning in reality.\nThere are 10 planets now, not 9 (and not 7).  We define our colors very arbitrarily, the same with music notes, there is no real physical meaning behind why green and blue are not considered shades of the same color.  Who decided that Asia and Europe should be different continents, one might very easily make thw argument that should really be one big continent...and India is often times refered to as a "sub" continent.\nI dont see how any of these things would influence the number of dimentions there are, but at very least, they are fun to think about for novelty purposes.
675558
A good example of this is that scientists have found fossils of exactly the same species of reptile in Africa and South America, what happened here is that South America and Africa were once joined together and these animals died distributed on top of them, then the continents moved aprt and the fossils are on both\nThis isnt an example of evolutionary distribution due to continents moving but shows they do move and animals live on both of them\nNow what could happen is that a species could live on  continents joined together and as the continents drift apart the species are left on both sides of it and they evolve into separate but similar species ( like Humans and apes evolved form a common ancestor). \nSO the continets drifting explains why similar species can be on both sides of the Ocean that separates 2 continents because the continents drift apart with the species on both of them and the species evolve into 2 separate but similar species.
924661
7 is what I learned in school.\nBut, some people do classify Eurasia as one continent since it's one large landmass divided only by the Ural Mountains (It's divided culturally, not really geographically.)... so that would make it 6, in a sense.
1032668
Antarctica is the continent
1163699
The continents we have now were mostly fused along their lower parts to each other in the distant past of Earth.\nOver millions of years they broke away and drifted apart. \nThe so called blunt part is that continent's ancient shores while the sharp part is a distant reminder of where they separeted.
1033087
This is a direct quote from the website (see below)\nBackground\nGeologists believe that a super-continent composed of all of the present day continents existed on the planet\n200 million years ago (at the same time dinosaurs were on earth). Geologists call this super-continent\nPangaea. Because there was only one continent, there was only one ocean called Tethys.
475593
There are 7 continents. \nThey are:\n1. Asia\n2. North America\n3. South America\n4. Europe\n5. Africa\n6. Antarctica\n7. Oceania (formerly called australia)
207799
Probably both of the above answers combined -- but most importantly, the ability to make a sophisticated and accurate map of the entire world.  If you look at the shapes the continents make you'll see that they fit together almost like a jigsaw puzzle, so it became apparently to anyone who looked carefully that perhaps at one time far in the past, they were all one continent.\n\nThough in fact India broke off from one of the other continents and moved and is currently slamming into Asia -- thus, Himalayas.  :)
761167
Good question, and a tough one to answer, although I'm skeptical of the "all known criteria" piece of it.  I did browse much of the Wikipedia entry, and I also have a globe here to look at.\n\nTo rephrase this question, I guess we could say, (1) why is it not a continent, and (2) why is it a subcontinent?\n\nTraditionally, there are six or seven continents -- North & South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica.  Sometimes Europe & Asia are combined into Eurasia, and some people like to combine the Americas.\n\nSize and geographic separation seem to be important ... the Central America connection is pretty narrow, as is the Suez connection.  On the other hand, the Ural mountains separating Europe from Asia is an ancient plate boundary (similar to the Appalachians, and much older than the Himalayas), and the Ural boundary certainly is not "narrow."  In that case, however, there are huge historical cultural differences between, for example, western Europe and East Asia.\n\nIn terms of size, Australia is the smallest continent, and Greenland is the largest island.  India is much closer in size to Greenland than to Australia.  (Also compare Madagascar, a large island drifting away from Africa.  The tectonic activity there is similar to India.)\n\nSo on the question of "why isn't it a continent," I'd say size matters a lot -- India isn't big enough -- and I'd say the closest boundary comparison is between the Himalaya barrier and the Urals.  West of the Urals is much, much larger than south of the Himalayas.\n\nCultural comparisons matter too, and by this measure, India could be considered a continent in its own right.  The Indian population is significantly different than the neighboring Oriental and Caucasian peoples.\n\nWhen you balance all this stuff, I guess you say Europe is its own continent -- it's big and culturally differentiable; but India is not a continent because it's not big enough.\n\nThe other part of the question is, why is it a subcontinent?  There, the Himalayas and, to a lesser extent, the Indian Plate, make a big difference.  Because of the mountains, India is geograpically separated from the rest of Asia.\n\nIt's also a large peninsula.  In this regard, we must compare with the Arabian Peninsula (which sits on the Arabian Plate), and maybe with Asia Minor, the boundary of which (by looking at a globe) may be said to extend from the Persion Gulf to the eastern end of the Black Sea, thus comprising a large area encompassing Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.  The other obvious large peninsula is Western Europe itself, bounded on the east by a line extending from the Black Sea to the Baltic.\n\nBut neither of those peninsulas have the Himalaya Mountain barrier.\n\nSo putting that altogether, I guess that's why India is a subcontinent and not a continent.  And since it seems to be the only generally recognized subcontinent in the world, that makes it pretty unique.
152704
Its so big like a conitnent but its not a continent. Asia is continent and its part of Asia so we call it sub continent.
924713
Volcanism at Nyiragongo is caused by the rifting of the Earth's crust where two parts of the African Plate are breaking apart. >>> breaking apart = divergent = constructive !!!!
585724
A number of theories exist regarding the naming of North and South America. The most widely recognized is that they are named after Amerigo Vespucci, who was the first European to suggest that the Americas were not the East Indies, but a New World, previously undiscovered by Europeans. The second and less generally accepted is that the continents are named after an English merchant named Richard Amerike from Bristol, who is believed to have financed John Cabot's voyage of discovery from England to Newfoundland in 1497. A third theory that has been advanced is that America was named for a Spanish sailor bearing the ancient Visigothic name of 'Amairick'.\n\nThe America's are the European name for the area know as the new world, once humans formd a country the people who are citizens are called AMERICAN's, a shortened name of USA. All US citizens are called Ameicans but not all people who live in the US are called that, some are called Illegal Immigrants, Undocumanted workers or plainly immigants
192657
No way to know.  What is the shape of "everything"?  I think it is round and that if you go to one end, you'll end up back at the same point if you keep going the same direction.\n\nGood question.