Okay, possibly this is the stupidest question ever posed, but…
Imagine the land between San Francisco is completely flat. No hills, no Grapevine, nothing. Both SF and LA are at sea level. Now imagine you’re going to ride your bike from SF to LA and back again.
Here’s my question:
- The ride from SF to LA is harder.
- The ride from LA to SF is harder.
- The two legs of the ride are equally difficult.
My mental model is that the ride from LA to SF is harder. Darin says I’m wrong, that maps of the world are purely by convention.
As I drove yesterday I thought about why I imagine going from LA to SF is harder. Was I somehow applying the law of gravity to a north-south axis? Then I realized I had a mental model that rivers like the Mississippi go north to south (though that’s probably because they get such a good headstart coming off the Canadian mountains). Except, of course, the Nile, which goes south to north…and in my mental model of the world, the Nile is below the Equator. (I know this is wrong. I knew the second I vocalized it. But I had never thought about it explicitly before.)
More data: it takes about a tank of gas to go from our house to LA. I filled up right before leaving both times and the gas light came on toward the end of both trips. But I had to stop to refuel on the way home yesterday because the indicator dipped below the E mark—but on the way to LA it didn’t get that low. Did I use more gas coming home because I was coming north or because I drove, um, speedier?
Can anyone help me out here?