The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: ChrisTP on May 11, 2020, 04:24:02 PM
-
Hey, every now and then I notice FE'ers point out that we use cables and antenna rather than satellites for some things that a lot of the world tend to ignorantly think is satellite based. I've also seen FE'ers point out that oceans are much harder for people to measure. This had me wondering something else, we have a fair amount of information on the submarine cables used for things like internet. We have exact lengths for these cables and they are made and laid out by regular workers so there's nothing being hidden there (because that would mean those regular workers would either be too incompetent to do their job or 'in on the conspiracy').
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
So given that we have this information, how would these cables that go across vast oceans in the northern and southern hemisphere be exact lengths if the world is not the exact shape we think it is? If we assume the disk where Antarctica is spanning around the outer edge then this cable for example would be much longer;
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/oman-australia-cable-oac
and this cable much shorter;
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/tata-tgn-atlantic
So I guess I'm just curious how this can be explained if the map is assumed to be a completely different shape to the globe, because these cables seem to confirm to the vast distances.
-
Hey, every no and then I notice FE'ers point out that we use cables and antenna rather than satellites for some things that a lot of the world tend to ignorantly think is satellite based. I've als seen FE'ers point out that oceans are much harder for people to measure. This had me wondering something else, we have a fair amount of information on the submarine cables used for things like internet. We have exact lengths for these cables and they are made and laid out by regular workers so there's nothing being hidden there (because that would mean those regular workers would either be too incompetent to do their job or 'in on the conspiracy').
An interesting angle. There is a pretty well documented history of undersea cables as well, so you can use the distances of those too. Historical figures should match current ones pretty well, accounting for differences in paths along the seafloor. Certainly accurate enough to know if they should be twice as long or not. More data at the very least.
Early cables are rather fascinating. I've read about them quite a bit. Did you know the first ones were so slow it took over a minute just to send a single dot or dash? That's a crazy slow bit rate.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Undersea_Cables - Doesn't look too exact to me. The segment runs for the Transatlantic cable required many miles of extra cable.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Undersea_Cables - Doesn't look too exact to me. The segment runs for the Transatlantic cable required many miles of extra cable.
The Wiki page quotes needing 16% more cable than expected, which is not surprising as back then there were no good detailed maps of the seafloor. From what I have seen of Flat Earth maps, the discrepancies are far greater than that, but it's hard to tell as I don't know of any with a readable scale.
Are there any FE maps with scales you can measure on? The Wiki doesn't seem to provide them.
-
the discrepancies are far greater than that
Look up where the Transatlantic Cable is.
The Wiki page quotes needing 16% more cable than expected, which is not surprising as back then there were no good detailed maps of the seafloor.
OP said that exact cable lengths were proof of a globe. Sounds like you are saying that he is wrong.
-
the discrepancies are far greater than that
Look up where the Transatlantic Cable is.
The Wiki page quotes needing 16% more cable than expected, which is not surprising as back then there were no good detailed maps of the seafloor.
OP said that exact cable lengths were proof of a globe. Sounds like you are saying that he is wrong.
Where did I say he was wrong? I said it's not surprising that laying a cable across an uneven surface is going to not match your estimate, especially back then when we didn't have fancy, detailed undersea maps like we do today.
OP said the cable lengths were consistent with a globe, not that they were exact to the centimetre. I would also guess that cables laid now days are MUCH closer to estimated lengths than your example from 60 years ago.
Regardless, the distances all work on a globe map, but can't be fit to a FE map which is the OPs point.
-
the discrepancies are far greater than that
Look up where the Transatlantic Cable is.
The Wiki page quotes needing 16% more cable than expected, which is not surprising as back then there were no good detailed maps of the seafloor.
OP said that exact cable lengths were proof of a globe. Sounds like you are saying that he is wrong.
Cable lengths are proof that they fit Globe maps. Just recently (2018) a new fiber-optic cable was laid from LA to Hong Kong, with a diversion through Taiwan.
"Submarine cable goes for record: 144,000 Gigabits from Hong Kong to L.A. in 1 Second
In a single second, its six fiber-optic pairs, stretching roughly 13,000 kilometers (8,000 miles) between Hong Kong and Los Angeles, will be able to send some 144 terabits in both directions."
Since there is no such thing as a flat earth map we only have the two most common models, AE Mono pole & the Bi-polar, none of which fit the described length of cable laid at all. It does, however, fit the Globe model quite well.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Undersea_Cables - Doesn't look too exact to me. The segment runs for the Transatlantic cable required many miles of extra cable.
in 1855 did they have a decent understanding of how deep the oceans were? (I don't know for sure but it seems a few decades prior to knowing).
And yes we know the exact length of the cables , even though the first cable to be put down which was so long ago required a bit more than the estimates they still knew even then how much cable they used. And now we know how deep the oceans are. This is quite an interesting topic though regardless of the outcome of this thread.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Undersea_Cables - Doesn't look too exact to me. The segment runs for the Transatlantic cable required many miles of extra cable.
in 1855 did they have a decent understanding of how deep the oceans were? (I don't know for sure but it seems a few decades prior to knowing).
And yes we know the exact length of the cables , even though the first cable to be put down which was so long ago required a bit more than the estimates they still knew even then how much cable they used. And now we know how deep the oceans are. This is quite an interesting topic though regardless of the outcome of this thread.
Before sonar the only option for mapping the ocean floor was to lower a rope into it to see how deep it went.
Obviously this is a very slow and inaccurate method, so in 1855 there would be at best only a very rough and spotty idea of what the ocean floor looked like. So 16% is a pretty good estimate actually in retrospect.
-
Where did I say he was wrong? I said it's not surprising that laying a cable across an uneven surface is going to not match your estimate, especially back then when we didn't have fancy, detailed undersea maps like we do today.
OP said the cable lengths were consistent with a globe, not that they were exact to the centimetre. I would also guess that cables laid now days are MUCH closer to estimated lengths than your example from 60 years ago.
Regardless, the distances all work on a globe map, but can't be fit to a FE map which is the OPs point.
I really just see speculation about sea floors and unjustified statements that lengths were fed out that exactly matches an RE.
-
Where did I say he was wrong? I said it's not surprising that laying a cable across an uneven surface is going to not match your estimate, especially back then when we didn't have fancy, detailed undersea maps like we do today.
OP said the cable lengths were consistent with a globe, not that they were exact to the centimetre. I would also guess that cables laid now days are MUCH closer to estimated lengths than your example from 60 years ago.
Regardless, the distances all work on a globe map, but can't be fit to a FE map which is the OPs point.
I really just see speculation about sea floors and unjustified statements that lengths were fed out that exactly matches an RE.
What I see is the idea that...
1. We know the approximate length of undersea cables.
2. These lengths match a globe map.
Seems justified to me, after spot checking the lengths and measuring on a globe.
You said: "Doesn't look too exact to me. The segment runs for the Transatlantic cable required many miles of extra cable"
From your Wiki: "Total amount of cable paid out, 949 miles; total amount run by observation, 818 miles; ... Surplus cable paid out over distance run by observation, 131 miles "
What they are saying is they traveled 818 miles and paid out 949 miles of cable, which is exactly what you would expect when laying cable over underwater mountain ranges. Why is this a problem? Do you not believe there are underwater hills and mountains?
If you take the length of any undersea cable and then find the distance between the endpoints on a map, they always match within a reasonable margin of error. You never see a cable that,s supposed to be 2,000km long and measure 8,000km on the map. The point of the OP is these cables all are roughly how long they should be on a globe Earth.
-
I don't really see many cables running East-West in the Southern Hemisphere. I mostly see them running North-South in the Southern Hemiphere. On the Monopole map the North-South distances in the Southern Hemisphere are the same. There are a couple of E-W cable between South America and Africa, but those are near the equator.
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/
(https://i.imgur.com/a4M3W5Y.png)
The cables mostly wrap N-S around the land masses. If the cables branch out into the ocean, they branch out to the islands near the continents (ie. Australia to New Zealand)
I don't really see what you are talking about in regard to the massive discrepancies which should be seen. The cables are largely in the Northern Hemisphere.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/a4M3W5Y.png)
The cables mostly wrap N-S around the land masses. If the cables branch out into the ocean, they branch out to the islands near the continents (ie. Australia to New Zealand)
I don't really see what you are talking about in regard to the massive discrepancies which should be seen. The cables are largely in the Northern Hemisphere.
That is the point, there aren't any massive discrepancies when compared with a globe based map. But you can't fit them all onto a flat earth map, the distances won't add up.
-
I don't really see many cables running East-West in the Southern Hemisphere. I mostly see them running North-South in the Southern Hemiphere. There are a couple of cable between South America and Africa, but those are near the equator.
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/
(https://i.imgur.com/a4M3W5Y.png)
The cables mostly wrap around the land masses. If the cables branch out into the ocean, they branch out to the islands near the continents (ie. Australia to New Zealand)
I don't really see what you are talking about in regard to the massive discrepancies which should be seen.
There's a ton of cables going east to west in the northern hemisphere though, which if the earth were flat the cables wouldn't need to be as long. And sure, theres not as many in the southern hemisphere but there are still some, in fact I pointed out particular ones to begin with to this point. And regarding discrepancies, of course we'd see some (and rather extreme) if the shape of the earth wasn't a globe... the northern hemisphere east to west cables would be shorter and the southern hemisphere east to west cables would be longer... But you know this.
-
I don't really see many cables running East-West in the Southern Hemisphere. I mostly see them running North-South in the Southern Hemiphere. On the Monopole map the North-South distances in the Southern Hemisphere are the same. There are a couple of E-W cable between South America and Africa, but those are near the equator.
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/
(https://i.imgur.com/a4M3W5Y.png)
The cables mostly wrap N-S around the land masses. If the cables branch out into the ocean, they branch out to the islands near the continents (ie. Australia to New Zealand)
I don't really see what you are talking about in regard to the massive discrepancies which should be seen. The cables are largely in the Northern Hemisphere.
You've stated before that you have a prefernce for the Bi-Polar model as opposed to the uni-pole model. So how would the 2018 LA to Hong Kong new fiber cable, approximately 13,000 kilometers (8,000 miles) long, that I referenced before work on the Bi-Polar model?
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)
Seems like the cable would have to 'pac-man' to Hong Kong from LA or go for way more than 8000 miles. How does FE reconcile that?
-
You've stated before that you have a prefernce for the Bi-Polar model as opposed to the uni-pole model. So how would the 2018 LA to Hong Kong new fiber cable, approximately 13,000 kilometers (8,000 miles) long, that I referenced before work on the Bi-Polar model?
https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png
Seems like the cable would have to 'pac-man' to Hong Kong from LA or go for way more than 8000 miles. How does FE reconcile that?
Actually the bi-polar model page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model#Maps) says that it is a placeholder map and that there are many possible configurations. That one is a placeholder map centered on the Prime Meridian.
There's a ton of cables going east to west in the northern hemisphere though, which if the earth were flat the cables wouldn't need to be as long. And sure, theres not as many in the southern hemisphere but there are still some, in fact I pointed out particular ones to begin with to this point. And regarding discrepancies, of course we'd see some (and rather extreme) if the shape of the earth wasn't a globe... the northern hemisphere east to west cables would be shorter and the southern hemisphere east to west cables would be longer... But you know this.
I don't see why the distances would need to be be significantly shorter in the NH for the Monopole model. The NH can be any size necessary.
Your "we'd see" is pure speculation what the ship companies see.
-
You've stated before that you have a prefernce for the Bi-Polar model as opposed to the uni-pole model. So how would the 2018 LA to Hong Kong new fiber cable, approximately 13,000 kilometers (8,000 miles) long, that I referenced before work on the Bi-Polar model?
https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png
Seems like the cable would have to 'pac-man' to Hong Kong from LA or go for way more than 8000 miles. How does FE reconcile that?
Actually the bi-polar model page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model#Maps) says that it is a placeholder map and that there are many possible configurations. That one is a placeholder map centered on the Prime Meridian.
Understood. That's why I always refer to it as a model, not a map. Because FET does not have a map. But if you want to go there, the new LA to Hong Kong cable distance perfectly fits a globe earth Map/Model - It doesn't fit any FET model. It's another point where globe earth fits observation and execution and FET does not. It's really that simple.
There's a ton of cables going east to west in the northern hemisphere though, which if the earth were flat the cables wouldn't need to be as long. And sure, theres not as many in the southern hemisphere but there are still some, in fact I pointed out particular ones to begin with to this point. And regarding discrepancies, of course we'd see some (and rather extreme) if the shape of the earth wasn't a globe... the northern hemisphere east to west cables would be shorter and the southern hemisphere east to west cables would be longer... But you know this.
I don't see why the distances would need to be be significantly shorter in the NH for the Monopole model. The NH can be any size necessary.
Your "we'd see" is pure speculation what the ship companies see.
The NH can't be "any size necessary". People have to ship goods and transport humans all about the NH on a daily basis. The distances are known to globe earth. Distances are unknown to FET.
-
Oh no sorry Tom you're right about the northern hemisphere my bad it's 2:30am here I think I'm going crazy waiting for renders to finish. :P the northern hemisphere on the flat disk map wwhere north is the middle would be the same. But you seem to be ignoring the southern hemisphere still. There are cables going east to west and there would be a difference. It's not speculation, basically any cables coming off Australia going to other land masses east or west of Australia would should be a match for the globe, because those landmasses are connected to others and so on so fourth. We know the exact size and shape of land masses there is no disputing that (and if you really want to dispute that I would rather it be taken to another thread). So connecting cables would also need to match so for example
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/oman-australia-cable-oac
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/telstra-endeavour
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/japan-u-s-cable-network-jus
all three would need to be the length it says it is, if one is a lot shorter because a landmass is actually further to the east or west, then the other cables would need to be longer. So in that sense e know Australia is exactly where it should be on a globe map and that the three cables in question are the correct lengths. If one of those is wrong then at least another is wrong and that would in a sense make the globe map wrong, if you're following. I find it hard to explain things sometimes (or rather people find it hard to understand my explanations of thing so I'm told) so if you don't get what I mean hopefully someone else could explain.
Not to mention this cable would have to be that size if Australia is that long, so if you'd suggest everything in reality is stretched you'd be wrong.
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/indigo-central
-
Understood. That's why I always refer to it as a model, not a map. Because FET does not have a map. But if you want to go there, the new LA to Hong Kong cable distance perfectly fits a globe earth Map/Model - It doesn't fit any FET model. It's another point where globe earth fits observation and execution and FET does not. It's really that simple.
FE hardly has a budget to go out and map the world, whereas RE has had billions to make up their excuses for why things do not end up working perfectly for them.
Where is your evidence that it fits the globe model, with all of the cable excess (or even perhaps shortage), other than you simply declaring that it all works out the way you want it to work?
You guys have provided absolutely zero data for us, other than your words of "this all works out on my model". Do you guys own those companies? Do you have access to those logs for us?
Oh no sorry Tom you're right about the northern hemisphere my bad it's 2:30am here I think I'm going crazy waiting for renders to finish. :P the northern hemisphere on the flat disk map wwhere north is the middle would be the same. But you seem to be ignoring the southern hemisphere still. There are cables going east to west and there would be a difference. It's not speculation, basically any cables coming off Australia going to other land masses east or west of Australia would should be a match for the globe, because those landmasses are connected to others and so on so fourth. We know the exact size and shape of land masses there is no disputing that (and if you really want to dispute that I would rather it be taken to another thread). So connecting cables would also need to match so for example
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/oman-australia-cable-oac
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/telstra-endeavour
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/japan-u-s-cable-network-jus
all three would need to be the length it says it is, if one is a lot shorter because a landmass is actually further to the east or west, then the other cables would need to be longer. So in that sense e know Australia is exactly where it should be on a globe map and that the three cables in question are the correct lengths. If one of those is wrong then at least another is wrong and that would in a sense make the globe map wrong, if you're following. I find it hard to explain things sometimes (or rather people find it hard to understand my explanations of thing so I'm told) so if you don't get what I mean hopefully someone else could explain.
Not to mention this cable would have to be that size if Australia is that long, so if you'd suggest everything in reality is stretched you'd be wrong.
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/indigo-central
Again, you have offered us nothing except your opinion and assumption for how things ought to be.
-
Understood. That's why I always refer to it as a model, not a map. Because FET does not have a map. But if you want to go there, the new LA to Hong Kong cable distance perfectly fits a globe earth Map/Model - It doesn't fit any FET model. It's another point where globe earth fits observation and execution and FET does not. It's really that simple.
FE hardly has a budget to go out and map the world, whereas RE has had billions to make up their excuses for why things necessary end up working perfectly for them.
Where is your evidence that it fits the globe model, with all of the cable excess (or even perhaps shortage), other than you simply declaring that it all works out the way you want it to work?
Fits in great here:
(https://i.imgur.com/o4mJ6vZ.png)
It doesn't fit anywhere in FET.
-
Once again, a simple statement without evidence for these cable lengths. I am unable to see that any evidence has been presented at all, other than an opinion that the cable lengths all exactly match an RE. As there has been a failure to provide evidence for those statements, those statements can be safely discarded without evidence.
-
Once again, a simple statement without evidence for these cable lengths. I fail to find that any evidence has been presented at all, other than an opinion that the cable lengths all exactly match an RE. As there has been a failure to provide evidence for those statements, those statements can be safely discarded without evidence.
Interesting tactic. Trying to invoke the failure in evidence when FET not only has a failure, just simply provides none.
A length of cable between LA and Hong Kong was presented. A globe earth map showing a great circle distance reading that was close to the length of cable and you claim, "no evidence" with how globe earth fits the cabling better than FET. That's beyond curious because FET has no known distance between the world's continents, cities, and landmarks - They are all unknown to FET, just like the heavens.
Bottomline:
- The cable length closely matches the distance between cities on a globe earth
- FET has no knowledge of distances so FET has no idea whether the distance is correct or not.
I think you need to get your FET map/distance stuff in order before you can say anything about any other model.
-
Once again, a simple statement without evidence for these cable lengths. I am unable to see that any evidence has been presented at all, other than an opinion that the cable lengths all exactly match an RE. As there has been a failure to provide evidence for those statements, those statements can be safely discarded without evidence.
I provided a map of cables as evidence and you can use google maps I'm sure. So I guess you're going with 'unverifiable' even though tons of regular workers who laid those cables exist, the globe map exists and this all works.
Are you refuting that those workers didn't exist or something? Who put down the cables? Why is it not verification that those workers know the lengths of the cables they put down? If it were untrue, why has no one come forward to say the distances were massively different? It's crazy that you would post a book of someone who laid cables down and then refuse to accept that any other workers existed... One guy wrote a book and suddenly he's the only verifiable worker? I mean, I can very safely make the assumption that he isn't the only one who put those cables down and even his book describes cables that match a globe model.
Tom, bottom line, the cable map provided shows distances, why is this not considered enough evidence for how long those cables are? Because imagine this were flipped and the cables on that website show lengths that cannot match a globe and are closer to what may seem like a flat earth match, would you still be denying this stuff or would you be adding it to the wiki as fast as you possibly can?
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Undersea_Cables - Doesn't look too exact to me. The segment runs for the Transatlantic cable required many miles of extra cable.
You do this sort of thing a lot Tom and it's really quite disingenuous.
You're taking a book from 1855 when they didn't have anywhere as good maps or ways to navigate or GPS, noting that at that time their measurements were off and going "Aha! See?" as if that's a smoking gun of anything.
It's like the bit on the page about the ice wall page where you quote James Ross whose explorations were in the middle of the 19th century, you ignore the century and a half of exploration which has been done since to the point where there's literally a base at the South Pole now which you can visit (not cheap, mind, but the fabled Antarctic Treaty isn't stopping you, these trips was publicly advertised.)
Time doesn't stop at some point where you can find evidence which backs up your claim. Cherry picking from random points in history and ignoring everything which has happened since does you know favours.
-
Bottomline:
- The cable length closely matches the distance between cities on a globe earth
How did you determine that beyond just stating it?
get your FET map/distance stuff in order
This claim you guys are making really has nothing to do with FE maps and which may or may not be the correct one. The claim in this thread is that the cable lengths match an RE and you have failed to provide any evidence for that matter beyond speculating that they match.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Undersea_Cables - Doesn't look too exact to me. The segment runs for the Transatlantic cable required many miles of extra cable.
You do this sort of thing a lot Tom and it's really quite disingenuous.
You're taking a book from 1855 when they didn't have anywhere as good maps or ways to navigate or GPS, noting that at that time their measurements were off and going "Aha! See?" as if that's a smoking gun of anything.
It's like the bit on the page about the ice wall page where you quote James Ross whose explorations were in the middle of the 19th century, you ignore the century and a half of exploration which has been done since to the point where there's literally a base at the South Pole now which you can visit (not cheap, mind, but the fabled Antarctic Treaty isn't stopping you, these trips was publicly advertised.)
Time doesn't stop at some point where you can find evidence which backs up your claim. Cherry picking from random points in history and ignoring everything which has happened since does you know favours.
Do you have any evidence that they didn't know how to measure out miles in the 1800's or is this purely speculation on your part?
JSS says the reason is underwater mountains. Now you are claiming that they were too dumb to measure things. Any actual evidence for any of that, or are your own wild statements enough?
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Undersea_Cables - Doesn't look too exact to me. The segment runs for the Transatlantic cable required many miles of extra cable.
You do this sort of thing a lot Tom and it's really quite disingenuous.
You're taking a book from 1855 when they didn't have anywhere as good maps or ways to navigate or GPS, noting that at that time their measurements were off and going "Aha! See?" as if that's a smoking gun of anything.
It's like the bit on the page about the ice wall page where you quote James Ross whose explorations were in the middle of the 19th century, you ignore the century and a half of exploration which has been done since to the point where there's literally a base at the South Pole now which you can visit (not cheap, mind, but the fabled Antarctic Treaty isn't stopping you, these trips was publicly advertised.)
Time doesn't stop at some point where you can find evidence which backs up your claim. Cherry picking from random points in history and ignoring everything which has happened since does you know favours.
Historical scientific expeditions are not really random points in history .
-
How did you determine that beyond just stating it?
The cable map website has information on which companies own the cables and there's a lot of known ones, facebook, vodafone etc. Some cables being fiber optic can be verified simply by the speed of light and shockingly none of these extremely well known sources of information have said these lengths are incorrect. Failing that if you were really, really lame about it you could actually go out on a boat and measure them yourself if you're really wanting to be that obtuse. Unless you are claiming there is some secret conspiracy with all of these companies involved for apparently no reason I would suggest you're just grasping at straws here. |These cables aren't mystical, magical unknown entities, they're documented and again, laid down by regular, everyday people. What's more likely here? that the cable lengths are all made up and faked, with thousands upon thousands of random, regular people keeping it a big secret or that the lengths of the cables are as stated and documented?
Tom, How did you determine john mullaly was even a real person beyond just stating it? How did you determine the cables aren't the correct lengths? See I can be childish too, if you really want to keep up this level of discussion there's always the CN section of the forum.
-
Do you have any evidence that they didn't know how to measure out miles in the 1800's or is this purely speculation on your part?
JSS says the reason is underwater mountains. Now you are claiming that they were too dumb to measure things. Any actual evidence for any of that, or are your own wild statements enough?
There is plenty of evidence that yes, in the 1850's they had a hard time measuring some things, like the bottom of the ocean.
I explained this before. Until sonar was developed, the only way they had to measure the depth of the ocean was to literally drop a rope into it and try and feel when it went slack.
This is a very, very, very slow process. It's also highly inaccurate. They can only do spot checks and try and extrapolate from a small number of vague data points. They also had no way to accurately measure their position as wind and currents took them off course and they had to correct, so the path was not a straight line.
So yes that is exactly what I am saying, in 1855 they did NOT know how to measure an undersea path because they could only guess at the true shape. I will repeat...
From your Wiki: "Total amount of cable paid out, 949 miles; total amount run by observation, 818 miles; ... Surplus cable paid out over distance run by observation, 131 miles "
All it is is saying they measured 818 miles traveled over sea and dropped 949 miles of cable. Exactly what one would expect in the 1850's when dropping cable over unknown, uneven terrain while only being able to roughly track their surface position as they drifted.
-
Do you have any evidence that they didn't know how to measure out miles in the 1800's or is this purely speculation on your part?
I'm sure they had techniques for doing so, I didn't say they didn't know how to. But it is not speculation that those techniques were far less advanced than we have now. Is that controversial? Do I need to present evidence that navigation, ways of measuring distances and mapping have significantly improved since the mid 19th century?
JSS says the reason is underwater mountains. Now you are claiming that they were too dumb to measure things. Any actual evidence for any of that, or are your own wild statements enough?
Please stop with the straw man. I didn't say anything about people being dumb in the mid-19th century, but it's not controversial to suggest the accuracy with which things can be mapped and measured today is significantly higher. I don't know whether underwater mountains are a factor, quite possibly. I'd suggest that exploration of the sea bed was far less advanced in the mid-19th century too.
But the main point I was making that taking a quote from a book written in the mid-19th century and thinking it proves a point is disingenuous at best when you're ignoring the last 150 years of history, improvement in techniques and knowledge
-
Historical scientific expeditions are not really random points in history .
Actually, they are in this case. Expeditions take place all the time. Why cherry pick from one which says that they found an impenetrable barrier beyond which they couldn't proceed and ignore the subsequent 150 years of exploration when others found a way to proceed and explore further?
I can find you quotes from 100 years ago from doctors claiming that running a 4 minute mile is humanly impossible. Can I use that as evidence that Roger Bannister is full of shit? That's the logical equivalent of what you're doing.
-
Please stop with the straw man. I didn't say anything about people being dumb in the mid-19th century, but it's not controversial to suggest the accuracy with which things can be mapped and measured today is significantly higher. I don't know whether underwater mountains are a factor, quite possibly. I'd suggest that exploration of the sea bed was far less advanced in the mid-19th century too.
But the main point I was making that taking a quote from a book written in the mid-19th century and thinking it proves a point is disingenuous at best when you're ignoring the last 150 years of history, improvement in techniques and knowledge
You have failed to provide any evidence that they didn't know how to measure things in the 1800's, beyond your own unsourced and unbacked speculation.
You are aware that many aspects of manual navigation and measurement have not changed, and are still in use, right? Next you will be telling us that rulers were inaccurate in the 1800's, solely because it was 'long ago".
Yet again we receive low quality posts filled with wild, contradiory, and baseless statements.
-
Historical scientific expeditions are not really random points in history .
Actually, they are in this case. Expeditions take place all the time. Why cherry pick from one which says that they found an impenetrable barrier beyond which they couldn't proceed and ignore the subsequent 150 years of exploration when others found a way to proceed and explore further?
I can find you quotes from 100 years ago from doctors claiming that running a 4 minute mile is humanly impossible. Can I use that as evidence that Roger Bannister is full of shit? That's the logical equivalent of what you're doing.
Doctors claiming is theoretical - Bannister experimented and proved that that theory is full of shit (you can claim that) and doesn't compare to reality.
Those numerous expeditions which couldn't penetrate the ice barrier were reporting the fact of the matter. Perhaps you should research the early expeditions . All points in history are random taking it to the extreme but some are relevant to the debate.
You are also theorising that undersea topography accounts for the discrepancy between expected 818 mls actual and 949mls .
-
Please stop with the straw man. I didn't say anything about people being dumb in the mid-19th century, but it's not controversial to suggest the accuracy with which things can be mapped and measured today is significantly higher. I don't know whether underwater mountains are a factor, quite possibly. I'd suggest that exploration of the sea bed was far less advanced in the mid-19th century too.
But the main point I was making that taking a quote from a book written in the mid-19th century and thinking it proves a point is disingenuous at best when you're ignoring the last 150 years of history, improvement in techniques and knowledge
You have failed to provide any evidence that they didn't know how to measure things in the 1800's, beyond your own unsourced and unbacked speculation.
You are aware that many aspects of manual navigation and measurement have not changed, and are still in use, right? Next you will be telling us that rulers were inaccurate in the 1800's, solely because it was 'long ago".
Yet again we receive low quality posts filled with wild speculation and baseless statements.
You see how easy it is to use your own arguments against you surely? Again you're seemingly being purposefully obtuse or some level of denial isn't allowing you to think about things objectively. here, I'll say what you just said back to you in my favour instead;
"You have failed to provide any evidence that they did know how to measure things in the 1800's, beyond your own unsourced and unbacked speculation.
You are aware that many aspects of navigation and measurement have changed, right? Next you will be telling us that rulers today are inaccurate, solely because it was 'how can we determine that measurements are correct?.
Yet again we receive low quality posts filled with wild speculation and baseless statements."
Stop doing this 12 year old act. It's more annoying than when a kid starts saying "why?" after everything you say to them, it's dumb, it's pointless and you're wasting everyones time doing it. Unless you know for a fact that the ocean floors were mapped out in the times when they laid the cable in that book or you know for a fact that all the companies that own/laid the cable are for some reason lying stop bothering to baselessly claim it. Try to look at this from a logical point of view, or at least a statistical one.
-
You have failed to provide any evidence that they didn't know how to measure things in the 1800's, beyond your own unsourced and unbacked speculation.
You are aware that many aspects of manual navigation and measurement have not changed, and are still in use, right? Next you will be telling us that rulers were inaccurate in the 1800's, solely because it was 'long ago".
Yet again we receive low quality posts filled with wild, contradiory, and baseless statements.
There is a lot of low quality posting going on in here, that is very correct.
I've given you examples many times. Are you really claiming, that sailing a boat into the ocean, getting a rough idea of your location, dropping a long rope and trying to 'feel' when it touches the ocean floor, then sailing a few hours and doing it again is NOT inaccurate compared to detailed sonar maps that we have now?
In the 1800's they DID NOT know how to accurately map the ocean floor. That is a fact. It's not baseless at all. it was a very primitive method and prone to error.
And yeah, we can measure things better now than in the 1800. Our rulers ARE much better. You are the one changing "we can measure better now" to "you said they can't measure anything". Talk about wild and baseless statements.
-
Here tom, both lines are going along the same direction, which coloured line would be longer?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/462006443403640834/709754299617509396/unknown.png)
-
AATW was talking about navigation and measurement, not the underwater topography argument. He has a contradicting speculation for the discrepancies to your speculations.
And that cable would not likely be precariously balanced on the tip of that seamount. ::)
-
And that cable would not likely be precariously balanced on the tip of that seamount.
Ok cool, I can see you're just trolling this whole time. Good show.
-
AATW was talking about navigation and measurement, not the underwater topography argument. He has a contradicting speculation for the discrepancies to your speculations.
And that cable would not likely be precariously balanced on the tip of that seamount. ::)
I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt on you being serious or a troll... but you have made this claim more than once now. So lets clear this one up right now.
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that picture is saying the cable is balanced on a needle-like tip of a single peak?
I see the rolling-eyes smiley you have there so maybe it's you trying to be funny. But answer honestly here. Do you believe that or are you trolling? This is supposed to be the 'upper flora' where serious discussion happens.
-
You have failed to provide any evidence that they didn't know how to measure things in the 1800's, beyond your own unsourced and unbacked speculation.
Not my claim.
If you want to try and reply to the point I actually made, not the one you imagined I did then that's fine.
Yet again we receive low quality posts filled with wild, contradiory, and baseless statements.
Yet again your reply is a straw man argument trying to divert from the point being made.
If you think the statement that we have better techniques and equipment to navigate and make measurements now than we did in the middle of the nineteenth century is baseless then I don't know how to help you.
-
AATW was talking about navigation and measurement, not the underwater topography argument. He has a contradicting speculation for the discrepancies to your speculations.
It is not contradictory, both could be factors. The actual answer is quite hard to determine, have you read the book you cherry picked a quote from?
If so then maybe you have more information, there's very little to go on.
-
Historical scientific expeditions are not really random points in history .
Actually, they are in this case. Expeditions take place all the time. Why cherry pick from one which says that they found an impenetrable barrier beyond which they couldn't proceed and ignore the subsequent 150 years of exploration when others found a way to proceed and explore further?
I can find you quotes from 100 years ago from doctors claiming that running a 4 minute mile is humanly impossible. Can I use that as evidence that Roger Bannister is full of shit? That's the logical equivalent of what you're doing.
Doctors claiming is theoretical - Bannister experimented and proved that that theory is full of shit (you can claim that) and doesn't compare to reality.
Those numerous expeditions which couldn't penetrate the ice barrier were reporting the fact of the matter. Perhaps you should research the early expeditions.
OK. I'll give you that, it's a fair point. The accounts from early expeditions gave accounts of what they observed. They got to a barrier but they couldn't get further.
But why are you ignoring the later expeditions which did find a way past? Why don't you research those?
That's what makes picking the quote from Ross random...actually, I retract that, it isn't random. It's carefully picked to back up the FE agenda.
But it's pretty dishonest. I'm sure you can find accounts of explorers who tried to find or explore lots of places and failed but if subsequent explorers did discover or explore places then why would you randomly decide to only look at the earlier accounts? As I said though, it's not random, it's carefully picked to back up an agenda.
You are also theorising that undersea topography accounts for the discrepancy between expected 818 mls actual and 949mls.
There isn't much to go on other than a cherry picked quote from a book in the middle of the 19th century. So yeah, I and others have speculated a bit
-
Tom gave you an example of a bonafide scientific observation . You describe that as cherry picking because it doesn't fit with your view.Do you think that was the only expedition ? Maybe climates change.
-
Tom gave you an example of a bonafide scientific observation . You describe that as cherry picking because it doesn't fit with your view.Do you think that was the only expedition ? Maybe climates change.
No, it wasn't the only expedition, that's my exact point.
It's cherry picking exactly because of that. Someone in the middle of the 19th century found he couldn't get past the outer ice wall of Antarctica.
This is held up as evidence that the Ice Wall encircles the earth and cannot be penetrated.
Why is all the evidence from subsequent expeditions considered?
Similarly, and back to the topic at hand, an account from a book in the middle of the 19th century is used to make a point.
Why are all the subsequent developments in laying these cables being ignored?
If your belief is against the mainstream view and you have to resort to cherry picked quotes from books written in the middle of the 19th century and have to ignore everything that has happened since then I'd suggest you're on shaky ground.
-
Sort of invalid to call things cheery picked when you have provided zero alternative data.
-
Here is a nice inertactive where you can choose a laid cable and it will provide details on it, including length.
It is interesting to note that several of the states lengths would not fit a monopole FE model - the discrepancy increasing at increasing polar radii.
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
This would constitute alternate data.
-
Tom gave you an example of a bonafide scientific observation . You describe that as cherry picking because it doesn't fit with your view.Do you think that was the only expedition ? Maybe climates change.
No, it wasn't the only expedition, that's my exact point.
It's cherry picking exactly because of that. Someone in the middle of the 19th century found he couldn't get past the outer ice wall of Antarctica.
This is held up as evidence that the Ice Wall encircles the earth and cannot be penetrated.
Why is all the evidence from subsequent expeditions considered?
Similarly, and back to the topic at hand, an account from a book in the middle of the 19th century is used to make a point.
Why are all the subsequent developments in laying these cables being ignored?
If your belief is against the mainstream view and you have to resort to cherry picked quotes from books written in the middle of the 19th century and have to ignore everything that has happened since then I'd suggest you're on shaky ground.
Can you show us the cable route topography which needs the 818mls distance to require a 949mls cable?
If you think it fits exactly to globe theory it would fitting to provide evidence for that .
-
Tom gave you an example of a bonafide scientific observation . You describe that as cherry picking because it doesn't fit with your view.Do you think that was the only expedition ? Maybe climates change.
No, it wasn't the only expedition, that's my exact point.
It's cherry picking exactly because of that. Someone in the middle of the 19th century found he couldn't get past the outer ice wall of Antarctica.
This is held up as evidence that the Ice Wall encircles the earth and cannot be penetrated.
Why is all the evidence from subsequent expeditions considered?
Similarly, and back to the topic at hand, an account from a book in the middle of the 19th century is used to make a point.
Why are all the subsequent developments in laying these cables being ignored?
If your belief is against the mainstream view and you have to resort to cherry picked quotes from books written in the middle of the 19th century and have to ignore everything that has happened since then I'd suggest you're on shaky ground.
Can you show us the cable route topography which needs the 818mls distance to require a 949mls cable?
If you think it fits exactly to globe theory it would fitting to provide evidence for that .
Please see the post above your previous reply for that information. It has been provided.
-
Can you show us the cable route topography which needs the 818mls distance to require a 949mls cable?
If you think it fits exactly to globe theory it would fitting to provide evidence for that .
It's been answered before, it will be answered again.
Those are records of a ship in 1850 laying cable. They took their position with a sextant, let out 949 miles of cable and took their position again and found that they traveled 818 miles.
Lets list all the things that can cause that.
1. Sextants are not very accurate, and not continuous. They can only do spot checks and can only calculate their approximate location.
2. Wind and currents will cause them to veer off course and move in something other than a straight line. This will add to the length.
3. The floor of the ocean is uneven, this adds length.
4. The cable isn't going to be straight, it will also curve and bend as it falls to the floor, this will add length.
So there you go. I'm still not sure why I have to explain how dropping a cable onto uneven terrain is going to end up being longer than the surface traveled. That is pretty basic stuff. Get 100ft of string and try and see if it can reach 100ft if you have to drape it over a bunch of cars in a parking lot if you want to see for yourself.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant
Professional sextants use a click-stop degree measure and a worm adjustment that reads to a minute, 1/60 of a degree. Most sextants also include a vernier on the worm dial that reads to 0.1 minute. Since 1 minute of error is about a nautical mile, the best possible accuracy of celestial navigation is about 0.1 nautical miles (200 m). At sea, results within several nautical miles, well within visual range, are acceptable. A highly skilled and experienced navigator can determine position to an accuracy of about 0.25-nautical-mile (460 m).[4]
That doesn't sound too inaccurate to me. It sounds more like you guys are just making things up.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant#Design
Professional sextants use a click-stop degree measure and a worm adjustment that reads to a minute, 1/60 of a degree. Most sextants also include a vernier on the worm dial that reads to 0.1 minute. Since 1 minute of error is about a nautical mile, the best possible accuracy of celestial navigation is about 0.1 nautical miles (200 m). At sea, results within several nautical miles, well within visual range, are acceptable. A highly skilled and experienced navigator can determine position to an accuracy of about 0.25-nautical-mile (460 m).[4]
Doesn't sound too inaccurate to me. Sounds more like you guys are just making things up.
Shrug. That's for latitude. Check out errors in longitude which are greater. The best possible accuracy for modern devices is going to be greater than what was used 200 years ago. And even in your quote it states results within several miles are acceptable. That's plenty margin for error.
What are you even arguing about anyway? That our ability to navigate in the 1800's was accurate? What exactly is the point that more cable was laid along an uneven surface than a flat surface? What are you trying to prove, and what point are you attempting to make?
-
I suspect tom is just trying to bounce around the issue he's having, that technology today is accurate at mapping the ocean floors and we also know the length of cables used. Any attempt at saying otherwise puts the burden of proof on him since we've already provided documented cable lengths. Like I said at the start the only reason that would be incorrect data is if there was a huge conspiracy with hundreds of companies involved or if people that are capable of doing their job are also somehow incapable of doing their job...
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant
Professional sextants use a click-stop degree measure and a worm adjustment that reads to a minute, 1/60 of a degree. Most sextants also include a vernier on the worm dial that reads to 0.1 minute. Since 1 minute of error is about a nautical mile, the best possible accuracy of celestial navigation is about 0.1 nautical miles (200 m). At sea, results within several nautical miles, well within visual range, are acceptable. A highly skilled and experienced navigator can determine position to an accuracy of about 0.25-nautical-mile (460 m).[4]
That doesn't sound too inaccurate to me. It sounds more like you guys are just making things up.
I just have to quote this twice, as I have to ask.
Are you really arguing that sextants, which depend on the Earth being a sphere and rotating, are highly accurate and dependable to locate your position on a globe?
After a sight is taken, it is reduced to a position by looking at several mathematical procedures. The simplest sight reduction is to draw the equal-altitude circle of the sighted celestial object on a globe. The intersection of that circle with a dead-reckoning track, or another sighting, gives a more precise location.
The fact that sextants work is alone very good evidence that the earth is indeed a globe.
Good to know you accept how well they work.
-
Since you guys are trying to show that the globe is accurate in this discussion, it looks more like an inability to cope with being wrong to me.
-
Since you guys are trying to show that the globe is accurate in this discussion, it looks more like an inability to cope with being wrong to me.
I'll take that as a yes, you agree that sextants are accurate for finding your position anywhere on the globe.
I'll also admit I was thinking sextants were less accurate than they are, thanks for correcting me. I need to be less automatically defensive.
Speaking of corrections, I'm still waiting for you to clarify if your comment below was serious or trolling.
And that cable would not likely be precariously balanced on the tip of that seamount. ::)
-
Since you guys are trying to show that the globe is accurate in this discussion, it looks more like an inability to cope with being wrong to me.
So this conversation is basically going
Us: "The globe is accurate
You: "But this bloke who wrote a book in 1855 said..."
Us: "Don't you think accuracy of maps and navigation and mapping of sea floors has got a bit better since then?"
You: "Citation needed!"
???
You understand that things didn't end in the mid 18th century, right? I mean, way before that we knew the earth was a globe but me knowing that isn't because some dude in the 19th Century said so. We have literal photos of the globe earth, there are people orbiting it as we speak in a space station you can literally see from the ground. NASA even tell you when and where you can do so. If they are faking it they are making it jolly hard for themselves. I wonder why they'd bother to.
TL;DR - evidence from books in the 19th century is neither irrelevant nor definitive. So much has happened since and you seem to ignoring pretty much everything that has because it conflicts with your world view.
-
Since you guys are trying to show that the globe is accurate in this discussion, it looks more like an inability to cope with being wrong to me.
We did show it, it's your inability to prove otherwise. I'll say it again though, we show you cable lengths match the globe but not a flat earth (if your 'model' is the north pole in the middle it's the outer half that doesn't match and if it's the bi-polar 'model' then it's even more crazy and out of place). Your refute was some guy wrote a book that shows the ocean floor isn't as even as the ocean surface and thus the world is flat? No dude, the book just shows the ocean floor isn't as level as the surface, we still know the length of the cables, the measurements of all the land masses and we have a far greater understanding of the ocean floor thanks to technology now, there is no way around that. You're going to have to try a different angle because the book you gave as evidence doesn't disprove all of the above information that we have... Ignore the book for now because it's not helping you. Why do you claim the cable lengths aren't what is documented? Because it so happens to match the globe extremely well by some crazy coincidence.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant
Professional sextants use a click-stop degree measure and a worm adjustment that reads to a minute, 1/60 of a degree. Most sextants also include a vernier on the worm dial that reads to 0.1 minute. Since 1 minute of error is about a nautical mile, the best possible accuracy of celestial navigation is about 0.1 nautical miles (200 m). At sea, results within several nautical miles, well within visual range, are acceptable. A highly skilled and experienced navigator can determine position to an accuracy of about 0.25-nautical-mile (460 m).[4]
That doesn't sound too inaccurate to me. It sounds more like you guys are just making things up.
I just have to quote this twice, as I have to ask.
Are you really arguing that sextants, which depend on the Earth being a sphere and rotating, are highly accurate and dependable to locate your position on a globe?
After a sight is taken, it is reduced to a position by looking at several mathematical procedures. The simplest sight reduction is to draw the equal-altitude circle of the sighted celestial object on a globe. The intersection of that circle with a dead-reckoning track, or another sighting, gives a more precise location.
The fact that sextants work is alone very good evidence that the earth is indeed a globe.
Good to know you accept how well they work.
Sextants measure the angle between two objects . Used in marine navigation to measure between horizon and sun or other celestial body. Nothing to do with the shape of the earth .
-
The fact that sextants work is alone very good evidence that the earth is indeed a globe.
Good to know you accept how well they work.
Sextants measure the angle between two objects . Used in marine navigation to measure between horizon and sun or other celestial body. Nothing to do with the shape of the earth .
That is so very wrong. The device itself just measures an angle. But then you have to use math to turn it into a position, and THAT uses spherical calculations.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the shape of the round Earth. The calculations wouldn't work if it was flat.
After a sight is taken, it is reduced to a position by looking at several mathematical procedures. The simplest sight reduction is to draw the equal-altitude circle of the sighted celestial object on a globe.
-
No - you misunderstand the sextant . It measures angles .
If you measure an angle of 45 degrees to the polestar then that tells you you are at 45 north on FE or RE .
FE requires no calculation for mapping . RE does for mapping onto a sphere.
-
No - you misunderstand the sextant . It measures angles .
If you measure an angle of 45 degrees to the polestar then that tells you you are at 45 north on FE or RE .
FE requires no calculation for mapping . RE does for mapping onto a sphere.
It absolutely would require a calculation. Knowing a point in the sky is 45 degrees high only tells you an angle. That's not a position.
How do you answer these without math to convert an angle into distance?
1. How many miles from the north pole is 45 degrees?
2. How many miles from the north pole are you when the star is at 0 degrees?
Can you draw a diagram of both of these?
-
If you measure an angle of 45 degrees to the polestar then that tells you you are at 45 north on FE or RE .
Can you explain how that works on a FE?
-
All globe worshipers require calculations because they think the pole star is at some fantastic distance and its light reaches us in parallel rays . FE does not require calculations
Sextant measures angles only from the position you take the measurement. You interpret whether the 45 degree angle is due to a spherical earth and you are angled towards the parallel rays or you are on a flat plane and the star is not at a ludicrous distance
1. Depends on the length of degrees.
2. It's difficult to see any star at less than about 3 degrees .
One can draw a diagram of anything one wants if you've a pen and paper.
-
All globe worshipers require calculations because they think the pole star is at some fantastic distance and its light reaches us in parallel rays . FE does not require calculations
Sextant measures angles only from the position you take the measurement. You interpret whether the 45 degree angle is due to a spherical earth and you are angled towards the parallel rays or you are on a flat plane and the star is not at a ludicrous distance
1. Depends on the length of degrees.
2. It's difficult to see any star at less than about 3 degrees .
One can draw a diagram of anything one wants if you've a pen and paper.
Well, the FE wiki would disagree with you that FE worshippers don’t need calculations.
Interesting, if the stars were not far away, then wouldn’t we catch up to them on a FE, since we are accelerating with UA?
-
If you measure an angle of 45 degrees to the polestar then that tells you you are at 45 north on FE or RE .
Can you explain how that works on a FE?
To elaborate. On a FE the distances between each degree of latitude would change because, geometry:
(https://i.ibb.co/0XyQPk3/Polaris.jpg)
That assumes light goes in straight lines of course and I know you have EA which comes to the rescue but it's funny how EA bends light just enough, if that is your explanation, to make it consistent with the observations we'd expect on a globe with Polaris a long long way away above the North Pole
-
All globe worshipers require calculations because they think the pole star is at some fantastic distance and its light reaches us in parallel rays . FE does not require calculations
Sextant measures angles only from the position you take the measurement. You interpret whether the 45 degree angle is due to a spherical earth and you are angled towards the parallel rays or you are on a flat plane and the star is not at a ludicrous distance
1. Depends on the length of degrees.
2. It's difficult to see any star at less than about 3 degrees .
One can draw a diagram of anything one wants if you've a pen and paper.
That still isn't answering my simple question.
On a flat earth, how far in miles from the north pole are you if the angle to the north star is 45 degrees?
-
Here is an interesting document from the company that laid the Hibernia Express (Now ‘GTT Express’) submarine cable back in 2015 from Brean, UK to Halifax, NS (Originally slated to go to NYC.) The document lays out at a high-level how they went about determining the best operational route.
"Euclidean, Haversine and Great Circle Distances
The principle behind a low latency cable is the shortest route...The next solution is to use the Haversine formula to calculate the Great Circle route between two points on a sphere...This gives us a distance of 5577km from London to NewYork but the Haversine formula is for a sphere and the Earth is an oblate spheroid…Using the modified Vincenty formula the Great Circle distance from London to New York is 5594km this therefore is the theoretical shortest distance that could be achieved for a cable from London to New York.
If the route is split between land and marine, in the knowledge that the majority of marine routes can follow a great circle route if required, or at least close to one, then we can understand how far from the great circle route we can deviate before we compromise the overall latency of the system...Since submarine cables can invariably be installed in almost a great circle route then increasing the amount of submarine cable in the route between London and New York is the most effective way of keeping the latency low.
Putting all of these facts into consideration and ensuring that the ICPC recommendations for pipeline and cable crossings are taken into account a survey route has been found."
(https://i.imgur.com/vYWPTAb.png)
https://suboptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Poster_105.pdf
So it appears that the submarine cable engineers take great care in using the shortest possible route on an oblate spheroid following a great circle as best they can.
-
If you measure an angle of 45 degrees to the polestar then that tells you you are at 45 north on FE or RE .
Can you explain how that works on a FE?
To elaborate. On a FE the distances between each degree of latitude would change because, geometry:
(https://i.ibb.co/0XyQPk3/Polaris.jpg)
That assumes light goes in straight lines of course and I know you have EA which comes to the rescue but it's funny how EA bends light just enough, if that is your explanation, to make it consistent with the observations we'd expect on a globe with Polaris a long long way away above the North Pole
Polaris is the obvious choice, but note it would also have to account for the position of every star in the night sky for any given location. Which is something we know in great detail, and is easily explained in a RE model.
-
No - you misunderstand the sextant . It measures angles .
If you measure an angle of 45 degrees to the polestar then that tells you you are at 45 north on FE or RE .
FE requires no calculation for mapping . RE does for mapping onto a sphere.
For a company laying cables which map or model should they use?
-
No - you misunderstand the sextant . It measures angles .
If you measure an angle of 45 degrees to the polestar then that tells you you are at 45 north on FE or RE .
OK, SHOW us what that means on FE.
45 WHAT North? 45 degrees? That's an ANGLE. Show us where you draw the angle. In order to have 45 degrees, you need two lines, meeting at a common point, where the displacement between the two is 45 degrees. Show us what you mean with that on FE.