[Tom Bishop]

Strange you show no interest in determining the size and the shape of the earth by not describing a method.

Strange how you guys seem to have esp with a long dead sea captain.

[inquisitive]

Strange you show no interest in determining the size and the shape of the earth by not describing a method.

Strange how you guys seem to have esp with a long dead sea captain.

Please explain.

[douglips]

"esp"? Hardly.

From the Journal of Education, Toronto, January 1858:

https://books.google.com/books?id=eF09AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=agamemnon+niagara+cable&source=bl&ots=FcSukxL5Lu&sig=cO_MSMDUtXX98OJ5-D7SvdILyeQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjipO2cqfLZAhVG6mMKHZinCes4ChDoAQhCMAQ#v=onepage&q=agamemnon%20niagara%20cable&f=false

By noon on the 30th 265 nautical miles were laid between the two ships ; on the 31st, 540 ; on the 1st of August, 884 ; on the 2nd, 1256 ; on the 4th, 1854 ; on anchoring, at six in the morning, in Douglas Bay, 2,022.

See also The Laying of the Cable, John Mullaly, 1858
https://books.google.com/books?id=iCFDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA307&lpg=PA307&dq=the+agamemnon+has+arrived,+and+she+is+about+to+land+the+cable&source=bl&ots=BFPWf4ddNo&sig=EK4df4xg8WPa7sLMOB5XP-FPCpQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz3bbQqvLZAhVS82MKHXrFCDUQ6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=the%20agamemnon%20has%20arrived%2C%20and%20she%20is%20about%20to%20land%20the%20cable&f=false

What now, Tom?

[Scroogie]

Firstly, the times are not similar in each direction, since one way is in a jet stream and one is going against the jet stream.

BTW, guess what is responsible for the formation of jet streams... ...That's right, the earth's rotation!

Today, with relatively accurate prediction and mapping of the jet stream, it is possible to flight plan based on jet stream prediction, but many more planes fly outside a jet stream than within one.

Actually flight planning around jet stream predictions can increase a commercial jet's ground speed by nearly 50% under ideal conditions, saving huge amounts of fuel over time. Conversely, an airline will go out of its way to avoid coming near the core of a jet stream on east to west flights.

But they are far from ubiquitous, and the core, occasionally with speeds over 250 MPH, is pretty small.

[nickrulercreator]

Airspeed devices are unreliable, as they are measuring fluids moving within fluids, and are not used in navigation. The knowledge of how fast air is locally passing over the wings mainly used for making banking maneuvers and such.

Everything you said was bullshit. I trained to be a pilot for sometime before moving on to other opportunities and I know, for a fact, that you're wrong. Airspeed devices are highly reliable and accurate. Pilots depend on them greatly to ensure the speed at takeoff and landing, and that they're not putting too much pressure on the plane during flight. They are not fluids moving within fluids. Do you even know how a pitot tube works?

And what are you even saying when you say they're not used in navigation? What do you mean the airspeed is mainly used for banking maneuvers and such? What bullshit is that? Tom, do you know how planes even work at all?

[Frocious]

Airspeed devices are unreliable, as they are measuring fluids moving within fluids, and are not used in navigation. The knowledge of how fast air is locally passing over the wings mainly used for making banking maneuvers and such.

Everything you said was bullshit. I trained to be a pilot for sometime before moving on to other opportunities and I know, for a fact, that you're wrong. Airspeed devices are highly reliable and accurate. Pilots depend on them greatly to ensure the speed at takeoff and landing, and that they're not putting too much pressure on the plane during flight. They are not fluids moving within fluids. Do you even know how a pitot tube works?

And what are you even saying when you say they're not used in navigation? What do you mean the airspeed is mainly used for banking maneuvers and such? What bullshit is that? Tom, do you know how planes even work at all?

I have a feeling it doesn't matter much to him. Similar to how he probably feels about countries like Argentina or Australia -- out of sight, out of "empirical" mind.

[Chandra mcdonald]

There is a flat earth map

[Chandra mcdonald]

Gleasons flat earth map from 1892.  But here is something very strange.  If you look at the flat earth map then look at the UN emblem.....you will notice there sits the flat earth map.....in plain site. Right on their emblem

[inquisitive]

Gleasons flat earth map from 1892.  But here is something very strange.  If you look at the flat earth map then look at the UN emblem.....you will notice there sits the flat earth map.....in plain site. Right on their emblem

Pity it is not a map of our earth.

[Frocious]

Gleasons flat earth map from 1892.  But here is something very strange.  If you look at the flat earth map then look at the UN emblem.....you will notice there sits the flat earth map.....in plain site. Right on their emblem

I don't think you want to go this route, assuming you believe the earth is flat. There are dozens of irreconcilable problems with that map, which is why most flat earthers would rather say that there isn't a map.

[Science, bitch!]

Gleasons flat earth map from 1892.  But here is something very strange.  If you look at the flat earth map then look at the UN emblem.....you will notice there sits the flat earth map.....in plain site. Right on their emblem

That is simply an azimuthal projection of the globe, the equidistant polar one to be exact.

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_Nations#Design

All 2-dimensional maps are (have to be) projections of a globe, because earth is a spheroid.

[Parallax]

Gleasons flat earth map from 1892.  But here is something very strange.  If you look at the flat earth map then look at the UN emblem.....you will notice there sits the flat earth map.....in plain site. Right on their emblem

I don't think you want to go this route, assuming you believe the earth is flat. There are dozens of irreconcilable problems with that map, which is why most flat earthers would rather say that there isn't a map.

He's right, Gleasons flat earth map pretty much sums it all up. It's certainly the most accurate one we have.

[Frocious]

Gleasons flat earth map from 1892.  But here is something very strange.  If you look at the flat earth map then look at the UN emblem.....you will notice there sits the flat earth map.....in plain site. Right on their emblem

I don't think you want to go this route, assuming you believe the earth is flat. There are dozens of irreconcilable problems with that map, which is why most flat earthers would rather say that there isn't a map.

He's right, Gleasons flat earth map pretty much sums it all up. It's certainly the most accurate one we have.

I am talking about the UN emblem in particular. If that is the same as Gleason's map there are many things wrong with it.

[Parallax]

Okay. The UN map is just an emblem, I don't look at it as a map.

[jcks]

"esp"? Hardly.

From the Journal of Education, Toronto, January 1858:

https://books.google.com/books?id=eF09AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=agamemnon+niagara+cable&source=bl&ots=FcSukxL5Lu&sig=cO_MSMDUtXX98OJ5-D7SvdILyeQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjipO2cqfLZAhVG6mMKHZinCes4ChDoAQhCMAQ#v=onepage&q=agamemnon%20niagara%20cable&f=false

By noon on the 30th 265 nautical miles were laid between the two ships ; on the 31st, 540 ; on the 1st of August, 884 ; on the 2nd, 1256 ; on the 4th, 1854 ; on anchoring, at six in the morning, in Douglas Bay, 2,022.

See also The Laying of the Cable, John Mullaly, 1858
https://books.google.com/books?id=iCFDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA307&lpg=PA307&dq=the+agamemnon+has+arrived,+and+she+is+about+to+land+the+cable&source=bl&ots=BFPWf4ddNo&sig=EK4df4xg8WPa7sLMOB5XP-FPCpQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz3bbQqvLZAhVS82MKHXrFCDUQ6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=the%20agamemnon%20has%20arrived%2C%20and%20she%20is%20about%20to%20land%20the%20cable&f=false

What now, Tom?

So can we safely assume we the distances across land and sea now? I'm wondering why no one has responded to this yet.

[Tom Bishop]

There seems to be discrepancy about how much cable was laid. The second link says there was a 16% discrepancy:



Another segment showed a 15% discrepancy:

[Frocious]

There seems to be discrepancy about how much cable was laid. The second link says there was a 16% discrepancy:



Another segment showed a 15% discrepancy:

I think you're misinterpreting that. They knew how much cable they paid out (949 miles) but that turned out to be a 15% increase over what they expected. It's not a 15% discrepancy between one report and another.

That additional 15% could be for any number of reasons. Features on the sea floor, mistakes that needed to be corrected, etc.

[Tom Bishop]

That additional 15% could be for any number of reasons.

Including a map mistake.

[Frocious]

That additional 15% could be for any number of reasons.

Including a map mistake.

Right. Which would be corrected by the amount of cable actually laid.

[jcks]

I'm confused, did they need 815 or 882 miles of cable? I thought someone earlier stated it was 2,226 miles.