*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2020, 02:16:36 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 03:45:01 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2020, 03:27:33 AM »
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.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2020, 09:30:29 AM »
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?
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #23 on: May 12, 2020, 10:15:04 AM »
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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2020, 10:20:10 AM »
Bottomline:
- The cable length closely matches the distance between cities on a globe earth

How did you determine that beyond just stating it?

Quote
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?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 10:42:02 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2020, 10:36:26 AM »
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 .

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2020, 10:38:52 AM »
Quote
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.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 463
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2020, 11:29:49 AM »
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.


Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2020, 12:03:25 PM »
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?

Quote
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
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2020, 12:10:09 PM »
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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2020, 12:36:26 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 12:47:17 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #31 on: May 12, 2020, 12:49:38 PM »
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 .

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #32 on: May 12, 2020, 12:54:37 PM »
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.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 463
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #33 on: May 12, 2020, 01:11:10 PM »
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.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #34 on: May 12, 2020, 01:11:22 PM »
Here tom, both lines are going along the same direction, which coloured line would be longer?

Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #35 on: May 12, 2020, 01:14:52 PM »
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.  ::)
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 01:19:01 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #36 on: May 12, 2020, 01:25:05 PM »
Quote
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.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 463
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2020, 02:15:41 PM »
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.

Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2020, 02:50:28 PM »
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.

Quote
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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2020, 02:51:53 PM »
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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.