Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #40 on: May 12, 2020, 03:04:13 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.
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.

Quote
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
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 somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #41 on: May 12, 2020, 03:41:57 PM »
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.

Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #42 on: May 12, 2020, 04:42:44 PM »
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.
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 #43 on: May 12, 2020, 05:44:20 PM »
Sort of invalid to call things cheery picked when you have provided zero alternative data.
"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 BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #44 on: May 12, 2020, 05:50:21 PM »
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.
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #45 on: May 12, 2020, 07:08:06 PM »
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 .

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #46 on: May 12, 2020, 07:10:08 PM »
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.
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 463
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #47 on: May 12, 2020, 07:49:18 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #48 on: May 13, 2020, 12:35:02 PM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant

Quote
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.
"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 JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 463
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #49 on: May 13, 2020, 12:47:24 PM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant#Design

Quote
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?

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #50 on: May 13, 2020, 12:56:09 PM »
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...
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 #51 on: May 13, 2020, 01:08:15 PM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #52 on: May 13, 2020, 01:21:44 PM »
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.
"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 JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 463
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #53 on: May 13, 2020, 01:35:30 PM »
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.  ::)

 

Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #54 on: May 13, 2020, 02:02:03 PM »
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.
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 ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #55 on: May 13, 2020, 02:12:14 PM »
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.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #56 on: May 13, 2020, 02:45:47 PM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant

Quote
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?

Quote
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 .

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 463
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #57 on: May 13, 2020, 02:56:36 PM »
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.

Quote
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.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #58 on: May 13, 2020, 03:17:56 PM »
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.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 463
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #59 on: May 13, 2020, 03:47:58 PM »
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?