Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Submarine cable distances
« 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.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2020, 05:24:40 PM by ChrisTP »
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 844
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2020, 05:33:06 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7676
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2020, 06:26:49 PM »
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 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: 844
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2020, 07:44:25 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7676
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2020, 08:01:35 PM »
the discrepancies are far greater than that

Look up where the Transatlantic Cable is.

Quote
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 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: 844
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2020, 08:22:22 PM »
the discrepancies are far greater than that

Look up where the Transatlantic Cable is.

Quote
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.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1602
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2020, 08:37:00 PM »
the discrepancies are far greater than that

Look up where the Transatlantic Cable is.

Quote
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.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2020, 09:06:09 PM »
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.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 844
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2020, 09:18:03 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7676
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2020, 10:01:27 PM »
Quote
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.
"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: 844
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2020, 10:46:34 PM »
Quote
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7676
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2020, 01:04:26 AM »
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/#/



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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 01:19:42 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 JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 844
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2020, 01:15:36 AM »


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.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2020, 01:17:15 AM »
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/#/



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

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1602
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2020, 01:18:46 AM »
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/#/



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?



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?

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7676
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2020, 01:25:43 AM »
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 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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 01:31:43 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: 1602
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2020, 01:40:02 AM »
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 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.

Quote
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.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2020, 01:42:45 AM »
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
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 01:46:55 AM by ChrisTP »
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7676
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2020, 02:06:14 AM »
Quote from: stack
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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 02:12:08 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: 1602
    • View Profile
Re: Submarine cable distances
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2020, 02:10:50 AM »
Quote from: stack
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:



It doesn't fit anywhere in FET.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.