Fiber Optic Latency on a FE model

Yeah right. I think zeroply has discovered the exquisite pleasures of trolling. He's now got people arguing about whether drugs cartels drive their money about in trucks or Prius'.

Well, in all fairness, the thread topic says "latency". We're so far off course that it really doesn't matter much at this point. No one has produced any actual verified data, it's more of the "this should work this way" line from REers.

And also, if you think drug cartel folk drive Priuses (I don't think Prius' is even a word) you're further detached from reality than me.

Well, in all fairness, the thread topic says "latency". We're so far off course that it really doesn't matter much at this point. No one has produced any actual verified data, it's more of the "this should work this way" line from REers.

I think that the main issue goes back to the fact that FE is incapable of providing an accurate map in order to be able to compare cable distances and the associated latencies.  Until FE is able to provide an accurate map, there really isn't much that they can do to contradict the RE calculations, so threads get derailed.

We don't need an FE map.  The undeniable fact is that if you take a spherical object and project it onto a flat surface you will have distortions.  There is no way around this.

We also know cartographers who create and measure distances for maps do it assuming a round earth, they then take that and distort it to be on a flat surface.  

We also know that these maps can be used to accurately plan a trip by sea, land or air.  They also can be used to predict your position.

If the earth was flat none of these predictions would be correct.  Everyone would have been wrong.

FE argues that there is something "speeding ships up"  Either by a fish boost or jet streams to explain the difference.

This topic disproves that because we have actual lengths of cable run under the ocean that we can determine the exact length of, and yes, we have provided all the data from the network companies on the cable lengths.

Quote from: zeroply on November 20, 2008, 07:28:37 AM

Quote from: goldstein on November 20, 2008, 03:34:58 AM

Yeah right. I think zeroply has discovered the exquisite pleasures of trolling. He's now got people arguing about whether drugs cartels drive their money about in trucks or Prius'.

Well, in all fairness, the thread topic says "latency". We're so far off course that it really doesn't matter much at this point. No one has produced any actual verified data, it's more of the "this should work this way" line from REers.

You mean you don't read my posts? That hurts me more than the time you slept with my diseased mute cripple dog. Who'd just died of gay aids.

Well, your posts are a classic example of how not to do research. Here, take a look at this gem from the post you just mentioned:

Quote

... exhibits roughly 3.29 nanosecond propagation delay per meter of cable.

From this site, click configuration and then select some values for the latency calculator. It seems they use 5ns per metre here (not far from the 3.29 quoted above) hence:

So they're getting the latency data by taking their calculated length, and multiplying it by 5ns/m.

Of course your latency is going to perfectly match up with your expectations - you calculated it using your own formula!

Also, if your dog had just died, how could it be "diseased"?  Something has to be living to be diseased according to every definition I've ever seen.

Details, dude, details...

If you read the site, it explains how there is a detailed sea floor mapping completed before the run.  Also, since the runners have to charge money for this cable, do you think they just estimate the cable length?

Quote from: goldstein on November 20, 2008, 03:34:58 AM

Yeah right. I think zeroply has discovered the exquisite pleasures of trolling. He's now got people arguing about whether drugs cartels drive their money about in trucks or Prius'.

Well, in all fairness, the thread topic says "latency". We're so far off course that it really doesn't matter much at this point. No one has produced any actual verified data, it's more of the "this should work this way" line from REers.

And also, if you think drug cartel folk drive Priuses (I don't think Prius' is even a word) you're further detached from reality than me.

Umm, there have been several.

Here is one: Using the angle that the Stars appear to move as you travel to calculate the distances moved, you can accurately determine how far you have gone without the aid of a GPS. All you need to do this is a way to measure the horizontal plane of your location, a way to measure angles and an accurate time piece. With just those 3 pieces of equipment you can work out your position accurately (limited by the accuracy of your equipment and your skill at taking these readings) anywhere on Earth, be it Round or Flat.

As these 3 pieces of equipment are so easy to come by and are simple in design, they can't be the target of sabotage by conspirators.

Fish boosts and Jet Streams would not have any effect on this kind of measurement.

So what we have is a simple, independent and tamper proof way of measuring absolute distances that can not be controlled by any government. Also, the procedure and maths required would enable virtually anybody to be able to do this (with a bit of patience and attention to detail - and maybe a calculator if they aren't good at maths).

So, if there is such an easy way to prove that GPS is being tampered with, why would they tamper with it (as they would be caught out as soon as anybody did this)?

This method can also be used to confirm the lengths of cable that they have laid, so this method is an independent, tamper proof and simple way of confirming these cable lengths.

If the government conspiracy is so dependent on faking these cable lengths, and a single sailor who has a hobby of astronomy (or historical navigation methods) could take readings at any tie that would shatter the whole thing, then the governments are either not making money because they have to keep giving bribes all the time and taking a huge risk (as single person - who might just might not take the bribe, or take it and tell the truth anyway - would be able to pull the whole thing down), or that they are not faking the distances (and so need no cover up) and the distances can be accepted as accurate (and therefore confirms RE and disproves FE).

If there are such big holes in the conspiracy, either the conspirators are totally incompetent, or... well they would have to be completely incompetent.

Quote from: ragnarr on November 19, 2008, 10:06:04 AM

Quote from: zeroply on November 19, 2008, 09:44:56 AM

Quote from: goldstein on November 19, 2008, 08:07:33 AM

Quote from: zeroply on November 19, 2008, 08:00:56 AM

You've never been in the army, have you?

(a) It's called a HMMWV.

(b) This conversation is entirely plausible given some of the people I've dealt with.

Humvee is an accepted terminology. Just like GP and Jeep.

Not when you're doing military contracts.

Tell me, did you ever personally write the contractor a check for their work?

Check?! Are you even on the same conversation that we are? It's all cash, baby.

2009 US military budget: $651 bn.
According to this link, a $100 bill weighs 1 gram. This means the entire US military budget weighs ~650,000 tonnes in $100 bills.
Alternatively, that's a stack over 1,000 km high.

Seems a little impractical to do it all in cash, don't you think?

Quote from: zeroply on November 20, 2008, 07:44:03 AM

So they're getting the latency data by taking their calculated length, and multiplying it by 5ns/m.

Good, so the evidence presented was from an external cable laying company. 5ns is the stated cable latency regardless of geographic position.

Now if only FE'ers could offer evidence that the calculated latency is incorrect, either by laying too much cable, or by fudging electronic routers (somehow), then we would be looking at direct evidence of the conspiracy. And we'd be able to close this thread. Perhaps.

The latency values you gave are worthless. They are just calculations based on length. If you had real latency measurements and a network topology diagram, then you could calculate the approximate lengths from the latency, not the other way around. The lengths of the cables and how they are installed are only known to the companies that put them down, but as discussed earlier, latency would be very hard to fake.

No they are verified because they know the length.  Once again, if you are contracted to run a cable, and you are being paid per kilometer of cable run, then wouldn't you want to keep close track of how much cable you run?

They measure these distances beforehand, map the ocean floor, and run the predetermined cable length.  The latency only confirms the length run.

No they are verified because they know the length.  Once again, if you are contracted to run a cable, and you are being paid per kilometer of cable run, then wouldn't you want to keep close track of how much cable you run?

They measure these distances beforehand, map the ocean floor, and run the predetermined cable length.  The latency only confirms the length run.

You're assuming a lot of things here. For one, I would imagine a flat dollar/kilometer deal would not work since running cable in the Arctic would be a lot different than running it in the South Pacific. Even within a specific region, there would be great variance in how difficult the run is from one area to the other. Do you have any independent confirmation that companies are paid by the kilometer for work like this?

This is like saying that highway contractors are paid to build new interstates by dollar/mile and therefore should know exactly how much asphalt they use. In reality, the asphalt cost is probably low enough on the list after labor and equipment costs that they're not interested in having it match the estimate exactly. Similarly, I would imagine diesel costs and a 20 man crew would be where most of the expenses are going when laying cable.

And again, where is the actual data where latency measurements were taken and they confirmed the length? Everyone here keeps talking about it but all the links provided are just estimated latencies based on length.

Quote from: ragnarr on November 20, 2008, 11:34:08 AM

No they are verified because they know the length.  Once again, if you are contracted to run a cable, and you are being paid per kilometer of cable run, then wouldn't you want to keep close track of how much cable you run?

They measure these distances beforehand, map the ocean floor, and run the predetermined cable length.  The latency only confirms the length run.

You're assuming a lot of things here. For one, I would imagine a flat dollar/kilometer deal would not work since running cable in the Arctic would be a lot different than running it in the South Pacific. Even within a specific region, there would be great variance in how difficult the run is from one area to the other. Do you have any independent confirmation that companies are paid by the kilometer for work like this?

This is like saying that highway contractors are paid to build new interstates by dollar/mile and therefore should know exactly how much asphalt they use. In reality, the asphalt cost is probably low enough on the list after labor and equipment costs that they're not interested in having it match the estimate exactly. Similarly, I would imagine diesel costs and a 20 man crew would be where most of the expenses are going when laying cable.

And again, where is the actual data where latency measurements were taken and they confirmed the length? Everyone here keeps talking about it but all the links provided are just estimated latencies based on length.

Are you seriously that "black and white" on this?  Fees are not universally dollar/mile vs. dollar/hour.  You charge for labor, and materials.  Labor is higher in the Arctic, materials is flat for distance plus extras for fuel/food etc.  Pretty simple - but with the high cost of the cable, you know they track that too.

Secondarily, no company is going to lay lines without testing a fixed lengths of the cable to ensure it's integrity.  No company is going to make a choice on a cable manufacturer without testing lengths of the cable.  This includes latency tests.  They survey the sea floor for detailed routes before laying the cable.  These systems analyze the features to scale which must match up with the overall distances covered according to RE maps. 

Seems pretty air tight to me.

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on November 19, 2008, 06:24:16 PM

The government profits because they take taxes for 150k hummers and only spend 100k of it... this allows the government to do other things with the difference (like buy 40k worth of things from the contractor...)... the contractor is paid more to make a fake bulletproof hummer because if they were not paid more why would they join the conspiracy?

From what I hearing the contractor is not getting paid more.  They are getting paid less because they are only building cheaper non bulletproof hummers.  Now if they were selling the NON bulletproof hummers for the same price as the bulletproof ones, then they would be making an obscene profit.  But in that scenario the government is not saving any money (because they are still paying for bulletproof hummers).

It doesn't matter, the whole premise of the conspiracy is that certain individuals in the government can make an obscene amount of money by faking the earth is flat.  This simply would be to difficult for them because nobody in the government except the IRS sees one dime of physical taxpayer money.  The whole premise of pocketing cash from drug busts would not require a round earth conspiracy to pocket that money.

They are not being paid more but their profits are higher. Businesses maximize profits.

Quote from: zeroply on November 20, 2008, 11:48:37 AM

Quote from: ragnarr on November 20, 2008, 11:34:08 AM

No they are verified because they know the length.  Once again, if you are contracted to run a cable, and you are being paid per kilometer of cable run, then wouldn't you want to keep close track of how much cable you run?

They measure these distances beforehand, map the ocean floor, and run the predetermined cable length.  The latency only confirms the length run.

You're assuming a lot of things here. For one, I would imagine a flat dollar/kilometer deal would not work since running cable in the Arctic would be a lot different than running it in the South Pacific. Even within a specific region, there would be great variance in how difficult the run is from one area to the other. Do you have any independent confirmation that companies are paid by the kilometer for work like this?

This is like saying that highway contractors are paid to build new interstates by dollar/mile and therefore should know exactly how much asphalt they use. In reality, the asphalt cost is probably low enough on the list after labor and equipment costs that they're not interested in having it match the estimate exactly. Similarly, I would imagine diesel costs and a 20 man crew would be where most of the expenses are going when laying cable.

And again, where is the actual data where latency measurements were taken and they confirmed the length? Everyone here keeps talking about it but all the links provided are just estimated latencies based on length.

Are you seriously that "black and white" on this?  Fees are not universally dollar/mile vs. dollar/hour.  You charge for labor, and materials.  Labor is higher in the Arctic, materials is flat for distance plus extras for fuel/food etc.  Pretty simple - but with the high cost of the cable, you know they track that too.

Secondarily, no company is going to lay lines without testing a fixed lengths of the cable to ensure it's integrity.  No company is going to make a choice on a cable manufacturer without testing lengths of the cable.  This includes latency tests.  They survey the sea floor for detailed routes before laying the cable.  These systems analyze the features to scale which must match up with the overall distances covered according to RE maps. 

Seems pretty air tight to me.

Doesn't seem all that air tight to me. Highway contractors don't have to break down for the government how much asphalt they're going to use for a job - they bid on the total job, not on each component. I would imagine that the companies laying the cable would do the same thing. Therefore the labor costs and costs of operating a ship would far outweigh a few extra kilometers of cable.

Do you have any actual proof that the companies laying down the cable runs we're discussing have included the cable as a line item in their bids? Or is this just one more thing in the long list of assumptions here?

You would imagine wrong.  When you get cable run, you have to pay for the cable, then pay for the laborers to run it.  The contractors do not just charge you for labor and assume it will cover the cost of the cable.  I have to work with cable runners all the time, that is how it is done.  The price of the cable depends on the type of cable, and the length.  It is a lot different than roads, but they measure the roads anyway, ever see the mile marker signs as your driving?  Do you think they just guess on that length?

Another thing, the cables they run on the sea floor are NOT cheap at all.  Just one repeater costs over half a million.

You would imagine wrong.  When you get cable run, you have to pay for the cable, then pay for the laborers to run it.  The contractors do not just charge you for labor and assume it will cover the cost of the cable.  I have to work with cable runners all the time, that is how it is done.  The price of the cable depends on the type of cable, and the length.  It is a lot different than roads, but they measure the roads anyway, ever see the mile marker signs as your driving?  Do you think they just guess on that length?

Another thing, the cables they run on the sea floor are NOT cheap at all.  Just one repeater costs over half a million.

Again, do you have any authoritative sources on how these quotes are produced?

And when you say you work with cable runners, are you talking about deep-sea cable specifically? I would imagine that's significantly different than running fiber to the newest subdivision in the area.

Quote from: paddy on November 20, 2008, 01:15:29 PM

Quote from: zeroply on November 20, 2008, 11:48:37 AM

Quote from: ragnarr on November 20, 2008, 11:34:08 AM

No they are verified because they know the length.  Once again, if you are contracted to run a cable, and you are being paid per kilometer of cable run, then wouldn't you want to keep close track of how much cable you run?

They measure these distances beforehand, map the ocean floor, and run the predetermined cable length.  The latency only confirms the length run.

You're assuming a lot of things here. For one, I would imagine a flat dollar/kilometer deal would not work since running cable in the Arctic would be a lot different than running it in the South Pacific. Even within a specific region, there would be great variance in how difficult the run is from one area to the other. Do you have any independent confirmation that companies are paid by the kilometer for work like this?

This is like saying that highway contractors are paid to build new interstates by dollar/mile and therefore should know exactly how much asphalt they use. In reality, the asphalt cost is probably low enough on the list after labor and equipment costs that they're not interested in having it match the estimate exactly. Similarly, I would imagine diesel costs and a 20 man crew would be where most of the expenses are going when laying cable.

And again, where is the actual data where latency measurements were taken and they confirmed the length? Everyone here keeps talking about it but all the links provided are just estimated latencies based on length.

Are you seriously that "black and white" on this?  Fees are not universally dollar/mile vs. dollar/hour.  You charge for labor, and materials.  Labor is higher in the Arctic, materials is flat for distance plus extras for fuel/food etc.  Pretty simple - but with the high cost of the cable, you know they track that too.

Secondarily, no company is going to lay lines without testing a fixed lengths of the cable to ensure it's integrity.  No company is going to make a choice on a cable manufacturer without testing lengths of the cable.  This includes latency tests.  They survey the sea floor for detailed routes before laying the cable.  These systems analyze the features to scale which must match up with the overall distances covered according to RE maps. 

Seems pretty air tight to me.

Doesn't seem all that air tight to me. Highway contractors don't have to break down for the government how much asphalt they're going to use for a job - they bid on the total job, not on each component. I would imagine that the companies laying the cable would do the same thing. Therefore the labor costs and costs of operating a ship would far outweigh a few extra kilometers of cable.

Do you have any actual proof that the companies laying down the cable runs we're discussing have included the cable as a line item in their bids? Or is this just one more thing in the long list of assumptions here?

Asphalt is not analogous.  Phone or power lines are a better comparison, as they are metered out specifically.  So to be clear, you believe the latency is correct, but the cable layers use extra cable, then zig/zag from the original route to lay extra cable in the northern hemisphere to compensate for shorter FE distances, because only distances in the southern hemisphere are correct?

While this could work, it means it would take about half the expected time to travel across Canada than the distances show on a RE map.  Having does this route, I can guarantee my gas mileage did not mysteriously get cut in half, nor did I cover distances in half the time.  

If the Tropic of Capricorn is "non distorted in long/lat" and the northern hemisphere is compressed, then driving that route would have about a 2 to 1 compression along the latitude.  Is that what you are contending?

You're assuming a lot of things here. For one, I would imagine a flat dollar/kilometer deal would not work since running cable in the Arctic would be a lot different than running it in the South Pacific. Even within a specific region, there would be great variance in how difficult the run is from one area to the other. Do you have any independent confirmation that companies are paid by the kilometer for work like this?

The cable itself is paid for by the kilometer.  This price varies depending on the specifications of the cable being laid.  This changes based on where the cable is going to be.  If the cable is going to be laid in shallow water, then it will have more layers of steel to protect the cable from accidental snags.

The price for the cable laying ship is usually based on day-rate.  This accounts for the cost of fuel, crew and other costs of running the ship.  The cable company then provides their testers and inspectors.  It usually doesn't cost more to run the ship in the Arctic than it does to run it in the South Pacific, but there are usually extra costs for the transit to the location based on the number of days that it takes for mobilization.

This is like saying that highway contractors are paid to build new interstates by dollar/mile and therefore should know exactly how much asphalt they use. In reality, the asphalt cost is probably low enough on the list after labor and equipment costs that they're not interested in having it match the estimate exactly. Similarly, I would imagine diesel costs and a 20 man crew would be where most of the expenses are going when laying cable.

The cable laying company can accurately estimate the number of days that are going to be required to lay the cable.  When the plan is developed it goes to enough detail that it tells the ship's crew what percentage they need to be running the engines to achieve the correct catenary (sp?) in the cable between the tensioner on the stern and the seabed.  Because the plan is so detailed it allows for accurate estimations of the time required.
 

And again, where is the actual data where latency measurements were taken and they confirmed the length? Everyone here keeps talking about it but all the links provided are just estimated latencies based on length.

Latency measurements allow for the troubleshooting of the cable.  Based on the timing of signals, a problem in the cable can be localized.  Once the problem is localized, the cable ship can be sent to that location to pull that section of the cable to surface for repairs.

I think that one of the reasons that detailed latency information "floating about" is the proprietary nature of that information.  Companies are careful with information like that.

Exactly, however latency information has been provided to FE'ers, and it has been shown to a reasonable degree that the latency per metre is constant, regardless of geographic location.

Really? Where is the match showing that the latency seen can only occur on  a Round Earth?

Quote from: goldstein on November 21, 2008, 02:07:17 AM

Exactly, however latency information has been provided to FE'ers, and it has been shown to a reasonable degree that the latency per metre is constant, regardless of geographic location.

Really? Where is the match showing that the latency seen can only occur on  a Round Earth?

Tom, you are avoiding the question. By doing so and not committing any predictions based on your beliefs you open the door for "Moving the Goal Posts" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost ).

As REers have provided data (even if you don't agree with it), it is only polite (ie to show you aren't trolling) to provide your own as requested.

Essentially: Put your money where your mouth is.

So where's the math showing that the latency seen can only occur on  a Round Earth?

So where's the math showing that the latency seen can only occur on  a Round Earth?

Tom, the argument is not that latency can only occur on a round earth, rather that the latencies observed are consistent with the fiber optic cable lengths that are based on round earth geography.  Since there is no accurate FE map that we RE'ers can use to compare the cable runs that be required for the same networks on an FE, we are forced to either provide our own speculation based on previously published theories or ask FE researchers for their input on the matter.  It would be nice if we could get a straight answer from an FE researcher so that we won't have to do so much of our own speculation.

Tom, the argument is not that latency can only occur on a round earth, rather that the latencies observed are consistent with the fiber optic cable lengths that are based on round earth geography.  Since there is no accurate FE map that we RE'ers can use to compare the cable runs that be required for the same networks on an FE, we are forced to either provide our own speculation based on previously published theories or ask FE researchers for their input on the matter.  It would be nice if we could get a straight answer from an FE researcher so that we won't have to do so much of our own speculation.

So you're saying that you don't have any math to show that the latency experienced between those two points reflects what one should expect on a Globular Earth?

How does latency prov anything at all then?

Quote from: markjo on November 21, 2008, 09:05:23 PM

Tom, the argument is not that latency can only occur on a round earth, rather that the latencies observed are consistent with the fiber optic cable lengths that are based on round earth geography.  Since there is no accurate FE map that we RE'ers can use to compare the cable runs that be required for the same networks on an FE, we are forced to either provide our own speculation based on previously published theories or ask FE researchers for their input on the matter.  It would be nice if we could get a straight answer from an FE researcher so that we won't have to do so much of our own speculation.

So you're saying that you don't have any math to show that the latency experienced between those two points reflects what one should expect on a Globular Earth?

How does latency prov anything at all then?

No, I'm saying that you have not given us any FE math that contradicts the RE math.  Latency is directly proportional to the length of the cable run.  Longer cables experience larger latencies.  The latency figures provided are consistent with cable runs on an RE.  Please provide any evidence to the contrary, if you can.

So where's the math showing that the latency seen can only occur on  a Round Earth?

Latency = Length of Cable * Speed of Light through that medium + Time for router to redirect the packet * Number of routers

Given a known time for the processing of the routers, the number of routers, the length of the cable and speed of light through that medium then we can calculate the latency.

As faster routers would be able to work faster and so the companies that buy them could charge more for the use of them (and so make lots of money), these routers will be as fast as possible.

The same thing would occur for the speed of light through the medium, companies that could offer the lowest latency times would be preferred carriers as this means that businesses that require (or could take advantage of) lower latency times would desire that company over one that artificially increased latency times.

As the Economics of anyone wanting to make a profit out of fibre optic cable carriers dictates that the latency must be as small as possible. We can be assured that the latency is as small as possible.

If the latency is as small as possible, then for the Northern Hemisphere/plane we can be assured that the cable lengths are as short as possible. This means that if the latency time for the same distance in the Northern as compared to the Southern hemisphere/plane will be the same. But on a Flat Earth, this would not be the case.

I can already see the counter argument about the cable layers making more money by laying more cable. However, the majority of the money is not made in laying the cable: It is made in charging for the use of that cable. o although laying cables is expensive, enough money can be made to pay these cable layers and then make a profit from it just by charging for the use of that cable.

As a company that offered a better service (lower latency) would therefore be more effective, any company that artificially extended their latency times would be committing commercial suicide. They would be setting the company up to make massive losses as everyone else used the faster cable company.

So cable laying companies might make a profit by laying longer cables in the Northern Hemisphere/plane, but where the most money to be made form this is, in the use of the cable, artificial latency delays would loose them lots of money. This also means that the companies that are getting the cable laid so that they can charge for its use would be extremely concerned about the actual lengths of the cables laid and so would need to confirm for themselves the actual lengths laid as they are paying for the lengths and their entire revenue stream is related to the length of the cable and the latency delays that they would encounter.