How to circumnavigate and measure distances without leaving home

Those of you who have yet to test your theories by travelling the world might be interested to know that you have access to a very fast worldwide transportation network at no extra charge, and your own computer is a capable measuring instrument.

I am of course talking about the Internet. Your measurements can be performed with traceroute:

http://www.as.ysu.edu/~mcrescim/presentations/traceroute/

The document above goes on to talk about estimating the circumference of Earth by applying your results to a globe, but you can ignore that part since you obviously don't believe in the accuracy of globes. The important part is that you can calculate the lengths of cables using the round-trip time divided by 2 and the propagation speed for the type of cable used (and if you don't believe in the speed you can even buy your own cable of the same type and test it across a short distance).

In the FE model, the southern lines of latitude are much longer. The calculated cable distances don't agree with this, however. Aside from the obvious conclusion that FET is wrong, I can think of two possibilities:

• The cables take a proportionately less direct route depending on how far north they are
• The speed of light gets proportionately faster depending on how far south of the equator it is

Neither of these make sense. There is no reason degrees latitude should have an effect on either of these, not to mention number 1 seems like a pointless waste of money.


Searching the forums, I have found very few other discussions of these oceanic cables. In the one thread I did find, the general FE consensus seemed to be that the government deliberately bottlenecks the connections based on their location to keep the Round Earth Myth alive, and the Tom Bishop answer was predictably "Who measured the cables? The Conspiracy? "

But you can measure the cables yourself, so Tom's question is irrelevant. And the government conspiracy angle is incompatible with the popular claim that they aren't trying to fool anyone that the Earth is round because they actually believe it is themselves. Not to mention there is no unified jurisdiction over the Internet.


So we're down to one question: Why is the speed of light slower in the north?

The Internet: Telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth since 1968.

I'm talking about the core infrastructure of the Internet.

You, on the other hand, are referring to a particular application that is built upon that infrastructure: the web.

That's the thing you browse with a web browser.

I'm not talking about that.

And the web has only been around since 1990, not 1968.

Please try to follow along. Focus. I'm not telling you how to go read some information on the web. I'm telling you how to test and measure the infrastructure first-hand.

The Internet depends on worldwide standards in order to function. In baby terms, this means computers on the network don't lie to each other. For instance, if one machine signals that its information is in a certain format, and it's not, the next node in the network won't know how to read the information and the transaction fails.

A diagnostic tool such as traceroute can't lie unless it's specifically programmed to report different information than it actually detects. If you want to try to argue that this is what's happening, be my guest -- but be warned, the source code for traceroute is available.

According to all of the undersea cable maps I've seen, the cables in the Southern Hemisphere run North-South and not East-West.

See this cablemap for example:

http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/cybergeography/atlas/alcatel_large.gif

All of the cables in the South are running mainly North-South, and not East-West.

In the traditional FE model the North-South distances in the Southern Hemisphere are identical to the North-South distances in the RE Southern Hemisphere. While East-West is warped, the North-South distances are not warped:



You can find more cable maps here:

http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/cybergeography/atlas/cables.html

You will notice the the cables in the Southern Hemisphere/Hemidisk are all running North-South from the wealthier nations.

According to all of the undersea cable maps I've seen the cables in the Southern Hemisphere run North-South and not East-West.

Your maps clearly show that they run east-west. 

And don't forget that east-west distances are wrong on FE maps in the northern hemisphere as well. They're just closer to accurate since they're directly proportional to the real distances -- but not equal.

Your maps clearly show that they run east-west. 

Not really. If you look at the maps the cables are are running mostly North-South.

There are no cables in the South running East-West for long distances, which would be necessary to "test the circumference of the Southern Hemisphere from your own home".

Tom, here's an exercise for you:  Take the cable paths from this map, project them onto this map, then repeat everything you just told me while keeping a straight face.

Cable running from United Kingdom to Maine, U.S.A. is north-south? Come on Tom, you can think of a better explanation.

Apparently Tom's mind can only handle one dimension at a time. "If a cable runs north-south," he wonders, "how can it be running east-west?" But, shockingly, the cable begins in the east and ends in the west, which means it must have travelled in that direction. The fact that the north-south axis isn't distorted is irrelevant, because that's not the only axis the path traverses.

In FET, RET has disastrously miscalculated the width of the ocean between continents, wouldn't the companies notice their estimated amount of cable used to cross the ocean was very wrong?

Cable running from United Kingdom to Maine, U.S.A. is north-south? Come on Tom, you can think of a better explanation.

Those are Northern Hemisphere cables. The Northern Hemisphere in FET is generally similar to the Northern Hemisphere in RET for East-West distances.

Apparently Tom's mind can only handle one dimension at a time. "If a cable runs north-south," he wonders, "how can it be running east-west?" But, shockingly, the cable begins in the east and ends in the west, which means it must have travelled in that direction. The fact that the north-south axis isn't distorted is irrelevant, because that's not the only axis the path traverses.

The Southern Hemisphere cables are mostly running north-south. Very little is running eastwards or westwards in the Southern Hemisphere.

Your first post implied that we could send a signal all around the Southern Hemisphere to get a circumference. You are wrong. Cables don't exist connecting Australia to South Africa to South America.

In FET, RET has disastrously miscalculated the width of the ocean between continents, wouldn't the companies notice their estimated amount of cable used to cross the ocean was very wrong?

Since the cables in the Southern Hemisphere are mostly laid North-South, with very little traveling East-West, the cable laying companies wouldn't notice much of a discrepancy.

Recall, North-South distances in FET Southern Hemisphere (hemidisk) are identical to the North-South distances of the RET Southern Hemisphere.

Only East-West in the Southern Hemisphere have different distances.

Your first post implied that we could send a signal all around the Southern Hemisphere to get a circumference.

What the hell? No it didn't. Please read it again:

The document above goes on to talk about estimating the circumference of Earth by applying your results to a globe, but you can ignore that part since you obviously don't believe in the accuracy of globes. The important part is that you can calculate the lengths of cables

The only reason I mentioned circumference was to pre-emptively stop someone from skimming the article, noticing that it mentions globes, and dismissing the whole post under the false assumption that the globe-measurement part had anything to do with my point.

The point is distances across the oceans should be greater and greater the farther south you go. This should be reflected in the travel time of data packets across the oceanic cables and back. It's not.

The point is distances across the oceans should be greater and greater the farther south you go. This should be reflected in the travel time of data packets across the oceanic cables and back. It's not.

Only when traveling East-West in the Southern Hemisphere. Not many of those cables are traveling East-West for any significant distance.

Even with the cables which do travel East-West for short distances, such as the cables between Australia and New Zealand, you're assuming that the Flat Earth is a perfect polar projection. New Zealand and Australia may very well be closer than depicted in the polar projection map. It's really for illustration purposes only.

Since the cables in the Southern Hemisphere are mostly laid North-South, with very little traveling East-West, the cable laying companies wouldn't notice much of a discrepancy.

Recall, North-South distances in FET Southern Hemisphere (hemidisk) are identical to the North-South distances of the RET Southern Hemisphere.

Only East-West in the Southern Hemisphere have different distances.

Dear God!

Tom, look:



As you say, north-south distances are identical on both maps, which means the vertical red line on the left map is an equal distance to the corresponding line on the right. I've drawn the corresponding cable path the arrow points to (which is in the southern hemisphere) onto the FE map. Are you saying both paths are the same distance?

We don't know how close together Africa is to the Philippines. Africa and the Philippines may very well be more squished together, just as Australia and New Zealand may very well be more squished together. The Polar Projection map is for visual purposes only. You would need an uninterrupted cable which travels all the way around the Southern Hemisphere to demonstrate or disprove anything about Southern Hemisphere distances in FET.

But even if the people putting down the cables did find that some of the cables didn't really fit in, it would just be explained away by underwater currents, soil irregularity, winds and errors in placement, et cetera. And somewhere in there would be lost a mistake caused by a slight misunderstanding of the Earth's shape.

You RE'ers act as if any problem with the position of a star in the sky or expected length of telecom cable would hit the front page of CNN. People would blame it on refraction/ocean currents/placement error and forget all about it long before they would question the shape of the earth.

The Polar Projection map is for visual purposes only. You would need an uninterrupted cable which travels all the way around the Southern Hemisphere to demonstrate or disprove anything about Southern Hemisphere distances in FET.

Very well. Then show me an alternative map that preserves the lengths of all the cables in the diagram. It doesn't have to be the map that you personally believe to be true. I just want you to demonstrate that it's theoretically possible for all of these connections at their given distances to exist on a 2D plane. That is what you're saying, is it not? You don't even have to put all of the cables on it, just enough to represent circumnavigation.

But even if the people putting down the cables did find that some of the cables didn't really fit in, it would just be explained away by underwater currents, soil irregularity, winds and errors in placement, et cetera. And somewhere in there would be lost a mistake caused by a slight misunderstanding of the Earth's shape.

You RE'ers act as if any problem with the position of a star in the sky or expected length of telecom cable would hit the front page of CNN. People would blame it on refraction/ocean currents/placement error and forget all about it long before they would question the shape of the earth.

You're evading again. You're focusing on one comment Irushwithscvs made about the companies' estimates being wrong. This is besides the point. You claim that the distances are greater in the south. Whether the companies laying the cables noticed this or not doesn't change the fact that the measurements I described in the OP don't match your claim.

We don't know how close together Africa is to the Philippines. Africa and the Philippines may very well be more squished together, just as Australia and New Zealand may very well be more squished together. The Polar Projection map is for visual purposes only. You would need an uninterrupted cable which travels all the way around the Southern Hemisphere to demonstrate or disprove anything about Southern Hemisphere distances in FET.

But even if the people putting down the cables did find that some of the cables didn't really fit in, it would just be explained away by underwater currents, soil irregularity, winds and errors in placement, et cetera. And somewhere in there would be lost a mistake caused by a slight misunderstanding of the Earth's shape.

You RE'ers act as if any problem with the position of a star in the sky or expected length of telecom cable would hit the front page of CNN. People would blame it on refraction/ocean currents/placement error and forget all about it long before they would question the shape of the earth.

Tom stop trolling.  Suddenly needing hundreds or even thousands of miles more cables is not something that someone just goes, "oh, so you need me to buy more cable because someone measures the earth wrong, okay."  Anytime someone has to fork over cash, tons of questions will be involved.

Very well. Then show me an alternative map that preserves the lengths of all the cables in the diagram. It doesn't have to be the map that you personally believe to be true. I just want you to demonstrate that it's theoretically possible for all of these connections at their given distances to exist on a 2D plane. That is what you're saying, is it not? You don't even have to put all of the cables on it, just enough to represent circumnavigation.

I don't feel like making a map for what I described. Your imagination should suffice.

Making such a map would be frivolous anyway, since I don't know whether the cables were, in fact, longer than expected.

You're evading again. You're focusing on one comment Irushwithscvs made about the companies' estimates being wrong. This is besides the point. You claim that the distances are greater in the south. Whether the companies laying the cables noticed this or not doesn't change the fact that the measurements I described in the OP don't match your claim.

I skimmed through the link you provided in the OP. I didn't see any of the Southern Hemisphere cables tested.

I don't feel like making a map for what I described. Your imagination should suffice.

I can't imagine it, because it's mathematically impossible. In order to preserve the lengths, you need a map without distorted lines of latitude. If you change the east-west distances, the length of the cables must change, because they cross that axis -- it's unavoidable. And the only way to make such a map, while still allowing circumnavigation, is to fold it into the third dimension.

Making such a map would be frivolous anyway, since I don't know whether the cables were, in fact, longer than expected.

No, this is vitally important. If they are longer, then you must explain why network data seems to suggest otherwise.

I skimmed through the link you provided in the OP. I didn't see any of the Southern Hemisphere cables tested.

Please read my post carefully. The whole point of this is that you can measure it yourself. Ignore the specific measurements mentioned in the link. That is only for demonstration. If you have a computer and an internet connection, you can measure cable distance between any two points that Internet cables exist. You don't have to read that whole document. Just read the first six paragraphs. Let me know if you need any additional clarification on how to try it yourself.

I can't imagine it, because it's mathematically impossible. In order to preserve the lengths, you need a map without distorted lines of latitude. If you change the east-west distances, the length of the cables must change, because they cross that axis -- it's unavoidable. And the only way to make such a map, while still allowing circumnavigation, is to fold it into the third dimension.

I'm not suggesting to "fold it into the third dimantion."

I'm suggesting that Africa may be squished closer to the Phillippines or Australia may be squished closer to New Zealand.

No one has demonstrated that the lines of latitude match the polar projection, the Mercator projection, or any other projection exactly. You're making certain assumptions that the earth is round.

No, this is vitally important. If they are longer, then you must explain why network data seems to suggest otherwise.

What network data? Again, I went through your link and the Southern Hemisphere was not studied.

Please read my post carefully. The whole point of this is that you can measure it yourself. Ignore the specific measurements mentioned in the link. That is only for demonstration. If you have a computer and an internet connection, you can measure cable distance between any two points that Internet cables exist. You don't have to read that whole document. Just read the first six paragraphs. Let me know if you need any additional clarification on how to try it yourself.

Oh, so your link doesn't really test anything and I need to "measure it myself."

What are the IP's for those relays in the Southern Hemisphere?

How am I supposed to make a ping travel between two different stretches of cable when the tracert command sends signals across the shortest distance to my computer?

Also, from your link:

"These data for transoceanic cable routes yield estimates of the earth's radius typically some 10%-20% too large. Clearly this indicates some systematic effect. We believe the most relevant systematic effect in this approach is that, for many reasons, the cables are not laid precisely along great circles on a perfectly spherical earth. For example, the cable is buried in mud going up and down hills at the bottom of the ocean and also around threatening ocean-bottom features."

Seems that your own source measured the RE Northern Hemisphere 10-20% too large. Special pleading is used to justify why the Round Earth model is not working.

Also, from your link:

"These data for transoceanic cable routes yield estimates of the earth's radius typically some 10%-20% too large. Clearly this indicates some systematic effect. We believe the most relevant systematic effect in this approach is that, for many reasons, the cables are not laid precisely along great circles on a perfectly spherical earth. For example, the cable is buried in mud going up and down hills at the bottom of the ocean and also around threatening ocean-bottom features."

Seems that your own source measured the RE Northern Hemisphere 10-20% too large. Special pleading is used to justify why the Round Earth model is not working.

Are you asserting that the ocean floor it perfectly smooth?  If this is correct then yes, the model can be discarded.  Otherwise a reasonable margin of error can be proposed.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2011, 09:39:35 PM

Also, from your link:

"These data for transoceanic cable routes yield estimates of the earth's radius typically some 10%-20% too large. Clearly this indicates some systematic effect. We believe the most relevant systematic effect in this approach is that, for many reasons, the cables are not laid precisely along great circles on a perfectly spherical earth. For example, the cable is buried in mud going up and down hills at the bottom of the ocean and also around threatening ocean-bottom features."

Seems that your own source measured the RE Northern Hemisphere 10-20% too large. Special pleading is used to justify why the Round Earth model is not working.

Are you asserting that the ocean floor it perfectly smooth?  If this is correct then yes, the model can be discarded.  Otherwise a reasonable margin of error can be proposed.

So the texture of the ocean floor caused the cable to be 20% longer than expected?

Its just as I've been saying in this thread. RE'ers will use special pleading in attempt to explain excess cable length. How typical.

So the texture of the ocean floor caused the cable to be 20% longer than expected?

No, because they didn't measure a line of the ocean floor all around the equator. All they did was use the approximate length of a relatively short oceanic cable and a string on a classroom globe to estimate the full circumference of the world. It was hardly meant to be precise. It's a completely different experiment to the one I'm asking you to perform. Your critique of it is nothing but yet another derailment. Stay focused. All we're doing is timing cables and using the formula d=vt to measure them.

Quote

I can't imagine it, because it's mathematically impossible. In order to preserve the lengths, you need a map without distorted lines of latitude. If you change the east-west distances, the length of the cables must change, because they cross that axis -- it's unavoidable. And the only way to make such a map, while still allowing circumnavigation, is to fold it into the third dimension.

I'm not suggesting to "fold it into the third dimantion."

I'm suggesting that Africa may be squished closer to the Phillippines or Australia may be squished closer to New Zealand.

No one has demonstrated that the lines of latitude match the polar projection, the Mercator projection, or any other projection exactly. You're making certain assumptions that the earth is round.

Exactly, you are not suggesting folding it, which is why what you claim is impossible. Sure, you can reconcile any one cable length by moving its endpoints, but by doing so you move all the other cables and warp their lengths even more. You haven't accomplished anything. You cannot make the Earth circumnavigable in 2D without distorting at least one axis, which in turn changes all the lengths. And it's spelled "dimension".

Oh, so your link doesn't really test anything and I need to "measure it myself."

Yes, that is specifically the purpose of this thread. That's why it's called "how to". If I were asking you to rely solely on information gathered by others, you would inevitably claim that they were mistaken and/or part of the Conspiracy just as you did in the other thread I found on this subject. I'm offering you a chance to prove that the cables are indeed longer as they approach the south pole / ice wall, by sending data through them and timing how long it takes for it to come back... but instead of jumping at the chance you're making excuses, which suggests to me that you're either lazy or afraid of proving yourself wrong. Probably both.

What are the IP's for those relays in the Southern Hemisphere?

How am I supposed to make a ping travel between two different stretches of cable when the tracert command sends signals across the shortest distance to my computer?

All you need to do is work out a location whose path would include the hop that you want to test. This should not be difficult to do, but even if it is you can effectively change the starting point by proxying. You don't need IP addresses, domain names will do. Just find a site hosted in the appropriate region.

Its just as I've been saying in this thread. RE'ers will use special pleading in attempt to explain excess cable length. How typical.

If there is an error factor that leads to the cables looking longer, but this error exists everywhere equally, then you don't have a case and it's not special pleading.

If however the "error" grows proportionately to how far south they are, you would have some evidence of your claim, and then RE'ers would be using special pleading if they claimed the explanation applies to the cables only as they approach the south for no reason.

But this is not the case.

As it stands, you're still the one making claims without providing reason or explanation, let alone proof. I'm telling you how to gather proof but you're just wasting time derailing as usual. Get on task.

RE'ers will use special pleading in attempt to explain excess cable length. How typical.

Just to help you here, special pleading is when a new explanation is added without submitting that new explanation to criticism. The author here seems quite clear that he's seeking that review. He listed the explanations in detail and did not make any claim that the explanations were without problems.

So the texture of the ocean floor caused the cable to be 20% longer than expected?

Its just as I've been saying in this thread. RE'ers will use special pleading in attempt to explain excess cable length. How typical.

That is a possibility in some cases.  I've seen some pretty uneven ocean floor. Can you rule it out?

Those of you who have yet to test your theories by travelling the world might be interested to know that you have access to a very fast worldwide transportation network at no extra charge, and your own computer is a capable measuring instrument.

I am of course talking about the Internet. Your measurements can be performed with traceroute:

http://www.as.ysu.edu/~mcrescim/presentations/traceroute/

The document above goes on to talk about estimating the circumference of Earth by applying your results to a globe, but you can ignore that part since you obviously don't believe in the accuracy of globes. The important part is that you can calculate the lengths of cables using the round-trip time divided by 2 and the propagation speed for the type of cable used (and if you don't believe in the speed you can even buy your own cable of the same type and test it across a short distance).

In the FE model, the southern lines of latitude are much longer. The calculated cable distances don't agree with this, however. Aside from the obvious conclusion that FET is wrong, I can think of two possibilities:

• The cables take a proportionately less direct route depending on how far north they are
• The speed of light gets proportionately faster depending on how far south of the equator it is

Neither of these make sense. There is no reason degrees latitude should have an effect on either of these, not to mention number 1 seems like a pointless waste of money.


Searching the forums, I have found very few other discussions of these oceanic cables. In the one thread I did find, the general FE consensus seemed to be that the government deliberately bottlenecks the connections based on their location to keep the Round Earth Myth alive, and the Tom Bishop answer was predictably "Who measured the cables? The Conspiracy? "

But you can measure the cables yourself, so Tom's question is irrelevant. And the government conspiracy angle is incompatible with the popular claim that they aren't trying to fool anyone that the Earth is round because they actually believe it is themselves. Not to mention there is no unified jurisdiction over the Internet.


So we're down to one question: Why is the speed of light slower in the north?

Because the speed of light in a Flat Earth, is actually accelerated across the larger reaches of the Southern Circle.

Since the northern Core part of the Flat Earth has less distances next to it's outer South, the light everywhere has less chance to accelerate it's mass, thus travels slower the distances.

In the South, light is accelartes because the distances it has freedom to shine upon, are twice or thrice greater. Thus light becomes considerably faster when the Southern Circle accelerates it across vast distances.

I thank you.

Seems that your own source measured the RE Northern Hemisphere 10-20% too large. Special pleading is used to justify why the Round Earth model is not working.

That may be the case. In school, my teachers were surprised to learn that planes flying from America to Europe, actually never flew directly over the Atlantic, as is perfectly normal and the fastest in any RET scenario.

Instead they took the "scenic route", north over Canada, Iceland, Britain, then Europe. Almost as if they were flying directly over the Flat Earth, only pretended "to be scared of hitting the Titanic on their way there", so chose the longer, harder route that curved north a lot more than it went east.

That was one of the first clues the Earth is Flat. America knows why it flies the way it flies. The Arctic is closer to the direct route to Europe, than the Atlantic is. That's why the planes use the Arctic route instead, it's much faster and cheaper than the Atlantic route.

I bet if all these planes in America tried to fly DIRECTLY OVER THE ATLANTIC east towards the airport in Europe they had to reach, it would take them 30% longer, or even more. Not just in time, but gas as well, which could run out, and crush in the Atlantic.

That's why RET avoid to mention this. They know they can't fly planes directly east to Europe, from America. It would take them closer to AFRICA instead.

light is accelartes because the distances it has freedom to shine upon

Light has no freedom to shine upon anything when it's confined to an enclosed fiber-optic cable.

In school, my teachers were surprised to learn that planes flying from America to Europe, actually never flew directly over the Atlantic, as is perfectly normal and the fastest in any RET scenario.

Instead they took the "scenic route", north over Canada, Iceland, Britain, then Europe. Almost as if they were flying directly over the Flat Earth

That's because your so-called Flat Earth map is actually a projection of a globe used by airline pilots. See here:

It is useful for showing airline distances from center point of projection

And the fact that the same formula also works for different center points other than the north pole actually proves that Earth is a globe.

Now please stop derailing my thread, there is another thread for this topic.