Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - stack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 66  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses
« on: May 18, 2020, 08:14:28 AM »
All sources on this subject admit that they failed at predicting the motion of celestial system past two bodies. Can you point me to the part in history where scientists were able to use the three and n-body problems to describe the solar system based on Newton's laws? Surely this would have been mentioned somewhere in conventional knowledge materials.

I have no idea how you can keep repeating this.  What sources say we can't predict the motion of celestial systems past two bodies?  Nobody. All you can find are math papers saying we can't solve the problems using ONE method, but there are thousands talking about other methods that work just fine.  Plus we have all those spacecraft zooming all over that seem to find their way, and the oft-mentioned comets hitting Jupiter that were predicted perfectly.

No matter how many times you say we can't, predictions prove you are wrong.

Are you going to give us a source explaining how physcists were able to overcome the Three Body Problem to describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system, in contradiction to the Nova documentary's contrary statements of what happened after Newton published his laws? Or will you continue to cite your own self?

The basic scheme of RE cosmology says that it is possible to have a star with a planet and a moon. Hundreds of years of research by the greatest mathematicians have been unable to get that to work, however.

Here's an interesting paper, "Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem", that discusses all of the solutions from Kepler on up through Newton to roughly today. A lot of stuff has happened since Newton. All with ever increasing accuracy. The bottom line is that for our purposes we can accurately predict the Moon-Earth-Sun system movement to a high degree of precision.
http://sites.apam.columbia.edu/courses/ap1601y/Moon-Earth-Sin%20RMP.70.589.pdf

It is pretty damning that the basic idea of a star with a planet and a moon can't stay together and that the accepted model does not have working laws.

It's more damning that FET has no knowledge of where a star and a moon are in relation to a planet at all. Helio can give a pretty precise approximation and prediction as evidenced by some of the work referenced in the paper above. FET has no knowledge of any celestial mechanics. Zero. FET doesn't know where any objects in the heavens are or their size let alone being able to predict anything. Your time may be better spent trying to show how the Sun, Moon, and planets, even comets, work within FET rather than looking for holes in Newton.

 

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station
« on: May 18, 2020, 02:45:21 AM »
Side note, someone please explain to me how to pull individual quotes from a person’s reply, so people don’t have to scroll through a text wall to see what I’m replying to.

Check out the code for this and you will see how to pull out a quote.

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 15, 2020, 12:49:23 AM »
Nope. There were methods to predict the eclipses long, long, before Newton or Copernicus were even born. You are merely inferring that it must be done through a dynamical Three Body Problem.

Of course there were ways long ago. We've just gotten way more advanced and precise post Newton & Copernicus. From the same article:

"To factor all of that in, eclipse modelers like Wright use the 19th-century coordinate system as a starting point, but then calculate the view for millions of simulated observers by working in the profile of the moon, size and angle of the sun in the sky, as well as elevation at each of the points on the ground. That lets them plot out the swath of land that will see an eclipse, and how long it will last at each point. The number of calculations would seem very strange to early eclipse modelers, but isn't unusual for fields like computer graphics.

"We're able to do modern calculations now just because of this confluence of computing power and large datasets describing the shape of the moon and the Earth," Wright said.


Kindly quote a physicist who says that the Three Body Problem can describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

What sort of solution are you looking for? Numerical, analytical, simulations?

And any luck on finding a modern day FE physicist to help rough out all of the celestial mechanics FET seems ignorant of?

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 15, 2020, 12:26:44 AM »
Quote from: stack
Why does everything distill down to the 3 body problem for you? Look at it this way, from a practical real world example of 3 body scenario predicted and solved: The 2017 North American Total Solar Eclipse.

Eclipses can be predicted in ways that do not involve the three body problem. Lets see a source from a physicist that the three body problem has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

Not down to the 100 meter mark.

When you figure out where the Sun and other celestial bodies are and where they go and you have a map of earth, you too can play with the big boys in calculating and simulating n body scenarios. Until such time, FET has no knowledge of the heavens nor where things are on Earth. Helio seems to be nailing predictions left, right, and center in comparison. Or do you have an FE Physicist that has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system?

What are you talking about? The claim was "While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework."

Now, do you have a physicist who you can cite to tell us that the Three Body Problem works to describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system or will you concede on this subject and admit that the laws proposed by RE Theory fail to show how a star can have a planet with a moon around it?

Helio predicted down to the 100 meter mark totality during the 2017 eclipse and was observed to be correct. From the same space.com article:

"Wright uses elevation data from NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, which measures the elevation at 1,200 points between each line of latitude or longitude. He also takes into account the precise locations of the Earth, moon and sun at each time, and the time the sunlight takes to travel to the moon and then down to Earth."

Seems that Helio solved that Sun-Earth-Moon scenario quite well. I don't see FET solving much of anything. Are there any modern FE Physicists you could find that could help FET out with the 3 body problem??


5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 15, 2020, 12:07:31 AM »
Quote from: stack
Why does everything distill down to the 3 body problem for you? Look at it this way, from a practical real world example of 3 body scenario predicted and solved: The 2017 North American Total Solar Eclipse.

Eclipses can be predicted in ways that do not involve the three body problem. Lets see a source from a physicist that the three body problem has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

Not down to the 100 meter mark.

When you figure out where the Sun and other celestial bodies are and where they go and you have a map of earth, you too can play with the big boys in calculating and simulating n body scenarios. Until such time, FET has no knowledge of the heavens nor where things are on Earth. Helio seems to be nailing predictions left, right, and center in comparison. Or do you have an FE Physicist that has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system?

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 14, 2020, 11:52:01 PM »
You love to spam every subject with this 3-body problem problem, but it's not, you know, a problem.

Then find a single physicist who says that it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

Quote from: GoldCashew
I am a little new and so not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the three body problem regarding the Sun-Moon-Earth.

I'm referring to the Three Body Problem: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Why does everything distill down to the 3 body problem for you? Look at it this way, from a practical real world example of 3 body scenario predicted and solved: The 2017 North American Total Solar Eclipse. Helio science not only predicted the when, but again, the where. As in exactly where the area of totality would be, down to meters:

"Space.com talked with NASA's Ernie Wright, who has been producing NASA's visualizations of the celestial event, to learn how satellites mapping the surface of the moon and advances in computing power have made it possible for scientists to predict precisely where on Earth the eclipse will be visible and for exactly how long — with a precision of about 100 meters (330 feet, or about the length of a city block)."

https://www.space.com/37128-how-to-predict-eclipse-2017-path.html

The old fashioned way will get you within kilometers. In any case, FET can't make that precise prediction because it requires, first and foremost, a map of earth. FET doesn't have one. In addition, you need the precise topography of both earth and the moon. FET doesn't have those either.

So there you go, 3 body scenario predicted and solved down to 100 meters. 

Your 3 body problem is a perpetual red herring that doesn't mean anything especially considering that Helio seems to be able to handle it whereas FET does not.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 14, 2020, 11:34:41 PM »
Quote from: Stack
Now, can FET do what Helio did and calculate the when and where each of the comet shards impacted Jupiter? That is the question.

I don't see that Helio did anything except use the discredited epicycles to make data fit a theory.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. I already pointed this all out in post #23 as well as others:

Wait, so now FET is in agreement with the fact that Jupiter has a diameter of about 88,695 miles which is more than 11 times the diameter of Earth? FET would need to because part of the astronomers' calculations had to take into account the diameter of Jupiter to determine when and where on the planet the debris would hit.

No, they did not take it into account for any meaningful purpose. Once you start adding epicycles, the underlying model is meaningless.

You are wrong. They most certainly took the known size of Jupiter into account. From the paper I cited before, titled 'Tidal Disruption and the Appearance of Periodic Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9', one of just page after page of calculations used to model/predict the collision:



Note: R3 is Jupiter’s equatorial radius

And that's just scratching the surface, as it where:



https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/handle/2014/36567

Quote
Could FET make the prediction just using an epicycle?

It can be done with anything, and any underlying model. FE does not propose an underlying 'ideal' celestial dogma model or force that must be justified and adhered to with epicycles.

Wrong again. Read the paper I referenced that describes how it was calculated. A massive undertaking.

Bottom line, FET could not have predicted the collision and modern heliocentric calculation could and did.

So again, if "It can be done with anything, and any underlying model," show us how FET could do it. Prove me wrong.

How is, at a minimum, having to calculate the Jupiter radius an epicycle? Again, it comes down to the 'where' that FET fails. FET would have needed to know the size of Jupiter to predict where the collisions would occur. FET can't do that as it has no knowledge about Jupiter. Helio does and did predict the where and it was observed. Helio = 1 / FET = 0.

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: Rocket Propulsion
« on: May 14, 2020, 09:38:24 PM »
No rebuttal there.
 
Any change in momentum requires application of a force - always . Defined by the equation ,  F = ma as stated by the laws of physics .

The Principle of Conservation of Momentum applied to rockets stems from theoretical physics , Neorems theory applied to Newton's laws , which allows calculation of velocities from change of momentum and other variables , but the starting point is always that F must be greater than zero , no force = no change in momentum .

Your first link generalizes this but omits to point out the fact that expansion of hot gas into a vacuum produces no work or force and ignores the fact that thrust is reactive force that requires pressure .

I'm not sure why you're still hung up on the Joule's 'gas does no work in a vacuum' catchphrase. It's already been shown to you that that particular aspect of thermodynamics does not apply to rocket propulsion. You're misapplying the law over and over again.

Nasa ignores the laws of science and this neat math trickery which leads to such statements as " rockets work better in a vacuum",
which anyone carrying out an actual experiment in vacuum chamber can see is wrong.

It would not be just NASA, it would be every space agency/company and missile manufacturer/launcher performing said trickery. But math trickery isn't even required, just logic. Rockets go faster in a vacuum for two very simple reasons:

- There's no atmospheric resistance, which is obviously massive down here nearer to terra firma
- Most likely when a rocket or missile reaches the vacuum of space its weight to thrust ration is much less due to burned off fuel and even staging

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« on: May 14, 2020, 09:05:23 PM »
...for all we know innumerable sailors involved in this race were surprised that they covered as little distance as their equipment tells them, but because RE is so ingrained, they just don't question it.

A "for all we know" statement is merely a made up supposition. Take the Volvo Around the World races. If you've watched any of the footage, those guys and gals know exactly how fast they are going, where they are, where they are vectoring to, when they will get there given the variables, and where their competition is 24/7. Mishaps do occur, mostly due to the crazy routes they sometimes take chasing wind and storms (They can get up to 35 MPH, which is insane) where shoals and reefs aren't charted very well due to the remoteness of their route choice. But they still know right where they are on the planet.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: May 13, 2020, 08:54:56 PM »
Lets couch this in a slightly different way, in a practical real world application.
If I asked you to machine some bar stock and produce three 2cm lenghts, and the three pieces were actually 1.999999995, 2 and 2.0000000000005 cm respectivley. Could you really notice the difference?
You couldn't measure the difference with a vernier guage or a micrometer, you would need very sophisticated equipment to detect the difference.
In what real world application can you see this difference mattering?

First off math is math. The answer is right or it's wrong. If you are trying to solve for x in the formula x + 1 = 2 then, out of all of the infinite possible answers, there is only one that is correct. In measuring the distance to grandma's house i would say that .0000005 CM does not really matter. But we're not talking about the distance to grandma's house we are talking about reverse engineering the distance formula used on a website. They are two totally different things with two totally different degrees of accuracy.

It's been made infinitely clear that Bing is using globe 'math' for its distance calculations. Nothing has even remotely been shown as evidence to the contrary. Even Microsoft says they use it. Case closed.

Second off small distances do matter.
There is an entire branch of science called metrology dedicated to precise measurements measuring to the milliong/billionth of an inch actually is important and matters from things like nano technology, computer processors, or the precision engineering needed in a modern jet engine where, if one blade is long by .00000005 CM and another blade is short by .00000005 CM the entire engine would either not function or function much less efficiently.

Here's


Cool video, but has nothing to do with the topic.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances
« on: May 13, 2020, 08:36:17 PM »
Here is an interesting document from the company that laid the Hibernia Express (Now ‘GTT Express’) submarine cable back in 2015 from Brean, UK to Halifax, NS (Originally slated to go to NYC.) The document lays out at a high-level how they went about determining the best operational route.

"Euclidean, Haversine and Great Circle Distances
The principle behind a low latency cable is the shortest route...The next solution is to use the Haversine formula to calculate the Great Circle route between two points on a sphere...This gives us a distance of 5577km from London to NewYork but the Haversine formula is for a sphere and the Earth is an oblate spheroid…Using the modified Vincenty formula the Great Circle distance from London to New York is 5594km this therefore is the theoretical shortest distance that could be achieved for a cable from London to New York.

If the route is split between land and marine, in the knowledge that the majority of marine routes can follow a great circle route if required, or at least close to one, then we can understand how far from the great circle route we can deviate before we compromise the overall latency of the system...Since submarine cables can invariably be installed in almost a great circle route then increasing the amount of submarine cable in the route between London and New York is the most effective way of keeping the latency low.

Putting all of these facts into consideration and ensuring that the ICPC recommendations for pipeline and cable crossings are taken into account a survey route has been found.
"



https://suboptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Poster_105.pdf

So it appears that the submarine cable engineers take great care in using the shortest possible route on an oblate spheroid following a great circle as best they can.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS International Space Station
« on: May 12, 2020, 08:12:21 PM »
Quote
A scientific mission for young people no older than 19.

Design an experiment, receive free computer hardware to work with, and write the Python code to carry it out.

Your code could be uploaded to the International Space Station and run for three hours (two orbits).

Get your results back from space and analyse them like a real space scientist!

Interesting to see that the 'real space scientists' are doing such important and captevating work.

From the same document you mis-represented yesterday, 2013 NASA Socio-Economic Impacts Report, part of NASA'a mission is to bolster the involvement and learning of the Sciences in America's youth (all citizens, in fact). NASA is as much of a teaching institution as it is a space exploration entity. Seems like a good way to spend our tax dollars - Make kids/adults smarter and more engaged with science and technology. It is our future.




13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances
« on: May 12, 2020, 03:27:33 AM »
Once again, a simple statement without evidence for these cable lengths. I fail to find that any evidence has been presented at all, other than an opinion that the cable lengths all exactly match an RE. As there has been a failure to provide evidence for those statements, those statements can be safely discarded without evidence.

Interesting tactic. Trying to invoke the failure in evidence when FET not only has a failure, just simply provides none.

A length of cable between LA and Hong Kong was presented. A globe earth map showing a great circle distance reading that was close to the length of cable and you claim, "no evidence" with how globe earth fits the cabling better than FET. That's beyond curious because FET has no known distance between the world's continents, cities, and landmarks - They are all unknown to FET, just like the heavens.

Bottomline:
- The cable length closely matches the distance between cities on a globe earth
- FET has no knowledge of distances so FET has no idea whether the distance is correct or not.

I think you need to get your FET map/distance stuff in order before you can say anything about any other model.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances
« 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.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 12, 2020, 01:46:23 AM »
In your previous you posted a quote from him saying that 'approximations' are needed. This means that they can't really do it.

From the page:

Quote
Despite that, we do alright, and happily, reality doesn’t concern itself with doing math, it just kinda “does”.  For example, quantum field theory, despite being the most accurate theory that ever there was, never involves exactly solving anything.  Once a physicist gets a hold of all the appropriate equations and a big computer, they can start approximating things.  With enough computing power and time, these approximations can be made amazingly good.  Computer simulation and approximation is a whole science unto itself.

But even with just mechanical pencil and paper there are cheats.  For example, although there are more than three bodies in the solar system (the Sun, eight planets, dozens of moons, and millions of asteroids and comets), almost everything behaves, roughly, as though it were in a two body system.  Basically, this is due to the pronounced size differences between things.  As far as each planet is concerned, the only important body in the rest of the universe is the Sun.  To get some idea of why; the Sun pulls on the Earth about 200 times harder than the Moon, and about 20,000 times harder than Jupiter.  Nothing else even deserves a mention.  So, if you want to calculate the orbits of all the planets, a “2-body approximation” will get you more than 99% of the way to the right answer.

They talk about "approximations" and "cheating" with two body problems.

Why would they need to cheat if there were solutions?

I still don't think you get it. FET could never have predicted the 'where' the collisions occurred on Jupiter. FET would need to know the size of Jupiter, not to mention calculating it's gravitational pull among other things. FET has no knowledge of any of that. FET is unclear as to where Jupiter is, let alone its size.

You harp on modern helio-astrophysics for not 'solving' the N-Body Problem to your satisfaction but fail to see that FET has less than zero of a solution. Or even an attempt. FET has no knowledge of the heavens at all. Helio has quite the leg up in that regard.

Now, can FET do what Helio did and calculate the when and where each of the comet shards impacted Jupiter? That is the question.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances
« 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.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances
« 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?


18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 11, 2020, 11:29:32 PM »
He's talking about predicting what will happen to unequal bodies with chaos theory, not that they are stable. The only stable solutions are the ones with the "small set of frankly goofy scenarios (like identical planets following identical orbits)."

That's not at all what he's talking about. he says the word 'chaos' not that they use chaos theory equations to model anything.

He's saying you can use numerical methods to solve the 3 body problem. Which is the opposite of what you are claiming.

You are also the one claiming we need stable solutions, but we don't. The solar system is only 'stable' in the short term, it's unstable in the long run.

Again, numerical solutions can solve any amount of n-body problems to the amount of precision you need.

That's your own unsourced speculation. He clearly says "The problem with the 3-body problem is that it can’t be done, except in a very small set of frankly goofy scenarios (like identical planets following identical orbits)."

I think there's a 3 body thread going already if you want to take all this there because it's neither here nor there in this thread.

This thread is about how Helio astrophysicists predicted the when and where shards from a shattered comet would hit Jupiter. They succeeded in doing so with great precision and it was observed.

FET could never have predicted the 'where' the collisions occurred on Jupiter. FET would need to know the size of Jupiter, not to mention calculating it's gravitational pull among other things. FET has no knowledge of any of that. FET is unclear as to where Jupiter is, let alone its size.

Heliocentric astrophysics can and did predict the when and where. This falls into the category of "Things FET can't do that RET can" bucket.

19
People will believe that just because the government is paying for scientists to design things that it's actually going to be used, and that those technologies would have otherwise been created for nothing. Those NASA technologies are also being spun off into patents.

Look at page ii on this 2013 NASA Socio-Economic Impacts Report --

Quote
Spurs Innovation and Business Growth

- 1,600 new technologies reported in 2012
- 2,200 tech transfer transactions in 2012
- $1M annually per spinoff (median, based on small study)

If those tech transfers to industry make 2.2 billion a year, that would quickly adds up over 20 years, and would surpass their federal budget.

I think you're mis-interpreting the report. It says:

"NASA’s technology transfer office surveyed companies featured in Spinoff to determine the impacts generated by NASA spinoffs."

Meaning, they contacted the companies that they spun off technology to and asked said companies what was THEIR revenue was attributable to NASA tech they are using/selling.

It goes on to say, "Of those, 39 respondents’ data could be used to derive annual estimates. Analysis of these data indicate the median annual revenue per spinoff per year is $1 million."

Again, referring to the revenue generated at the surveyed companies that got spunoff tech from NASA. It's not the amount of money NASA gets from their spinoffs. That would be easy to track. Patent out, dollars in. What this is about is how much revenue NASA spunoff tech makes other companies. Another metric to show how NASA helps to boost the economy in the private sector.


20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances
« 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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 66  Next >