Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« on: September 02, 2017, 05:01:04 PM »
Careful observers of my recent posts may be aware that I've been rigging a gigantic logical trap for the FE'ers.

All of this debate about airline flight distances is VERY close to a perfect proof that no possible flat earth map can be true.

The ONLY remaining argument that Tom Bishop has is that he denies the maximum speed of an Airliner is known to us.

Well - I'm getting bored with that debate - the RE'ers have won it 20 ways.

So it's time to spring the next piece of the trap.

If Tom declares that people who make and fly airplanes have no idea how fast they fly....what is the one thing in the entire universe who's speed is DEFINITELY known?

It's the speed of light.

The speed of light (technically: "the speed of light in vacuum") is known to be an absolute universal constant...it doesn't vary by the slightest amount, no matter how it's measured - and it's the "universal speed limit" - nothing can go faster.

So if I could measure those distances using the time light takes to travel - then nobody could doubt the distances I end up with.

Ooohhhh!  Wouldn't THAT be cool?!

BACKGROUND:

Most computers contain a software tool called "ping" - I'm not sure it's standard on Windows computers - but Mac's and Linux machines have it installed by default and there are free versions of it that you can download for Windows too.   The Linux version (and probably some of the Windows downloadable versions of it) come with "source code" - which means that you can see how it works and verify that neither NASA, the US government nor anyone else couldn't have sneaked some flat-earth-coverup software into it.   (I just looked - they didn't!)

The name of the software ("ping") comes from the analogy of a sonar 'ping' from a submarine...but this is an internet ping.

What "ping" lets you do is to send a very short message to more or less any other computer on the Internet - have that message be instantly turned around and sent back to you.   Ping measures and displays the amount of time that took.

USING THIS HANDY TOOL:

Since we know that a message cannot possibly travel faster than the speed of light - we can use 'ping' to provide distance measurements to more or less any place on the Earth...with one caveat: We don't know exactly which undersea cable or satellite link carried the signal - and there will be some small delays in that signal due to the time it takes computer software to turn it around and get it back to us.

So if you take the 'ping time' and multiply it by the speed of light, what you know is that the target computer can be no FURTHER than that distance (but it may be somewhat closer).

What's more - on the Internet - I can log into some distant computer - and have it issue a "ping" to a third machine and report back to me how long that took.   

That means that I can measure times not only from my computer to any other machine in the world - but also from any machine I have legal access to, to any other point in the world.

Now - this is an interesting research tool for FE'ers:

For example, if I had access to a computer in Sydney Australia - I could "ping" a computer in Santiago Chile and know that the distance between those cities is no greater than some distance I can calculate.   The distance might be less than that calculation says - but it cannot possibly be more because signals along electrical wires and optical fibers can be no faster than that.

Now - Mr Bishop isn't going to like this very much.

It destroys his last remaining objection.

So, for example - I just logged into a computer in Silicon Valley, California and did a 'ping' to the Japanese culture center in Tokyo, Japan.  I got a 'ping' time that's around 71 milliseconds (0.071 seconds).

The speed of light is 299,800,000 meters per second.

 0.071 seconds x 299,800,000 meters per second = 21,300,000 meters.

But the 'ping' signal went from Silicon Valley to Tokyo AND BACK AGAIN - so the one-way distance is 10,700,000 meters or so...10,700 km.

So we now know - for 100% sure - that Silicon Valley and Tokyo are less than 10,700 km apart - which is ~6,600 miles.

The ACTUAL distance according to Google and Airline sources is 5,200 miles - but we know that the "ping" approach will produce numbers that may be too BIG - but can NEVER be too SMALL - so this is an expected result.   NO MORE THAN 6,600 miles.

Looking at BOTH of the flat earth maps that we have available to us, we can see that they both make the distance between California and Japan VASTLY more than that...so with just one simple software command, I've proved conclusively that both maps are WILDLY incorrect.

No underlying assumptions beyond the value of the speed of light.  Anyone here can try the same test...feel free...go nuts!

Oh...Mr Bishop...are you in trouble now?   I think so!

We can now use "ping" to verify that the distances for airline routes aren't a hell of a lot longer than they claim...sure the 'ping' approach can't show that they are too short - but it can definitely prove that the distance between Sydney Australia and Santiago Chile isn't two or three times what Qantas says it is...and that's enough to disprove BOTH of the current FE maps.

Anyone, anywhere on the Internet can happily ping computers and compare to the distances that any FE map you'll ever produce and INSTANTLY disprove it from the comfort of their own homes.

Oh dear, Tom...I do think your FE ideas are going to be in a lot of trouble now.

Now - it's possible that your very next reaction will be to claim that the number we have for the speed of light must be wrong.

You may be interested to know that I can tell everyone here how to measure the speed of light using just a microwave oven and a bunch of chocolate chips.

(Yeah - I know that sounds batshit crazy - but google it.)

So - "ping", chocolate chips and a microwave.  That's delivers 100% of the experimental evidence you need to prove that the word isn't flat.


Is this fun or what?!  :-)

More disproofs coming soon - I have lots of ideas left to go still!
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2017, 05:10:07 PM »
You might also like this resource:

   https://wondernetwork.com/pings

Note that the SHORTEST ping time you get is the one you should use...longer ping times can result from slow computers or because your message got routed in weird ways...again, times can be LONGER than the speed of light limit - but they can't be SHORTER - so take the shortest time for the most accurate distance.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9832
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2017, 05:16:57 PM »
Your argument relies on so many misunderstandings of Internet topology and routing that I honestly don't know where to begin. Instead of trying to explain computers to you, I will attempt to illustrate one of the bigger problems with your proposal.

To give you a quick idea of why you definitely don't want to use this: the network latency between my home PC and the server this website is hosted on (two locations on two different continents) is lower than that between my home PC and the mobile phone in my hands. Using your level of understanding of the subject, it is therefore *possible* that my mobile phone (currently in my hands) is farther away from me than Donald Trump.

If you rely on data so extremely inaccurate, you're very likely to leave yourself open to conclusions you don't want to reach.

And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that you still insist on reading the FET maps under RET assumptions.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2017, 05:23:45 PM »
As a Computer Scientist, I am a bit ashamed I have never thought about pinging places myself, haha.

As I live in South America, almost below the Tropic of Capricorn, I can ping known server not only in Australia but in Africa as well.

Unfortunately, I'll have to do so during the night or dawn, as the link that connects my region to the global network is quite congested any other time.

But be sure I'll bring the numbers I get, even though I don't live in Chile.

Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2017, 05:28:15 PM »
Your argument relies on so many misunderstandings of Internet topology and routing that I honestly don't know where to begin. Instead of trying to explain computers to you, I will attempt to illustrate one of the bigger problems with your proposal.

To give you a quick idea of why you definitely don't want to use this: the network latency between my home PC and the server this website is hosted on (two locations on two different continents) is lower than that between my home PC and the mobile phone in my hands. Using your level of understanding of the subject, it is therefore *possible* that my mobile phone (currently in my hands) is farther away from me than Donald Trump.

If you rely on data so extremely inaccurate, you're very likely to leave yourself open to conclusions you don't want to reach.

And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that you still insist on reading the FET maps under RET assumptions.

Actually, you cannot conclude witch one is the farthest from you. The only thing you can say for sure, is that those objects are no farther than the result you got.

And surely, even though you get results saying your phone could possibly be at Trump's hands, this is no counter-argument to this method.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2017, 05:29:28 PM »
Your argument relies on so many misunderstandings of Internet topology and routing that I honestly don't know where to begin. Instead of trying to explain computers to you, I will attempt to illustrate one of the bigger problems with your proposal.
Firstly, computer networking has been a VERY large fraction of my career.  I think I know what I'm talking about.

The actual topology of the cabling and the number and speed of computers through which the message passes can only INCREASE the amount of time a "ping" takes...it can never DECREASE it below the speed of light over the distance between the computers.

That's a physical impossibility.

Now - I'm happy to admit that using 'ping' can make the distances seem BIGGER than they really are - but never smaller...not possible.

Quote
To give you a quick idea of why you definitely don't want to use this: the network latency between my home PC and the server this website is hosted on (two locations on two different continents) is lower than that between my home PC and the mobile phone in my hands. Using your level of understanding of the subject, it is therefore *possible* that my mobile phone (currently in my hands) is farther away from me than Donald Trump.

Again - I'm telling you that the ping time represents the LONGEST the distance can be.  So yes, it might say that your phone and your PC (which are 3 feet aprart) are 2,000 miles apart...that's definitely possible.   But if ping says that they are 1,000 miles apart - they can't possibly be 1,001 miles apart...no possible way.

Quote
If you rely on data so extremely inaccurate, you're very likely to leave yourself open to conclusions you don't want to reach.

Not if I'm super careful to explain that this is the case - which I'm VERY careful to do.

If (as the two current FE maps seem to assert) California and Japan are more than 12,000 miles apart - and 'ping' says that they cannot possibly be more than 6,600 miles apart then we know the map is WRONG - because even if there is an optical fiber laying on a perfectly straight route between those two directly between those computers - with no relays, no other intermediate stops - and if both computers run infinitely fast - there is no possible way for the message between them to travel there and back faster than the speed of light.

I agree that I can't prove that the distance is LESS than 6,600 miles...that would be to completely misunderstand the nature of the network...but I can prove that it can't be MORE than 6,600 miles.

Please don't treat me like an idiot.   I've thought this through VERY carefully - and I'm a networked computing professional.  I've written online games for one of the biggest online games companies in the world - and we lived and died by finding the shortest ping times!!

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9832
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2017, 05:37:22 PM »
Firstly, computer networking has been a VERY large fraction of my career.  I think I know what I'm talking about.
I'm sorry to hear that. I frequently have to work with "technicians" who do not understand the basics of their field. It's very frustrating, especially since if you point out they're wrong, they just scream about how long they've been doing their job for.

The actual topology of the cabling and the number and speed of computers through which the message passes can only INCREASE the amount of time a "ping" takes.. .
Yes - potentially by a factor of 10. Or 100. Or 1000.

But if ping says that they are 1,000 miles apart - they can't possibly be 1,001 miles apart...no possible way.
Assuming you have ascertained the physical location of both machines, sure.

If (as the two current FE maps seem to assert) California and Japan are more than 12,000 miles apart
I'll just stop you right there. I honestly don't think there are any flat earthers here who would claim California and Japan are 12000 miles apart.

Please don't treat me like an idiot.   I've thought this through VERY carefully - and I'm a networked computing professional.  I've written online games for one of the biggest online games companies in the world - and we lived and died by finding the shortest ping times!!
To expand on my first paragraph: A couple of years ago I was performing a user acceptance test on a very poor AV installation. I pointed out to the contractors that they must have used unshielded cables for some part of their audio setup since you could clearly hear a distinct 50Hz noise. Their response was an outraged "we've been doing AV for 30 years!" Perhaps unsurprisingly, this did not change the fact that they needed to redo their cabling.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2017, 05:41:29 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2017, 05:41:42 PM »
As a Computer Scientist, I am a bit ashamed I have never thought about pinging places myself, haha.

As I live in South America, almost below the Tropic of Capricorn, I can ping known server not only in Australia but in Africa as well.

Unfortunately, I'll have to do so during the night or dawn, as the link that connects my region to the global network is quite congested any other time.

But be sure I'll bring the numbers I get, even though I don't live in Chile.

Thanks!

I'm in the process of writing some code to do pings every few minutes over a 24 hour cycle and find the smallest - that yields the most accurate estimate.  I've already noticed a 69.8 ms ping from the Silicon Valley/Tokyo route...so that 6,600 'maximum distance' just got down to 6,510 miles...a lot depends on the server load at the far end also...I imagine the Japanese cultural center may be a busy site - so perhaps I should look for a less busy one to get better results.

But we MUST always bear in mind - this gives you the LONGEST that the distance between two places can possibly be.   That's enough for quite a few purposes though.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2017, 05:52:40 PM »
As a Computer Scientist, I am a bit ashamed I have never thought about pinging places myself, haha.

As I live in South America, almost below the Tropic of Capricorn, I can ping known server not only in Australia but in Africa as well.

Unfortunately, I'll have to do so during the night or dawn, as the link that connects my region to the global network is quite congested any other time.

But be sure I'll bring the numbers I get, even though I don't live in Chile.

Thanks!

I'm in the process of writing some code to do pings every few minutes over a 24 hour cycle and find the smallest - that yields the most accurate estimate.  I've already noticed a 69.8 ms ping from the Silicon Valley/Tokyo route...so that 6,600 'maximum distance' just got down to 6,510 miles...a lot depends on the server load at the far end also...I imagine the Japanese cultural center may be a busy site - so perhaps I should look for a less busy one to get better results.

But we MUST always bear in mind - this gives you the LONGEST that the distance between two places can possibly be.   That's enough for quite a few purposes though.

Be sure to share the code with us. So we can be sure you haven't put any RE corrections in it.

By the way, I may even help you with that and let it running in my Raspberry Pi at home.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2017, 06:41:35 PM »
Hehe!

I have a bunch of "ESP8266" computers - they cost $2 each and run on a couple of AA batteries.  They have WiFi - so I could rig one up with a bi-color LED and have it continually monitor the shape of the Earth showing Red for Flat, Green for Round and Yellow for Indeterminate!

That would make a REALLY neat Kickstarter reward!

I wonder how many people would buy an automatic flat-earth detector?

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2017, 08:09:38 PM »
Oh - one important note:  If your internet provider is using cellular or satellite links to get to you, the additional time that this consumes will make your results much worse than if you have cable or DSL or some other high speed network.   That doesn't invalidate the claim that the distance will be no longer than your ping time suggests - but if the additional delays are so long, you won't have useful results.

With satellite internet, your data goes all the way up to a satellite in geosynchronous orbit - 35,000 miles - and then back down again.  That makes the ping times too long to be useful.  With cellular, your data may be bounced around and retransmitted quite a bit - and this too can stretch the ping times to the point of uselessness.

What best proves the point here is the SHORTEST ping times - and those come with high speed direct landline Internet.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
    • View Profile
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2017, 12:56:45 AM »
As a Computer Scientist, I am a bit ashamed I have never thought about pinging places myself, haha.

As I live in South America, almost below the Tropic of Capricorn, I can ping known server not only in Australia but in Africa as well.

Unfortunately, I'll have to do so during the night or dawn, as the link that connects my region to the global network is quite congested any other time.

But be sure I'll bring the numbers I get, even though I don't live in Chile.

Thanks!

I'm in the process of writing some code to do pings every few minutes over a 24 hour cycle and find the smallest - that yields the most accurate estimate.  I've already noticed a 69.8 ms ping from the Silicon Valley/Tokyo route...so that 6,600 'maximum distance' just got down to 6,510 miles...a lot depends on the server load at the far end also...I imagine the Japanese cultural center may be a busy site - so perhaps I should look for a less busy one to get better results.

But we MUST always bear in mind - this gives you the LONGEST that the distance between two places can possibly be.   That's enough for quite a few purposes though.

A simple cron job and bash script could easily take care of this for you.

Aside from that, I agree with Pete. You aren't proving much here. I don't want to get into an argument about who is better at networking, but networking engineering is a large aspect of my career. I mostly take issue with your absolute smugness towards Tom when your entire premise is flawed, as Pete pointed out.

It is weird to see you devolve into such childish behavior since your arguments are usually decent (or at least interesting to discuss).

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2017, 01:44:19 AM »
Sysadmin here. Interesting idea, using ping to map longest possible distance. I have concerns that the flat Earthers are going to take any long reply times and use them to their advantage. Sounds like most of us in this thread understand the problems with internet topology, latency, etc. There are so many variables with this method, it should make for a lively debate. I do wonder if traceroute wouldn't be a better option. We can glean a little information about the physical path the packets take and still get a round-trip time.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2017, 10:29:10 AM »

[...]Aside from that, I agree with Pete. You aren't proving much here. [...]
I fear that you guys aren't getting the point. Both "maps" presented so far, imply absurd distances between given points  (e.g. between South Africa and South America in the unipolar, or between USA and China in the bipolar) one single shorter ping disproves them.
Repeated pings between continents might also slowly get to an almost realistic result, as the distances listed get shorter.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2017, 01:50:28 PM »
A simple cron job and bash script could easily take care of this for you.

Indeed...that's what I'm doing.

Quote
Aside from that, I agree with Pete. You aren't proving much here. I don't want to get into an argument about who is better at networking, but networking engineering is a large aspect of my career.

OK - so there are a lot of people who know how the Internet works here.

Here is a statement which you should be able to agree with:

"The shortest obtainable ping time between any two stations - multiplied by the speed of light and divided by two - is the upper limit for the maximum possible distance between those two stations."


I make no further claims for the technique beyond that.

Notice "maximum possible distance".  I'm not claiming that this is the actual distance - only that the message could not possibly have exceeded light speed.

Quote
It is weird to see you devolve into such childish behavior since your arguments are usually decent (or at least interesting to discuss).

I had a lot of respect for Tom right up until he implied that my own daughter is an "untrustworthy murderer" (apparently, EVERYONE in the Navy is tarred with that same brush) - and he not only refused to apologize when I pointed out that this was a ridiculously sweeping and patently untrue statement  - but actually doubled-down on it in a subsequent PM.  He delivers more offense in that one statement than I could ever do in a million posts.   He has lost my respect - and that of many others in the process.   If you're being an honest, unbiassed sysadmin - then you should issue similar strong and public warnings to Tom Bishop.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
    • View Profile
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2017, 04:43:43 PM »

OK - so there are a lot of people who know how the Internet works here.

Here is a statement which you should be able to agree with:

"The shortest obtainable ping time between any two stations - multiplied by the speed of light and divided by two - is the upper limit for the maximum possible distance between those two stations."


I make no further claims for the technique beyond that.

Notice "maximum possible distance".  I'm not claiming that this is the actual distance - only that the message could not possibly have exceeded light speed.

Sounds good. My concern was that this would simply devolve into another thread about maps, when it is acknowledged (at least by me) that FE does not have an official map and that is a big flaw indeed. But since there are threads discussing that topic ad nauseam, no need to do it again here. Aside from that, I think it is an interesting topic and at least worth seeing what the numbers say, even if inaccurate (acknowledging that distance cannot be beyond the maximum of the ICMP echo/reply), mostly because it just sounds kind of fun.


I had a lot of respect for Tom right up until he implied that my own daughter is an "untrustworthy murderer" (apparently, EVERYONE in the Navy is tarred with that same brush) - and he not only refused to apologize when I pointed out that this was a ridiculously sweeping and patently untrue statement  - but actually doubled-down on it in a subsequent PM.  He delivers more offense in that one statement than I could ever do in a million posts.   He has lost my respect - and that of many others in the process.   If you're being an honest, unbiassed sysadmin - then you should issue similar strong and public warnings to Tom Bishop.

Ah, okay,I understand your animosity now. While I did split and move those posts, I should have given a warning for off-topic posting. I would still request you stop making him the focus of your posts and just let your arguments speak for themselves.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2017, 05:18:00 PM »
OK - so there are a lot of people who know how the Internet works here.

Here is a statement which you should be able to agree with:

"The shortest obtainable ping time between any two stations - multiplied by the speed of light and divided by two - is the upper limit for the maximum possible distance between those two stations."


I make no further claims for the technique beyond that.

Notice "maximum possible distance".  I'm not claiming that this is the actual distance - only that the message could not possibly have exceeded light speed.
With Intikam enjoying a well deserved lifetime ban, nobody remains here who will argue against against the light speed limit.  On the other board there are at least two threads in which he declared that ping times proved the internet moves at 6x the speed of light and therefore Intikam is a genius and Einstein an idiot.  This was largely because he thought that when you ping a Google server from (in his case) Turkey, the ping always goes all the way to California and back.  He had a bunch of us on his "naughty list" who pointed out that Google has lots of servers in Europe, and few in California.

I like this "upper bound" methodology.  If we can get some participants from the southern continents, we can find good upper bounds east-to-west below the equator, in areas where FE and RE appear to differ the most (according to the Gleason map at least).

Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2017, 07:26:54 PM »

OK - so there are a lot of people who know how the Internet works here.

Here is a statement which you should be able to agree with:

"The shortest obtainable ping time between any two stations - multiplied by the speed of light and divided by two - is the upper limit for the maximum possible distance between those two stations."


I make no further claims for the technique beyond that.

Notice "maximum possible distance".  I'm not claiming that this is the actual distance - only that the message could not possibly have exceeded light speed.

Sounds good. My concern was that this would simply devolve into another thread about maps, when it is acknowledged (at least by me) that FE does not have an official map and that is a big flaw indeed. But since there are threads discussing that topic ad nauseam, no need to do it again here. Aside from that, I think it is an interesting topic and at least worth seeing what the numbers say, even if inaccurate (acknowledging that distance cannot be beyond the maximum of the ICMP echo/reply), mostly because it just sounds kind of fun.

The obsession with maps is the "finding" that it is possible, using easily obtainable data, that it is not just this-map or that-map that is broken - but that NO POSSIBLE flat earth map can ever reproduce a particular dataset of flight distances.

This is MUCH deeper than showing that (say) the bipolar map is broken.

If my argument about "quadrilateral cities" stands - then the earth cannot possibly be flat, no matter what.   This is a make-or-break thing for FE'ers.

If you guys can't find a way to comprehensively disprove the flight distances published by airlines - then it's game over.  Logically, you'd have to admit defeat and that the world isn't flat.

He Who Shall Not Be Named has made some half-hearted efforts in that direction by claiming ridiculous things like that airline manufacturers don't know how fast their airplanes can fly...which, honestly fall below the "rationality bar".

But, as another way to attack this problem of "knowing distances" - the ping-time approach produces another sanity check on the airline data.

This may not allow us to disprove ALL FE maps - but it would put hard constraints on them.   With enough ping-time data from around the world, we'd be able to say things like "No FE map is correct if it shows the distance from Silicon Valley to Tokyo to be more than 6,500 miles"...and we'd be able to pile on more and more of those constraints.

The precise mathematics required to produce proof that the world isn't flat from a large number of such data points does exist.   But it would be hard-to-impossible to explain to the more math-challenged people around here.

However, using this data does conclusively invalidate all known FE maps with the greatest of ease...and I'm 100% confident that no FE map could be made that would survive this test.

But to my mind, the airline flight distance data is demonstrably correct - unless you're prepared to push the bounds of rationality to deny them.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #18 on: September 14, 2017, 07:06:35 PM »
Hi! My name is Rory of the wip channel Nerdism. I would love to interview a true dedicated "Flat Earther". I could add someone on Skype or discord for a private session on the beliefs behind your group. I myself am not a flat Earther, so I would love to pick your brain! Please comment below with your Skype/discord and age! Have a great day!

I would pay to see it if you got Tom Bishop and 3D on the same video.  We have discussed a debate.  A live one would be great.

RorySD - I'm not an FE'er (I guess "skeptic" would be more correct - but "Outright disbeliever" would be accurate).    I've been trying to push the quality of the anti-FE arguments up a notch from "Why don't we fall off the edge" stuff (which is competently explained by the FE'ers) - and look much more carefully into why the FE concepts simply cannot be true.

A live chat might be interesting.  I'd do a live-text event.  I'd have to think about whether I'd want to video-skype though.   There are some VERY strange people on TFES, and I wouldn't want them knocking on my door and harassing my grandkids.

But I'm guessing you just want to talk to the actual FE'ers.

Be warned of a few things:

1)  Their ideas are mostly superficially plausible - it takes some careful thinking to find ways to demonstrate that they are entirely incorrect.
2)  There are usually at least two or three different (and incompatible) explanations for everything in FE theory - so not everyone you interview will say the same things.


Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2017, 03:48:08 PM »
I've been trying to push the quality of the anti-FE arguments up a notch from "Why don't we fall off the edge" stuff
Am I right in thinking you were the guy who came up with the idea of pinging a bunch of servers to establish distances? Because, honestly, that took it a few notches down from the usual permanoob stuff.

You CLEARLY didn't understand that thread.  I did not claim that "pinging a bunch of servers" would "establish distance".   I claimed that it would establish MAXIMUM POSSIBLE distances between two computers on the Internet (they might easily - and will generally - be closer than that).

If you misunderstood that point, then may I suggest you go back and read what I ACTUALLY said.

If someone shows us a Flat Earth map - and it can be shown that a "ping" between computers located in two cities on that map returns faster than the round-trip speed of light time (as is the case between Silicon Valley and Tokyo for BOTH of the current FE maps)...then we have conclusively proven that this map is incorrect.

Is it possible to make a flat-earth map (that doesn't look like Pangaea!) that passes this test?  I kinda doubt it...but I can't rule it out.

So this is a procedure that may allow us to check any FE maps that are proposed here - and reject the ones that can be proven to be impossible.   That's a useful technique for FE'er and RE'er alike - so you should welcome it.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?