Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #40 on: September 19, 2017, 06:08:05 AM »
Dear RE people, I suggest that as a general strategy we should refrain from complex proofs like this and really press on the simpler, easily observable stuff.

The FE has obvious holes in relation to concepts like gravity, momentum, inertia, as well as motion of planets and stars. Notice, for example, that when the topics like the sun's movement or video and photographic evidence come up, there's usually a sudden hush on their end (because this is the kind of stuff they have no logical explanations for). We should press on with these topics until flerfers run out of excuses.

[/plea]

Curious, and this has nothing to do with the reply I just made to you on another thread, but who do you consider FE'ers in this thread?

I meant this more as a general statement, and I figured that there'd be more RE'ers reading this thread than others.

Ah, you said "complex proofs like this" so I figured you were speaking about something/someone specific in this thread.


Edit - it would be great if you could not post things like that in this thread, it adds zero value, is completely off topic, and is not helping to move it forward (FYI, in case you don't fully understand the subject matter, this is all about something that could help RE)
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 06:13:53 AM by Psychotropic »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9543
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #41 on: September 19, 2017, 08:52:48 AM »
Your efforts to tarnish it by REPEATEDLY saying that I'm claiming accurate distances - when I'm ABSOLUTELY not - seems to indicate that you're either being deliberately and knowingly incorrect or you're not as knowledgeable about the simple laws of physics and the way ping packets travel as you seem to think you are.
Nah, I already explained my objections to the precise narrow conditions you're trying to use. Packets on the Internet travel so slowly that, for any two locations you've actually physically ascertained, you're going to get a "maximum distance" that's practically meaningless. Virtually everyone else here gets this.

I understand what you are trying to test and I think it could be potentially useful as a supporting argument for RE, but you still need to know the true physical location of your source and destination first.  The traceroute provided goes through the above.net colo facility in Ashburn VA and ends in Dallas, not Japan.  You just need to find some nodes that are known to be in a certain physical location.

To play devils advocate, I do not know with absolute certainty that a node with a hostname of  ae-2.r22.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net is in Ashburn or that  ae-0.a00.dllstx04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net truly is in Dallas, but it doesn't make much sense to have nodes in Japan named like that.
Thank you for your excellent point (and apologies for missing it the first time around) - I should have looked at the hostnames instead of trying to reason about the practicality of his measured times. Nonetheless, it looks like my assertion that the machines were most likely on the same continent was correct!
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 09:00:36 AM 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 Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« Reply #42 on: September 19, 2017, 10:31:58 AM »
Your efforts to tarnish it by REPEATEDLY saying that I'm claiming accurate distances - when I'm ABSOLUTELY not - seems to indicate that you're either being deliberately and knowingly incorrect or you're not as knowledgeable about the simple laws of physics and the way ping packets travel as you seem to think you are.
Nah, I already explained my objections to the precise narrow conditions you're trying to use. Packets on the Internet travel so slowly that, for any two locations you've actually physically ascertained, you're going to get a "maximum distance" that's practically meaningless. Virtually everyone else here gets this.

I understand what you are trying to test and I think it could be potentially useful as a supporting argument for RE, but you still need to know the true physical location of your source and destination first.  The traceroute provided goes through the above.net colo facility in Ashburn VA and ends in Dallas, not Japan.  You just need to find some nodes that are known to be in a certain physical location.

To play devils advocate, I do not know with absolute certainty that a node with a hostname of  ae-2.r22.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net is in Ashburn or that  ae-0.a00.dllstx04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net truly is in Dallas, but it doesn't make much sense to have nodes in Japan named like that.
Thank you for your excellent point (and apologies for missing it the first time around) - I should have looked at the hostnames instead of trying to reason about the practicality of his measured times. Nonetheless, it looks like my assertion that the machines were most likely on the same continent was correct!
Pete, I owe you an apology, I had misinterpreted your intentions in coaching your objections the way you did. You might be (and I quote) a condescending prick, but you are a honest condescending prick  ;D
You also shouldn't accuse people of lying, wenn being dense would be a sufficient charge.  :-\