🙁

what is this

so if you had like 3 sources of food in a other wise secluded community; where fresh water was a given, and "treats" aren't a worry; what kinda "main" corse style meals would you fill a week with?

Its is the next stage of the evolution of the human race.

@TBR the ice wall =)

Hmm....

@TBR welcome

lol

Hmm

😀

I'm tired

cya tomorrow

Bye

Cya rock

Heyyyy

Wtf?

😀

I want ice cream now

👋

Maybe female ice cream

made some thin cut butter fry'd hashbrown then add'd a bunch of penut butter 😄

(ps not a pic of it just close to the same cut of potatos lol)

**looks at gapping hole from belly where hashbrowns used to rest** *w-wwhyy*

Ew

so if green=heart chakra state of oneness ; and the holy grail was symbolic for humanities quest to regain the state of heart from mind ; then if shrek is green is shrek life?

but low and behold with a few small filter's in photo shop you too can see the deep states spy-op at work

😂

God is like the mamma lion ; she don't always watch or do anything ; but everybody says she does all the work

Now that its been confirmed flat by nasa we can move on

Bigger and better things

lol

We all knew it

I feel kinda deflated. @Citizen Z

Sorry bout your luck globies

what i say to every new seeker

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/489088431398584340/489095290255704074/unknown.png

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19850023280&hterms=flat+earth&qs=Nm%3D123%7CCollection%7CNASA%2520STI%7C%7C17%7CCollection%7CNACA%26Ntx%3Dmode%2Bmatchallany%26Ntk%3DAll%26N%3D0%26Ntt%3D%2522flat%2Bearth%2522

Its been confirmed

@Citizen Z Well...what now?

I dunno ask the globies

my earth is usually flat XD

But nasa says flat is desirable alternative

To the complex sphere model

.gif sleep

https://media.tenor.com/images/4cc3f1092383e28aac655acfcaac4a30/tenor.gif [powered by Tenor]

.gif sleep time

https://media.tenor.com/images/bf618db93f6c676920ce56ac9f7124da/tenor.gif [powered by Tenor]

.gif sleepy

https://media.tenor.com/images/1d94f7fd989ae7ffbfb53854cc946ea3/tenor.gif [powered by Tenor]

.gif sleep please

https://media.tenor.com/images/be2a9fe16edbf32a1d1a8591ade6ccac/tenor.gif [powered by Tenor]

lol

Bored

.gif sleepy kitty

https://media.tenor.com/images/e2f61c76196d899de91818d358405cc1/tenor.gif [powered by Tenor]

.gif sleepy night

https://media.tenor.com/images/e11d859df5bf042646eab97d49bca777/tenor.gif [powered by Tenor]

.gif sleepy human

https://media.tenor.com/images/576c8a4d4ab78f6094384a66d856626a/tenor.gif [powered by Tenor]

@Goldsteel sorry to hit you up out of the blue, but have you seen the definitive proof of the flat earth? Even NASA says it's true.

(Am I right for thinking they use less complex models when discussing physics where earth shape has little affect? And theres not proof of a flat earth in nasas publicly available records?)

Scroll up to where Z sends it of you want to have a look

@I-VaPE-ChEMtrAiLS It’s not exact proof. But I find it interesting that NASA would even take the time to entertain the idea, given that we supposedly had already been to the moon. It’s rather damning, actually.

True that

I wouldn't call it damming from what I understand of Physics (which is really not enough) you don't need to use full models in all situations. As long as you a count for the main issues for the situation

Damning?

But I'm waiting on a nerd to help

NASA has used transforms to convert spherical coordinates to flat for decades

lol

Here's one now

Oh, thanks

😄

Ok so what about all the NASA literature that uses the globe model?

NASA made a stereo graphic projection into a legitimate model, I don’t see how this would prove anything.

It's preferable! In some cases!

It’s preferable in almost any small scale test

The amount of additional math involved due to the smallest smidge of curvature throws off so many things and greatly increases the margin for error

Large scale tests are meant to take curvature into account, but subtleties like curvature for small scale tests is irrelevant, it simply overcomplicates things.

So the margin of effort to account for the curve is more difficult to deal with than not accounting for it?

For minuscule tests, yes

What's minuscule? Houses, flights?

Material tests, terrain vehicles

Please note that the FE model that NASA used accounts for approximately only 30% of the known area of the earth.

The model is notably inaccurate and meant exclusively for testing purposes

Testing in comparison to vehicle tests on a globe? Like the same test run with two different models?

@I-VaPE-ChEMtrAiLS It's a projection for the sensor systems onboard

The map is displayed radially for convenience

It has issues, though

40% maximal error bar on a measurement is not using SQUID I can tell you that

The magnetometer is old

1985

Now the king of the nerds has rightfully taken over his place in the argument

All hail nerd king Goldsteel

40% error sounds like loads, also what's SQUID?

I should also add these are models for satellite data harvesting, which contradicts the idea of a flat earth

SQUID are magnetometers

They measure magnetic fields very very very precisely

(Satellites also don’t work without gravitational forces. . .)

It even says it in these papers

They're comparing computational models for different data sets for easy of computation, or computability

Is the model outdated now? anything before 1995 shouldn't be cited in Zoology unless it's a huge deal

Absolutely, we have far better computing power in a wrist watch than a 1985 supercomputer

That's an exaggeration

But still

We have significantly better tools

Up until the mid 90's a lot of controllers were still analogue in areospace and even transport

Digital computers have made leaps and bounds being able to record gigabytes of data on a whim

So this FE proof is comparing the processing speed of how fast computers from 1985 can deal with satalitie data?

Compare that to 64kB of RAM

😏

Not specifically that no

I have 32 Gb in my personal computer

It's just that instrumentation has got a lot better so we don't really have to simplify the controllers too much

I wonder how many spaceships I could run

<:GWbruhGalaxyThink:405065193287319552>

Sometimes, the error on additional corrections isnt needed at low altitude because your percentage error is too low

However

PID controllers have an accumulated error and need correcting

What if you only fire a rocket for 20 minutes?

What would that cumulative error mean?

Does your maneuver need to be that specific?

Absolutely not

That's why we don't simulate things in absolute detail

We even used sextants and classical mechanics on the way to the moon

Okay so, we simplify physics in some cases because we don't need to calculate everything?

You could calculate the spacetime curvature in GR

But you don't need to

Yeah

It's kinda laziness then?

That's the jist of it

Well, think of it this way

Diminishing returns on investment

You could correct all the problems but if they're not really problems because you don't need the precision why bother?

Okay that makes sense

"One is an analytical approach using a flat-Earth approximation to predict geopotential information quality as a function of spatial wavelength."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Could you sum up why this paper isn't FE proof like in a sentence or two?

I'd try but I'm a little lost reading your simplification

He basically summed it up with the satellite statement he made initially

It's a FE proof which requires space and satalities

<:thonk:485324336874651650>

1. We use a lot of approximations in controllers
2. Assuming a flat stationary non-rotating plane is a decent approximation.
3. Experiments report cumulative error
4. Large experimental errors are telltale of large appoximation components.
5. It's a satellite in orbit. Contradicts the point.
6. Most papers quote their approximations.

For information gathering purposes, a flat plane with all data directly displayed in relation to its surroundings makes for an easier and more efficient system. The plane contains only about 30% of the known area of the earth, and the paper specifically cites the cases and reasons for why the Flat model used has situational advantages over a spherical or elliptical model. It is not an FE proof.

If using satellites to prove the earth is required then you've accidentally accepted that sallites are real and in orbit

So you'd have to reconcile that too

Orbit in turn demands gravity

If satellites were balloons they wouldn't call it an approximation

It would just be the flight controller algorithm

The papers would instead be all about controlling lighter than air objects in winds

*They're not*

Which has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

🤔

Exactly

Well, it does a bit, but

It's not important here

Wind patterns, I suppose, but that still works on a flat plane via projections

Doesn't seem that damming anymore

If anything it's pro Globe

🤔

Honestly, If we live on a globe, I don’t see how using the flat earth model is helpful in any analysis of data. If it’s a globe, it’s not useful. Irresponsible, actually.

Quite the opposite

When a model can be simplified, the margin for error is reduced.

There are simply less steps and less variables

It allows things to be carried out more quickly to the much the same standard, if not better in some cases

This makes calculations more reliable

It's thinking smarter and not harder

And more reliable is almost always superior

Tbh, if I want to study data for the globe...I would probably want to use the globe model. Your suggestion that it’s the easy way. Well, that idiotic. The easy way is never the right way

You’re looking at this as if it’s meant to counteract FE arguments

It isn’t

The data has hardly anything to do with a globe at all

It uses a simplified representation of coordinates in an effort to make the data more precise and reliable. The flat model can be reprojected as an elliptical shape once the data is collected, at that.

Think of it this way

You have a piece of paper rolled up into a ball

Now you are tasked with getting exact distances for points located across the paper ball

Instead of calculating everything in a difficult manner and accounting for an excessive amount of additional parameters

@The Gwench I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case. It isn't idiotic to use approximations and all controllers and instrumentation does it to some extent. Mapping sections of the earth by taking an average of a certain terrain cell and calling it 'flat' over a large number of cells is how the instruments collate the data.

Just unfold the paper ball

Each 'cell' is approximately flat, and is computed as such in the instrumentation.

And measure everything with a straight line.

Constructing N cells can be folded into a spheroid.

Simpler, more accurate, more effective.

It'll look like this:

Now you know.

Equally so, this is how we develop most topographical data using radar ranging to create a heightmap from a lot of points.

@Goldsteel I am entertaining your analysis...Somewhat. As usual there are ways to explain away. But be advised, I’m not convinced. 😉

Thank you for remaining open minded Gwench

Don't entertain it.

It's literally written on the documents.

Conveniently, I don’t think anyone is trying to convince you about the shape of the earth. We’re demonstrating why something you call “damning” is in fact not damning at all.

It's not a matter of being convinced or not if the documents word for word explain why they chose their design and algorithms.

I imagine I won't convince anyone at all but I can interpret scientific documents for people.

(Which is handy)

I would like to add that 'explain away' is a misnomer in this case.

It's incredibly risky to send one sentence of an academic paper, it can often backfire as in a good paper each sentence is meant to flow into the next one for an overall point. If you pick out one you could miss so much

That's why you use the super secret (read: every undergrad does this) method of reading papers.

Step 1: Check the title, is it relevant?

Step 2: Read the abstract, is it what you're looking for in regard to the experimental outcomes?

Step 3: Check the authors, are they on vixra or do they shovel papers out at a rate of knots? If they do, throw it.

Bruh good undergrads just search for a fact they already kinda know and put it in the finished paper at the last moment

Step 4: Start examining the body. You won't really understand why they did anything but you should be able to examine if they make any blatant errors or make random claims without citation.

Step 5: Check the conclusion matches the abstract.

Step 6: If they present data sets, check they look reasonable. Are the units consistent? Is the scale reasonable? Is the sample size reasonable? Did anyone else use this instrument and what did they get?

That's pretty much all you need.

That's a lot of effort

😏

You get a feel for it

I did not do any of that in my undergrad, but then again I was a solid C student until my third year

I will be surprised if you don't check things during your MSc

And also with Zoo its way easier to assume things, it's all very logical

But this year I've been careful about checking things arts papers are not quite as easy to bullshit sources for

You can check bullshit sources if you have journal subscriptions paid for you

Which a lot of academics do

We all know if you used wikipedias citations

It's fine for uni

But

*We know*

I use Google scholar don't worry

The worst I do is cite books on Google books that I can't actually read the whole thing of

Brainlet tier: Wikipedia citations
Brain tier: Google scholar for online free papers and abstracts
Super brain tier: Citing books online
Cosmic brain tier: Citing books from the library not online that nobody will bother to check

What tier is copying the citations of the first paper you found?

Brain tier

Ultra MEGA COSMIC supreme tier:

Haha

ULTIMATE GOD TIER:
Citing *yourself* in another paper which sites the current paper

😏

I've seen people cite themselves, I've never seen anyone do it without being smug

There's a guy on vixra who does mathematics and only cites himself *several* times every single paper

One time he literally remarks that his theorem is true because nobody proved it wrong and he'll fight anyone who tries

The absolute madman

http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0123v1.pdf

It even has a fucking spelling mistake

This is just advanced shitposting

I mean I believe

We should remove the 7

NASA posted proof of a flat earth

(they didn't)

And everyone learnt that reading more than a sentence of a academic paper is... required.

One from 1985 where flat data received from satalities made into a sphere worked just as well as more accurate data

It's always a bit of a shame when people send scientific papers without fully reading them, because as satisfying as it is to watch someone go through each point to show the opposite of what was presented, it does reinforce the whole science isn't for everyone and is full of elitists thing.

In disporving it, the reason FE exisits is reinforced.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-13/brief-history-repressive-regimes-and-their-gun-laws

'Merica

It's not like they had an entire mob of nazis after them

Fool, no one is better than the USA

Nah

Japan is doing just fine politically.

I still want my guns tho