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