Message from @Ætos
Discord ID: 490023002025492480
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.
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Is the model outdated now?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