Message from @Goldsteel

Discord ID: 490023890907693066


2018-09-14 04:47:22 UTC  

Here's one now

2018-09-14 04:47:27 UTC  

Oh, thanks

2018-09-14 04:47:30 UTC  

😄

2018-09-14 04:48:30 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 04:49:11 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 04:49:42 UTC  

It's preferable! In some cases!

2018-09-14 04:50:10 UTC  

It’s preferable in almost any small scale test

2018-09-14 04:50:47 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 04:51:52 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 04:52:21 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 04:53:20 UTC  

For minuscule tests, yes

2018-09-14 04:54:20 UTC  

What's minuscule? Houses, flights?

2018-09-14 04:54:53 UTC  

Material tests, terrain vehicles

2018-09-14 04:55:49 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 04:56:27 UTC  

The model is notably inaccurate and meant exclusively for testing purposes

2018-09-14 04:57:27 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 04:58:54 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 04:59:06 UTC  

The map is displayed radially for convenience

2018-09-14 04:59:24 UTC  

It has issues, though

2018-09-14 04:59:53 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 04:59:59 UTC  

The magnetometer is old

2018-09-14 05:00:08 UTC  

1985

2018-09-14 05:00:27 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 05:00:41 UTC  

All hail nerd king Goldsteel

2018-09-14 05:01:02 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 05:01:10 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 05:01:19 UTC  

SQUID are magnetometers

2018-09-14 05:01:31 UTC  

They measure magnetic fields very very very precisely

2018-09-14 05:01:45 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 05:02:04 UTC  

It even says it in these papers

2018-09-14 05:02:27 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 05:03:06 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 05:03:24 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 05:03:30 UTC  

That's an exaggeration

2018-09-14 05:03:31 UTC  

But still

2018-09-14 05:03:40 UTC  

We have significantly better tools

2018-09-14 05:04:00 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 05:04:21 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 05:04:41 UTC  

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

2018-09-14 05:04:42 UTC  

Compare that to 64kB of RAM

2018-09-14 05:04:43 UTC  

😏