Message from @Goldsteel
Discord ID: 490024226749677570
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
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Is the model outdated now?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