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