Message from @I-VaPE-ChEMtrAiLS
Discord ID: 490027916911181835
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
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
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.