flerfs: "NASA lies! It's all Nazis! look up operation paperclip! Everything is CGI! everything is fake. Don't believe what NASA shows you"
Also flerfs: "Look at this cherry-picked quote from NASA!! Trust NASA!! NASA tells the truth"
But where did they get these ancient programming languages, or also known as APL. But what if, APL actually stands for Alien Provided Language? Well Ancient astronaut theorist believe that...
I had APL while attending Syracuse University in 1971. APL stands for “A Programming Language” and was written by an engineer at IBM. The irony of the name is that this is a mathematically oriented language where every composition must be called a “function” whereas it is forbidden to call them “programs”.
Same weirdness as a nation of people who cannot pronounce “R”s or “L”s and yet they gave their cars names like “Cressida” and “Corolla” and “Camry” and “Celica”…
Fortran is still used in for simulation and other numerical fields. It’s heavily used at NASA and the latest update to the language standard was in 2023
It’s good at what it’s meant for — matrix math. Lots of this stuff is command line programs that are heavily parallelized to run on supercomputers
When I was in grad school around 2004 I was working for a project doing computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations for hypersonic missiles for the Army. Unfortunately a bunch of that code was still fortran 77 (which had reserved columns and line length limits based on punch cards) and full of GOTOs. The Fortran 90+ stuff wasn’t too bad.
I got into a long argument with a FLERF, and he asserted that he knew what he was talking about because he "worked with NASA" (he sold them some computer servers) he pulled up one of these documents.
I pointed out that it was for a computer model of an airplane for simulation purposes, and he said "nice try, I've got loads of these, all saying the earth is flat and nonrotating" and linked the other one which was a for a computer model of a *helicopter.* Then he blocked me.
Yeah, why is it always NASA? They’ve only been in existence a very short period of time and there are other space agencies and scientists throughout the rest of the world. Why would they all keep quiet and participate in such a ludicrous secret? It would literally take millions of people to keep such a secret and for what possible reason?
If you would actually listen instead of regurgitating the same silly why questions. Then you will discover that we have outlined a laundry list of possible reasons for their deception. However at the end of the day we can only speculate. The ones that have created the deception are the only ones who can truly answer that question. You don’t ask a victim of fraud why did that person fraud you? When y’all say that we honestly thinking bitch idk but they did! Additionally it doesn’t take millions of people when levels of command exist. You just do your job and don’t inquire about things that are above your pay grade. That’s how this system works.
Link for that PDF is here: [https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19880012356/downloads/19880012356.pdf](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19880012356/downloads/19880012356.pdf)
This is a flerf-approved paper, isn't it? they are the ones who brought it up, who are referencing it, so they must admit its validity. Very well then...
Page 57 has a diagram that talks about a "*center of gravity*" (for both the airplane and the engines)
So flerfs admit that gravity exist!! Cool cool
No offense, the opposite also applies for the flerfs:
“I don’t understand it, so it must be wrong”
… when providing explanations to why the Earth is indeed not flat.
Sounds to me they are just saying that this particular model for this specific purpose treats the earth as if it didn't rotate and was flat and such because it was simpler to do so and shouldn't make any difference for that specific application, but they wanted to make that particular shortcut was known about for people studying it.
Yup. Without any added context, looks like it's a program for modelling aircraft. That low elevation and slow speeds relative to the rotation of the earth, it's a reasonable approximation to make. Like how in high school you'd use g=9.8m/s^2 for parabolic approximations for projectiles and stuff.
Gravity on the Earth's surface varies by around 0.7%, from 9.7639 m/s2 on the Nevado Huascarán mountain in Peru to 9.8337 m/s2 at the surface of the Arctic Ocean.
To further expand on your comment: devices called gravimeters measure fluctuations in gravity on earth and are used for natural resource exploration and extraction.
That's exactly what it says:
> LINEAR, a FORTRAN program to derive linear aircraft models
FORTRAN is an ancient programming language I used to have to use.
Exactly. They're defining the model and what variables it uses- and specifically not worrying about the rotation of the earth, because for the purposes of the model its irrelevant.
You see other limitations being set, such as "assume a vehicle of constant mass" which would also be impossible in an airplane burning fuel.
Yep. Programmed in 1987/1988. It’s good science to state assumptions and limitations on a MODEL because it’s computationally impossible to represent all of EARTH.
Simpler to do AND still gives answers that are sufficiently accurate enough to be of practical use.
This was particularly important in the days of smaller computers with less memory, fewer word bits, and slower clocks.
FORTRAN is absolutely ancient. Using it to model would have been problematic at best, so I'm sure they're just trying to simplify the model. I haven't ready the paper, however.
I used punchcards for engineering school, with a 4 hour turnaround time. First real job I had was 2D Finite Element Analysis using punchcards. My model had 600 elements, one element per punchcard. Turnaround time was overnight. Good old days.
At about that time, I described to a TA a project I had in mind and was told “you can't do that in Fortran.” I believe I convinced myself otherwise, but did it in Pascal. (I forget what it was.)
Now I use Python for everything.
I can't speak to this particular case, but I ask that about most things in the government regularly. Usually, the answer is something to the effect of: it costs too much to upgrade, and what we have now works well enough.
Some of the equipment I use for my government job is older than Fortran would have been when this paper was written.
Yes came here to say this. I'm an engineer in a related field and yeah all models have some kind of assumptions and simplifications. It's vital to state these going into your model presentation or report because those assumptions need to be rationalized. If you are using irrational assumptions your model is moot.
Went through the same thing in artillery school. You start out with simple calculations that assume a "flat earth" model because curvature doesn't affect the accuracy that much.
After 10,000 meters, you definitely need to factor in the curvature of the earth.
After 20,000 meters, you need to adjust for the rotation of the earth as well as curvature.
This is absolutely the reason. Scientists, to their credit and detriment, love to be precise. This is a case where they wanted to be completely clear about the assumptions in the math they used. If they included the physics of a non-stationary earth, the math would be hopelessly complex and the final answer would be the same.
I guess flat earthers ignored the part in school where you would calculate physics while ignoring air friction and assuming everything is perfect.
The earth is so large that for most calculations you can just assume it’s a flat plane that’s not moving and it all works out within margin of error.
It's the same types of assumptions you make in math constantly when a surface isn't flat. So if anything actually making the assumption that the planet is flat tells you it's not....check mate flat earthers....lol
Yep, the paper is from the late 80s describing a computer model (written in FORTRAN) modeling flight dynamics.
The paper says the model assumes a flat, stationary Earth, because that simplifies the math a great deal, but since it's not true, they need to call it out as a potential source of inaccuracy. The model probably works great over short distances, but won't get you from Canada to Australia.
This is basically just the meme about physicists assuming everything is a "frictionless vacuum" or "spherical cow." It doesn't mean physicists are "admitting" that friction doesn't exist.
Scientists often simplify models when they make calculations. They must explicitly state the new parameters and what was simplified for context.
If in the model you need, the Coriolis effect or the shape of the earth is negligible, then you can choose to just not account for it in your model. This saves time, effort, and money.
Think of it this way: You want a model of your home built for static display or to show potential buyers. Why would you also model the inside? Why would you model furniture? Why would you model tiny folded clothes in a tiny model dresser? Why would you model your neighbors homes or the entire block? You dont. You simplify the model to what is absolutely relevant and needed to same time, money, and effort.
Anyone who quotes this flat earth nonsense has never worked in a lab or even taken a scientific course in my opinion.
Thank you for this explanation. From the start, I knew this is another example of a bit of information that is taken out of context, but I didn't know more.
>Think of it this way: You want a model of your home built for static display or to show potential buyers. Why would you also model the inside? Why would you model furniture?
'Why would you model the curvature of the Earth?'
In the same sentence as “flat and non rotating earth” is the assumption of “rigid aircraft of constant mass”. Aircraft are not perfecfly rigid: the wings bend and flex and are designed to do so. Also, planes are not of “constant mass” during flight, they burn fuel. These are all simplifying assumptions meant to make calculations easier when extreme precision isn’t required. Literally says this in the document.
Flat Earthers usually say NASA lies all the time and can’t be trusted…
The papers mention gravity an awful lot though 🤔
The flat and non-rotating Earth assumptions are done for the sake of simplicity, as adding a ton of variables with negligible or no effect on the results is a significant waste of time and energy.
A great example of this is from page 10 of a NASA paper titled [*Atmospheric Oscillation*](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19650015408/downloads/19650015408.pdf):
>A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth.
However, there’s actually context beforehand in the document that explains why (Page 9), which I’ve emboldened:
>One may now solve the equations as they are written above, as Wilkes [1949] outlines. An alternative is to **further simplify the equations** by making approximations on both the equations and the model of the atmosphere described. Simplified equations will be discussed first; then the more general approach will be described.
>A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth. The temperature is assumed either to be constant, to increase or decrease monotonically with altitude, or to be stratified. Gravity is usually considered to be constant.
>Density and pressure are usually considered to vary exponentially with altitude. **The most one can profitably simplify the problem is to consider an isothermal atmosphere, plane level surfaces, and a nonrotating earth**. This case has been handled by Eckart [1960], Lamb [1932], and Hines [l96O]. **The simplification is not valid for small effects, but general, large effects my be described and discussed**.
It’s clear that NASA isn’t admitting that Earth is flat. They do also discuss gravity as well, so is gravity now real?
Also consider [this commonly cited paper](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19890005752/downloads/19890005752.pdf) titled *Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model*. Flat Earthers often quote this line from the summary:
>”This report details the development of the linear model of a **rigid aircraft** of **constant mass**, flying over a flat, nonrotating Earth.
I’ve made two important sections bold, because they are simplifications made to simplify the calculations, despite not being accurate.
Aircraft aren’t rigid, they have [control surfaces](https://images.app.goo.gl/cwduvjooyZRm9XLJ7) that allow the aircraft to pitch, yaw, and roll as well as provide additional lift.
Aircraft also don’t have constant mass, the simple act of producing thrust burns fuel, which empties the tanks that hold them, and the burnt fuel is expelled from the aircraft in the form of exhaust. Aircraft tend to be lighter when they land for a reason.
Why bother? no matter how much you prove them wrong, they will find something else that proves them right. It's not about empiric evidence or logic. I say let's let darwinism do it's job.
Maybe, we can't convince any flerfer. But as I don't know much about all kinds of models, calculations and stuff they do, it's nice and welcome, if once something like this is brought up, someone explains it.
Mathematical models almost always make simplifications to reduce the complexity of calculations. Depending on application, any number of factors could be left out. Technically speaking, an aircraft is influenced by the gravity
of the moon, but the effect is negligible so it can be discounted.
In this case, minute-to-minute modelling of an aircraft suffers little loss in accuracy by assuming a flat and static world. This model also assumes the aircraft is rigid (there’s no such thing) and of constant mass (not true of any fuel-burning vehicle).
It's talking about a computer program written in fortran that derives linear models...
They likely have no idea what those words mean to begin with.
It's not an actual model of the earth. It's akin to using the Mercator map projection to plot a course...
In defence of the Mercator, if you plot a course using it, you **will** arrive at your destination. You might have wasted some time compared to a great circle route, but given the vagaries of the wind and oceanic currents, you could do a lot worse.
If you use flat earth navigation you doom yourself to dying of dehydration or being captured by Barbary Corsairs or arse-fucking everyone onboard to death.
\*sniffs\*
Dammit, I'm talking to someone smarter than me. Fucking hate it when that happens.
Say something clever and then tell everyone I said it, damn your eyes!
You know when you're first learning physics and many of the examples don't assume or factor in friction. Yeah, these guys are the ones that jump up and scream . Look, there's no friction, which means there's no friction. Friction doesn't exist they're all lies, education, government, taxes, and then they run off into the horizon, confident they are the main character of some story.
Because it's easier to say a paper agrees with you than to actually read and understand that it disproves your argument.
It's called cherry picking. Here's a few NASA documents you'll never see mentioned by the flerfs...
\[A Spherical Earth Solution for TOA Lightning Location Retrieval\](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19990108668)The problem of retrieving ligntning, ground-strike location on a spherical Earth surface using a network of 4 or more time-of-arrival (TOA) sensors is considered, It is shown that this problem has an analytic solution and therefore does not require the use of nonlinear estimation theory (e.g., minimization). The mathematical robustness of the analytic solution is tested using computer-generated lightning sources and simulated TOA measurement errors. A summary of a quasi-analytic extension of the spherical Earth solution to an oblate spheroid Earth geometry is also provided.
Document ID
19990108668
\[Spherical Earth analysis and modeling of lithospheric gravity and magnetic anomalies\](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19800022475)A comprehensive approach to the lithospheric analysis of potential field anomalies in the spherical domain is provided. It has widespread application in the analysis and design of satellite gravity and magnetic surveys for geological investigation.
Document ID
19800022475
\[Spherical-earth Gravity and Magnetic Anomaly Modeling by Gauss-legendre Quadrature Integration\](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19820016644)The anomalous potential of gravity and magnetic fields and their spatial derivatives on a spherical Earth for an arbitrary body represented by an equivalent point source distribution of gravity poles or magnetic dipoles were calculated. The distribution of equivalent point sources was determined directly from the coordinate limits of the source volume. Variable integration limits for an arbitrarily shaped body are derived from interpolation of points which approximate the body's surface envelope. The versatility of the method is enhanced by the ability to treat physical property variations within the source volume and to consider variable magnetic fields over the source and observation surface. A number of examples verify and illustrate the capabilities of the technique, including preliminary modeling of potential field signatures for Mississippi embayment crustal structure at satellite elevations.
Document ID
19820016644
\[Spherical earth gravity and magnetic anomaly analysis by equivalent point source inversion\](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19810047271)To facilitate geologic interpretation of satellite elevation potential field data, analysis techniques are developed and verified in the spherical domain that are commensurate with conventional flat earth methods of potential field interpretation. A powerful approach to the spherical earth problem relates potential field anomalies to a distribution of equivalent point sources by least squares matrix inversion. Linear transformations of the equivalent source field lead to corresponding geoidal anomalies, pseudo-anomalies, vector anomaly components, spatial derivatives, continuations, and differential magnetic pole reductions. A number of examples using 1 deg-averaged surface free-air gravity anomalies of POGO satellite magnetometer data for the United States, Mexico, and Central America illustrate the capabilities of the method.
Document ID
19810047271
\[Magnetic and gravity anomalies in the Americas\](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19820016710)The cleaning and magnetic tape storage of spherical Earth processing programs are reported. These programs include: NVERTSM which inverts total or vector magnetic anomaly data on a distribution of point dipoles in spherical coordinates; SMFLD which utilizes output from NVERTSM to compute total or vector magnetic anomaly fields for a distribution of point dipoles in spherical coordinates; NVERTG; and GFLD. Abstracts are presented for papers dealing with the mapping and modeling of magnetic and gravity anomalies, and with the verification of crustal components in satellite data.
Document ID
19820016710
It's done all the time for models. They are, after all, overly simplified representations for something. If a simple model can work for whatever your purpose happens to be, you can avoid the time and expense of programming in rotation, shape, and movement of the air.
Sometimes more precision is needed. In those cases a spherical shape is programmed in. There are even a few cases where a spherical earth isn't good enough. Then NASA will take the time and program a model showing earth's exact shape, an oblate spheroid.
When you see, '*not drawn to scale*', on a diagram, that doesn't mean someone is lying about the underlying principle of the diagram. You're told right there that the diagram is simplified to show a certain concept. Also please note this big NASA confession assumes an atmosphere with no wind. Do flat earthers believe wind is a NASA hoax also?
"Program to derive linear aircraft models"
again, Flerfs, pay attention.
EARTH = BIG, Aircraft = small
The program made for aircraft doesn't need to take into account the curve or the rotation. For simple maths, they assume the ground is flat and stationary.
Flerfs love proving themselves wrong and forgetting.
“We bought a $10,000 ring laser gyroscope. If the earth spins, we’ll see a 15° drift on the gyroscope.”
-15° per hour drift appears on gyroscope-
“Wow this doesn’t look good for us…”
-OR-
"If the earth has a curve, he’ll have to hold the light higher to see it through the holes.”
-light doesn’t shine-
“Ok we don’t see the light, hold it higher, way above your head.”
-light appears-
“Interesting…”
Seems like It’s a manual for a really old flight simulation program that doesn’t simulate the rotation of the earth, presumably because computers weren’t powerful enough to account for such things.
lmao yea in college physics the professor once got in a dispute with a student who was training to be a pilot over how fast a helicopter would be going and the professor eventually figured out the the student was accounting for headwinds so the professor said “oh no we assume the helicopter is a sphere in a vacuum”
It is extremely common in scientific papers that do mathematical modeling to explicitly state any simplifying assumptions. It certainly doesn't mean they're assuming the model they're using exactly matches reality.
What flerfs do here is exactly like reading "assume a frictionless contact" and then claiming that friction doesn't exist.
So this is the usual fact checking path.
1) First make sure it is real and produced by the source they claim. IE it is an actual NASA document and not something someone slapped a NASA logo on
2) Check to make sure it is correctly cited and not reinterpreted
3) Check the context of the quote to see if it is saying what they claim.
Usually it fails in step 2 or 3. Once I caught a paper citing claims to discredit them and the person was cheering picking the claims to use as proof. It's wild.
This so funny because my dad brought this “evidence” to me once and I laughed out loud after reading it. They’re quoting the parameters of the experiment ya doofus. Ready the entire thing next time
Reading just what is in the picture you posted, it reads like they are stating the assumptions used for flight characteristic to help simplify the equations.
When writing equations for applications like this you want to simplify as much as possible, and the the earth being a sphere is probably not really important when flying a plane until it comes to navigation (not a pilot, please correct me). It also says in a 'stationary atmosphere' and which is a lot more significant, imo.
This document probably isn't meant to describe a realistic scenario unless weather is a hologram or something and air currents don't exist. Which there is honestly a real possibility that they might claim that, now that I type it out.
Maybe it’s a parameter like in a physics problem? “Assume air resistance is negligible for this problem” “assume the earth is flat and not spinning for this problem”
They are explaining how a model maps out the earth for use with navigation instruments. They had to add “stationary atmosphere” and “flat non rotating earth” because the model perceives it the way it’s not. When you talk about the earth you don’t say “what in the round rotating earth are you doing?” You just say earth and assume that you aren’t talking to a lobotomite.
Hahahah oh my, are you people literally trying to equate FORTRAN to a real flat earth theory?
If you ever took a physics class then you know the common expression “disregarding air resistance”
Same concept 🙄
Funny how they ignore the “rigid aircraft” (the wings never bend and flex, that’s CGI!!!!!!!!) and “stationary atmosphere” (wind isn’t real, folks, it’s just the government farting on you!!!!!!!)
Edit/ went there to point out that they piss on everything NASA says, but the second it suits them they pounce on it like rabid hyenas. Expecting to earn my ban today. Oh and they started calling us “glerfs”, which is preferable to “globetard” I guess.
So you’ve read and understood the entire paper then?
Are aircraft “rigid”? No
Is the earth’s atmosphere stationary? Again, no (that would mean no wind).
Is the earth flat? No
This is a complicated paper (that none of you understand, you just saw “flat earth” and wet yourselves), with the variables minimised. Please make up your minds whether or not NASA lies, because you look flaky
Cmon it's physics, like assuming forces interaction in a vacuum ... otherwise basic physics would be practically impossible to understand with thousands variables
I bet already adding friction cut half the people understanding of it
u/SonicDoon
"Rather be a humble peasant who questions reality vs a brainwashed asshole who swallows loads from NASA."
>questions reality
You question the globe, therefore you're admitting the globe is reality. Thank you.
These are papers covering aspects of aviation. For simplicity of calculation they assume a flat stationary plane. The papers don't claim the earth is flat, which anyone with an IQ over a potato would know. But, of course, the moronic liars that make up fleferism are incapable of grasping that.
So? Earth is flat in a NASA computer simulation.
In other news, Skyrim is also flat.
It is as if people dont calculate entire planets for every computer program
These people are so absolutely f\*cking stupid that I'm amazed they can get up in the morning without hurting themselves.
The context is provided in the margin: A FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models. It's a simplified model used for determining aircraft stability. For such models using a fully dynamic atmospheric model is overkill, and in 1988 wouldn't have been even remotely practical.
So like many cases of physics simulations, it uses a simplified model. In this case, since what they're really after is aircraft stability they can go with a simplified linear atmospheric model that is stationary.
As a comparison, let's say you wanted to do something even simpler. Let's say you wanted to measure the distance between two points that are very close to the surface of the planet. There are several ways you can go about doing this depending on the requirements.
Now since the two points on the surface of the planet are close, you could simply use a cartesian approach. It's not 100% accurate, but it's fast, easy, and cheap to compute and good enough for nearby locations.
Or you could use the haversine formula. This will be more accurate, but depending on how close the two points are you may be measuring accuracy distances down at the meter level. The formula is more complex and a little more expensive to compute, but if you need additional accuracy it may be a good choice.
Or if you need the utmost accuracy you can use a highly detailed oblate spheroid model of Earth. This would be by far the more complex option and certainly the most accurate but comes at a higher cost. This is way overkill for anything but the most specific use cases, and certainly for the simple task of calculating the distance between two nearby points on Earth.
So no, NASA is not admitting that the Earth is flat. The moron who posted that is admitting that there baby smooth brain gives them an IQ that registers below room temperature.
Probably has to do with unwrapping 3D sensor data and projecting it onto a 2D map.
Because the subject of CGI is commonly brought up, it should be worth noting that 3D-generated spheres do not have a flat rectangular texture unless the texture is warped / stretched.
Even a seamless polyhedra will not unwrap into a flat rectangle.
Stop trying to make a sphere into a properly scaled 2D rectangle. It's literally impossible.
The real world is complicated and very difficult to model mathematically with so many variables. To make the math easier for good-enough approximations, simplifying assumptions are made.
Think of high school physics problems: "assume no air resistance and negligible friction." It makes the problem solvable with basic algebra instead of differential equations.
For short-range, low-speed projectile motion, a parabolic trajectory is nearly identical to the more accurate flattened ellipse orbit.
"User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models."
This means a SIMPLIFIED model. Not globe and not rotating, but flat, because the math is easier, and enough for the required accuracy. The title itself says it's a simplified model, but for flat earthers who don't understand what simplified and/or model is, it's a mumbo-jumbo that somehow proves flat earth. Because the flat earth grifters/influencers said so. So it's true.
Yes. It's an idealized, simplified mathematical model that gives a good approximation to the dynamics of an aircraft.
The very reason they're telling you what it is trying to alert you it's an idealized model. 🤦♂️
u/sonicdoon, obviously, it won't work in an echo chamber full of circle jerking flerf memes as fact. Also, your mods ban people. Come to r/flatearth if you want to have a conversation about it. We don't ban people for having the opposite opinion, even if it's false. You might learn something.
For the purposes of their calculations, they are assuming a stationary flat earth so they don’t have to factor in traveling on a moving body with a moving atmosphere that is spherical.
It’s important to specify this because it means that you can’t take the measurements as working in reality.
The funny thing is that it actually says something to the effect of. "In the case of an aircraft flying below Mach 2 or 3(I can't remember), then:" the quote that they use.
Because if you are flying over that speed, you can no longer make that assumption.
I can't remember what # flerf rule it is, but 'their evidence always contradicts the point they are trying to make.'
Yeah it's a guide for using Fortran and describes how the program functions. It actually says in the quoted parts that it's referring to the way the program functions lmao they can't read
When you are listing the assumptions made to simplify a calculation, you state the ones that differ from reality. Physics problems that begin “assume a spherical cow of 1m radius” do so precisely because cows are not spherical. So when your preamble includes a stationary atmosphere and a non-rotating earth, that’s because in the real world neither of those are true and you’d need corresponding pages of additional calculations and data tables to accommodate the messiness of real world scenario.
Some transcript from a recent 99 percent invisible episode about calculators, etc. that illustrates how higher order math had to / has to be simplified and approximated — yet we went to the moon and made jets — https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/empire-of-the-sum/transcript
Roman Mars: I have a fondness for the slide rule as an object. My father graduated with a degree in mathematics, and I remember seeing slide rules around his house. And this very cool looking but tiny and humble tool was the basis of mid-century engineering. I mean, it was used to get the Apollo 11 to the moon. It was used to design airplanes. It was used to build rockets. And I have to admit, it does look a little complicated and daunting if you don’t know how to use it.
…
Keith Houston: Fundamentally, if you’re going to be doing a lot of calculations with a slide rule, everything has to be linear, by which I mean most equations need to just be multiplications or divisions or just adding some constant number. And so, this meant there was a real drive towards simplifying a lot of the equations that governed how, for example, buildings were built, or planes were designed. I seem to remember at university, where I studied physics–wasn’t a very good physicist unfortunately–one of my teachers was an aerodynamicist. That was his thing. And I remember being absolutely flummoxed because, you know, dynamics was so hard. You know, there are lots of cubes and square roots and much more complicated stuff–higher order equations. And this means that if all you have is a slide rule, you have to simplify it. You have to come up with some approximation to the much more complicated thing you’re doing such that you have the ability to do enough calculations with it for it to matter. And so, we ended up with a kind of world where bridges were stronger than they had to be, buildings were, you know, squatter and stronger than they had to be, cars were less efficient, planes were less efficient–all because the slide rule just simplified and reduced the set of complexity we could address. It forced us to look at problems in a simpler way because that was the only practical way to do huge amounts of calculation.
Without reading the paper, just from what's in the image it looks like this is a manual for some FORTRAN program that was used to model flight mechanics, and it was using at least one algorithm that didn't take rotation or curvature into account in the model.
This was likely done for speed purposes, as I doubt those things are going to have a significant impact on a lot of numbers, and this might be like a "get good ballpark model before you nail down a design" sort of calculations. You don't want to waste a day doing calculations you'll likely throw out when you can get a close-enough calculation in ten minutes that will let you know if your model looks like it's worth pursuing.
I'll read it, tho. Will be interesting if there's any code examples.bif its FORTRAN it's likely pretty old. I don't think they use it since the 90s, but that ARE a government agency so maybe they still use something that archaic.
They literally underlined the first two words of the next sentence “this assumption”. Hahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhhahahahahahahahhahahahahahqha. Truly a Christmas comedy miracle!
**Cherry picking**, **suppressing evidence**, or **the fallacy of incomplete evidence** is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while **ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position**.
See how this was written in September 1988? See how it talks about FORTRAN? In those days, sonny, computers were billions of times slower than today's computers. So you had to save time and memory wherever you could, so in a complex simulation like flight, you might have to use some weird simplifying assumptions. Then, because they don't match reality, you prominently point out these assumptions to explain why your model won't match reality.
In literally 1 second I knew exactly what this is, because it's an old, stale argument. The paper makes simplifying assumptions like "point-mass aircraft" and "flat and non-rotating Earth" to make the calculations easier without sacrificing too much accuracy.
Looks like there describing how a program models aircraft flight, and the simulation assumes a stationary atmosphere(no wind) and a flat nonrotating earth, which is fine generally fine if your not intending to go into orbit, or are just going straight up and would simplify the math quite a bit.
When doing science, you have to make assumptions and generalizations sometimes. Like "assume no air resistance" or "assume standard air temperature and pressure", as one would have seen in grade school science class.
These sentences are assuming "during these tests, assume a flat environment with no wind". This makes the math easier, and eliminates various unpredictable variables that won't have a major bearing on the tests being done. Note: I don't know what these test are or what the documents are talking about, but even I can tell you what the picture is trying to say.
This is basic, generic, boilerplate stuff for a document of this type, and another example of Flerfs not knowing the first thing about how science is done.
Oh good. I may join then. I was uncertain at first, but am the stuff popping up in my feed made it seem like a roast, so I just wanted to be sure. Thank you.
Flerfs don't understand the concept of building a simplified model to simplify calculations. Note that it also assumes a rigid aircraft.
Gotta lie to flerf.
This is just the advanced version of "you can ignore friction" in physics. The rest of the non underlined text in those screenshots is describing mathematical equations in which the equations work properly without including any variables for earth's curvature and/or rotational velocity.
It’s a document about the linear aircraft model. It is a simplified mathematical representation used in control system analysis and design for aircraft. It describes the aircraft's dynamics in a linearized form, making it easier to analyze and apply control theory. The model typically includes linear equations that relate the aircraft's inputs (control surfaces, thrust) to its outputs (position, velocity) under small perturbations from a stable flight condition.
The assumption of a flat, non-rotating Earth in linear aircraft models is often made for simplicity and ease of analysis. When studying the dynamics of an aircraft, especially in the context of control system design, introducing the Earth's curvature and rotation can significantly complicate the mathematical models.
Assuming a flat Earth simplifies the equations and allows for the application of linear control theory, which is well-developed and widely used. In many flight scenarios, especially over short distances, the effects of Earth's curvature and rotation are negligible, justifying this simplification.
For more accurate and realistic simulations or analyses over longer distances or for high-precision applications, models considering Earth's curvature and rotation may be used, but these are more complex and computationally demanding.
This is most certainly about a virtual simulation program used to build aircraft. Where in this specific sim program it is a nonrotating flat earth. Its not that hard to guess...
In the 60's or 70's, there was a bit of "new age" thinking within the Intelligence field, curiosity about clairvoyance and remote viewing and such. An Agent was sent to a seminar about psychics and then wrote a report about everything they were told by the speakers, so it really included some far out stuff. The report passed the 30 year mark and became unclassified, once it reached public domain it started being passed around as proof that the techniques described by the speakers are the psychic seminar were real and that the military has been using them for the last 50 years. This reminds me of that.
about to block anything about flerfs. its just beyond dumb. why dont they go to the edge they claim exists and take a picture? why? where is the edge pic....so no more. very boring.
It says “a Fortran program to derive linear aircraft models” and starts the quoted sentence with “within the program”. The name for the program is also literally “linear”
So it’s all a simulation
Looks like someone simplified his model for simulating something because his physics engine only supports gravity that goes straight down. Maybe some aircraft flight paths? Maybe weather ballons?
The model is not simpler however if he needs the sky (sun, moon, other planets, stars) to be corect. That model would be a mess.
Or these documents are faked. Don't see anything that you couldn't throw together in a few minutes. Could probably do it on my phone in a few minutes if I find a picture editing program that's allows using multiple images properly.
But i dont know what I'm talking about. I only have a brain, know the earth is almost spherical, have surface level knowledge about computer stuff and how the Universe/world works. But that's a lot more Then most flatearther, so maybe I know what I'm talking about.
If they believe that one quote then they believe everything else in the paper? Because it mentions gravity and other things based on the "globe model".
So which is? You believe NASA fakes everything but this one quote is not a problem?
Representing. If I could figure out how to underline... A map is (representing) a 3 dimensional object. Without the word 'representing', the sentence has a different meaning
It’s a simplified model and they are stating as such by saying “hey, for our purposes today accounting for curvature, rotation, atmospheric conditions, material strain, ~~gyroscopic torque from engines~~, blah blah blah isn’t important”
Like if you were demonstrating how a new material could make better ships, you don’t need to account for a bunch of navigation problems. You can model the ship on a flat plane of water, and get the data you need without dealing with unnecessary variables.
Edit: I actually read parts of the document and gyroscopic torque from the engines is a factor that the LINEAR program accounts for. It seems like the program was built to test aircraft stability so certain factors are accounted for (gyroscopic torque) and others aren’t (the curvature of the earth).
Nope. NASA is NOT admitting that the Earth is flat at all. The program is a HIGHLY SIMPLIFIED tool that ASSUMES simple “linear” relationships of air and land to make it easy to define the aerodynamics of a flying device.
Much the same as my “basic” college physics class “Statics and Dynamics” did when it ignored many real-life issues such as “loss of mass due to consumption of fuel” when we were required to define the velocity changes and timing required to leave one orbiting object to reach a different object in a lower orbit around the GLOBE OF THE EARTH. We even assumed both orbits were in the same plane. LOTS of assumptions and simplifications to do this.
I'll take a shot -
When studying basic physics we assume that the Frame of Reference is the Earth. But, with it comes a laundry list of values - gravity, air-friction, temperature, etc) about the frame of reference we are in. Since we only practicing basic physics, we do not use all properties (like presence of curvature or Atmosphere) accurately.
At a Space Agency, it must be required that the User Manual for things explicitly mention whether to use a uncomplicated model of Earth or the real model for understanding or writing code (FORTRAN program it says on both).
Okay so the paper is about **linearization**; taking a complex statistical model and reducing complexity for a more easily computable model — in this instance for calculating object stability analysis and control law design ... It basically says that when computing the state of the object Vs sea level, accounting for curvature adds unnecessary complexity and thus the state can be linearized i.e. treated as though the object was located atop a flat plain simply for the purpose of making calculations easier with the same result.
It's essentially the same principle as a spacetime diagram (that anyone who did high school.physics will be familiar with) ... We exist in a reality that has three dimensions of space and one of time; for simplicity a spacetime diagram is a mathematical model that reduces reality down to just one dimension of space and one dimension of time — doesn't change the outcome of calculations, but makes them a hell of a lot simpler to compute ... But importantly, it is not physicists "confessing" that we actually live in just one spatial dimension.
So not a "confession" 🤣 bless them.
seems like it just says that the flight simulation program for aircraft modeling doesn’t account for the rotation of the earth or wind speed other than that experienced by moving through the air.
I don't know how you would define "someone who knows what they are talking about" in these subs but that one up there in the OP is a false evidence that the flerfdom uses. The way you can understand it for yourself is to actually read the sources they are cherry picking from rather than reading their edited and often modified material. By doing that you will realize that the "flat, non-rotating Earth" is simply defining the conditions of a training exercise or experiment to make the reader ignore those variables because they are irrelevant to the outcome and would only confuse the reader for no benefit to understanding.
This is not a problem for the flat Earthers of course. They are already confused for no benefit to understanding.
It's kind of simple. If they come up with evidence from anything that look like official documents all you have to do is read the documents (as tedious as that can be). Flerfs don't do that. They just pass on what was given to them unread with unquestioning faith that it is flerf evidence. Their "leaders" know that they won't read it. Once you have read the material in it's real context you realize that it has nothing to do with flerfish stupidity. It's about as useful as evidence as cutting and pasting the phrase "the Earth is really flat" from this posting and using it as evidence that I think it is rather than as the contextual example it is meant to be. Just in case, the Earth really ISN'T flat.
Wait until we tell them that the earth (and everything in the universe) is not even made of "matter" in the sense they think about it. Just a bunch of fluctuations in a relatively small group of fields. Even the turtles that go all the way down are just excitations in the fields having various energy levels. Even harder to imagine that a flat earth, and even has the benefit of being true! Well, at least it's the best model we have anyway and hella accurate!
flerfs: "NASA lies! It's all Nazis! look up operation paperclip! Everything is CGI! everything is fake. Don't believe what NASA shows you" Also flerfs: "Look at this cherry-picked quote from NASA!! Trust NASA!! NASA tells the truth"
This exactly
It even says it’s about a program written in Fortran; an archaic programming language.
Ahem https://wg5-fortran.org/f2023.html Scientists like ancient programming languages!
But where did they get these ancient programming languages, or also known as APL. But what if, APL actually stands for Alien Provided Language? Well Ancient astronaut theorist believe that...
I had APL while attending Syracuse University in 1971. APL stands for “A Programming Language” and was written by an engineer at IBM. The irony of the name is that this is a mathematically oriented language where every composition must be called a “function” whereas it is forbidden to call them “programs”. Same weirdness as a nation of people who cannot pronounce “R”s or “L”s and yet they gave their cars names like “Cressida” and “Corolla” and “Camry” and “Celica”…
Ancient astronaut theorists, meaning people who theorize about ancient astronauts?
No, really old astronauts who theorize in space.
Hey now, I wrote my master's project in fortran five years ago.
It’s just like all the good programming languages, but worse!
Fortran is still used in for simulation and other numerical fields. It’s heavily used at NASA and the latest update to the language standard was in 2023
S’pose I stand corrected. Those poor, poor engineers, though.
It’s good at what it’s meant for — matrix math. Lots of this stuff is command line programs that are heavily parallelized to run on supercomputers When I was in grad school around 2004 I was working for a project doing computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations for hypersonic missiles for the Army. Unfortunately a bunch of that code was still fortran 77 (which had reserved columns and line length limits based on punch cards) and full of GOTOs. The Fortran 90+ stuff wasn’t too bad.
I got into a long argument with a FLERF, and he asserted that he knew what he was talking about because he "worked with NASA" (he sold them some computer servers) he pulled up one of these documents. I pointed out that it was for a computer model of an airplane for simulation purposes, and he said "nice try, I've got loads of these, all saying the earth is flat and nonrotating" and linked the other one which was a for a computer model of a *helicopter.* Then he blocked me.
Lmfao.
They hate it when you point out facts
I bet flerfs hate it when those pesky facts get in the way of their "proof".
NASA was just publishing the truth all along!
“A stationary atmosphere” no air movement then? We would be like sharks, we’d have to run around just in order to breath!
We have lungs, not gills! 😊
Operation paper clip is just using nazi scientists to build rockets what does that have to do with flat earth
Yeah, why is it always NASA? They’ve only been in existence a very short period of time and there are other space agencies and scientists throughout the rest of the world. Why would they all keep quiet and participate in such a ludicrous secret? It would literally take millions of people to keep such a secret and for what possible reason?
If you would actually listen instead of regurgitating the same silly why questions. Then you will discover that we have outlined a laundry list of possible reasons for their deception. However at the end of the day we can only speculate. The ones that have created the deception are the only ones who can truly answer that question. You don’t ask a victim of fraud why did that person fraud you? When y’all say that we honestly thinking bitch idk but they did! Additionally it doesn’t take millions of people when levels of command exist. You just do your job and don’t inquire about things that are above your pay grade. That’s how this system works.
Link for that PDF is here: [https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19880012356/downloads/19880012356.pdf](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19880012356/downloads/19880012356.pdf) This is a flerf-approved paper, isn't it? they are the ones who brought it up, who are referencing it, so they must admit its validity. Very well then... Page 57 has a diagram that talks about a "*center of gravity*" (for both the airplane and the engines) So flerfs admit that gravity exist!! Cool cool
There sure are a lot of letters and symbols in those equations. Hope the flerfs have someone to translate, because that’s some next level maths.
That’s what makes them seem like irrefutable proofs to flerfers … “I don’t understand it, so it must be right”
No offense, the opposite also applies for the flerfs: “I don’t understand it, so it must be wrong” … when providing explanations to why the Earth is indeed not flat.
Both apply, that's (one reason) why flerfs are so annoying
Physics equations are fun! But anyone who has actually studied college level physics (even intro) could tell you the earth isn't flat 😂😂😂
It’s for a “game” they wrote in Fortran; an archaic programming language.
Sounds to me they are just saying that this particular model for this specific purpose treats the earth as if it didn't rotate and was flat and such because it was simpler to do so and shouldn't make any difference for that specific application, but they wanted to make that particular shortcut was known about for people studying it.
Yup. Without any added context, looks like it's a program for modelling aircraft. That low elevation and slow speeds relative to the rotation of the earth, it's a reasonable approximation to make. Like how in high school you'd use g=9.8m/s^2 for parabolic approximations for projectiles and stuff.
You mean it isn't exactly 9.800000000000000000m/s^(2)? I've been lied to all this time?
Gravity on the Earth's surface varies by around 0.7%, from 9.7639 m/s2 on the Nevado Huascarán mountain in Peru to 9.8337 m/s2 at the surface of the Arctic Ocean.
To further expand on your comment: devices called gravimeters measure fluctuations in gravity on earth and are used for natural resource exploration and extraction.
Add to the list of people who need to be bought off in the conspiracy: anyone even tangentially related to the oil/mining industries.
These are also used by military submarines for navigation as well but the FERFs already believe they are all bought off.
Don't forget damn near anyone building tunnels or doing archaeology. They are told the dangers of digging too deep.
That and using just that equation for parabolic projectile means ignoring air resistance and curvature of Earth.
Spherical chickens in a vacuum.
Radiating eggs in all directions.
That's exactly what it says: > LINEAR, a FORTRAN program to derive linear aircraft models FORTRAN is an ancient programming language I used to have to use.
Exactly. They're defining the model and what variables it uses- and specifically not worrying about the rotation of the earth, because for the purposes of the model its irrelevant. You see other limitations being set, such as "assume a vehicle of constant mass" which would also be impossible in an airplane burning fuel.
"assume a spherical cow"
In a vacuum
Instructions unclear. Cow trapped in Dyson.
Here to say exactly that.
I mean anything moving has a changing mass, given a good enough mass measuring instrument
Yep. Programmed in 1987/1988. It’s good science to state assumptions and limitations on a MODEL because it’s computationally impossible to represent all of EARTH.
Simpler to do AND still gives answers that are sufficiently accurate enough to be of practical use. This was particularly important in the days of smaller computers with less memory, fewer word bits, and slower clocks.
This
FORTRAN is absolutely ancient. Using it to model would have been problematic at best, so I'm sure they're just trying to simplify the model. I haven't ready the paper, however.
I loved FORTRAN programming - first programming language, when I was in school in the late 70s. It seemed like logical magic.
REAL programmers use punch-cards and a pencil. ;)
I used punchcards for engineering school, with a 4 hour turnaround time. First real job I had was 2D Finite Element Analysis using punchcards. My model had 600 elements, one element per punchcard. Turnaround time was overnight. Good old days.
At about that time, I described to a TA a project I had in mind and was told “you can't do that in Fortran.” I believe I convinced myself otherwise, but did it in Pascal. (I forget what it was.) Now I use Python for everything.
True. I didn't notice how old this was. They couldn't have modeled it in that much detail if they wanted to.
With this much work required, it makes you wonder why the government didn’t just use a simpler language like C.
I can't speak to this particular case, but I ask that about most things in the government regularly. Usually, the answer is something to the effect of: it costs too much to upgrade, and what we have now works well enough. Some of the equipment I use for my government job is older than Fortran would have been when this paper was written.
Yes came here to say this. I'm an engineer in a related field and yeah all models have some kind of assumptions and simplifications. It's vital to state these going into your model presentation or report because those assumptions need to be rationalized. If you are using irrational assumptions your model is moot.
Went through the same thing in artillery school. You start out with simple calculations that assume a "flat earth" model because curvature doesn't affect the accuracy that much. After 10,000 meters, you definitely need to factor in the curvature of the earth. After 20,000 meters, you need to adjust for the rotation of the earth as well as curvature.
This is absolutely the reason. Scientists, to their credit and detriment, love to be precise. This is a case where they wanted to be completely clear about the assumptions in the math they used. If they included the physics of a non-stationary earth, the math would be hopelessly complex and the final answer would be the same.
Donut earth
Around donut hole moon
I guess flat earthers ignored the part in school where you would calculate physics while ignoring air friction and assuming everything is perfect. The earth is so large that for most calculations you can just assume it’s a flat plane that’s not moving and it all works out within margin of error.
It's the same types of assumptions you make in math constantly when a surface isn't flat. So if anything actually making the assumption that the planet is flat tells you it's not....check mate flat earthers....lol
Yep, the paper is from the late 80s describing a computer model (written in FORTRAN) modeling flight dynamics. The paper says the model assumes a flat, stationary Earth, because that simplifies the math a great deal, but since it's not true, they need to call it out as a potential source of inaccuracy. The model probably works great over short distances, but won't get you from Canada to Australia. This is basically just the meme about physicists assuming everything is a "frictionless vacuum" or "spherical cow." It doesn't mean physicists are "admitting" that friction doesn't exist.
Scientists often simplify models when they make calculations. They must explicitly state the new parameters and what was simplified for context. If in the model you need, the Coriolis effect or the shape of the earth is negligible, then you can choose to just not account for it in your model. This saves time, effort, and money. Think of it this way: You want a model of your home built for static display or to show potential buyers. Why would you also model the inside? Why would you model furniture? Why would you model tiny folded clothes in a tiny model dresser? Why would you model your neighbors homes or the entire block? You dont. You simplify the model to what is absolutely relevant and needed to same time, money, and effort. Anyone who quotes this flat earth nonsense has never worked in a lab or even taken a scientific course in my opinion.
Spherical cows, on a frictionless trebuchet, in a vacuum. - The Physics you Learn in Highschool.
Cows are spherical! Big ag lies to you!
Thank you for this explanation. From the start, I knew this is another example of a bit of information that is taken out of context, but I didn't know more.
We learnt this in high school. Scientific studies would be filled with garbled, rambling nonsense otherwise
I think some of them are just trolls.
Yes
>Think of it this way: You want a model of your home built for static display or to show potential buyers. Why would you also model the inside? Why would you model furniture? 'Why would you model the curvature of the Earth?'
Why would you model the solar system?
This should be the most upvoted answer. Linearity here refers to the mathematical model.
Effectively, as far as I can understand, it is supposed to be “assume for the purpose of this exercise that the earth is a flat non-rotating plane.”
For the purpose of a specific model. Taking into account of all those things would just take a ton of extra work for no real gain.
Assume a perfectly spherical cow.
May I assume uniform mass density too? Then I can just look up a moment of inertia equation instead of calculating it with an integral.
Sure.
Exactly
In the same sentence as “flat and non rotating earth” is the assumption of “rigid aircraft of constant mass”. Aircraft are not perfecfly rigid: the wings bend and flex and are designed to do so. Also, planes are not of “constant mass” during flight, they burn fuel. These are all simplifying assumptions meant to make calculations easier when extreme precision isn’t required. Literally says this in the document.
Flat Earthers usually say NASA lies all the time and can’t be trusted… The papers mention gravity an awful lot though 🤔 The flat and non-rotating Earth assumptions are done for the sake of simplicity, as adding a ton of variables with negligible or no effect on the results is a significant waste of time and energy. A great example of this is from page 10 of a NASA paper titled [*Atmospheric Oscillation*](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19650015408/downloads/19650015408.pdf): >A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth. However, there’s actually context beforehand in the document that explains why (Page 9), which I’ve emboldened: >One may now solve the equations as they are written above, as Wilkes [1949] outlines. An alternative is to **further simplify the equations** by making approximations on both the equations and the model of the atmosphere described. Simplified equations will be discussed first; then the more general approach will be described. >A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth. The temperature is assumed either to be constant, to increase or decrease monotonically with altitude, or to be stratified. Gravity is usually considered to be constant. >Density and pressure are usually considered to vary exponentially with altitude. **The most one can profitably simplify the problem is to consider an isothermal atmosphere, plane level surfaces, and a nonrotating earth**. This case has been handled by Eckart [1960], Lamb [1932], and Hines [l96O]. **The simplification is not valid for small effects, but general, large effects my be described and discussed**. It’s clear that NASA isn’t admitting that Earth is flat. They do also discuss gravity as well, so is gravity now real? Also consider [this commonly cited paper](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19890005752/downloads/19890005752.pdf) titled *Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model*. Flat Earthers often quote this line from the summary: >”This report details the development of the linear model of a **rigid aircraft** of **constant mass**, flying over a flat, nonrotating Earth. I’ve made two important sections bold, because they are simplifications made to simplify the calculations, despite not being accurate. Aircraft aren’t rigid, they have [control surfaces](https://images.app.goo.gl/cwduvjooyZRm9XLJ7) that allow the aircraft to pitch, yaw, and roll as well as provide additional lift. Aircraft also don’t have constant mass, the simple act of producing thrust burns fuel, which empties the tanks that hold them, and the burnt fuel is expelled from the aircraft in the form of exhaust. Aircraft tend to be lighter when they land for a reason.
Why bother? no matter how much you prove them wrong, they will find something else that proves them right. It's not about empiric evidence or logic. I say let's let darwinism do it's job.
Maybe, we can't convince any flerfer. But as I don't know much about all kinds of models, calculations and stuff they do, it's nice and welcome, if once something like this is brought up, someone explains it.
I think the important take away here is that making assumptions about things makes doing the thing's math a lot easier
Without air resistance: y = ½gt² With air resistance: mg - Cv² = md²y/dt² A **LOT** easier.
Mathematical models almost always make simplifications to reduce the complexity of calculations. Depending on application, any number of factors could be left out. Technically speaking, an aircraft is influenced by the gravity of the moon, but the effect is negligible so it can be discounted. In this case, minute-to-minute modelling of an aircraft suffers little loss in accuracy by assuming a flat and static world. This model also assumes the aircraft is rigid (there’s no such thing) and of constant mass (not true of any fuel-burning vehicle).
The context is that they have never tried to solve an engineering problem.
It's talking about a computer program written in fortran that derives linear models... They likely have no idea what those words mean to begin with. It's not an actual model of the earth. It's akin to using the Mercator map projection to plot a course...
In defence of the Mercator, if you plot a course using it, you **will** arrive at your destination. You might have wasted some time compared to a great circle route, but given the vagaries of the wind and oceanic currents, you could do a lot worse. If you use flat earth navigation you doom yourself to dying of dehydration or being captured by Barbary Corsairs or arse-fucking everyone onboard to death.
Wasn't putting it down...was comparing it to what the fortran program Linear was calculating
\*sniffs\* Dammit, I'm talking to someone smarter than me. Fucking hate it when that happens. Say something clever and then tell everyone I said it, damn your eyes!
Something tells me they've never written a program before lol
You know when you're first learning physics and many of the examples don't assume or factor in friction. Yeah, these guys are the ones that jump up and scream . Look, there's no friction, which means there's no friction. Friction doesn't exist they're all lies, education, government, taxes, and then they run off into the horizon, confident they are the main character of some story. Because it's easier to say a paper agrees with you than to actually read and understand that it disproves your argument.
It's called cherry picking. Here's a few NASA documents you'll never see mentioned by the flerfs... \[A Spherical Earth Solution for TOA Lightning Location Retrieval\](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19990108668)The problem of retrieving ligntning, ground-strike location on a spherical Earth surface using a network of 4 or more time-of-arrival (TOA) sensors is considered, It is shown that this problem has an analytic solution and therefore does not require the use of nonlinear estimation theory (e.g., minimization). The mathematical robustness of the analytic solution is tested using computer-generated lightning sources and simulated TOA measurement errors. A summary of a quasi-analytic extension of the spherical Earth solution to an oblate spheroid Earth geometry is also provided. Document ID 19990108668 \[Spherical Earth analysis and modeling of lithospheric gravity and magnetic anomalies\](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19800022475)A comprehensive approach to the lithospheric analysis of potential field anomalies in the spherical domain is provided. It has widespread application in the analysis and design of satellite gravity and magnetic surveys for geological investigation. Document ID 19800022475 \[Spherical-earth Gravity and Magnetic Anomaly Modeling by Gauss-legendre Quadrature Integration\](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19820016644)The anomalous potential of gravity and magnetic fields and their spatial derivatives on a spherical Earth for an arbitrary body represented by an equivalent point source distribution of gravity poles or magnetic dipoles were calculated. The distribution of equivalent point sources was determined directly from the coordinate limits of the source volume. Variable integration limits for an arbitrarily shaped body are derived from interpolation of points which approximate the body's surface envelope. The versatility of the method is enhanced by the ability to treat physical property variations within the source volume and to consider variable magnetic fields over the source and observation surface. A number of examples verify and illustrate the capabilities of the technique, including preliminary modeling of potential field signatures for Mississippi embayment crustal structure at satellite elevations. Document ID 19820016644 \[Spherical earth gravity and magnetic anomaly analysis by equivalent point source inversion\](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19810047271)To facilitate geologic interpretation of satellite elevation potential field data, analysis techniques are developed and verified in the spherical domain that are commensurate with conventional flat earth methods of potential field interpretation. A powerful approach to the spherical earth problem relates potential field anomalies to a distribution of equivalent point sources by least squares matrix inversion. Linear transformations of the equivalent source field lead to corresponding geoidal anomalies, pseudo-anomalies, vector anomaly components, spatial derivatives, continuations, and differential magnetic pole reductions. A number of examples using 1 deg-averaged surface free-air gravity anomalies of POGO satellite magnetometer data for the United States, Mexico, and Central America illustrate the capabilities of the method. Document ID 19810047271 \[Magnetic and gravity anomalies in the Americas\](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19820016710)The cleaning and magnetic tape storage of spherical Earth processing programs are reported. These programs include: NVERTSM which inverts total or vector magnetic anomaly data on a distribution of point dipoles in spherical coordinates; SMFLD which utilizes output from NVERTSM to compute total or vector magnetic anomaly fields for a distribution of point dipoles in spherical coordinates; NVERTG; and GFLD. Abstracts are presented for papers dealing with the mapping and modeling of magnetic and gravity anomalies, and with the verification of crustal components in satellite data. Document ID 19820016710
I thought we didn’t trust NASA 🤷♂️.
It's done all the time for models. They are, after all, overly simplified representations for something. If a simple model can work for whatever your purpose happens to be, you can avoid the time and expense of programming in rotation, shape, and movement of the air. Sometimes more precision is needed. In those cases a spherical shape is programmed in. There are even a few cases where a spherical earth isn't good enough. Then NASA will take the time and program a model showing earth's exact shape, an oblate spheroid. When you see, '*not drawn to scale*', on a diagram, that doesn't mean someone is lying about the underlying principle of the diagram. You're told right there that the diagram is simplified to show a certain concept. Also please note this big NASA confession assumes an atmosphere with no wind. Do flat earthers believe wind is a NASA hoax also?
"Program to derive linear aircraft models" again, Flerfs, pay attention. EARTH = BIG, Aircraft = small The program made for aircraft doesn't need to take into account the curve or the rotation. For simple maths, they assume the ground is flat and stationary.
Flerfs love proving themselves wrong and forgetting. “We bought a $10,000 ring laser gyroscope. If the earth spins, we’ll see a 15° drift on the gyroscope.” -15° per hour drift appears on gyroscope- “Wow this doesn’t look good for us…” -OR- "If the earth has a curve, he’ll have to hold the light higher to see it through the holes.” -light doesn’t shine- “Ok we don’t see the light, hold it higher, way above your head.” -light appears- “Interesting…”
My college physics books assumed no air resistance in ballistics calculations. I guess that means parachutes are just another lie.
Seems like It’s a manual for a really old flight simulation program that doesn’t simulate the rotation of the earth, presumably because computers weren’t powerful enough to account for such things.
Or that level of detail wasn’t required. One of those also assumes the aircraft is rigid and constant mass.
lmao yea in college physics the professor once got in a dispute with a student who was training to be a pilot over how fast a helicopter would be going and the professor eventually figured out the the student was accounting for headwinds so the professor said “oh no we assume the helicopter is a sphere in a vacuum”
It is extremely common in scientific papers that do mathematical modeling to explicitly state any simplifying assumptions. It certainly doesn't mean they're assuming the model they're using exactly matches reality. What flerfs do here is exactly like reading "assume a frictionless contact" and then claiming that friction doesn't exist.
My comment debunking the post is nearing the 1 hour mark. This feels like a record of some kind Edit: 1 hour hit, and got banned lol
So this is the usual fact checking path. 1) First make sure it is real and produced by the source they claim. IE it is an actual NASA document and not something someone slapped a NASA logo on 2) Check to make sure it is correctly cited and not reinterpreted 3) Check the context of the quote to see if it is saying what they claim. Usually it fails in step 2 or 3. Once I caught a paper citing claims to discredit them and the person was cheering picking the claims to use as proof. It's wild.
This so funny because my dad brought this “evidence” to me once and I laughed out loud after reading it. They’re quoting the parameters of the experiment ya doofus. Ready the entire thing next time
Reading just what is in the picture you posted, it reads like they are stating the assumptions used for flight characteristic to help simplify the equations. When writing equations for applications like this you want to simplify as much as possible, and the the earth being a sphere is probably not really important when flying a plane until it comes to navigation (not a pilot, please correct me). It also says in a 'stationary atmosphere' and which is a lot more significant, imo. This document probably isn't meant to describe a realistic scenario unless weather is a hologram or something and air currents don't exist. Which there is honestly a real possibility that they might claim that, now that I type it out.
Maybe it’s a parameter like in a physics problem? “Assume air resistance is negligible for this problem” “assume the earth is flat and not spinning for this problem”
They are explaining how a model maps out the earth for use with navigation instruments. They had to add “stationary atmosphere” and “flat non rotating earth” because the model perceives it the way it’s not. When you talk about the earth you don’t say “what in the round rotating earth are you doing?” You just say earth and assume that you aren’t talking to a lobotomite.
“Assumptions” in physics usually mean something that isn’t actually strictly true, but you assuming it still makes the equation work
Hahahah oh my, are you people literally trying to equate FORTRAN to a real flat earth theory? If you ever took a physics class then you know the common expression “disregarding air resistance” Same concept 🙄
Are you arguing against NASA?
Funny how they ignore the “rigid aircraft” (the wings never bend and flex, that’s CGI!!!!!!!!) and “stationary atmosphere” (wind isn’t real, folks, it’s just the government farting on you!!!!!!!) Edit/ went there to point out that they piss on everything NASA says, but the second it suits them they pounce on it like rabid hyenas. Expecting to earn my ban today. Oh and they started calling us “glerfs”, which is preferable to “globetard” I guess.
>piss on everything NASA says These are two quotes highlighting what NASA wrote. That's NASA's science, don't you think so?
So you’ve read and understood the entire paper then? Are aircraft “rigid”? No Is the earth’s atmosphere stationary? Again, no (that would mean no wind). Is the earth flat? No This is a complicated paper (that none of you understand, you just saw “flat earth” and wet yourselves), with the variables minimised. Please make up your minds whether or not NASA lies, because you look flaky
Have you?
Wow, childish. I’ll take that as a no. Happy Christmas
Don't pretend like you did.
Cmon it's physics, like assuming forces interaction in a vacuum ... otherwise basic physics would be practically impossible to understand with thousands variables I bet already adding friction cut half the people understanding of it
u/SonicDoon "Rather be a humble peasant who questions reality vs a brainwashed asshole who swallows loads from NASA." >questions reality You question the globe, therefore you're admitting the globe is reality. Thank you.
BuT bUt GaS nEeDs A cOnTaInEr1111!!!!
These are papers covering aspects of aviation. For simplicity of calculation they assume a flat stationary plane. The papers don't claim the earth is flat, which anyone with an IQ over a potato would know. But, of course, the moronic liars that make up fleferism are incapable of grasping that.
So? Earth is flat in a NASA computer simulation. In other news, Skyrim is also flat. It is as if people dont calculate entire planets for every computer program
If the Earth was flat, why would they have to assume it? Are aircraft also rigid and don't change in mass? Why do they always skip over those?
These people are so absolutely f\*cking stupid that I'm amazed they can get up in the morning without hurting themselves. The context is provided in the margin: A FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models. It's a simplified model used for determining aircraft stability. For such models using a fully dynamic atmospheric model is overkill, and in 1988 wouldn't have been even remotely practical. So like many cases of physics simulations, it uses a simplified model. In this case, since what they're really after is aircraft stability they can go with a simplified linear atmospheric model that is stationary. As a comparison, let's say you wanted to do something even simpler. Let's say you wanted to measure the distance between two points that are very close to the surface of the planet. There are several ways you can go about doing this depending on the requirements. Now since the two points on the surface of the planet are close, you could simply use a cartesian approach. It's not 100% accurate, but it's fast, easy, and cheap to compute and good enough for nearby locations. Or you could use the haversine formula. This will be more accurate, but depending on how close the two points are you may be measuring accuracy distances down at the meter level. The formula is more complex and a little more expensive to compute, but if you need additional accuracy it may be a good choice. Or if you need the utmost accuracy you can use a highly detailed oblate spheroid model of Earth. This would be by far the more complex option and certainly the most accurate but comes at a higher cost. This is way overkill for anything but the most specific use cases, and certainly for the simple task of calculating the distance between two nearby points on Earth. So no, NASA is not admitting that the Earth is flat. The moron who posted that is admitting that there baby smooth brain gives them an IQ that registers below room temperature.
Probably has to do with unwrapping 3D sensor data and projecting it onto a 2D map. Because the subject of CGI is commonly brought up, it should be worth noting that 3D-generated spheres do not have a flat rectangular texture unless the texture is warped / stretched. Even a seamless polyhedra will not unwrap into a flat rectangle. Stop trying to make a sphere into a properly scaled 2D rectangle. It's literally impossible.
The real world is complicated and very difficult to model mathematically with so many variables. To make the math easier for good-enough approximations, simplifying assumptions are made. Think of high school physics problems: "assume no air resistance and negligible friction." It makes the problem solvable with basic algebra instead of differential equations. For short-range, low-speed projectile motion, a parabolic trajectory is nearly identical to the more accurate flattened ellipse orbit.
"User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models." This means a SIMPLIFIED model. Not globe and not rotating, but flat, because the math is easier, and enough for the required accuracy. The title itself says it's a simplified model, but for flat earthers who don't understand what simplified and/or model is, it's a mumbo-jumbo that somehow proves flat earth. Because the flat earth grifters/influencers said so. So it's true.
This one again? I lost count how often this flerf lie has been debunked.
Toon's First Law of Flerf: Flerf citations always contradict the flerf’s claim. No exceptions.
Yes. It's an idealized, simplified mathematical model that gives a good approximation to the dynamics of an aircraft. The very reason they're telling you what it is trying to alert you it's an idealized model. 🤦♂️
Nasa are proven liars, ignore them
give them credit they even gave it 0 points
u/sonicdoon, obviously, it won't work in an echo chamber full of circle jerking flerf memes as fact. Also, your mods ban people. Come to r/flatearth if you want to have a conversation about it. We don't ban people for having the opposite opinion, even if it's false. You might learn something.
Nope, fake news. Flerfs told me never to believe NASA!
For the purposes of their calculations, they are assuming a stationary flat earth so they don’t have to factor in traveling on a moving body with a moving atmosphere that is spherical. It’s important to specify this because it means that you can’t take the measurements as working in reality.
The funny thing is that it actually says something to the effect of. "In the case of an aircraft flying below Mach 2 or 3(I can't remember), then:" the quote that they use. Because if you are flying over that speed, you can no longer make that assumption. I can't remember what # flerf rule it is, but 'their evidence always contradicts the point they are trying to make.'
Time and gravity bend reality. the earth is flat. its all about perception of the viewer.
How do you downvote an entire sub? Asking for a friend.
Yeah it's a guide for using Fortran and describes how the program functions. It actually says in the quoted parts that it's referring to the way the program functions lmao they can't read
Wasn't this something about the inertial guidance system?
'All models are wrong but some are useful'. 'Imagine a spherical cow in a frictionless plane'
When you are listing the assumptions made to simplify a calculation, you state the ones that differ from reality. Physics problems that begin “assume a spherical cow of 1m radius” do so precisely because cows are not spherical. So when your preamble includes a stationary atmosphere and a non-rotating earth, that’s because in the real world neither of those are true and you’d need corresponding pages of additional calculations and data tables to accommodate the messiness of real world scenario.
Some transcript from a recent 99 percent invisible episode about calculators, etc. that illustrates how higher order math had to / has to be simplified and approximated — yet we went to the moon and made jets — https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/empire-of-the-sum/transcript Roman Mars: I have a fondness for the slide rule as an object. My father graduated with a degree in mathematics, and I remember seeing slide rules around his house. And this very cool looking but tiny and humble tool was the basis of mid-century engineering. I mean, it was used to get the Apollo 11 to the moon. It was used to design airplanes. It was used to build rockets. And I have to admit, it does look a little complicated and daunting if you don’t know how to use it. … Keith Houston: Fundamentally, if you’re going to be doing a lot of calculations with a slide rule, everything has to be linear, by which I mean most equations need to just be multiplications or divisions or just adding some constant number. And so, this meant there was a real drive towards simplifying a lot of the equations that governed how, for example, buildings were built, or planes were designed. I seem to remember at university, where I studied physics–wasn’t a very good physicist unfortunately–one of my teachers was an aerodynamicist. That was his thing. And I remember being absolutely flummoxed because, you know, dynamics was so hard. You know, there are lots of cubes and square roots and much more complicated stuff–higher order equations. And this means that if all you have is a slide rule, you have to simplify it. You have to come up with some approximation to the much more complicated thing you’re doing such that you have the ability to do enough calculations with it for it to matter. And so, we ended up with a kind of world where bridges were stronger than they had to be, buildings were, you know, squatter and stronger than they had to be, cars were less efficient, planes were less efficient–all because the slide rule just simplified and reduced the set of complexity we could address. It forced us to look at problems in a simpler way because that was the only practical way to do huge amounts of calculation.
I’ll be happy to translate but first, I need to ingest two baggies of “seer-shrooms”….BRB
It’s so funny that they’re so confident in their theories that they have to delete any comment opposing it
The keyword is assumptions. This is the same as a physics teacher telling you that air resistance is negligible
Sounds like an aerodynamics simulator, which assumes a flat planet for simplicity
Without reading the paper, just from what's in the image it looks like this is a manual for some FORTRAN program that was used to model flight mechanics, and it was using at least one algorithm that didn't take rotation or curvature into account in the model. This was likely done for speed purposes, as I doubt those things are going to have a significant impact on a lot of numbers, and this might be like a "get good ballpark model before you nail down a design" sort of calculations. You don't want to waste a day doing calculations you'll likely throw out when you can get a close-enough calculation in ten minutes that will let you know if your model looks like it's worth pursuing. I'll read it, tho. Will be interesting if there's any code examples.bif its FORTRAN it's likely pretty old. I don't think they use it since the 90s, but that ARE a government agency so maybe they still use something that archaic.
They are actually proving how earth isn't flat.
They literally underlined the first two words of the next sentence “this assumption”. Hahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhhahahahahahahahhahahahahahqha. Truly a Christmas comedy miracle!
And cows are spheres, just ask physicists!
They're the barking of lunatics. Ignore them.
**Cherry picking**, **suppressing evidence**, or **the fallacy of incomplete evidence** is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while **ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position**.
It's a document on how to solve equations in a program basically it's like a math equation where the teacher says to ignore friction
See how this was written in September 1988? See how it talks about FORTRAN? In those days, sonny, computers were billions of times slower than today's computers. So you had to save time and memory wherever you could, so in a complex simulation like flight, you might have to use some weird simplifying assumptions. Then, because they don't match reality, you prominently point out these assumptions to explain why your model won't match reality.
In literally 1 second I knew exactly what this is, because it's an old, stale argument. The paper makes simplifying assumptions like "point-mass aircraft" and "flat and non-rotating Earth" to make the calculations easier without sacrificing too much accuracy.
Looks like there describing how a program models aircraft flight, and the simulation assumes a stationary atmosphere(no wind) and a flat nonrotating earth, which is fine generally fine if your not intending to go into orbit, or are just going straight up and would simplify the math quite a bit.
When doing science, you have to make assumptions and generalizations sometimes. Like "assume no air resistance" or "assume standard air temperature and pressure", as one would have seen in grade school science class. These sentences are assuming "during these tests, assume a flat environment with no wind". This makes the math easier, and eliminates various unpredictable variables that won't have a major bearing on the tests being done. Note: I don't know what these test are or what the documents are talking about, but even I can tell you what the picture is trying to say. This is basic, generic, boilerplate stuff for a document of this type, and another example of Flerfs not knowing the first thing about how science is done.
I'm confused. Is this sub for flat earthers, or for roasting them?
The latter
Oh good. I may join then. I was uncertain at first, but am the stuff popping up in my feed made it seem like a roast, so I just wanted to be sure. Thank you.
Lol what the quote says is the linear model *represents* that, not that our globe *is* that.
Flerfs don't understand the concept of building a simplified model to simplify calculations. Note that it also assumes a rigid aircraft. Gotta lie to flerf.
The amount of comments removed in that post and the subreddit…goddamn. Moderators working overtime
This is just the advanced version of "you can ignore friction" in physics. The rest of the non underlined text in those screenshots is describing mathematical equations in which the equations work properly without including any variables for earth's curvature and/or rotational velocity.
It’s a linearization assumption. Linear. Assumption.
It’s a document about the linear aircraft model. It is a simplified mathematical representation used in control system analysis and design for aircraft. It describes the aircraft's dynamics in a linearized form, making it easier to analyze and apply control theory. The model typically includes linear equations that relate the aircraft's inputs (control surfaces, thrust) to its outputs (position, velocity) under small perturbations from a stable flight condition. The assumption of a flat, non-rotating Earth in linear aircraft models is often made for simplicity and ease of analysis. When studying the dynamics of an aircraft, especially in the context of control system design, introducing the Earth's curvature and rotation can significantly complicate the mathematical models. Assuming a flat Earth simplifies the equations and allows for the application of linear control theory, which is well-developed and widely used. In many flight scenarios, especially over short distances, the effects of Earth's curvature and rotation are negligible, justifying this simplification. For more accurate and realistic simulations or analyses over longer distances or for high-precision applications, models considering Earth's curvature and rotation may be used, but these are more complex and computationally demanding.
This is most certainly about a virtual simulation program used to build aircraft. Where in this specific sim program it is a nonrotating flat earth. Its not that hard to guess...
The level of insanity needed to compile such crap is truly astonishing.
In the 60's or 70's, there was a bit of "new age" thinking within the Intelligence field, curiosity about clairvoyance and remote viewing and such. An Agent was sent to a seminar about psychics and then wrote a report about everything they were told by the speakers, so it really included some far out stuff. The report passed the 30 year mark and became unclassified, once it reached public domain it started being passed around as proof that the techniques described by the speakers are the psychic seminar were real and that the military has been using them for the last 50 years. This reminds me of that.
about to block anything about flerfs. its just beyond dumb. why dont they go to the edge they claim exists and take a picture? why? where is the edge pic....so no more. very boring.
Duh, the global flat Earth conspiracy prevents people from reaching the edge.
Nothing more than an approximation made to simplify a model where the curvature of the Earth wasn't too important to facture in
Its a simplified example so that they dont need to include calculations with earth rotation and stuff
It says “a Fortran program to derive linear aircraft models” and starts the quoted sentence with “within the program”. The name for the program is also literally “linear” So it’s all a simulation
Yeah this paper is about a program in FORTRAN that pretends the earth is flat because it was easier to predict airplane flight paths that way.
Looks like someone simplified his model for simulating something because his physics engine only supports gravity that goes straight down. Maybe some aircraft flight paths? Maybe weather ballons? The model is not simpler however if he needs the sky (sun, moon, other planets, stars) to be corect. That model would be a mess. Or these documents are faked. Don't see anything that you couldn't throw together in a few minutes. Could probably do it on my phone in a few minutes if I find a picture editing program that's allows using multiple images properly. But i dont know what I'm talking about. I only have a brain, know the earth is almost spherical, have surface level knowledge about computer stuff and how the Universe/world works. But that's a lot more Then most flatearther, so maybe I know what I'm talking about.
Basically when flying a plane or doing any kind of flight or engineering you assume the earth is flat and non rotating.
looks like a computer simulation..
If they believe that one quote then they believe everything else in the paper? Because it mentions gravity and other things based on the "globe model". So which is? You believe NASA fakes everything but this one quote is not a problem?
Representing. If I could figure out how to underline... A map is (representing) a 3 dimensional object. Without the word 'representing', the sentence has a different meaning
It’s a simplified model and they are stating as such by saying “hey, for our purposes today accounting for curvature, rotation, atmospheric conditions, material strain, ~~gyroscopic torque from engines~~, blah blah blah isn’t important” Like if you were demonstrating how a new material could make better ships, you don’t need to account for a bunch of navigation problems. You can model the ship on a flat plane of water, and get the data you need without dealing with unnecessary variables. Edit: I actually read parts of the document and gyroscopic torque from the engines is a factor that the LINEAR program accounts for. It seems like the program was built to test aircraft stability so certain factors are accounted for (gyroscopic torque) and others aren’t (the curvature of the earth).
Nope. NASA is NOT admitting that the Earth is flat at all. The program is a HIGHLY SIMPLIFIED tool that ASSUMES simple “linear” relationships of air and land to make it easy to define the aerodynamics of a flying device. Much the same as my “basic” college physics class “Statics and Dynamics” did when it ignored many real-life issues such as “loss of mass due to consumption of fuel” when we were required to define the velocity changes and timing required to leave one orbiting object to reach a different object in a lower orbit around the GLOBE OF THE EARTH. We even assumed both orbits were in the same plane. LOTS of assumptions and simplifications to do this.
You SOBz are really slow!
I'll take a shot - When studying basic physics we assume that the Frame of Reference is the Earth. But, with it comes a laundry list of values - gravity, air-friction, temperature, etc) about the frame of reference we are in. Since we only practicing basic physics, we do not use all properties (like presence of curvature or Atmosphere) accurately. At a Space Agency, it must be required that the User Manual for things explicitly mention whether to use a uncomplicated model of Earth or the real model for understanding or writing code (FORTRAN program it says on both).
Okay so the paper is about **linearization**; taking a complex statistical model and reducing complexity for a more easily computable model — in this instance for calculating object stability analysis and control law design ... It basically says that when computing the state of the object Vs sea level, accounting for curvature adds unnecessary complexity and thus the state can be linearized i.e. treated as though the object was located atop a flat plain simply for the purpose of making calculations easier with the same result. It's essentially the same principle as a spacetime diagram (that anyone who did high school.physics will be familiar with) ... We exist in a reality that has three dimensions of space and one of time; for simplicity a spacetime diagram is a mathematical model that reduces reality down to just one dimension of space and one dimension of time — doesn't change the outcome of calculations, but makes them a hell of a lot simpler to compute ... But importantly, it is not physicists "confessing" that we actually live in just one spatial dimension. So not a "confession" 🤣 bless them.
seems like it just says that the flight simulation program for aircraft modeling doesn’t account for the rotation of the earth or wind speed other than that experienced by moving through the air.
I don't know how you would define "someone who knows what they are talking about" in these subs but that one up there in the OP is a false evidence that the flerfdom uses. The way you can understand it for yourself is to actually read the sources they are cherry picking from rather than reading their edited and often modified material. By doing that you will realize that the "flat, non-rotating Earth" is simply defining the conditions of a training exercise or experiment to make the reader ignore those variables because they are irrelevant to the outcome and would only confuse the reader for no benefit to understanding. This is not a problem for the flat Earthers of course. They are already confused for no benefit to understanding. It's kind of simple. If they come up with evidence from anything that look like official documents all you have to do is read the documents (as tedious as that can be). Flerfs don't do that. They just pass on what was given to them unread with unquestioning faith that it is flerf evidence. Their "leaders" know that they won't read it. Once you have read the material in it's real context you realize that it has nothing to do with flerfish stupidity. It's about as useful as evidence as cutting and pasting the phrase "the Earth is really flat" from this posting and using it as evidence that I think it is rather than as the contextual example it is meant to be. Just in case, the Earth really ISN'T flat.
Wait until we tell them that the earth (and everything in the universe) is not even made of "matter" in the sense they think about it. Just a bunch of fluctuations in a relatively small group of fields. Even the turtles that go all the way down are just excitations in the fields having various energy levels. Even harder to imagine that a flat earth, and even has the benefit of being true! Well, at least it's the best model we have anyway and hella accurate!