NASA and the flat earth airplane...

  • 97 Replies
  • 17915 Views
*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #60 on: March 03, 2018, 12:58:29 AM »
The sheer mass of fakery is staggering, yet that is how things appear. It is a pretty lazy response, but it is effective, as it allows the complete nullification of said answer or photograph or document or video. I would like FE to come up with better.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #61 on: March 03, 2018, 02:59:55 AM »
Again the flatearther is vastly outnumbered by a pack of hungry roundies.

Roundies that don't understand that 'simplifying simulations/calculations' is a misnomer in our days of petaflop calculations within the largest governmental mainframes.
I think that "Roundies" understand these things far better than you,  Mr Know-it-all on things you know nothing about.

You claim, "is a misnomer in our days of petaflop calculations", but even if that were true, that paper was written 30 years ago, when there were no computers with petaflop calculation speeds. Had you bothered to read the following you would know that.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And the quote from Quora:
Quote
... until you come across real development or computational limits.
The cited paper is from 1988. Computers were much weaker back then.
For perspective, the Cray Y-MP was sold that year. Its peak performance
was 333 megaflops. She cost $15 million dollars.
While the comparison is not quite valid, on most counts the Cray Y-MP was inferior to an iPhone 6.

NASA now has a Pleiades 7.25 petaflop supercomputer but no-one in their mind would unnecessarily waste valuable time on that.

There is no need for that computing power for early design simulations when a linearised rigid and constant mass model over a flat non-rotating earth is almost as accurate in many situations.
The curvature and rotation make little difference except for slight changes in the effective g that depend on direction and speed.

The use of a linear simplified model in the early stages of any design is common practice in all branches of engineering.

Quote from: dutchy
Roundies ,you are not only predictable, but the copy paste wisdom has clouded your minds up to a point of no return...... please claim your own senses back before it is to late......
Really? All I see out of you is  ridicule because you are simply ignorant of the facts of this case.

I'm afraid your own self-indoctrination has blinded you to the real world. I've still got all my senses, thank you!

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #62 on: March 03, 2018, 05:05:39 AM »
Again the flatearther is vastly outnumbered by a pack of hungry roundies.

Roundies that don't understand that 'simplifying simulations/calculations' is a misnomer in our days of petaflop calculations within the largest governmental mainframes.

Roundies ,you are not only predictable, but the copy paste wisdom has clouded your minds up to a point of no return...... please claim your own senses back before it is to late......
And yet, that's how it works.  Linear modeling simplifies the calculation process.  Even to the point of doing hand calculations.  There's nothing nefarious.

And, as I’ve already posted, the dynamics on an airframe would not be any different in a flat earth than a round earth.  To imply this paper builds the shape of the earth into the equations of state makes no sense.  AAMOF, the equations supposed to independent of any planet or terrain.  This paper did not create a new model.  It provides the derivations for a model that already existed.

Mike
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2018, 06:55:07 AM »
Again the flatearther is vastly outnumbered by a pack of hungry roundies.

Roundies that don't understand that 'simplifying simulations/calculations' is a misnomer in our days of petaflop calculations within the largest governmental mainframes.
I think that "Roundies" understand these things far better than you,  Mr Know-it-all on things you know nothing about.

You claim, "is a misnomer in our days of petaflop calculations", but even if that were true, that paper was written 30 years ago, when there were no computers with petaflop calculation speeds. Had you bothered to read the following you would know that.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And the quote from Quora:
Quote
... until you come across real development or computational limits.
The cited paper is from 1988. Computers were much weaker back then.
For perspective, the Cray Y-MP was sold that year. Its peak performance
was 333 megaflops. She cost $15 million dollars.
While the comparison is not quite valid, on most counts the Cray Y-MP was inferior to an iPhone 6.

NASA now has a Pleiades 7.25 petaflop supercomputer but no-one in their mind would unnecessarily waste valuable time on that.

There is no need for that computing power for early design simulations when a linearised rigid and constant mass model over a flat non-rotating earth is almost as accurate in many situations.
The curvature and rotation make little difference except for slight changes in the effective g that depend on direction and speed.

The use of a linear simplified model in the early stages of any design is common practice in all branches of engineering.

Quote from: dutchy
Roundies ,you are not only predictable, but the copy paste wisdom has clouded your minds up to a point of no return...... please claim your own senses back before it is to late......
Really? All I see out of you is  ridicule because you are simply ignorant of the facts of this case.

I'm afraid your own self-indoctrination has blinded you to the real world. I've still got all my senses, thank you!
Silly rabbi, they supposedly calculated the orbit of the explorer 1 satellite, without being able to adjust anything on the fly from the ground...but it magically worked.... hurray for 1958 technologies

And their pre 'calculated' trajectories 'around the simplified 'two layered Van Allen Belts of 1969' with a mere 2-3 Mb mainfraim and 24k onboard computing power.
But it magically worked..... hurray for 1969 technologies...

Poor rabbi who sold his senses long ago......but i'll play along if that makes you happy  ;D


*

Cahaya

  • 420
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2018, 07:29:19 AM »
Again the flatearther is vastly outnumbered by a pack of hungry roundies.

Roundies that don't understand that 'simplifying simulations/calculations' is a misnomer in our days of petaflop calculations within the largest governmental mainframes.
I think that "Roundies" understand these things far better than you,  Mr Know-it-all on things you know nothing about.

You claim, "is a misnomer in our days of petaflop calculations", but even if that were true, that paper was written 30 years ago, when there were no computers with petaflop calculation speeds. Had you bothered to read the following you would know that.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And the quote from Quora:
Quote
... until you come across real development or computational limits.
The cited paper is from 1988. Computers were much weaker back then.
For perspective, the Cray Y-MP was sold that year. Its peak performance
was 333 megaflops. She cost $15 million dollars.
While the comparison is not quite valid, on most counts the Cray Y-MP was inferior to an iPhone 6.

NASA now has a Pleiades 7.25 petaflop supercomputer but no-one in their mind would unnecessarily waste valuable time on that.

There is no need for that computing power for early design simulations when a linearised rigid and constant mass model over a flat non-rotating earth is almost as accurate in many situations.
The curvature and rotation make little difference except for slight changes in the effective g that depend on direction and speed.

The use of a linear simplified model in the early stages of any design is common practice in all branches of engineering.

Quote from: dutchy
Roundies ,you are not only predictable, but the copy paste wisdom has clouded your minds up to a point of no return...... please claim your own senses back before it is to late......
Really? All I see out of you is  ridicule because you are simply ignorant of the facts of this case.

I'm afraid your own self-indoctrination has blinded you to the real world. I've still got all my senses, thank you!
Silly rabbi, they supposedly calculated the orbit of the explorer 1 satellite, without being able to adjust anything on the fly from the ground...but it magically worked.... hurray for 1958 technologies

And their pre 'calculated' trajectories 'around the simplified 'two layered Van Allen Belts of 1969' with a mere 2-3 Mb mainfraim and 24k onboard computing power.
But it magically worked..... hurray for 1969 technologies...

Poor rabbi who sold his senses long ago......but i'll play along if that makes you happy  ;D

Or an example of how effective those simplifying techniques are, nothing magical at all

*

Fild

  • 40
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2018, 08:33:41 AM »
Pictures taken from a U2 spy plane at an altitude of 70000 feet !


FE'rs see CGI,lies, deception, distortion !

We RE'rs see simple beauty .









More of them :
https://theaviationist.com/2018/02/24/check-out-these-amazing-photos-taken-by-a-u-2-pilot-at-the-edge-of-space/

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #66 on: March 03, 2018, 09:53:47 AM »
Silly rabbi, they supposedly calculated the orbit of the explorer 1 satellite, without being able to adjust anything on the fly from the ground...but it magically worked.... hurray for 1958 technologies
I've told you this before, but you're still wrong.  It didn't magically work.  Explorer 1 didn't go where they calculated.  It didn't magically work at all.  It went into a higher orbit than they had planned.  Fortunately, getting into an orbit was more important than the orbit they had planned.  You speak about it like it went perfectly and it didn't; it's just the error wasn't important to the result.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #67 on: March 03, 2018, 10:37:22 AM »
Silly rabbi, they supposedly calculated the orbit of the explorer 1 satellite, without being able to adjust anything on the fly from the ground...but it magically worked.... hurray for 1958 technologies
I've told you this before, but you're still wrong.  It didn't magically work.  Explorer 1 didn't go where they calculated.  It didn't magically work at all.  It went into a higher orbit than they had planned.  Fortunately, getting into an orbit was more important than the orbit they had planned.  You speak about it like it went perfectly and it didn't; it's just the error wasn't important to the result.
So getting something to 'orbit' earth is actually something that is fairly straight forward ?
Shoot a rocket into the skies and deploy a satellite approximately where you aimed it.....
A few km further away, or a slightly different velocity doesn't matter much..... the satellite will find a higher or lower orbit and in the worst case scenario the orbit becomes a little more elliptical.......is that what you are trying to tell me ?

This place is a kind of 'hammer house of horrors' .... everytime you think reason has reached an all time low, some sinister post makes you realise that we can go even deeper into the abyss of absurdities and outlandish claims.....
But i know people will electrocute eachoter when asked for by the authoriative 'lab coat'.
Like Milgram showed , the vast majority will electrocute a supposed victim...... of course they will believe the jargon from the lab coats about space achievements and other cosmological manure...
« Last Edit: March 03, 2018, 11:03:04 AM by dutchy »

*

nickrulercreator

  • 244
  • It's round. That much is true
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #68 on: March 03, 2018, 11:13:25 AM »
Pictures taken from a U2 spy plane at an altitude of 70000 feet !


FE'rs see CGI,lies, deception, distortion !

We RE'rs see simple beauty .









More of them :
https://theaviationist.com/2018/02/24/check-out-these-amazing-photos-taken-by-a-u-2-pilot-at-the-edge-of-space/

So beautiful.
he puts his penis in the mouth of the other one and FORCIBLY GIVES HER A BLOWJOB OF TRUTH and then his penis ERRUPTS IN AN EXPLOSION IF TRUTH and she is INSTANTLY DECAPITATED

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #69 on: March 03, 2018, 11:30:23 AM »




Of course the visible curve in the photograph is an accurate representation of the globe's curvature.....

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #70 on: March 03, 2018, 12:14:09 PM »
Silly rabbi, they supposedly calculated the orbit of the explorer 1 satellite, without being able to adjust anything on the fly from the ground...but it magically worked.... hurray for 1958 technologies
I've told you this before, but you're still wrong.  It didn't magically work.  Explorer 1 didn't go where they calculated.  It didn't magically work at all.  It went into a higher orbit than they had planned.  Fortunately, getting into an orbit was more important than the orbit they had planned.  You speak about it like it went perfectly and it didn't; it's just the error wasn't important to the result.
So getting something to 'orbit' earth is actually something that is fairly straight forward ?

At the time Explorer 1 was launched, putting something into orbit was anything but straightforward. In the 60 years since then, we've learned a lot and the techniques and equipment are far, far, more capable and vastly more reliable. Even so, things still sometimes go awry because they rely on very complex equipment and managing a lot of energy.

Quote
Shoot a rocket into the skies and deploy a satellite approximately where you aimed it.....
A few km further away, or a slightly different velocity doesn't matter much..... the satellite will find a higher or lower orbit and in the worst case scenario the orbit becomes a little more elliptical.......is that what you are trying to tell me ?

At the time the earliest satellites were launched, that's about it.

Now, we usually need to do better than that. Fortunately, we have lots of experience and much better systems, so it's not only possible, but routine to "adjust many things on the fly from the ground" or even autonomously.

A notable recent exception was the SpaceX Falcon Heavy test launch, where a "hot" final stage burn put the sports car into a significantly higher solar orbit than intended. In that case, since it was only a test with a (clever) dummy payload and solar orbit, where there is little traffic, the non-nominal orbit was of no consequence whatsoever.

Quote
This place is a kind of 'hammer house of horrors' .... everytime you think reason has reached an all time low, some sinister post makes you realise that we can go even deeper into the abyss of absurdities and outlandish claims.....

You're the only one that can improve your reasoning. All we can do is show you where your errors are.

Quote
But i know people will electrocute eachoter when asked for by the authoriative 'lab coat'.
Like Milgram showed , the vast majority will electrocute a supposed victim...... of course they will believe the jargon from the lab coats about space achievements and other cosmological manure...

What?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #71 on: March 03, 2018, 02:16:52 PM »
Really? All I see out of you is ridicule because you are simply ignorant of the facts of this case.

I'm afraid your own self-indoctrination has blinded you to the real world. I've still got all my senses, thank you!
Silly rabbi, they supposedly calculated the orbit of the explorer 1 satellite, without being able to adjust anything on the fly from the ground...but it magically worked.... hurray for 1958 technologies
Silly dutchy thinks that just because he can't do something, it can't be done. I'm not too proud to admit that there are many people that know far more than I.
Like Oscar Wilde, I know that, "I am not young enough to know everything."

Well, the Explorer 1 launch was done, but possibly because they had little instrumentation and were not "able to adjust anything on the fly from the ground" it did not go exactly according to plan.
Quote
Explorer 1

Flight
After a jet stream-related delay on 28 January 1958, at 10:48:16 PM Eastern Time on 31 January the Juno I rocket was launched, putting Explorer 1 into orbit with a perigee of 358 kilometers (222 mi) and an apogee of 2,550 kilometers (1,580 mi) having a period of 114.8 minutes. Goldstone Tracking Station could not report after 90 minutes as planned whether the launch had succeeded because the orbit was larger than expected. At about 1:30 a.m. ET, after confirming that Explorer 1 was indeed in orbit, a news conference was held in the Great Hall at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC to announce it to the world.

From: Explorer 1
Read more in: THE ORBIT of EXPLORER - 1, by Willy Ley

By the way, you talk about the Van Allen Belts, well
Quote
The primary science instrument on Explorer 1 was a cosmic ray detector designed to measure the radiation environment in Earth orbit. Once in space this experiment, provided by Dr. James Van Allen of the University of Iowa, revealed a much lower cosmic ray count than expected. Van Allen theorized that the instrument may have been saturated by very strong radiation from a belt of charged particles trapped in space by Earth's magnetic field. The existence of these radiation belts was confirmed by another U.S. satellite launched two months later, and they became known as the Van Allen Belts in honor of their discoverer.

From: Explorer 1 Overview
;D ;D Here see how you like these apples;D ;D
Quote
NASA engineers used slide rules to build the rockets and plan the mission that landed Apollo 11 on the moon. It's said that Buzz Aldrin needed his pocket slide rule for last-minute calculations before landing.

The Slide Rule: A Computing Device That Put A Man On The Moon
No pocket electronic calculators back there!

Dutchy, don't ridicule things that you know nothing about.

Quote from: dutchy
And their pre 'calculated' trajectories 'around the simplified 'two layered Van Allen Belts of 1969' with a mere 2-3 Mb mainfraim and 24k onboard computing power.
But it magically worked..... hurray for 1969 technologies...
So glad that ;) you agree  ;) with "magically worked..... hurray for 1969 technologies".

;D ;D ;D And it gets much "worse" than you can ever imagine!  ;D ;D ;D
In the earlier days these were calculated by a team of "human computers", see

Katherine G. Johnson
These women were the "computers" that did the orbital calculations for the early space missions.
Quote from: A.K. WHITNEY
The Black Female Mathematicians Who Sent Astronauts to Space
space program, starting with the Mercury missions in the ‘50s and early ‘60s, through the Apollo moon missions in the late ’60s and early ‘70s, and ending with the space shuttle missions in the mid '80s. Among other things, she calculated the trajectories of America's first manned mission into orbit and the first Moon landing.

From: The Black Female Mathematicians Who Sent Astronauts to Space

Quote from: dutchy
Poor rabbi who sold his senses long ago......but i'll play along if that makes you happy  ;D
Really? You come up with silly claims like "Poor rabbi who sold his senses long ago" all the time. Ad hominem attacks just indicate that you have nothing!
All you can come up with are insults, ridicule and claims that it can't be done! No facts, no evidence, just your own ignorant ideas.

Look get out and read the tremendous amount of material on all topics, from astronomy right through to the tremendous amount of design effort that did go into the early space missions.

At least you might not seem to be so ignorant of these things.

Have fun!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #72 on: March 03, 2018, 02:31:49 PM »


<< You don't HAVE to fill the whole screen to get your point over! >>

Of course the visible curve in the photograph is an accurate representation of the globe's curvature.....
I agree, that photo from 70,000 ft shows excessive curvature due to the lens' "barrel-distortion", but I do claim that the one on the right below is a fair indication of the curvature from 121,000 ft.

Sure, like these three photos from the same FLAT EARTH ADDICT's balloon flight!
Flat earthers do their balloon flights, come up with photos like the one on the left and claim "look no curvature (yes they really did present that photo):

121,000ft Little Piggy High Altitude Balloon Flight FULL LENGTH  FLAT EARTH ADDICT 06 at 0.00
   
121,000ft Little Piggy High Altitude Balloon Flight FULL LENGTH  FLAT EARTH ADDICT 06 at 6.09
   
121,000ft Little Piggy High Altitude Balloon Flight FULL LENGTH  FLAT EARTH ADDICT 06 at 6.34
Sure, "no curvature" from their camera with plenty of "barrel distortion", but at 6:09 in the same video there is vastly too much curvature. A lens with "barrel distortion" will give a reasonably undistorted image near the optical centre and 6:34 we see this, with about the expected curvature.
The frame on the left was actually presented as "proof" of "no curvature", yet the others come from the same balloon flight.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #73 on: March 03, 2018, 02:59:31 PM »
I did a search so this is simply cut and paste:-

All models are wrong. Some are useful.

These days there's a popular trend when simulating things to simulate every possible mechanism we can imagine. Those who think that way would agree with you. Why would you ever make a flat Earth model when everything is eventually going to make its first flight on a real rotating spherical-ish Earth?

This approach works great until you come across real development or computational limits. The cited paper is from 1988. Computers were much weaker back then. For perspective, the Cray Y-MP was sold that year. Its peak performance was 333 megaflops. She cost $15 million dollars. Contrast that to today. A Geforce GTX 1070 is capable of 6,500,000 megaflops (6.5 teraflops) and has a price tag of around $400.

In those days, you didn't waste computational power on frivolities. It turns out that for a vast array of aeronautical problems, the effects of a flat earth vs. round are minimal (much less the effects of rotating vs. not). If you're shooting a shell 15km, and need it to land with pinpoint precision, you need all that extra complexity. However, many aero problems include a guidance unit which would address any error due to Coriolis effects or the spherical ground the same way it would handle any other errors. It'd simply see it wasn't on the right path and make a correction. The other sources of error here, such as winds, play a far larger effect in deviations from a flight plan, so all the rotating and spherical effects can just get lost in the noise.

Even today, we still make flat Earth models. The reason is not computation time, like it was in 1988, but development time. The more things you model, the more things you need to develop, verify, and maintain. If a particular problem does not call for advanced models, why waste budget developing and maintaining them?

A real life example of this shows up in geoids. Quite often we can do all the modeling we need with a spherical Earth. However, sometimes we find that we need to model the Earth with its proper oblate shape, so we them switch to the WGS84 geoid, or any one of its brethren. The price: all sorts of fun complexities. When I say I have a "forward/right/down" body rotation matrix, is the "down" vector towards the center of the earth, or is it perpendicular to the geoid? On a sphere, they're the same. On an oblate spheroid, I have to take the time to figure out which one was intended. If I don't take the time, then I might as well have just used a sphere.


And here is where I found it where it goes into greater detail:-

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/319909/why-does-nasa-need-an-aircraft-model-flying-over-a-flat-and-nonrotating-earth
Again, this not really an answer to the question.

As a matter of fact, it is a highly disingenuous effort to push the whole topic to the back burner by some RE-tard!
Seems like a great answer.  What part of the question don't you think it addresses?

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #74 on: March 03, 2018, 03:36:09 PM »
Roundies that don't understand that 'simplifying simulations/calculations' is a misnomer in our days of petaflop calculations within the largest governmental mainframes.

Did you not read the detailed and thorough answer given a mere three hours after the question was posted?
 
Even today, we still make flat Earth models. The reason is not computation time, like it was in 1988, but development time. The more things you model, the more things you need to develop, verify, and maintain. If a particular problem does not call for advanced models, why waste budget developing and maintaining them?

Apparently you didn't.

Quote
Roundies ,you are not only predictable

Predictable, yes. Someone posts a question, several people go out of their way to not only answer, but answer in detail, often correctly, and frequently with links to reference material. You you make it sound that like that's a bad thing.
 
Quote
but the copy paste wisdom has clouded your minds up to a point of no return...... please claim your own senses back before it is to late......

If you think wisdom "clouds our minds", that might explain why you and some others try to avoid it as much as possible.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #75 on: March 05, 2018, 06:07:35 AM »
Boy, you people are slacking...

No body has answered the question yet?

Why mention, "constant mass," at all, especially if it is non-existent?

Why mention, "flat, non-rotating," earth if it is non-existent?

All of you are sorry trolls...

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42967
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #76 on: March 05, 2018, 06:19:05 AM »
The questions were answered (to simplify the model by eliminating variables that don't matter).  Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean that they weren't provided.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #77 on: March 05, 2018, 06:23:30 AM »
The questions were answered (to simplify the model by eliminating variables that don't matter).  Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean that they weren't provided.
Wrong, shitty pants penguin...

You eliminate a variable you do not describe it all...

You add a variable, you specifically describe it...

Shill harder...

Come on!

There is a nice anchovy in it for you...

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42967
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #78 on: March 05, 2018, 06:29:09 AM »
The questions were answered (to simplify the model by eliminating variables that don't matter).  Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean that they weren't provided.
Wrong, shitty pants penguin...

You eliminate a variable you do not describe it all...

You add a variable, you specifically describe it...
If you turn a variable into a constant, have you not eliminated the variable?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #79 on: March 05, 2018, 06:30:54 AM »
This is funny given totallackey's last post.

From two years ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/theworldisflat/comments/3npjsx/nasa_document_from_1988_uses_specific_language_to/

"It's basically a textbook on how to construct a model. A model, if you don't know what it is, is a simplified description, especially a mathematical one, of a system or process, to assist calculations and predictions. Key word here is simplified. Sure, you could build a really complicated model that takes everything into account, but for a lot of calculations a simple one that ignores negligible effects is good enough. This document shows you how to construct a simple model for aircraft flight. Simple models are used all the time, such as the ones that assume masses are just points with no volume or models that ignore the effects of atmospheric resistance. That doesn't mean objects have no volume or there is no such thing as air resistance.

And just to get all the following discussion out of the way, you're going to accuse me of replying to your post with facts instead of just accepting it, I'll ask you to address the argument instead of just making insinuations, you'll keep implying I'm a shill because that's the only reason anyone would bother clearing up misconceptions on the internet and ultimately dodge the question. This way we don't have to keep making unnecessary posts."
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 06:43:58 AM by rvlvr »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42967
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #80 on: March 05, 2018, 06:39:27 AM »
I could be wrong, but as near as I can tell, that linear aircraft model is pretty much a computerized equivalent to putting a model airplane into a wind tunnel for testing.  In a wind tunnel, you essentially have a flat, non-rotating earth and a rigid aircraft with a constant mass.

Seriously, just another case of totallakey making much ado about nothing.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #81 on: March 05, 2018, 06:43:23 AM »
The questions were answered (to simplify the model by eliminating variables that don't matter).  Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean that they weren't provided.
Wrong, shitty pants penguin...

You eliminate a variable you do not describe it all...

You add a variable, you specifically describe it...
If you turn a variable into a constant, have you not eliminated the variable?
Where did I mention turning a variable into a constant?

WTF is the matter with you?

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #82 on: March 05, 2018, 06:46:21 AM »
This is funny given totallackey's last post.

From two years ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/theworldisflat/comments/3npjsx/nasa_document_from_1988_uses_specific_language_to/

"It's basically a textbook on how to construct a model. A model, if you don't know what it is, is a simplified description, especially a mathematical one, of a system or process, to assist calculations and predictions. Key word here is simplified. Sure, you could build a really complicated model that takes everything into account, but for a lot of calculations a simple one that ignores negligible effects is good enough. This document shows you how to construct a simple model for aircraft flight. Simple models are used all the time, such as the ones that assume masses are just points with no volume or models that ignore the effects of atmospheric resistance. That doesn't mean objects have no volume or there is no such thing as air resistance.

And just to get all the following discussion out of the way, you're going to accuse me of replying to your post with facts instead of just accepting it, I'll ask you to address the argument instead of just making insinuations, you'll keep implying I'm a shill because that's the only reason anyone would bother clearing up misconceptions on the internet and ultimately dodge the question. This way we don't have to keep making unnecessary posts."

Everyone complains about their paid job, for the most part...

Especially shills on the internet!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42967
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #83 on: March 05, 2018, 06:48:58 AM »
The questions were answered (to simplify the model by eliminating variables that don't matter).  Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean that they weren't provided.
Wrong, shitty pants penguin...

You eliminate a variable you do not describe it all...

You add a variable, you specifically describe it...
If you turn a variable into a constant, have you not eliminated the variable?
Where did I mention turning a variable into a constant?

WTF is the matter with you?
What did you think that they meant when they said "constant mass" and "flat, non-rotating earth"?    The size, shape and motion of the earth, along with the mass of the aircraft are variables in the real world that were turned into constants in the model.  They were eliminated as variables but not as parameters.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #84 on: March 05, 2018, 07:19:27 AM »
The questions were answered (to simplify the model by eliminating variables that don't matter).  Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean that they weren't provided.
Wrong, shitty pants penguin...

You eliminate a variable you do not describe it all...

You add a variable, you specifically describe it...
If you turn a variable into a constant, have you not eliminated the variable?
Where did I mention turning a variable into a constant?

WTF is the matter with you?
What did you think that they meant when they said "constant mass" and "flat, non-rotating earth"?    The size, shape and motion of the earth, along with the mass of the aircraft are variables in the real world that were turned into constants in the model.  They were eliminated as variables but not as parameters.
NASA possesses an airframe that will not lose mass, as it does not use conventional energy sources.

NASA already knows the Earth is flat and immovable.

Occam's Razor...simplest explanation for the paper.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 07:23:27 AM by totallackey »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42967
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #85 on: March 05, 2018, 07:21:27 AM »
The questions were answered (to simplify the model by eliminating variables that don't matter).  Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean that they weren't provided.
Wrong, shitty pants penguin...

You eliminate a variable you do not describe it all...

You add a variable, you specifically describe it...
If you turn a variable into a constant, have you not eliminated the variable?
Where did I mention turning a variable into a constant?

WTF is the matter with you?
What did you think that they meant when they said "constant mass" and "flat, non-rotating earth"?    The size, shape and motion of the earth, along with the mass of the aircraft are variables in the real world that were turned into constants in the model.  They were eliminated as variables but not as parameters.
NASA an airframe that will not lose mass, as it does not use conventional energy sources.

NASA already knows the Earth is flat and immovable.

Occam's Razor...simplest explanation for the paper.

Did you miss, or just ignore this post:
I could be wrong, but as near as I can tell, that linear aircraft model is pretty much a computerized equivalent to putting a model airplane into a wind tunnel for testing.  In a wind tunnel, you essentially have a flat, non-rotating earth and a rigid aircraft with a constant mass.

Seriously, just another case of totallakey making much ado about nothing.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #86 on: March 05, 2018, 07:25:11 AM »
Did you miss, or just ignore this post:
I could be wrong, but as near as I can tell, that linear aircraft model is pretty much a computerized equivalent to putting a model airplane into a wind tunnel for testing.  In a wind tunnel, you essentially have a flat, non-rotating earth and a rigid aircraft with a constant mass.

Seriously, just another case of totallakey making much ado about nothing.
I gave it all the respect it has coming...

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #87 on: March 05, 2018, 07:47:45 AM »
Boy, you people are slacking...

No body has answered the question yet?

Why mention, "constant mass," at all, especially if it is non-existent?

Why mention, "flat, non-rotating," earth if it is non-existent?

All of you are sorry trolls...
Maybe I didn't explain it correctly.  It isn't so much eliminated as it is superimposed on the CG of the aircraft.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that the dynamics aren't any different whether it's on a globe or a flat earth.

So, I ask you.  What does it matter what terminology is used when the actual analytical solution is independent of the shape of the earth?

Mike
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #88 on: March 05, 2018, 09:40:06 AM »
Boy, you people are slacking...

No body has answered the question yet?

Why mention, "constant mass," at all, especially if it is non-existent?

Why mention, "flat, non-rotating," earth if it is non-existent?

All of you are sorry trolls...
Maybe I didn't explain it correctly.  It isn't so much eliminated as it is superimposed on the CG of the aircraft.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that the dynamics aren't any different whether it's on a globe or a flat earth.

So, I ask you.  What does it matter what terminology is used when the actual analytical solution is independent of the shape of the earth?

Mike
You are asking the wrong person.

The person writing the paper saw fit to specifically mention THREE criteria when it came to the model.

1) A plane of CONSTANT MASS!

2) A flat earth!

3) A non-rotating earth!

Evidently, DESPITE YOUR PROTESTS, IT DOES MATTER!

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #89 on: March 05, 2018, 09:47:03 AM »
What does a plane of constant mass mean in this context? Is it another NASA conspiracy thing? What do you think it should tell us?