These are papers written under the premise of a flat earth; that does not mean that they are considering the earth flat, it just means that for the purpose of the work within the paper, they are. For applications where fine precision or low scale engineering is necessary, the inclusion of the more complex factors of a rotating round earth are not necessary, and make the problem more complex. What these papers appear to talk about are phenomenon that are small enough scale that they can be calculated with decent accuracy in a more controlled (flat and non moving earth) environment.
They most certainly leave out n-body calculations in these papers as well (the effects of other planets/moons on the aircraft/etc. in question), does that mean the moon doesn't exist or those effects don't exist? No! It just means that the effects are so marginally small in this application that they can be ignored.
Further articles described here include the effects of air resistance on unguided missiles at extreme altitude (NOT the effects of a round earth), programs to fine tune fly-by-wire adjustments in aircraft (again, earth's roundness is irrelevant), landing in changing wind conditions, and helicopter rotor characteristics.
All simulation relies on simplification. These papers are attempting to derive complex factors into a simplified set of equations and data that could, if need be, be injected into a more complicated system. This cannot be done without isolating those factors as much as possible; in other words, following one of the most fundamental principles of science [keep experiments, etc. to only one variable if you are seeking to determine value for that variable].
Let me ask you a question. If you wanted to figure out how your best friend would react to you buying a new truck of a certain kind, would you take into account what your mother would think in your best friend's reaction? (assuming they're not the same person). No, because the impact of what your mother thinks on what your best friend would think would be minimal. That's what is going on here, as well.
Source 2:
Context: If this video upload date is accurate to the interview date, Buzz Aldrin would have been 88 years old; you can see that age in how he responds pretty clearly; as with most senior folk, it has reduced the clarity of his speech to some degree. Anyway, here is my interpretation of what is being said here:
The girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?"
Aldrin: "hah! That's not an 8-year-old's question. That's my question [why haven't we gone back to the moon yet]. I wanna know. But I think I know. Because we didn't go there [in a long time]... and that's the way it happened... and if it didn't happen [us going back to the moon], it's nice to know why it didn't happen, so in the future, if we want to keep doing something [going to the moon], we need to know why... something stopped - in the past, we wanted to keep going."
Regardless of your interpretation, it's clear he is struggling to be clear in his response. But it seems pretty clear to me he is reiterating the same question she asked and explaining its importance, likely because he doesn't have an answer for himself. He is saying, "You're right, why didn't we go back to the moon? I think I know, but either way, it's a good question to ask, because, like it or not, we haven't gone back in a long time, and we should look at why if we want to go back again."
Keep in mind this is the same man that, within the past ten years, punched someone for saying he didn't go to the moon. (crappily edited video, but it's the only one I could quickly find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQKVdVqFZv0)
Is that the way that most DS actors respond when their lies are threatened? Not that I've ever seen, usually they either run, double down, both, or go to the media to slam the guy. They never have the balls to open one on one combat.
Source 3:
He's exactly damn right, we didn't even have the tech to put ourselves in space without Russian help until very recently.
Why?
1.) All machines degrade over time. There was no way or reason to preserve a moon rocket all this time; anything from that time would have immensely degraded.
2.) The technology from that time was extremely dangerous and unreliable; there's absolutely no way the risk would be considered acceptable today, given the rate of failure and the level of risk involved for those early rockets. The computer in one is less powerful than the one in a tiny little phone, for God's sake.
3.) The moon landing rockets were also incredibly inefficient; they relied on complex and usually hand calculated math to almost blindly fire someone into the right orbital path to reach the moon. Because of the probability of failure, this meant huge margins were included, either out of error, redundancy, or lack of more efficient calculations (that may have been vastly more complex).
4.) It was really damn expensive, and going to the moon outside of beating the Soviets in what was effectively an engineering race had little to no real purpose, as it isn't exactly hospitable for human beings.
Do we still have the blueprints? Sure. Do we have production lines for the materials and components? No. Do we have any reason to utilize the old rocket versus developing a new one? Definitely not. Why not make a new one, then, you ask?
Funding. Private corporations are working on it, but they're more preoccupied with "cheap" ways of reaching orbit (reusable rockets), and rightfully so. To do anything meaningful on the moon would mean shit loads of stuff sent there, so shitloads of rockets. Without an easy way to orbit, that would be more expensive than anyone is willing to put money into.
There are other teams and plans working on the moon-specific tech, though. They're effectively starting from scratch, because technology available to us is so dramatically different that trying to develop a modern moon rocket from the old would be akin to developing the next generation of fighter jet off of da Vinci's flying machine.
I've watched and listened to hours and hours of flat earth bullshit. The whole time it's constantly partial truths (or flat out lies) that I am pulling out, and it's like pulling nails. Inaccuracy passed off as accuracy with a massive dose of spin/propaganda put on top: "this is the truth, here's how, but this is also the truth, we're not going to present it objectively".
I've argued this shit with people on here countless times. I can give people experiments and math that are as simple as grabbing a friend, taking a short bike ride away, and both of you measuring shadows at the same time. Then you do math and find the earth is round based on how the shadows are cast. If you're really willing to try it, you can ask me for the details, but as it stands I've put an exuberant amount of time into this post already and it will likely go mostly ignored.
I can give people real world applications of round-earth physics that they can relatively easily go verify, such as the calculations for long-range artillery (or naval) gunnery, or aircraft navigational patterns and systems, or large bridge design, or weather pattern analysis, or mapping methodology and projections.
Almost every time, without fail, flat earthers plug their ears and pretend it doesn't exist, returning to argue for it again and again with illogical arguments that are readily debunked as disingenuous and fallacious. Yet so many are willing to accuse us of being NPC's.
Has Trump said the earth is flat? Q specifically said the earth is not flat. Why the fuck bring this nonsense here, when it is so absurdly counter to all of the people and principles and even context or relevance of the movement?
I'll bite.
Source 1:
These are papers written under the premise of a flat earth; that does not mean that they are considering the earth flat, it just means that for the purpose of the work within the paper, they are. For applications where fine precision or low scale engineering is necessary, the inclusion of the more complex factors of a rotating round earth are not necessary, and make the problem more complex. What these papers appear to talk about are phenomenon that are small enough scale that they can be calculated with decent accuracy in a more controlled (flat and non moving earth) environment.
They most certainly leave out n-body calculations in these papers as well (the effects of other planets/moons on the aircraft/etc. in question), does that mean the moon doesn't exist or those effects don't exist? No! It just means that the effects are so marginally small in this application that they can be ignored.
Further articles described here include the effects of air resistance on unguided missiles at extreme altitude (NOT the effects of a round earth), programs to fine tune fly-by-wire adjustments in aircraft (again, earth's roundness is irrelevant), landing in changing wind conditions, and helicopter rotor characteristics.
All simulation relies on simplification. These papers are attempting to derive complex factors into a simplified set of equations and data that could, if need be, be injected into a more complicated system. This cannot be done without isolating those factors as much as possible; in other words, following one of the most fundamental principles of science [keep experiments, etc. to only one variable if you are seeking to determine value for that variable].
Let me ask you a question. If you wanted to figure out how your best friend would react to you buying a new truck of a certain kind, would you take into account what your mother would think in your best friend's reaction? (assuming they're not the same person). No, because the impact of what your mother thinks on what your best friend would think would be minimal. That's what is going on here, as well.
Source 2:
Context: If this video upload date is accurate to the interview date, Buzz Aldrin would have been 88 years old; you can see that age in how he responds pretty clearly; as with most senior folk, it has reduced the clarity of his speech to some degree. Anyway, here is my interpretation of what is being said here:
The girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?"
Aldrin: "hah! That's not an 8-year-old's question. That's my question [why haven't we gone back to the moon yet]. I wanna know. But I think I know. Because we didn't go there [in a long time]... and that's the way it happened... and if it didn't happen [us going back to the moon], it's nice to know why it didn't happen, so in the future, if we want to keep doing something [going to the moon], we need to know why... something stopped - in the past, we wanted to keep going."
Regardless of your interpretation, it's clear he is struggling to be clear in his response. But it seems pretty clear to me he is reiterating the same question she asked and explaining its importance, likely because he doesn't have an answer for himself. He is saying, "You're right, why didn't we go back to the moon? I think I know, but either way, it's a good question to ask, because, like it or not, we haven't gone back in a long time, and we should look at why if we want to go back again."
Keep in mind this is the same man that, within the past ten years, punched someone for saying he didn't go to the moon. (crappily edited video, but it's the only one I could quickly find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQKVdVqFZv0)
Is that the way that most DS actors respond when their lies are threatened? Not that I've ever seen, usually they either run, double down, both, or go to the media to slam the guy. They never have the balls to open one on one combat.
Source 3: He's exactly damn right, we didn't even have the tech to put ourselves in space without Russian help until very recently.
Why? 1.) All machines degrade over time. There was no way or reason to preserve a moon rocket all this time; anything from that time would have immensely degraded. 2.) The technology from that time was extremely dangerous and unreliable; there's absolutely no way the risk would be considered acceptable today, given the rate of failure and the level of risk involved for those early rockets. The computer in one is less powerful than the one in a tiny little phone, for God's sake. 3.) The moon landing rockets were also incredibly inefficient; they relied on complex and usually hand calculated math to almost blindly fire someone into the right orbital path to reach the moon. Because of the probability of failure, this meant huge margins were included, either out of error, redundancy, or lack of more efficient calculations (that may have been vastly more complex). 4.) It was really damn expensive, and going to the moon outside of beating the Soviets in what was effectively an engineering race had little to no real purpose, as it isn't exactly hospitable for human beings.
Do we still have the blueprints? Sure. Do we have production lines for the materials and components? No. Do we have any reason to utilize the old rocket versus developing a new one? Definitely not. Why not make a new one, then, you ask?
Funding. Private corporations are working on it, but they're more preoccupied with "cheap" ways of reaching orbit (reusable rockets), and rightfully so. To do anything meaningful on the moon would mean shit loads of stuff sent there, so shitloads of rockets. Without an easy way to orbit, that would be more expensive than anyone is willing to put money into.
There are other teams and plans working on the moon-specific tech, though. They're effectively starting from scratch, because technology available to us is so dramatically different that trying to develop a modern moon rocket from the old would be akin to developing the next generation of fighter jet off of da Vinci's flying machine.
I've watched and listened to hours and hours of flat earth bullshit. The whole time it's constantly partial truths (or flat out lies) that I am pulling out, and it's like pulling nails. Inaccuracy passed off as accuracy with a massive dose of spin/propaganda put on top: "this is the truth, here's how, but this is also the truth, we're not going to present it objectively".
I've argued this shit with people on here countless times. I can give people experiments and math that are as simple as grabbing a friend, taking a short bike ride away, and both of you measuring shadows at the same time. Then you do math and find the earth is round based on how the shadows are cast. If you're really willing to try it, you can ask me for the details, but as it stands I've put an exuberant amount of time into this post already and it will likely go mostly ignored.
I can give people real world applications of round-earth physics that they can relatively easily go verify, such as the calculations for long-range artillery (or naval) gunnery, or aircraft navigational patterns and systems, or large bridge design, or weather pattern analysis, or mapping methodology and projections.
Almost every time, without fail, flat earthers plug their ears and pretend it doesn't exist, returning to argue for it again and again with illogical arguments that are readily debunked as disingenuous and fallacious. Yet so many are willing to accuse us of being NPC's.
Has Trump said the earth is flat? Q specifically said the earth is not flat. Why the fuck bring this nonsense here, when it is so absurdly counter to all of the people and principles and even context or relevance of the movement?