Quote (card_sultan @ Nov 24 2017 04:32pm)
Astro science is just a bunch of agreed upon theories that are pretty stupid, advanced math doesn't prove reality and unlimited proof - k waiting for one.
Say blind to your Heliocult.
https://i.imgur.com/O1WePWe.jpgQuote (ChivasRegal @ Nov 24 2017 07:30pm)
I love how you show documented proof of nasa openly admitting the earth is flat & stationary and they just dismiss it LOL....."oh I'm not indoctrinated, I just can't accept those facts"
Oh man, you guys never cease to amaze me.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdfQuote
The need for linear models of aircraft for the analysis of vehicle dynamics and control law design is well known. These models are widely used, not only for computer applications but also for quick approximations and desk calculations.
A model, you tards, is never exactly the same as the real thing it represents. "All models are wrong, some are useful". A linear model is much simpler and easier to use, and it gets good enough results for many applications. The paper you clowns are talking about is for a computer program written in 1988 for a computer that's less powerful than a modern watch. Just like your pitiful brains, these machines were simply incapable of processing more complex models. Developing the software was also very difficult.
Can't wait until you find out Newtonian physics is actually wrong and prove gravity is not real with a screenshot.