INS disproves FE.

Inertial navigation systems, such as those used by aircraft, submarines and so on, are able to detect if you are travelling in a yaw-free line, thus disproving the FE necessity for everyone to travel in a curve to the right when travelling west and a curve to the left when travelling east. Such extra "invisible" path curvature would be perfectly visible to an INS and is therefore disproved.
[/FES]

Inertial navigation systems, such as those used by aircraft, submarines and so on, are able to detect if you are travelling in a pitch-free line, thus disproving the RE necessity for everyone to travel in an upwards arc when travelling. Such extra "invisible" path curvature would be perfectly visible to an INS and is therefore disproved.
[/RET]

See? It cuts both ways.

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 05, 2011, 07:44:26 AM

Inertial navigation systems, such as those used by aircraft, submarines and so on, are able to detect if you are travelling in a pitch-free line, thus disproving the RE necessity for everyone to travel in an upwards arc when travelling. Such extra "invisible" path curvature would be perfectly visible to an INS and is therefore disproved.
[/RET]

See? It cuts both ways.

Such pitch plane curvature can indeed be detected by INS, correct, again adding evidence to the roundness of earth. Shot yourself in the foot there, didn't you? 

An INS doesn't work on a round earth. It has to be constantly adjusted.

Inertial navigation ... Its disadvantage is that since the current position is calculated solely from previous positions, its errors are cumulative, increasing at a rate roughly proportional to the time since the initial position was input. Inertial navigation systems must therefore be frequently corrected with a location 'fix' from some other type of navigation system.

INS is a hideous piece of crap. Its laughable you would hold such imperfection up as proof of rotundity. Desperation has truly set in.

An INS doesn't work on a round earth. It has to be constantly adjusted.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation

Inertial navigation ... Its disadvantage is that since the current position is calculated solely from previous positions, its errors are cumulative, increasing at a rate roughly proportional to the time since the initial position was input. Inertial navigation systems must therefore be frequently corrected with a location 'fix' from some other type of navigation system.

INS is a hideous piece of crap. Its laughable you would hold such imperfection up as proof of rotundity. Desperation has truly set in.

You pick and choose the sentences from that article that appear to say that the technology is rubbish.  Here is another quote from the same article that you quoted.

the system receives impulses from motion detectors that measure the acceleration along three or more axes enabling it to continually and accurately calculate the current latitude and longitude.

I think that this shows the technology is real, and works the way it is claimed to.

I have used INS. I don't rate it.

INS is a hideous piece of crap. Its laughable you would hold such imperfection up as proof of rotundity. Desperation has truly set in.

Way to cherry pick out the thing that helps your arguement. Thork that post was a fail ina very serious way. INS systems are in use all over the world right now doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

Since INS systems are based on tech that assumes a round earth, based on round earth physics, and work just fine, I woudl count this as evidence for a Round earth.

Woiuld you care to come up with some actual evidence that disproves the op?

INS needs constant adjustment. Fact. Therefore it is not working perfectly with round earth physics. This does not surprise me as the earth is flat. It certainly isn't proof that the earth is round. Its actually another reason to doubt it.

INS needs constant adjustment. Fact. Therefore it is not working perfectly with round earth physics. This does not surprise me as the earth is flat. It certainly isn't proof that the earth is round. Its actually another reason to doubt it.

Here is another quote from your source.

The US Navy developed a Ships Inertial Navigation System (SINS) during the Polaris missile program to ensure a safe, reliable and accurate navigation system for its missile submarines.

However it needs constant adjustment. All INS does. This being the case, what are you adjusting for? Earth not being as round as you suspected?

INS requires updating, and confirmation. These updates are all acording to plan and not a way to maintain or correct a bad system. That does not make it invalid. It needs these things because all of its measurements are internal.

Similar to standard navigation for a submarine. There are no windows and all you have ar e internal measurements. You have to make observations about course corrections while you are making them. Every so often you have to use sonar to check nearby terrain or surface to get an updated GPS reading. That does not make navigation in a submarine flawed. it shows the need to get a firm update for a system that cant do that on its own.

Besides you are blatantly dodging the point made by the op that the tech used by INS systems are based on RE physics. Gyroscopes and accelerometers on a spinning globe.

Do you want to add a new layer to the debates on the FES forra that requires a certain level of accuracy/standard deviation/normalisation to all measurements? These are parts of science that are also very well spelled out on a RE and will not help your position.

However it needs constant adjustment. All INS does. This being the case, what are you adjusting for? Earth not being as round as you suspected?

I just find it odd that the technology is considered accurate and reliable, yet you, Thork, claim it to be a "hideous piece of crap".  Apparently, navigators have been lying about the way they navigate for so many decades now.

However it needs constant adjustment. All INS does. This being the case, what are you adjusting for? Earth not being as round as you suspected?

wow man you are beign extra dense today.

Even in the Wikki article you referenced it explains what the corrections are about and why they are needed. They are not correcting for the shape of the earth, as it would not matter at that tiny local level. they are correcting for errors in inertial measurements. in order for these emchanisms to be usefull they have to be on a spinning globe to make any sense.

 the readins would be completley useless ona stationary disc, and only slightly les useless on a spinning disc. Stop debating the accuracy and speak to the tech.

INS needs constant adjustment. Fact. Therefore it is not working perfectly with round earth physics. This does not surprise me as the earth is flat. It certainly isn't proof that the earth is round. Its actually another reason to doubt it.

Oh yes, don't you pretend to be a pilot? Did you ever hear of an aircraft called Concorde? It used an INS as its primary navigational system and quite succesfully flew between New York and Paris. Yes, INS needs adjustment and according to the Wikipedia entry, the deviation is something in the range of 0.6 nautical miles per hour without adjustment. With the speeds Concorde flew, the curvature of its path that would be needed on a flat earth far exceeds the error that even an unadjusted INS would generate.
So what if INS needs adjustment? Doesn't mean it doesn't work.

wow man you are beign extra dense today.

Even in the Wikki article you referenced it explains what the corrections are about and why they are needed. They are not correcting for the shape of the earth, as it would not matter at that tiny local level. they are correcting for errors in inertial measurements. in order for these emchanisms to be usefull they have to be on a spinning globe to make any sense.

I know the excuses that are made, but I am not buying it. The problem is earth is not the shape they make it out to be.

INS cannot work on a round earth without correction because it is impractical to build a pendulum as long as the radius of earth with a swing time of 84 mins. Therefore it is never ever going to be accurate. The entire principle is flawed to make that equipment work on a round earth so even the concept of INS is flawed.

When it does not work and is full of all kinds of errors, how can you add them all up and say "it must be because earth is round". Why not "Earth must be shaped like a pygmy goat". You put as much thought into either conclusion.

If you don't have a clue what my post was about google schuler tuning and follow the breadcrumbs. You'll come out eventually in a small clearing by a ginger bread house of flatness. Its yummy.

Oh yes, don't you pretend to be a pilot? Did you ever hear of an aircraft called Concorde? It used an INS as its primary navigational system and quite succesfully flew between New York and Paris. Yes, INS needs adjustment and according to the Wikipedia entry, the deviation is something in the range of 0.6 nautical miles per hour without adjustment. With the speeds Concorde flew, the curvature of its path that would be needed on a flat earth far exceeds the error that even an unadjusted INS would generate.
So what if INS needs adjustment? Doesn't mean it doesn't work.

You don't understand INS. You are rewording things with no comprehension. Read moar and come back when you are up to speed.

LOL. Thork doesn't really understand INS at all and is sour that a noob has got one over on him. INS knocks the whole "You think you're going in a straight line but really you're going in a curve" argument on the head. I've seen Thork get creamed on these types of topic before, wasn't there one where he tried to claim GPS leads you in a curve too? 

LOL. Thork doesn't really understand INS at all and is sour that a noob has got one over on him. INS knocks the whole "You think you're going in a straight line but really you're going in a curve" argument on the head. I've seen Thork get creamed on these types of topic before, wasn't there one where he tried to claim GPS leads you in a curve too? 

you should stop posting. This conversation is obviously over your head and you are sucking the intelligence out of the debate.

In baby terms for you ... INS is a flat earth instrument. It is claimed that it is adjusted (schuler tuning) to compensate for earth's curvature. However this is impossible due get right as you can't make it big enough. So how eaxctly does that prove earth to be round? It makes this thread very silly. INS is a flat earth instrument.

Thork, denial is a very strong trait of character for you isn't it?

You're getting owned on this. You make yourself sound like an imbecile everytime you try to answer intelligently, which i assure you, you aren't.
You're stubborn person who has just been proved wrong on his whole way of thinking and simply can't accept it. Thats why you try and repeat things over and over again like a bad politician.
You're wrong, and i'm pretty sure that deep down inside you know you are.

Go ahead, disagree with me and further prove i'm right about you being in denial

Please, show how INS (a flat earth instrument) proves the earth round. Off you go. I have seen nothing in this thread other than RErs shout "INS, it works haha, so you're all wrong and dumb and earth is round". But it seems none of you know how it works, otherwise you wouldn't be using it as an example. Its a very bad one.

Using words like 'imbecile' and 'owned' doesn't make you look like you know what you are talking about and the armchair psychoanalysis only makes you look more amateur. I am looking for content in your rebuttal, and sadly I only see the floundering of an owned imbecile.

I have to admit. I feel like I am the noob here, and the very experienced troll is leading me under the bridge where I am about be shown pictures of him laughing and pointing at the screen while he was typing this whole thread out. If so: Congratulations sir. If not: You really need to do better with those reading comprehension skills.

INS cannot work on a round earth without correction because it is impractical to build a pendulum as long as the radius of earth with a swing time of 84 mins. Therefore it is never ever going to be accurate. The entire principle is flawed to make that equipment work on a round earth so even the concept of INS is flawed.

This is a non essential construct of the whole issue you are denying. Gyroscopes also behave in the manner described by the pendulum noted in Schulers experiments ad notes. That is to say that a stationaroy weight hanging from a string ( ie. a plumb bob) will point perpendicular to the average surface of the earth. You need not create a giant pendulum equivalent to the radius of the earth to observe this. Since gyroscopes will always self orient they can simulate htis plumb bob effect without the giant pendulum.

When it does not work and is full of all kinds of errors, how can you add them all up and say "it must be because earth is round". Why not "Earth must be shaped like a pygmy goat". You put as much thought into either conclusion.

This is simply a straw man arguement and a plea for ignorance. The tech that makes INS systems possible is not full of errors, and in fact it does work. Right now as we have this pedantic debate they are being used verry reliably all over the world. The errors are a product of making continuous internal measurements and then comparing them to a known fixed position to make sure nothing is going horribly wrong. Thats not a malfunction or a flaw, thats just good safe practice.


Whilel i am enjoying this thought experiment I would like you -Thork- to please come back to the OPs point. Which now that I think about it; INS would work well on a FE or a RE. Since it is based on a pendulum/gyroscope always pointing "down" it would be usefull in either model. I assert now that it woudl be better on a flat earth, and need far less correction due to the flatness of the earth. if it were flat.

I'm sorry Thork. It seems that your steadfast arguing for why it does not work and why it is a bad system only undermines the FE model.  Welcome to the round side.

So, you too agree INS is a FE instrument. Super.

So again, explain why INS proves earth round? The errors are what happens when you factor for a RE and then have to bodge the instruments accuracy to model RE on FE. Result, an instrument that needs constant recalibration.

So, you too agree INS is a FE instrument. Super.

When did I say that? I said that INS would work in either model and that it should work much better on a FE than a RE. its still a RE tool unless Schuler and every engineer to ever design or use INS systems are in on the conspiracy.

The errors are what happens when you factor for a RE and then have to bodge the instruments accuracy to model RE on FE.

The errors are not a point of contention. Whay can t you get this? The Tech is based on the self orientation properties of pendulums and gyroscopes in a gravitaionally influenced environment. I'm done trying to get this through to you. Please get the point of the arguement or move on.

Result, an instrument that needs constant recalibration.

This statement shows that you dont have a simple understanding of the term 'Calibrate'. The resulting readings and positional data are cross checked against known values to VERIFY.


And you still are dodging my new point:
       on a flat earth there would be no need for making RE corrections. So in the end the giant pile of errors that makes INS so useless by your own testimony is a big problem for FE.

Welcome to the round side Thork.

Yes, this thread has run its course because you have no where to go. INS doesn't prove earth round. As you state it works great on a flat earth. The cause of errors are just my word against yours.

I said that INS would work in either model and that it should work much better on a FE than a RE. its still a RE tool unless Schuler and every engineer to ever design or use INS systems are in on the conspiracy.

You have an instrument that as you say works better on a flat earth. You adjust for earth's curvature and now you have an instrument that needs constant adjustment and position fixes.

Why don't the alarm bells go off? How sucked in to a conspiracy must you be not to be able to make sense of such simple reasoning?

Yes, this thread has run its course because you have no where to go. INS doesn't prove earth round. As you state it works great on a flat earth. The cause of errors are just my word against yours.

Quote from: Sentient Pizza on October 05, 2011, 02:44:03 PM

I said that INS would work in either model and that it should work much better on a FE than a RE. its still a RE tool unless Schuler and every engineer to ever design or use INS systems are in on the conspiracy.

You have an instrument that as you say works better on a flat earth. You adjust for earth's curvature and now you have an instrument that needs constant adjustment and position fixes.

Why don't the alarm bells go off? How sucked in to a conspiracy must you be not to be able to make sense of such simple reasoning?

I believe you're mistaken. Even on a FE, the INS system would still require calibration. These errors, those not caused by the curvature of the Earth, are well understood and can be accounted for. Even after taking these errors into consideration, an additional error remains that cannot be described by internal friction, drift, etc. This error can be understood as an effect of the Earth being round. On a FE, this error wouldn't exist, so if the Earth isn't round, why do we get an error that matches up with a round Earth?

What error? Why do you assume there is an error that matches up with a round earth? Who told you there is one that matches that? You just assumed that it is there. You have not tested for it, you have no numbers, you purely have the reasoning the globularists give you to explain why their flat earth tool is working on a round earth. Well its not. Its working on a flat earth no thanks to the errors built in for earth's curvature, that make it an annoying instrument to use full of errors and corrections.

Thork........ its simple. You dodge the points, make straw man arguements, refuse to post on topic, and cherry pick whatever suits you. Then you clam a victory and tell me I have "no where to go".

For the last time:
The point to the OP is an assesment of the technology that makes the devise possible, and is based on the conclusions and physics of a RE.

1 - If you cant get this simple concept I dont know why you are posting in this thread.

2 - I have suggested several different explanations, and analagies so we can discuss this issue

3 - you insist that "INS is a hideous piece of crap." due to its grave innacuracy and needing constant adjustment, calibration, fixes, ect...  to acopenguin for the shape of the earth.

4 - I then come to the conclusion that INS would work better on a flat earth and based on that your 'errors"in the devise are evidense for a round earth.
        a. you completley ignored this
        b. you went on to assume that I suddenly agrred with you position o it being a FE devise
        c. and did not respond to the point

5 - have begun ad homenim attacks about my involvement in the conspiracy, thus bringing the topic further away for the OP

6 - you still refuse to get or respond to the difference between confirming position after a time period and correcting for the shape of the earth.
        a. thats a huge leap to make with no evidence

7 - you seem to think that your asertions based on articles YOU referenced can be completley inverse to the conclusions made in those articles
        a. you still ignore the data in the articles
        b. you still cherry pick evidense out of context
        c. you get to make asertions based on "seems to me" but I am the one who is deep in the conspiracy
        d. You provide no evidense then tell others they have not provided any

My conclusion based on how this thread has gone and how many times I have tried to get even a comment on topic:
 1 - you are a master troll
 2 - you are in over your head and dont have the dignity to admit it

I do not claim a victory or a loss here since we could not even get to agree about what the issues are for this topic.
I have wasted enough time on this discussion with you Thork.

I'm done here

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Earth&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS446US446&tbm=isch&tbnid=By-tw9d29-uLcM:&imgrefurl=http://open.salon.com/blog/sueinaz/2010/04/22/earth_day_for_aliens&docid=qtSFbY-oqLcJpM&w=580&h=435&ei=tRCNTr_2N6e0sQKv1KHhBA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=640&vpy=478&dur=1360&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=162&ty=121&page=2&tbnh=129&tbnw=167&start=30&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:30&biw=1440&bih=799

I think simply a picture of the earth proves FES wrong. And if one says that NASA is evil for some reason, your dumb.
1. How would NASA benefit from this process at all?
2. If they do, why would they spend millions of dollars sending more technology into space?
3 If one travels south, why would they eventually end up north?
4. If water was constantly spilling off the earth, where would it go?
5. One can't create mass, so eventually we would just run out of water
6. How would gravity work if the earth was so small, it definitely wouldn't be very effective
7. Why would the moon be round, as well as every other incredibly large mass in space, but the earth would just be flat?

1. How would NASA benefit from this process at all?

There are many possibilities. Perhaps one of the most common forms of motivation: Greed-- by receiving funding for a unnecessary field of work... or perhaps trying to protect civilians from dangerous truths. Regrettably, such speculation is too broad to divine how admirable their intent is.

2. If they do, why would they spend millions of dollars sending more technology into space?

You trust that they spend millions of dollars spending technology into space. It is both possible that they do, and possible that they don't.

3 If one travels south, why would they eventually end up north?

Our current understanding of FE is such that traveling south is equivalent to traveling rimward, assuming there is an edge. There is a map in the FAQ that would likely provide you with assistance.

4. If water was constantly spilling off the earth, where would it go?

I do not know of anyone who believe water to be flowing off the edge. Antarctica is actually conceived as a wall of ice bordering the oceans. How far that ice wall extends remains unclear.
In addition, a force dubbed the UA (Universal Accelerator) is the Flat Earth Equivalent to Round Earth gravity. FE is constantly accelerated by this force, and should any water extend beyond the Earth's surface, it would be accelerated up along with the Earth.

5. One can't create mass, so eventually we would just run out of water

N/A

6. How would gravity work if the earth was so small, it definitely wouldn't be very effective

Instead of gravity being a mysterious and unending force dependent on mass and pulling us down', the UA is a mysterious and unending force that forces the Earth in the direction we perceive as 'up'.
Einstein's Equivalence Principle demonstrates how the two are indistinguishable in a local reference frame.
 

7. Why would the moon be round, as well as every other incredibly large mass in space, but the earth would just be flat?

There is an association fallacy embedded into this, but if we assume they formed from the same processes you would have a point. If you want to explore notions regarding the genesis of FE, it is still one area under development.


Many of your questions will be answered in the FAQ. I trust you will give it a brief read?
Also, welcome to FES. 

What error? Why do you assume there is an error that matches up with a round earth? Who told you there is one that matches that? You just assumed that it is there. You have not tested for it, you have no numbers, you purely have the reasoning the globularists give you to explain why their flat earth tool is working on a round earth. Well its not. Its working on a flat earth no thanks to the errors built in for earth's curvature, that make it an annoying instrument to use full of errors and corrections.

I didn't hear "it" from anybody. I measured the effect for myself as part of lab class at Florida State University. Check some of my other threads for similar experiments I have done in the past. I have done the experiment, I have the data. Zetetically speaking, I give higher credence to my results than to your baseless accusations.

Thork: yes, INS WOULD be more reliable on a flat earth. However, being on a curved earth doesn't render it useless. You also forget that in most aircraft, INS doesn't bother measuring the vertical component of movement as there is an altimeter for that - however, that doesn't mean it isn't affected by it and that is recognised by its users.