INS disproves FE.

Self deprication... You're still a penguin, a  slightly smaller tighter one but still a penguin.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

This is the 4th or 5th INS thread you have started. You have been given all the answers and simply refuse to acknowledge them. Hopefully a mod will clear this away as YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE SEVERAL THREADS ON THE SAME TOPIC ALL ACTIVE AT ONCE!

2nd INS thread I have started, actually.
Please supply a link to the answer to the question "can INS devices distinguish between a path that deviates to left or right and one that does not?" because as far as I am aware, it has not been answered. You're just shrieking a load of lies.
Failure to supply a link is an admission that you are lying. My prediction: no link will be provided. Conclusion: Thork is telling lies, as usual.

Quote from: jroa on March 16, 2012, 11:58:35 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on March 16, 2012, 10:00:08 PM

Quote from: Graff on March 16, 2012, 09:56:47 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on March 16, 2012, 09:54:18 PM

Ah, well do come back when you figure out how to counter my answer.

Perhaps you should do a little research, then, since you have some extra time?
For example; I do doubt you have any proof that private pilots have a " tendency of disappearing", do you?
As well as the fact that each gallon of fuel effects flight, so in fact commercial pilots do have to know exactly how much they have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart

Maybe you've heard of her?

A commercial pilot doesn't interact with the fuel with anything other than a meter he sees in a cockpit. He does all of his calculations based off this meter. If the conspiracy can modify an INS system, what makes you think they wouldn't modify the meter?

Also, from what I understand from a co-worker who is a private pilot, most of the fuel calculations are done before the plane leaves the ground.  Unless you can show proof otherwise, it would make sense that the same goes for commercial flights.  Therefore, the guy(s) filling the tank would have to be manipulating the volume in coordination with the manipulated instruments in order for any kind of trickery to be happening.  There would have to be at least one, but more likely more, conspiracy trickster at every airport in order for them to make every pilot on every flight think that he/she has used a different amount of fuel than he/she actually has.

On a commercial flight, the maintenance crew simply fills the tank up with the amount they were told to fill it up with. There is no magic number changing in that. Also, to answer your previous question of what happened before the digital age, the instruments weren't modified at all.

Ok, so I think we are in agreement here.  In the analog age, people could navigate the globe or disk without the fear of tampering by the conspiracy; they could make fuel calculations and make it to their destination without fear of running out of fuel and, then, they were fairly accurate in their calculations.

Today, private pilots can calculate the distance, weight of the cargo, and fuel consumption, regardless of the path they are taking.  We hear about occasional aircraft crashes, but, in general, the majority of the pilots make it to their destinations based on their calculations.

Commercial pilots probably do not have as much input as the private pilots do as to the amount of fuel that is loaded into the plane; however, that would mean that, in order for fuel calculations to be incorrect, someone else is pulling the strings at the air port and they are telling the ground crew to put an amount of fuel into the plane that does not match the accepted distance.  This would mean that the conspiracy is at every air port.

Does this sound correct to you?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on March 17, 2012, 10:12:15 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 16, 2012, 11:58:35 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on March 16, 2012, 10:00:08 PM

Quote from: Graff on March 16, 2012, 09:56:47 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on March 16, 2012, 09:54:18 PM

Ah, well do come back when you figure out how to counter my answer.

Perhaps you should do a little research, then, since you have some extra time?
For example; I do doubt you have any proof that private pilots have a " tendency of disappearing", do you?
As well as the fact that each gallon of fuel effects flight, so in fact commercial pilots do have to know exactly how much they have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart

Maybe you've heard of her?

A commercial pilot doesn't interact with the fuel with anything other than a meter he sees in a cockpit. He does all of his calculations based off this meter. If the conspiracy can modify an INS system, what makes you think they wouldn't modify the meter?

Also, from what I understand from a co-worker who is a private pilot, most of the fuel calculations are done before the plane leaves the ground.  Unless you can show proof otherwise, it would make sense that the same goes for commercial flights.  Therefore, the guy(s) filling the tank would have to be manipulating the volume in coordination with the manipulated instruments in order for any kind of trickery to be happening.  There would have to be at least one, but more likely more, conspiracy trickster at every airport in order for them to make every pilot on every flight think that he/she has used a different amount of fuel than he/she actually has.

On a commercial flight, the maintenance crew simply fills the tank up with the amount they were told to fill it up with. There is no magic number changing in that. Also, to answer your previous question of what happened before the digital age, the instruments weren't modified at all.

Ok, so I think we are in agreement here.  In the analog age, people could navigate the globe or disk without the fear of tampering by the conspiracy; they could make fuel calculations and make it to their destination without fear of running out of fuel and, then, they were fairly accurate in their calculations.

Today, private pilots can calculate the distance, weight of the cargo, and fuel consumption, regardless of the path they are taking.  We hear about occasional aircraft crashes, but, in general, the majority of the pilots make it to their destinations based on their calculations.

Commercial pilots probably do not have as much input as the private pilots do as to the amount of fuel that is loaded into the plane; however, that would mean that, in order for fuel calculations to be incorrect, someone else is pulling the strings at the air port and they are telling the ground crew to put an amount of fuel into the plane that does not match the accepted distance.  This would mean that the conspiracy is at every air port.

Does this sound correct to you?

Fairly so.

Great.  Can we say that no one is changing the fuel to distance ratios to mimic a round Earth?

Hey, FE'ers: Can INS distinguish between a path that curves to left or right and one which does not?

Still waiting for an answer. Don't you know? Aren't you all experts (so you say)?

Bumping this, because Thork think he has something new to say on it.

Doesn't matter what I say or how many times I say it. You just ignore it. No proof of Schuler Tuning, and you have no case.

Answer the question, Thork. Can INS distinguish between a path that curves to left or right and one which does not?

Still no proof of Schuler Tuning? You have no case.

INS is a flat earth instrument.

Still no proof of Schuler Tuning? You have no case.

INS is a flat earth instrument.

So if you understand it so well, why do you refuse to answer the question can INS distinguish between a path that curves to left or right and one which does not?
All I need is yes or no. Schuler tuning is irrelevant and a strawman.
Yes or no, Thork? Yes or no?
Or is the real answer "I'm too afraid to say because whatever answer I give will open a crack in FET and make me look a fool"? I think so. Funny how you don't have an opinion when one is really needed.

Still no proof of Schuler Tuning? Ok, I'll check back later.

Still no proof of Schuler Tuning? Ok, I'll check back later.

Why would I have to prove something irrelevant to the question? Hey, Why not have me prove that cows really have 4 stomachs, or that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK?
If it makes it easier for you, we can take this thread in two directions: we can imagine that I have presented evidence that shows Schuler tuning exists, and we can imagine the opposite: that I have showed evidence that it doesn't exist. We can then take the same steps forward from each of these different scenarios (we'll call them scenario one and scenario two) and see how they differ, OK? Think of it like two thought experiments.

Still no proof of Schuler Tuning?

What sort of evidence of Schuler Tuning are you looking for?

Quote from: Thork on March 25, 2012, 01:42:01 PM

Still no proof of Schuler Tuning? Ok, I'll check back later.

Why would I have to prove something irrelevant to the question? Hey, Why not have me prove that cows really have 4 stomachs, or that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK?
If it makes it easier for you, we can take this thread in two directions: we can imagine that I have presented evidence that shows Schuler tuning exists, and we can imagine the opposite: that I have showed evidence that it doesn't exist. We can then take the same steps forward from each of these different scenarios (we'll call them scenario one and scenario two) and see how they differ, OK? Think of it like two thought experiments.

Super.

In the scenario where you proved Schuler Tuning to exist, this meant for INS to work the earth must be round.
In the scenario where we found Schuler Tuning doesn't exist, it means that the earth must be flat for INS to work.

So as you can see, the conversation doesn't move on until you prove its existence. If it doesn't exist, earth's not round.

Quote from: Thork on March 25, 2012, 01:42:01 PM

Still no proof of Schuler Tuning?

What sort of evidence of Schuler Tuning are you looking for?

I'd want something more than a one line sentence ending in a question mark, so you may as well forget it.

Quote from: markjo on March 25, 2012, 02:15:38 PM

Quote from: Thork on March 25, 2012, 01:42:01 PM

Still no proof of Schuler Tuning?

What sort of evidence of Schuler Tuning are you looking for?

I'd want something more than a one line sentence ending in a question mark, so you may as well forget it.

And I'd like a serious answer to my question so that we know what it will take to satisfy your question about Schuler Tuning.  Otherwise I can only assume that you keep bringing up Schuler Tuning just to be a prick.

Markjo, its your part of the conversation. You are asking me to have both sides of every debate. Its boring. You decide what constitutes proof. Use google. Bring something new for me to examine. Its always the other way around. Contribute something. A diagram, a quote, a link. All your posts are the same.

A quote of your last post

A one sentence question?

^I've had enough of it. Its low content. And its relentless and ruins debate with other people. Bring something for me to read. Have an independent idea. Come up with something. You have 18,000 posts of one line questions. Write something. Make a 3 or 4 paragraph post. Include a diagram. Heaven forbid, start a thread with an OP. Stop demanding that everyone else do all the running. Contribute or be ignored. <---- You will see that again and again from now on.

Markjo, its your part of the conversation. You are asking me to have both sides of every debate. Its boring. You decide what constitutes proof. Use google. Bring something new for me to examine. Its always the other way around. Contribute something. A diagram, a quote, a link. All your posts are the same.

Is something like this sufficient?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuler_tuning

Schuler tuning is a modification to the electronic control system used in inertial navigation systems that accounts for the curvature of the Earth.

http://www.aerostudents.com/files/avionics/navigationBasicsAndInertialNavigation.pdf
http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra1/erap/publichtml/8407775.pdf

Answer the question, Thork. Can INS distinguish between a path that curves to left or right and one which does not?

You really. Don't listen, do you?

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 01:35:42 PM

Answer the question, Thork. Can INS distinguish between a path that curves to left or right and one which does not?

You really. Don't listen, do you?

Sorry, is your post supposed to mean something? Are you implying the question has already been answered? Link please.

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 01:59:59 PM

Quote from: Thork on March 25, 2012, 01:42:01 PM

Still no proof of Schuler Tuning? Ok, I'll check back later.

Why would I have to prove something irrelevant to the question? Hey, Why not have me prove that cows really have 4 stomachs, or that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK?
If it makes it easier for you, we can take this thread in two directions: we can imagine that I have presented evidence that shows Schuler tuning exists, and we can imagine the opposite: that I have showed evidence that it doesn't exist. We can then take the same steps forward from each of these different scenarios (we'll call them scenario one and scenario two) and see how they differ, OK? Think of it like two thought experiments.

Super.

In the scenario where you proved Schuler Tuning to exist, this meant for INS to work the earth must be round.
In the scenario where we found Schuler Tuning doesn't exist, it means that the earth must be flat for INS to work.

So as you can see, the conversation doesn't move on until you prove its existence. If it doesn't exist, earth's not round.

Glad we can both agree to follow this progression.
Let's look at each scenario in turn:

1. Schuler tuning is proved to exist
On a round earth, INS would work nice and hunky dory. No problems. Gets you from A to B with no discrepancies.
On a flat earth, Schuler tuning would really screw things up and the INS would show all sorts of movements the plane wasn't really making, leading you to end up miles away from where you were meant to be.

So far so good, and agrees with Thork's post above, I think. Let's look at scenario 2:

2. Schuler tuning is proved not to exist
On a round earth, the INS does not give correct readings as the movement around the curve of the earth throws it out, and you end up miles away from where you want to be.
On a flat earth, the INS gives absolutely correct readings of the vessel's movements and does not give any false readings.

That's how I see the two scenarios working for both round and flat earth, but I would like Thork to tell me if he agrees with my assessment so far, because I don't want to take things further if there are discrepancies that need clearing up.

OK. Since Thork has had ample opportunity to correct me if my assessment was wrong, I shall assume he agrees with my four possible options. So let's take it a step further.

Scenario 1 (Schuler tuning exists)
If the earth was flat, the inaccuracy of INS would cause people navigating by it to end up where they did not want to be. Since this does not happen, the conclusion can be drawn that the earth is not flat.

Scenario 2 (Schuler tuning does not exist)
If the earth was flat, the accuracy of INS would cause anyone navigating by it along a "great circle" route to notice that their path was curving to left or right*, when in fact it should be showing a path with no left/right deviation. Since this discrepancy does not occur, the conclusion can be drawn that the earth is not flat.

In summary: If Schuler tuning exists, the earth is not flat. If Schuler tuning does not exist, the earth is not flat. Thork really needs to listen when people tell him his strawmen are of no significance.

*unless travelling north/south on the conventional FE map (the "Dumbledore model" I think it's called.)

You have drawn incorrect conclusions and made assumptions that are complete fabrication in both your scenarios. It is clear that you do not understand how the equipment works. Moar research needed. Once you understand the equipment and come to some real conclusions, I will also expect some form of quote or link to back your claims. Not a link to a huge page of guff. A concise link or quote proving that what you say isn't another made up set of nonsense like the post above. You saying something is so, is not proof.

You have drawn incorrect conclusions and made assumptions that are complete fabrication in both your scenarios. It is clear that you do not understand how the equipment works. Moar research needed. Once you understand the equipment and come to some real conclusions, I will also expect some form of quote or link to back your claims. Not a link to a huge page of guff. A concise link or quote proving that what you say isn't another made up set of nonsense like the post above. You saying something is so, is not proof.

You had opportunity to correct my summary of each scenario, and since you did not do so, I continued under the assumption that you considered my starting points as in agreement with your own view of each scenario.
Please explain why you think I'm wrong, because demands for a "quote or link" are meaningless - what sort of quote or link? One that shows you how to understand conclusions seems to be what you need. I don't need to know how the equipment works, just whether it does or not. The only possible way my conclusions could be incorrect is if INS cannot distinguish between a path that curves to left or right and one that doesn't. I already asked you that ten or eleven times and you have not had the wit to answer it. Since you saw fit to withhold your opinion on this matter, I continued under the assumption that INS can indeed do that. And if it can, then my argument is flawless.
Oh and by "explain why you think I'm wrong", I mean explain. Don't demand links, don't just repeat yourself, quote the part of my post that you think is incorrect, and explain why you think that. I'm betting you can't.

Thork has had ample time once again, and remains mute in shame. (Though he did squeal uselessly about INS in a different thread). My betting was sound, it seems.

Proving Schuler Tuning would require conceding that the earth has a defined spherical radius. Conversely, proving that the earth is round using INS as evidence would require that Schuler Tuning was true. That's like trying to solve for two variables with only one equation. Its sort of flawed logic; unfortunately I don't think there are any conclusions to be drawn from this.

unfortunately I don't think there are any conclusions to be drawn from this.

But yet "the Knowlegde" still can't see it and still brings up INS in every thread he can. He'll go into a rant now about how this is a failure and he has proved earth's shape many times and ... we'll I think he is teetering on the edge of a trip to the house of squashy walls.

Proving Schuler Tuning would require conceding that the earth has a defined spherical radius. Conversely, proving that the earth is round using INS as evidence would require that Schuler Tuning was true. That's like trying to solve for two variables with only one equation. Its sort of flawed logic; unfortunately I don't think there are any conclusions to be drawn from this.

I've shown the results of four possible scenarios: both round and flat earth with Schuler tuning being true and false for both of them.
In the Flat earth scenario, the result is either a detectable path deviation or useless INS readings. Since neither of these happens, the possibility of a flat earth can be eliminated from the array of options.
Iconoclast, you seem to think that I'm trying to use Schuler tuning to prove roundness and roundness to prove Schuler tuning. You are quite incorrect - I'm trying to demonstrate that Schuler tuning is not really relevant to my original premise of how INS disproves FET.

I notice Thork still won't explain, just still keeps shouting "ur wrong!!! lolololol!" without providing further details. I should have put cash on that bet. Thork, you've lost the argument because you didn't understand why Schuler tuning wasn't really relevant, and again and again you failed to use the only real chance to attack my argument, which was to discredit the assumption that INS is capable of distinguishing between a path that curves to left or right and one that doesn't. I gave you every opportunity, and you did not present an opinion on the matter. It's too late now.

You still don't understand INS.