INS disproves FE.

  • 223 Replies
  • 46819 Views
?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #180 on: March 31, 2012, 04:53:34 AM »
You still don't understand INS. ::)
Oh my! I am defeated in debate!   :'(
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #181 on: March 31, 2012, 04:55:50 AM »
You still don't understand INS. ::)
Oh my! I am defeated in debate!   :'(
Good. Hopefully you will stop boring everyone with this topic now. You didn't get it, it went over your head ... now let it lie.

?

iconoclast

  • 151
  • +0/-0
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #182 on: March 31, 2012, 09:52:23 AM »
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.

In the grand scheme of things, no, it is not relevant at all. Thork thinks it is though; that is why he keeps asking you about it. I was speaking in the context of this particular debate. We've got a poor soul latched onto a straw man here, and its going to be an uphill battle. lol

Thork, what part of INS do you think TK doesn't understand? (for the record, I am just asking the question, no sarcasm intended..)

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #183 on: March 31, 2012, 02:09:28 PM »
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.

In the grand scheme of things, no, it is not relevant at all. Thork thinks it is though; that is why he keeps asking you about it. I was speaking in the context of this particular debate. We've got a poor soul latched onto a straw man here, and its going to be an uphill battle. lol

Thork, what part of INS do you think TK doesn't understand? (for the record, I am just asking the question, no sarcasm intended..)

He won't answer properly, you know. I too am just as genuinely curious as to where he thinks I've gone wrong.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

iconoclast

  • 151
  • +0/-0
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #184 on: April 06, 2012, 04:12:05 AM »
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.

In the grand scheme of things, no, it is not relevant at all. Thork thinks it is though; that is why he keeps asking you about it. I was speaking in the context of this particular debate. We've got a poor soul latched onto a straw man here, and its going to be an uphill battle. lol

Thork, what part of INS do you think TK doesn't understand? (for the record, I am just asking the question, no sarcasm intended..)

He won't answer properly, you know. I too am just as genuinely curious as to where he thinks I've gone wrong.

Looks like you're right.

?

krukoslik

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #185 on: May 09, 2012, 11:34:43 AM »
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.

HES resorted to desperation? it's almost like this is the default copy paste answer for any piece of round earth evidence that proves everything you think wrong.

?

Turbofan

  • 18
  • +0/-0
  • To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail!
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #186 on: May 09, 2012, 05:42:21 PM »
First I want proof that it actually does take account for earth's curvature like they say it does. Then I want proof that if it does, that isn't what screws it up. Its a two-part challenge.

As its a flat earth instrument, we are a long way from using it to prove earth round as the op stated.

Sorry to interrupt but... havent you proved that when you answered the questions at your theoretical exams when you passed your commercial pilots training???

?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #187 on: May 10, 2012, 01:17:08 AM »
Sorry to interrupt but... havent you proved that when you answered the questions at your theoretical exams when you passed your commercial pilots training???
When I took my driving test my hands were in a '10 to 2' position. I don't drive like normally. Few do. Its uncomfortable. Knowing the answer someone wants on a test and how things pan out in reality, are two completely different things.

?

trig

  • 2240
  • +0/-0
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #188 on: May 10, 2012, 06:17:24 AM »
First I want proof that it actually does take account for earth's curvature like they say it does. Then I want proof that if it does, that isn't what screws it up. Its a two-part challenge.

As its a flat earth instrument, we are a long way from using it to prove earth round as the op stated.

Sorry to interrupt but... havent you proved that when you answered the questions at your theoretical exams when you passed your commercial pilots training???
I am with you. Unless he did a test in very short haul commercial pilot training, he got every evidence he ever needed. I learned enough to be able to check what they call "RE assumptions" just talking with my uncle, who had a small private plane. Everything you need to check the "assumptions" is right there in front of you. Wind speed, land speed, instantaneous fuel consumption, specialized slide rulers to calculate the Great Circle navigation route, and INS among others. And in that time there were no navigational computers like now, so a weirdly intelligent navigational system that fools the pilot was out of the question. All this theory of dumb pilots and fiendishly intelligent navigational aids is idiotic now, and would have been worse than a bad science fiction movie back then in the seventies.

?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #189 on: May 10, 2012, 06:32:07 AM »
If INS doesn't make Schuler corrections, then it works perfectly on a flat earth - a flat earth instrument. How great a leap of faith is it to assume that they just don't add that bit? The knowledge couldn't wrap his head around this either. INS makes corrections to allow for earth being round, allegedly. Left in its basic form, it only works for a flat earth.

Many other things tell me earth is flat. Things far more convincing than a story that INS has a special correction and all of a sudden it now works on a round earth too.


How is a pilot supposed to look at one and go "Oh, yeah, it doesn't have the correction, earth is flat". By looking at it its impossible to say what it does.

?

Turbofan

  • 18
  • +0/-0
  • To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail!
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #190 on: May 10, 2012, 09:30:02 AM »
First I want proof that it actually does take account for earth's curvature like they say it does. Then I want proof that if it does, that isn't what screws it up. Its a two-part challenge.

As its a flat earth instrument, we are a long way from using it to prove earth round as the op stated.

Sorry to interrupt but... havent you proved that when you answered the questions at your theoretical exams when you passed your commercial pilots training???
I am with you. Unless he did a test in very short haul commercial pilot training, he got every evidence he ever needed. I learned enough to be able to check what they call "RE assumptions" just talking with my uncle, who had a small private plane. Everything you need to check the "assumptions" is right there in front of you. Wind speed, land speed, instantaneous fuel consumption, specialized slide rulers to calculate the Great Circle navigation route, and INS among others. And in that time there were no navigational computers like now, so a weirdly intelligent navigational system that fools the pilot was out of the question. All this theory of dumb pilots and fiendishly intelligent navigational aids is idiotic now, and would have been worse than a bad science fiction movie back then in the seventies.

Listen mate I AM an airline pilot IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE!!! I fly 30 hours a week long haul flights and i would take anyone of this group or maybe the whole group on one of my flights! I could even hang them outside the plane so they can witness with their own eyes -they wouldn't complain about fake windows with monitors that display graphics ;D - but they wouldn't survive long enough to come back and tell what they saw ;D

 

?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #191 on: May 10, 2012, 09:45:27 AM »
i would take anyone of this group or maybe the whole group on one of my flights! I could even hang them outside the plane so they can witness with their own eyes -they wouldn't complain about fake windows with monitors that display graphics ;D - but they wouldn't survive long enough to come back and tell what they saw ;D
witness what?

?

Turbofan

  • 18
  • +0/-0
  • To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail!
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #192 on: May 10, 2012, 09:53:49 AM »
i would take anyone of this group or maybe the whole group on one of my flights! I could even hang them outside the plane so they can witness with their own eyes -they wouldn't complain about fake windows with monitors that display graphics ;D - but they wouldn't survive long enough to come back and tell what they saw ;D
witness what?

All you have to do is come and meet me if you want ;D

?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #193 on: May 10, 2012, 09:55:26 AM »
i would take anyone of this group or maybe the whole group on one of my flights! I could even hang them outside the plane so they can witness with their own eyes -they wouldn't complain about fake windows with monitors that display graphics ;D - but they wouldn't survive long enough to come back and tell what they saw ;D
witness what?

All you have to do is come and meet me if you want ;D
to witness what?

?

Turbofan

  • 18
  • +0/-0
  • To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail!
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #194 on: May 10, 2012, 10:01:10 AM »
i would take anyone of this group or maybe the whole group on one of my flights! I could even hang them outside the plane so they can witness with their own eyes -they wouldn't complain about fake windows with monitors that display graphics ;D - but they wouldn't survive long enough to come back and tell what they saw ;D
witness what?

All you have to do is come and meet me if you want ;D
to witness what?

Nothing i am just saying... but you claimed to be a commercial pilot in the first place ;D so i challenge you in air combat ;D

?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #195 on: May 10, 2012, 10:07:46 AM »
i would take anyone of this group or maybe the whole group on one of my flights! I could even hang them outside the plane so they can witness with their own eyes -they wouldn't complain about fake windows with monitors that display graphics ;D - but they wouldn't survive long enough to come back and tell what they saw ;D
witness what?

All you have to do is come and meet me if you want ;D
to witness what?

Nothing i am just saying... but you claimed to be a commercial pilot in the first place ;D so i challenge you in air combat ;D
I suppose you think you are the first teenager to come to this site pretending to be an astronaut, pilot, Antarctic ice guard, NASA agent, military dictator, astronomer, scientist, deity, porn star or extraterrestrial. ::)

?

Turbofan

  • 18
  • +0/-0
  • To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail!
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #196 on: May 10, 2012, 10:15:15 AM »
i would take anyone of this group or maybe the whole group on one of my flights! I could even hang them outside the plane so they can witness with their own eyes -they wouldn't complain about fake windows with monitors that display graphics ;D - but they wouldn't survive long enough to come back and tell what they saw ;D
witness what?

All you have to do is come and meet me if you want ;D
to witness what?

Nothing i am just saying... but you claimed to be a commercial pilot in the first place ;D so i challenge you in air combat ;D
I suppose you think you are the first teenager to come to this site pretending to be an astronaut, pilot, Antarctic ice guard, NASA agent, military dictator, astronomer, scientist, deity, porn star or extraterrestrial. ::)

You forgot to say politician  ::) I suppose...

?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #197 on: May 10, 2012, 10:17:46 AM »

?

iwanttobelieve

  • 5442
  • +0/-0
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #198 on: May 10, 2012, 10:21:22 AM »
Turbofan, have you ever flown south of antarctica? In you estimation, howmuch farther do you have to fly to get to the terminus in our suns light?

?

Turbofan

  • 18
  • +0/-0
  • To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail!
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #199 on: May 10, 2012, 10:30:17 AM »
You name it, we have had it.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=16154

But you forgot to mention it in the above statement...

?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #200 on: May 10, 2012, 10:31:44 AM »
You name it, we have had it.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=16154

But you forgot to mention it in the above statement...
I forgot sailors and Google employees too.

?

Turbofan

  • 18
  • +0/-0
  • To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail!
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #201 on: May 10, 2012, 10:44:24 AM »
You name it, we have had it.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=16154

But you forgot to mention it in the above statement...
I forgot sailors and Google employees too.

I would never mention them! they are not trustworthy honorable Thork where all your statements are true beyond no doupt...

?

Kendrick

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #202 on: May 10, 2012, 12:17:28 PM »
Sounds legit Thork - don't be such a pussy.

?

Turbofan

  • 18
  • +0/-0
  • To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail!
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #203 on: May 10, 2012, 01:17:17 PM »
Turbofan, have you ever flown south of antarctica? In you estimation, howmuch farther do you have to fly to get to the terminus in our suns light?

Ask Thork...

?

Turbofan

  • 18
  • +0/-0
  • To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail!
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #204 on: May 10, 2012, 01:53:13 PM »
You name it, we have had it.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=16154

But you forgot to mention it in the above statement...
I forgot sailors and Google employees too.
Just for your info the questions in the test i am referring to comes from real flights... 'someone wants' aka they, aka the ones who singed and issued your commercial licence! aka caa.co.uk. Since you live in the uk and to fly in the uk you need a caa.co.uk licence approval and witnessing ;D ::) and proof ;D ::) to be allowed to sit in a cocpit  and claim here in this forum that you have a licence and use INS. Which you don't because you can't witness it but you only claim it! Like me! ;D In which i offered you the option for witnessing and don't accept it. But you didn't offered me one, where if you offered me the option of me witnessing you, i whould take it!
 By the way why don't you bring a flight test example and you bring a driving test example since we are talking about flying a plane here and not driving a car?
There are numerous examples in real flight test you could pull here IF you had the personal experience ;D ::)
Which you haven't witnessed yet and it remains a claim ;D like mine!

?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #205 on: May 10, 2012, 02:00:50 PM »
That made me laugh. You think to get a commercial airline license that you go on-line and apply? What is all this .co.uk business? The caa is the civil aviation authority. They have a website as google has told you, but its not for doing exams on. When you do the exams you go to a designated exam hall. Where you sit, and an invigilator makes sure you are who you say you are checking your ID, that you don't cheat and that the exam conditions are adhered to. I should also point out I went to a professional training college. I didn't just turn up and do an exam. ::)

As for whether I fly or not, I guess you'll need to lurk moar to find out.

?

Turbofan

  • 18
  • +0/-0
  • To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail!
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #206 on: May 10, 2012, 04:22:47 PM »
That made me laugh. You think to get a commercial airline license that you go on-line and apply? What is all this .co.uk business? The caa is the civil aviation authority. They have a website as google has told you, but its not for doing exams on. When you do the exams you go to a designated exam hall. Where you sit, and an invigilator makes sure you are who you say you are checking your ID, that you don't cheat and that the exam conditions are adhered to. I should also point out I went to a professional training college. I didn't just turn up and do an exam. ::)

As for whether I fly or not, I guess you'll need to lurk moar to find out.


Actually to be honest with you yes someone applies online initially to sit and take the exams at the 'caa.co.uk' exam centre but you already know that since you sat the exams and got your licence:) but you cannot witness it ::)but you ask witnessing from others! aka me!
.co.uk refers to the UK caa, the country you live in.
 Yet though if you have sat the exams it would be easier for you to post for example 'I should point out when i sat my exams for my commercial pilots licence i didn't just turn up and do(you should have said 'sat my exams') an exam. ::)
Still you brought up a driving test and a professional training college on your reply's above, were it would have been more relevant to refer to a flight test and commercial pilots exams and easier and on the subject of flight but you didn't because its not the first thing you can think of because you are simply not trained in to it and is obvious.
 You know there is a jargon amongst pilots and student pilots and it is something you haven't used here because simply you are not aware of it and believe me you cannot google it, you have to be involved, which you clearly not, despite your claims!
as if i would try to engage in a conversation with baristers for example or biologists claiming I am one, i would make fool of my self to them cos i don't have knowledge of their specialities at the deep level they do and the jargon they use.
 Not only young people use the internet these days and not all of them who post here are outside the circles and professions they 'claim' but you are aware of that young man and you don't really believe in a flat earth, you are just in here for the fuss of it ;) as most of you.
Well I will forgive your naiveness no offence, actually i believe you are a brilliant young man.

P.S. its not commercial airline pilots licence Its ATPL but you already know that ;)
And its not INS its IRS (ISU) inertial reference system that is being used for more than 30 years and the only errors it has is those the pilot might accidentally type in.
Actually it was back in 1973 and the first platform to incorporate such system was the F-16 fighting falcon.


?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #207 on: May 11, 2012, 01:59:44 AM »
I'm not sure why you are trying to turn this thread into a d*ck waving competition - are you hoping to construct an argument from authority? The internet is great. I know you can find whatever you need on it.

As for jargon, you are probably another tedious wannabe from pprune. They post in a similar manner. This isn't the lounge. Get back on topic or cease posting.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 02:01:39 AM by Thork »

?

trig

  • 2240
  • +0/-0
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #208 on: May 11, 2012, 07:17:25 AM »
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.
So, now you get angry at equipment? I can understand this, since INS is only operable by moderately intelligent people with good spacial comprehension.

Still, we don't see many pilots who agree with you. Most understand that it is just a tool, far from perfect but a total change of paradigms compared with the previous navigation by compass.

I don't know if the authorities permit navigation by just the systems you do not consider crap, like GPS. But I am sincerely worried about your professional future if you cannot make peace with the equipment you need every day.

?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #209 on: May 11, 2012, 07:33:37 AM »
So, now you get angry at equipment?
Actually the visually acute will have noticed that my comment is 7 months old.

I can understand this,
Your track record on understanding things makes me doubt that.

since INS is only operable by moderately intelligent people with good spacial comprehension.
It could be operated by a chimp if you would afford the chimp a little coaching.

Still, we don't see many pilots who agree with you.
??? We don't see many pilots here at all. We see lots of people who claim to fly U2s and Stealth Bombers and MiG fighters, but you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

I don't know if the authorities permit navigation by just the systems you do not consider crap, like GPS.
You could take a wild guess.

But I am sincerely worried about your professional future if you cannot make peace with the equipment you need every day.
You should relax. I'll be fine. I just won't look at it. I'll look at something else that does a better job instead.