INS disproves FE.

  • 223 Replies
  • 46238 Views
?

trig

  • 2240
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #210 on: May 11, 2012, 06:36:32 PM »

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.

Who said anything about pilots in this site? I do not care what people claim to be in an anonymous forum. I do care when someone like you brags about his experience and has nothing to show except hot air.

Every commercial and non-commercial pilot learns how to navigate with INS, among several methods. And every pilot learns the benefits and limitations of the system. If you were a real pilot you would know that operating an INS is something a monkey can almost do, but navigating effectively with it takes some learned abilities. And you seem to be the first who has so much difficulty with it.

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #211 on: May 12, 2012, 12:31:50 AM »
The reason why it is able to move in a 'straight' line is because of GPS satellite. The satellite allows the submarine to be a point... the destination is a point... and then the Satellite in the sky gives it it's TRIANGULATION. 

Do triangles have curved sides?  Where's my geometry book from 10th grade.. hang on..

brb


?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #212 on: May 12, 2012, 12:44:01 AM »
Who said anything about pilots in this site? I do not care what people claim to be in an anonymous forum. I do care when someone like you brags about his experience and has nothing to show except hot air.
Actually Trig, I rarely talk about what I do on this site. What usually happens is someone like you keeps bringing it up (as you did in this thread) and then other angry noobs latch on and are equally as furious about it.

Every commercial and non-commercial pilot learns how to navigate with INS
No they don't. Most non-commercial aircraft don't even have an INS. Also, how does anyone learn to navigate with it? It feeds information to the aircraft FMS which interprets the data and its the computer that tells you what the INS has calculated. Its the computer you interact with, set way points on, generally bugger about with. Private pilots are not trained to use FMS. Why would they be? And no one is trained on INS. You don't directly interact with it.

And every pilot learns the benefits and limitations of the system.
I know some seriously stupid professional pilots. You'd be frightened to learn how little they know.

If you were a real pilot
Just lurk moar. For the love of God, lurk moar. Stop begging to be spoon fed.

you would know that operating an INS is something a monkey can almost do, but navigating effectively with it takes some learned abilities. And you seem to be the first who has so much difficulty with it.
If you knew how aircraft worked, you'd know you could punch in a series of way points and let the autopilot fly the route on the INS data. As long as the monkey can press the auto-pilot button, jobs a good 'un. Substitute monkey for first officer and you have an industry insight into how pilots fly aircraft.

The reason why it is able to move in a 'straight' line is because of GPS satellite. The satellite allows the submarine to be a point... the destination is a point... and then the Satellite in the sky gives it it's TRIANGULATION. 

Do triangles have curved sides?  Where's my geometry book from 10th grade.. hang on..

brb
???
You should have another go. That makes no sense at all. I can't even work out if you are arguing for a flat earth or a round one. What is your objection?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 12:46:02 AM by Thork »

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #213 on: May 12, 2012, 12:53:40 AM »
One satellite in a fixed location supports a disc/flat earth theory. If the Earth was a globe.. it would seem 2 or 3 would be needed to allow such precise measurements to be transmitted to a sub or plane at any given time anywhere on the earth.

the three points create a triangle. The basis for GPS. and/or earth to air missles.

I would argue that the original point of INS disproves FE... is incorrect. If anything, it supports it.


?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #214 on: May 12, 2012, 12:55:44 AM »
I would argue that the original point of INS disproves FE... is incorrect. If anything, it supports it.
Then we are of a similar opinion. Carry on, enlightened thinker.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #215 on: May 12, 2012, 01:01:41 AM »
the three points create a triangle. The basis for GPS. and/or earth to air missles.

You do realize this thread is about INS, not GPS, right?

The satellite allows the submarine to be a point... the destination is a point... and then the Satellite in the sky gives it it's TRIANGULATION. 

That is not exactly what triangulation means, nor is it what GPS satellites do.

?

Thork

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #216 on: May 12, 2012, 01:05:33 AM »
the three points create a triangle. The basis for GPS. and/or earth to air missles.

You do realize this thread is about INS, not GPS, right?
He has 6 posts. You should be delighted that he posted in the right forum.

The satellite allows the submarine to be a point... the destination is a point... and then the Satellite in the sky gives it it's TRIANGULATION. 

That is not exactly what triangulation means, nor is it what GPS satellites are supposed to do.
fixed

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #217 on: May 13, 2012, 08:09:24 AM »

you would know that operating an INS is something a monkey can almost do, but navigating effectively with it takes some learned abilities. And you seem to be the first who has so much difficulty with it.
If you knew how aircraft worked, you'd know you could punch in a series of way points and let the autopilot fly the route on the INS data. As long as the monkey can press the auto-pilot button, jobs a good 'un. Substitute monkey for first officer and you have an industry insight into how pilots fly aircraft.

So, you are the kind of pilot who believes you do not have to understand anything, that you have to push buttons like a well trained monkey and let the INS and autopilot do the flying.

I know of another couple of pilots who had the same philosophy. They nicley flew their plane towards the airport of Cali, in Colombia some 15 years ago, and even had to do an unexpected change of final approach. which they effortlessly made in a moment's notice. I can show you the general area where you can find them, if you want to go talk with them.

They still are, as far as I know, in a mountain near the runway. And when I say "in", I mean it. They flew their plane directly into the mountain, with some 100 other people, of whom not many bones or flesh were recovered, either.

Punching some numbers in a navigation system is one thing. Understanding the issues concerning navigation is quite another.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #218 on: May 14, 2012, 04:22:18 AM »
I would argue that the original point of INS disproves FE... is incorrect. If anything, it supports it.
Then we are of a similar opinion. Carry on, enlightened thinker.

Then I would request that he present a sensible refutation of my step by step explanation of how INS disproves FE in both a round and flat earth scenario, a few pages back, just as I have already asked you to do and you have not.
Oh BTW Thork, so amusing to see you waited until I was banned for two weeks before creeping into this thread to post again. Well I'm back now, it's time to pick up your toys off the floor and go to bed.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #219 on: May 21, 2012, 07:31:13 PM »
Back in the day when the Russians and the US Army tried hitting the Moon with a rocket The Russians missed 3 times and the US Army missed twice. They both used INS for guidance.
The reason they missed is because the earth is flat. The Russians and US Army then realized the earth is flat.
The same reason the North Koreans tried to put a satellite in polar obit, that missile failed because they can't fly a polar orbit on a flat earth. They used INS also.

INS is controlled by Software I don't think there is anybody in this forum that wrote that Software. So that makes the so called attributes of INS hear say evidence.

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #220 on: May 22, 2012, 12:10:44 AM »
Back in the day when the Russians and the US Army tried hitting the Moon with a rocket The Russians missed 3 times and the US Army missed twice. They both used INS for guidance.
The reason they missed is because the earth is flat. The Russians and US Army then realized the earth is flat.
The same reason the North Koreans tried to put a satellite in polar obit, that missile failed because they can't fly a polar orbit on a flat earth. They used INS also.

INS is controlled by Software I don't think there is anybody in this forum that wrote that Software. So that makes the so called attributes of INS hear say evidence.

Evidence?

No? I knew it.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #221 on: June 07, 2012, 05:09:08 PM »
This is a simple concept the earth flat or round has varying elevations INS would need to make course adjustments based on terrain hight flying over the surface of the earth at exactly the same course one would receive different measurements from the surface to the craft

Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #222 on: June 08, 2012, 08:26:06 AM »
As Wolfgang Pauli might have said, this is not even wrong.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: INS disproves FE.
« Reply #223 on: August 14, 2012, 03:59:07 PM »
So I see my argument still stands as a final crushing disproof of FET. Not that I'd expected anyone to be able to refute the Truth...
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.