How we can prove that this theory is beyond a doubt true in a matter of days.

Why don't you understand INS is a flat earth instrument? Once you grasp that, the subject could finally move on.
INS IS FOR A FLAT EARTH! YOU NEED TO APPLY EXTRA CORRECTIONS (SCHULER) FOR A ROUND EARTH. THEREFORE INS PROVES EARTH FLAT YOU HALFWIT!

These sentences prove that Thick is unable to answer the question "Is INS capable of detecting the difference between a path that curves to left or right and one that does not?" which is the only question I am asking about it. Schuler tuning is irrelevant to this. Whether the earth is round or flat is irrelevant to this. There are three possible answers - yes, no, I don't know - and Thick will not state which of these he thinks is correct. He's welcome to give different answers for a flat or round earth scenario, but simply screaming "INS IS A FLAT EARTH INSTRUMENT" over and over again does nothing to answer the question. It doesn't even really mean anything as a sentence, but look how often he does it. I'd post a list of quotes of him saying it if the search function was able to search precisely enough.

And as for you, Clocktower, I PM'd you to explain the whole point of the INS topic and you just ignored me, adding troll food to Thork's basket and muddying the whole subject.

I did provide evidence: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52534.msg1288055#msg1288055

Where did I beg for evidence of absence? You said something was true, so you must have evidence for it, right? You'd never, even as an FEDA, claim something true that required evidence of absence, would you?

Oh, and don't bother trying to FSM on Schuler tuning.

You provided a quote where the author speculates about the possibility of a great circle route. Its possible that my neighbour's unsettlingly sinister army of gnomes are responsible for the mystery of his missing satellite dish. They may also be responsible for the decline in the local cat population. However until I catch one of the little b*stards putting down his fishing rod and leaving his post, it will just have to remain in the realms of only a possibility.

Your argument has revolved around constant ad hominem attacks and a poisoning of the wells regarding my sources and quotes.

RErs brought the preposition that INS proves earth round to TFES. It can only do that if it is adjusted or Schuler tuned. I demand  Zetetically derived evidence of Schuler Tuning.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 04:58:54 AM

I did provide evidence: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52534.msg1288055#msg1288055

Where did I beg for evidence of absence? You said something was true, so you must have evidence for it, right? You'd never, even as an FEDA, claim something true that required evidence of absence, would you?

Oh, and don't bother trying to FSM on Schuler tuning.

You provided a quote where the author speculates about the possibility of a great circle route. Its possible that my neighbour's unsettlingly sinister army of gnomes are responsible for the mystery of his missing satellite dish. They may also be responsible for the decline in the local cat population. However until I catch one of the little b*stards putting down his fishing rod and leaving his post, it will just have to remain in the realms of only a possibility.

Your argument has revolved around constant ad hominem attacks and a poisoning of the wells regarding my sources and quotes.

RErs brought the preposition that INS proves earth round to TFES. It can only do that if it is adjusted or Schuler tuned. I demand  Zetetically derived evidence of Schuler Tuning.

Yes, I provided a credentialed pilot-author with an award-winning website detailing the use of the Great Circle routing. If you'd like to compare that to garden gnomes, you just look silly.

No, I've not made constant ad hominem attacks or poisoned any well.

No, I won't follow you on your Schuler Tuning FSM.

RErs brought the preposition that INS proves earth round to TFES. It can only do that if it is adjusted or Schuler tuned. I demand  Zetetically derived evidence of Schuler Tuning.

Proof that you don't understand the mechanism of the argument by which INS proves earth round. If you want to say I'm wrong about that, please explain how my argument works, step by step. Failure to do that will be taken as an admission that you don't understand how INS can disprove FET.

And see also this thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52796.0

"The knowledge" is still stuck at the same point. INS uses gyroscopes. Gyroscopes should suffer from precession on a round earth. To compensate, an adjustment is made. Its called schuler tuning. If the earth is flat, no adjustment need be made because the gyroscopes won't suffer precession errors. I'm not sure how I can make it any simpler. The entire premise of INS working on a round earth relies on proof of "Schuler Tuning" or as ClockTower has now named it "The Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence of the flying spaghetti monster or concede INS is not proof of a round earth. I can not be forced into providing evidence of absence. That is an unreasonable request.

"The knowledge" is still stuck at the same point. INS uses gyroscopes. Gyroscopes should suffer from precession on a round earth. To compensate, an adjustment is made. Its called schuler tuning. If the earth is flat, no adjustment need be made because the gyroscopes won't suffer precession errors. I'm not sure how I can make it any simpler. The entire premise of INS working on a round earth relies on proof of "Schuler Tuning" or as ClockTower has now named it "The Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence of the flying spaghetti monster or concede INS is not proof of a round earth. I can not be forced into providing evidence of absence. That is an unreasonable request.

I see your problem. You're mistakenly claiming that your claim the INS doesn't need ST doesn't require any evidence. Somehow you've confused the concept that you can't prove a negative with requiring evidence for for a claim that has the word 'not' in it. That would be arguing from ignorance. The person (Thork) making the claim (All INS instruments are FET instruments.) has the burden. Arguing from ignorance does not shift the burden of proof.

The claim, might I remind you, is "INS proves earth round".

Without proof of the flying spaghetti monster however, it does not. I will wait patiently.

The claim, might I remind you, is "INS proves earth round".

Without proof of the flying spaghetti monster however, it does not. I will wait patiently.

I did not make such a claim as "INS proves earth round".

I do see that you've claimed that "INS only works on a flat earth" without evidence.

Also I have not claimed that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists nor that it is in any way related to the claim "INS proves earth round".

I did not make such a claim as "INS proves earth round".

My initial reply wasn't to you was it? It was to The Knowledge who brought up INS again. A reference to his ill-conceived thread that now festers in "FE Debate" reeking of fail.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51062.msg1251600#msg1251600

I do see that you've claimed that "INS only works on a flat earth" without evidence.

I claimed INS needs constant adjustment to work on a round earth. I am yet to be provided with any evidence of this adjustment however. I have only seen you complaining instead.

Also I have not claimed that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists nor that it is in any way related to the claim "INS proves earth round".

So Schuler tuning does not exist? My thoughts exactly. Welcome to the flat side.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 06:16:26 AM

I did not make such a claim as "INS proves earth round".

My initial reply wasn't to you was it? It was to The Knowledge who brought up INS again. A reference to his ill-conceived thread that now festers in "FE Debate" reeking of fail.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51062.msg1251600#msg1251600

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 06:16:26 AM

I do see that you've claimed that "INS only works on a flat earth" without evidence.

I claimed INS needs constant adjustment to work on a round earth. I am yet to be provided with any evidence of this adjustment however. I have only seen you complaining instead.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 06:16:26 AM

Also I have not claimed that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists nor that it is in any way related to the claim "INS proves earth round".

So Schuler tuning does not exist? My thoughts exactly. Welcome to the flat side.

1) It makes no difference to whose post you were replying. You made a claim and have failed to support it.
2) Your other claims are interesting, but you still have to face your claim that "INS only works on a flat earth".
3) I never said that ST does not exist. You again attack a straw man.

This thread is now going round and round because of your circular reasoning.

Either provide evidence of Schuler tuning or FE has no charge to answer. If INS does not prove earth round (as I have said repeatedly), then that is the end of the matter and "The Knowledge" can stop bringing it up in every single thread.

This thread is now going round and round because of your circular reasoning.

Either provide evidence of Schuler tuning or FE has no charge to answer. If INS does not prove earth round (as I have said repeatedly), then that is the end of the matter and "The Knowledge" can stop bringing it up in every single thread.

So even after reading repeated calls to provide evidence of your claim, you fail to answer. Noted. Do work on your FEDA techniques. You're sliding, especially with the argument from ignorance and so many straw men.

Repeated calls to provide evidence of absence? I see.

I expect to see no more nonsense about INS littering our fora.

"The knowledge" is still stuck at the same point. INS uses gyroscopes. Gyroscopes should suffer from precession on a round earth. To compensate, an adjustment is made. Its called schuler tuning. If the earth is flat, no adjustment need be made because the gyroscopes won't suffer precession errors. I'm not sure how I can make it any simpler. The entire premise of INS working on a round earth relies on proof of "Schuler Tuning" or as ClockTower has now named it "The Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence of the flying spaghetti monster or concede INS is not proof of a round earth. I can not be forced into providing evidence of absence. That is an unreasonable request.

Here, Thick proves that he doesn't understand how INS disproves a flat earth, even though it has been written out more than once, as he was unable to explain the argument as requested.
1. FE circumnavigation requires travelling in a big curve to left or right
2. If the earth is flat then this curved path to left or right would be detected by INS.
3. Therefore the FE caveat "you don't notice you are travelling in a path that curves to left or right" is false...
4. UNLESS INS is unable to detect such a curve.
5. Hence the need of the question "can INS detect the difference between a path that curves to left or right and one that doesn't?"

I'm sorry if this is too complicated for you, Thick, but if you can't get your head round it, maybe you should get out of the big boy's pond and go back to the junior paddling pool that is the lower forums?
The more astute among you will also realise that this argument actually starts from a premise of the earth being flat: thus Thick's screams of "INS is a flat earth instrument!!!!!1111" and deranged waffle about Schuler tuning are neither here nor there.
In fact, if Thick is correct, and the earth is flat, and Schuler tuning doesn't happen and is all a big lie, then the answer to the question should be very obvious indeed - pity he's too dense to work it out!

1. FE circumnavigation requires travelling in a big curve to left or right

It does, as does RE navigation. Otherwise you'd jut out into space.

2. If the earth is flat then this curved path to left or right would be detected by INS.

What? INS doesn't work in terms of left and right. It works in terms of up/down, north/south, east/west. When you travel east in a large circle around the north pole, you remain exactly travelling east. You are making a circle east, because east is a circle. As the dictionary tells you "The cardinal point on the mariner's compass 90° clockwise from due north and directly opposite west." In order to always stay 90° clockwise from due North whilst moving in relation to a point (the north pole), you need to follow a circle. But that circle is always East. East is not a straight line round earth or flat.

3. Therefore the FE caveat "you don't notice you are travelling in a path that curves to left or right" is false...

Because your compass says East. The curve is so shallow at equator level you wouldn't notice.

4. UNLESS INS is unable to detect such a curve.

It will tell you that you are going East. That will confirm you are making a circle.

5. Hence the need of the question "can INS detect the difference between a path that curves to left or right and one that doesn't?"

INS will confirm that you are making a circle. EAST and WEST are circles round earth or flat.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 22, 2012, 06:47:24 AM

1. FE circumnavigation requires travelling in a big curve to left or right

It does, as does RE navigation. Otherwise you'd jut out into space.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 22, 2012, 06:47:24 AM

2. If the earth is flat then this curved path to left or right would be detected by INS.

What? INS doesn't work in terms of left and right. It works in terms of up/down, north/south, east/west. When you travel east in a large circle around the north pole, you remain exactly travelling east. You are making a circle east, because east is a circle. As the dictionary tells you "The cardinal point on the mariner's compass 90° clockwise from due north and directly opposite west." In order to always stay 90° clockwise from due North whilst moving in relation to a point (the north pole), you need to follow a circle. But that circle is always East. East is not a straight line round earth or flat.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 22, 2012, 06:47:24 AM

3. Therefore the FE caveat "you don't notice you are travelling in a path that curves to left or right" is false...

Because your compass says East. The curve is so shallow at equator level you wouldn't notice.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 22, 2012, 06:47:24 AM

4. UNLESS INS is unable to detect such a curve.

It will tell you that you are going East. That will confirm you are making a circle.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 22, 2012, 06:47:24 AM

5. Hence the need of the question "can INS detect the difference between a path that curves to left or right and one that doesn't?"

INS will confirm that you are making a circle. EAST and WEST are circles round earth or flat.

Wrong, oh so wrong.

1) RET does not require traveling in circle path curving left or right, or north (when traveling east or west) to circumnavigate the Earth.
2) If you wish to be pedantic, yes. So let's change the wording of the challenge to: INS would detect motion towards the NP (north in both models) of any flight along the Equator, if and only if FET were true (and we're using the U. N. Logo map). It does not, so we know FET is false. (On any parallel south of the Equator, INS would report accelerating southward if and only if FET is false. It does. So FET is false.)
3) Whether you would notice is another straw man. The challenge is would INS report the accelerations expected in FET.
4) Correct.
5) Wrong. See above.

1) RET does require you to go in a circle when travelling East. Have a think about it.
2) What? INS would continue to report that your distance from the north pole is unchanged on earth as it would on a RE if there were such a thing.
3) INS wouldn't have a clue. It stays on East if circumnavigating East.
4) You could have just applied that to all 5 points and saved some typing.
5) East and west are circles on a flat earth. They are also circles on a round earth. Its just basic geometry.

1) RET does require you to go in a circle when travelling East. Have a think about it.
2) What? INS would continue to report that your distance from the north pole is unchanged on earth as it would on a RE if there were such a thing.
3) INS wouldn't have a clue. It stays on East if circumnavigating East.
4) You could have just applied that to all 5 points and saved some typing.
5) East and west are circles on a flat earth. They are also circles on a round earth. Its just basic geometry.

1) I never said that it didn't. Do try to pay attention. FEDA Straw Men (FSMes) are soooo boring.
2) You forget that INSes have accelerometers. Distance to the NP is yet another FSM. You do understand that you can accelerate northward, but not change distance from the NP, right?
3) Ditto.
4) Wrong.
5) I never said that they weren't. Please do pay attention. FSMes are soooo boring.

You do understand that you can accelerate northward, but not change distance from the NP, right?

I would be very interested in your explanation for this.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 08:12:28 AM

You do understand that you can accelerate northward, but not change distance from the NP, right?

I would be very interested in your explanation for this.

It's high school physics. See http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l1b.cfm.

ETA: Oh and I used the search function to see that this was discussed over 4 years ago. See http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13732.msg213684;topicseen#msg213684

Re: Photons 'bouncing' off the atmosphere.
Simple optics can be used to predict what should happen. Reflection should happen if the radiation hitting the atmosphere (ergo: the interface between the atmosphere and space)exceeds the interface's critical angle. The equation we need (lifted form my physics textbook) is sin^-1(refractive index of denser medium/refractive index of less dense medium). Air is in terms of optics nearly equivalent to a vacuum, so the critical angle will be very, very close to 90 degrees. OTH radar would hardly have anything actually going over the horizon.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 22, 2012, 06:47:24 AM

1. FE circumnavigation requires travelling in a big curve to left or right

It does, as does RE navigation. Otherwise you'd jut out into space.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 22, 2012, 06:47:24 AM

2. If the earth is flat then this curved path to left or right would be detected by INS.

What? INS doesn't work in terms of left and right. It works in terms of up/down, north/south, east/west. When you travel east in a large circle around the north pole, you remain exactly travelling east. You are making a circle east, because east is a circle. As the dictionary tells you "The cardinal point on the mariner's compass 90° clockwise from due north and directly opposite west." In order to always stay 90° clockwise from due North whilst moving in relation to a point (the north pole), you need to follow a circle. But that circle is always East. East is not a straight line round earth or flat.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 22, 2012, 06:47:24 AM

3. Therefore the FE caveat "you don't notice you are travelling in a path that curves to left or right" is false...

Because your compass says East. The curve is so shallow at equator level you wouldn't notice.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 22, 2012, 06:47:24 AM

4. UNLESS INS is unable to detect such a curve.

It will tell you that you are going East. That will confirm you are making a circle.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 22, 2012, 06:47:24 AM

5. Hence the need of the question "can INS detect the difference between a path that curves to left or right and one that doesn't?"

INS will confirm that you are making a circle. EAST and WEST are circles round earth or flat.

1. Wrong. Since on a RE circumnavigation can be carried out in any direction using a great circle which will enable travel all the way round without a single curve to left or right (obviously this is simplified for descriptive purposes, before anyone attempts to muddy the issue with "what about wind" or other such drivel.) Circumnavigation is not simply direct east to west on a globe. All airlines travel routes which are as close to great circle sections as is practical. It is not possible to do this in FET except travelling due north/south.

2.Wrong. The compass directions are irrelevant, as explained above. The principle would still work if earth had no magnetic field at all. INS does in fact work entirely on the principle of change of direction rather than actual compass heading. Clocktower did not clarify this well and gave the impression that you are correct, when in fact you are totally wrong. Your tight circle round the north pole is a straw man - it's not circumnavigation as it is not travelling round the world any more than driving round an indycar track is circumnavigation. It is also irrelevant to the base question.

3. This is the nearest you have come to actually answering the base question. You are saying that INS would not detect the curvature as it's too shallow, am I right? What your compass says is irrelevant, I am not asking whether compass readings match INS readings.

4. Your answer has no proper meaning. It relies on reference to a compass. You fail to distinguish between a path which curves to left or right and a path which does not curve to left or right. You do not account for circumnavigation in any direction other than east or west and at any latitude other than the equator.

5. Again, you deliberatly use semantics to imply that the "circles" described by east-west navigation and globe navigation are identical, when they are not, and are in fact at 90 degrees to each other with respect to the planes they sweep out.

Thork, tell us what mechanisms INS uses to gather its data.  Then tell us how those mechanisms work.

Thork, tell us what mechanisms INS uses to gather its data.  Then tell us how those mechanisms work.

I'm not Thork, but as far as I know a preplanned map is loaded onto the system with it's current position logged, and there are gyroscopes inside with computers that use the gyroscopes to calculate movement and then use that data to change position on the map. Could be wrong, tough.

use the gyroscopes to calculate movement

How do the gyroscopes detect movement?

Back to the original post, how come we don't have any pictures of this supposed "ice wall"?  Are you telling me that "the Conspiracy" is preventing FE'ers from getting in a boat or a plane and going in one direction until they reach the end of the world?  I feel like this experiment would be the most conclusive, not measuring a mile of flat surface and extrapolating that to the entire Earth.

Quote from: Thork on January 22, 2012, 08:54:55 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 08:12:28 AM

You do understand that you can accelerate northward, but not change distance from the NP, right?

I would be very interested in your explanation for this.

It's high school physics. See http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l1b.cfm.

ETA: Oh and I used the search function to see that this was discussed over 4 years ago. See http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13732.msg213684;topicseen#msg213684

No, no, no no. I want to know how you can accelerate northward without getting any closer to the north pole. That is your claim. Explain please. Your link explains something else entirely.

Your link explains something else entirely.

No, it explains what acceleration means. If you actually understood what it means, you would not be asking such a question in the first place.

Read it.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 09:12:41 AM

Quote from: Thork on January 22, 2012, 08:54:55 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 08:12:28 AM

You do understand that you can accelerate northward, but not change distance from the NP, right?

I would be very interested in your explanation for this.

It's high school physics. See http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l1b.cfm.

ETA: Oh and I used the search function to see that this was discussed over 4 years ago. See http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13732.msg213684;topicseen#msg213684

No, no, no no. I want to know how you can accelerate northward without getting any closer to the north pole. That is your claim. Explain please. Your link explains something else entirely.

Though I find it almost physically painful to agree with Thork, I don't understand how this can happen either. Unless Clocktower is arguing from a semantic standpoint where changing direction without changing speed is described as acceleration.

The premise was that one accelerates northward. Not that one just accelerates. How can you accelerate northward without getting closer to the north pole?