deirdre
Senior Member
and none of the scientists in the peer discussion picked up on that or commented on that, that they think the earth is flat. weird.
Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any.
- Thread starter Sandor Szekely
- Start date
- Status
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
When I run "flat" through an online translator to Hungarian, I get "lakás". When I run "level", I get "szint".
PS: Back the other way, "level" is the same, but "lakás" is "apartment".
PS: Back the other way, "level" is the same, but "lakás" is "apartment".
I mean who are you talking to at the university.
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member
And at which university? You never said.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
I've just spent the last hour looking at the paper you reference - and another paper I found on the Internet - to give me, a complete layman [!], some idea of what these terms mean. I ran across that sentence containing the word level and I was sure that was what you were focusing on. I've run into this problem before with other FE believers. Level - in whatever language - has a special meaning in the science of Geodesy which must be used with caution by the layman.
This paper defines geoid and quasi-geoid (a term new to me). The basic point of the paper is to examine the pros and cons of use of either the geoid, which is based on the gravitational field of the earth at a certain point on the surface of the earth, and the quasi-geoid, which is based on geometry.
http://www2.unb.ca/gge/Personnel/Vanicek/Vanicek-et-al_CGG-42-1_PROOF.pdf
The following quotation includes this phrase; "gravity equipotential surface of constant gravity potential W0." This needs to be defined and is critical to your understanding of what level or horizontal surface means in this context.
Again, I'm a complete layman, and will welcome any correction, but as I understand it a gravity equipotential surface means a surface in which all points have the same potential energy due to gravity. In other words, the same distance from the center of mass of the object. (If something at that surface could fall to the center of the earth it would convert that potential energy into kinetic energy.) In the case of an ideal non-spinning earth the equipotential surface would be the surface of a sphere.
The term quasi-geoid is defined in this same paper but I'll just include this quotation to explain why it is used in the paper written in Hungary:External Quote:
http://www2.unb.ca/gge/Personnel/Vanicek/Vanicek-et-al_CGG-42-1_PROOF.pdf
It is well known in surveying practice that heights of practical value have to be referred to mean sea level; the reasons were elucidated by many authors, among others by Van´ıˇcek in 1998. Thus to obtain some heights of practical value the mean sea level underneath the continents [which I think means below the altitude]has to be known. Such heights are intuitively attractive, and have been shown useful in most engineering applications.
The mean sea level anywhere more or less follows a gravity equipotential surface of constant gravity potential W0. Also surveying instruments in action are aligned with the local gravity vector, perpendicular to the gravity equipotential surfaces. Hence the gravity field clearly plays a very important role in practical height determination.
[Important!]
An equipotential surface of the Earth gravity field at a point is the horizontal (level) surface, passing through that point. As indicated in Fig. 1 there is only one such surface passing through any point and it is the surface that any homogeneous fluid will stabilize to if left alone.
[The gravitational field of the earth is "lumpy" which is why the equipotential surface of the earth is not a perfect sphere. This figure is hugely exaggerated of course.]
Sea water is not homogeneous because at different places it has different temperature, salinity, particle content, etc.; therefore, sea water in reality does not follow a horizontal surface. Ergo, horizontal currents at sea arise, some of them quite strong. Nevertheless, considering that the sea surface is very nearly an equipotential surface, within a range of plus or minus 2 metres, we can reasonably use an equipotential surface as the reference surface for heights. Determination of such a horizontal surface, that best approximates the mean sea level and is called the geoid, is one of the themes of this contribution.
External Quote:
I am just amused by your scientific precision measurements... lol
"Expected rise of 20cm, so " - you just claimed that the beam is slightly downwards.
Am I missing something?
you say we had a beam divergence of alost a meter at 1800 meters from the shore?
what does that end up to on the 6kms distance?
Are you just "experiencing" with different setup possibilites, or are you talking serious here?
what is the explanation of the beam going up on your beam leveled downwards theory?
actually they laughed on the assumption that the lake has a curvature drop of 465 meters across the 77 kms
I showed them the Hungarian university curvature calculator that has the exact same sample calculation in it.
They said: the water is truly flat level surface, surely no 465 meters curvature drop is present.
I asked how that would be possible on the GE model?
We agreed it is an anomally.
I will give you all the details I can when I have the signed contract with them.
Essentially yes, however the "center of gravity" varies depending on where you are, it's not the same as the center of mass, which is what we normally mean by the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth
The simplest definition is just where the surface of the sea would be, if the earth were covered with water, and had no wind or moon.External Quote:
Or course you can't have the Earth covered with water unless you remove the land, which then changes the geoid
Who are they?
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member
Sandor, how come whenever you get asked a direct question you try to deflect it?
did I say that?
NO.
quote again:
They said: the water is truly flat level surface, surely no 465 meters curvature drop is present.
I asked how that would be possible on the GE model?
We agreed it is an anomally.
Z.W. do you think that 465 meters curvature drop is present on this lake surface on the
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Essentially yes, however the "center of gravity" varies depending on where you are, it's not the same as the center of mass, which is what we normally mean by the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth
The simplest definition is just where the surface of the sea would be, if the earth were covered with water, and had no wind or moon.External Quote:
Or course you can't have the Earth covered with water unless you remove the land, which then changes the geoid
Yes, thanks for the correction. And I shouldn't have said, "the same distance." Distance isn't equal to potential energy... except on a perfect and perfectly homogenous sphere.
exactly right
they see that something does not fit here with the GE model - cal it an anomally. they did not say that the earth is flat
Please answer the question Mick asked. Who is they?exactly right
they see that something does not fit here with the GE model - cal it an anomally. they did not say that the earth is flat
snaphat
Member
exactly right
they see that something does not fit here with the GE model - cal it an anomally. they did not say that the earth is flat
The referenced paper in no manner says any of this -- the conclusions have absolutely nothing to do with what you are saying. So what are you talking about? Where are you getting this from? and who said this?
AS I heard from Deirdre I don't have a necessity to answer all questions.
indeed I did answer this one: post 847
"I will give you all the details I can when I have the signed contract with them."
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member
You seriously can't even give an institution? That seems unlikely, especially since I can't imagine your previous consultations would be privileged information.
Who did you consult with?
Who did you consult with?
Why do you have to wait for a signed contract? Tell us now.
deirdre
Senior Member
yea. the Earth is a globe.
deirdre
Senior Member
If you are going to make claims that have nothing to do with your experiment. Claims that assert a real scientist stated and proved in a paper that the Earth is Flat. or the lake itself is flat. Then yes, you have to tell us the name of the person you were talking to and what University he is from.
If you dont wish to answer questions about your experiment, that is your perogative.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
First - You want me to look at a photo of a lake and see what its three dimensional shape is? I don't know where to start with how many problems there are with that. Scale. Distortion. Not going into it.
More importantly - If the authors of this paper found that the surface of Lake Balaton is perfectly flat- as you are defining the word "level" - it wouldn't be an "anomaly," it would be wholly unexplainable.
The problem is that you are misunderstanding the special meaning of "level surface" in the science of Geodsey. Did you read my previous post?
Could you define, in your own words, what "level surface" means when used in the paper you are referring to?
I'll include a quotation from the paper on Lake Balaton: http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_228814.pdf
This clearly means that the surface of the water follows the shape of earth in the area as already determined by other means. This whole experiment was done to see if this method of measurement is accurate.External Quote:
"Water surface ellipsoidal heights" - how can you read that other than to understand that the water surface follows the surface of an ellipsoid?
"Quasi-geoid height variations" - The curved surface of the earth.
Level surface, in the science of Geodesy, means... what? I'll leave it to you to explain in your own words.External Quote:
Last edited:
snaphat
Member
It doesn't make sense that he can't provide an answer for whoever he is signing a contract with or who he is talking about. He can tell us their supposed opinion, but not who or what he is referring to? My best guess at this point is that he is referring to the authors' of 'Observation of a local gravity potential isosurface by airborne lidar of Lake Balaton, Hungary', but then their own conclusions run counter to what he is claiming. He cherry picked the quote about levelness, however the paper itself indicates they are talking about water height above the reference ellipsoid with respect to levelness. The full context of the quote is as follows:
"Comparison of water surface ellipsoidal heights with the quasi-geoid model shows that these correlate very closely, with 90.1 % of the variations in water surface height explained by the quasi-geoid height variations. As far as the resolution of the geoid model allowed, the close correlation of the two data systems confirmed that standing water has a truly level surface. Variations in the ellipsoidal height of the lake water surface are mainly a product of the variations in local gravity potential represented here by the quasi-geoid height;"
In short, it is clear are referring to ellipsoidal heights when they say level; which in no uncertain terms refers to heights above the reference ellipsoid used (i.e. elevation).
first of all you told me that I do not have to answer all questions.
I have my own free will on who I answer (depending on style and the content)
I do not have to answer - okay?
about the university and the persons
PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF I WILL FIRST SETTLE WITH THEM IN A CONTRACT WHAT I CAN ANNOUNCE IN THEIR NAME.
They did NOT say the earth is FLAT, indeed they said they THINK it is a globe but we have an anomally.
p.s. how do you know if they are ahead of a major discovery announcement and I just can not talk about anything else then the written paper of the LIDAR experiment?
I have great concerns with the scientific approach from my debate partners
snaphat
Member
If this is some major discovery, and they don't want the results leaked, and you aren't allowed to tell any details... then why would you be mentioning it here?
deirdre
Senior Member
about your experiment. You asked me that before you presented the youtube video, you were upset people were "misunderstanding" the experiment because all the data hadnt been released yet.
The paper on the "flat lake" has nothing to do with your experiment.
PS. obviousy this is a free country... well where i am is... so you can "not answer" about the paper, but that is breaking PGs and we may decide to moderate those violations. And we will probably all assume you are fibbing through your teeth.
Last edited:
What anomaly? Quote them.
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member
Is their anomaly that the lake matches the expected curvature almost exactly? Because that's what the paper states.
I see you're getting the point here just not realizing it.
If this is some major discovery, and they don't want THEIR results leaked, and you aren't allowed to tell any details OF THEIR RESULTS... then why would you be mentioning it here? BECAUSE I HAVE A SEPARATE measurement that came to the same conclusion.
see how easy that is?
GREAT, we can now go back to MY experiment discussion
SHHHH.. I tell you in private Mick : they said gravitational potential anomally
I have no clue what that means
so we can skipp and go back to my experiment
SO how's the beam angle now?
Do you understand from the autocad explanation why your parameters are not possible?
deirdre
Senior Member
snaphat
Member
Sandor, the point was that if you have an NDA or something like that with the institution (as you seem to be claiming in vague terms); then you shouldn't be making statements about the results here as that would be a breach of contract. If you do not, then I see no reason reason why can't tell anyone details about it since you already mentioned the results anyway...
you're great in taking words out of context
so let's jump here
GREAT, we can now go back to MY experiment discussion
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member
Gravitational potential anomaly is a force of gravity that differs from the expected for that geoid location and height. It could be caused by unexpectedly high or low density formations underneath the anomaly. The lake would not be a planar surface because of one.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
Fine.
1)How did you measure the beam divergence at distance?
2) Why do your two time markers not agree with each other?
deirdre
Senior Member
sorry, i figured the way i wrote that would be a language issue. I meant 'then prove the scientists said what you are claiming they said, that matches your experiment conclusions'.
okay this is my last comment on the university cooperation
we are not signing an NDA, but a cooperation agreement that needs director approval. Not with the persons or institutes listed in the LIDAR pdf - please don't take guesses here. Until that approval I am NOT suposed to tell the names of the participants (person or institute)
Indeed I have spoke to more and we have discussed the points of my concern already. I repeat they DO NOT THINK that the earth is flat. What I am making statements of is MY own results or the results that was published in the LIDAR document. If you think it has nothing to do with my experiment - fine.
and YES after the contract is done I will know what we can share - I suppose this will not be a secret as it was never from my side.
understood now
NO they did not say my experiment matches their as they know marginal about my experiment yet.
I said to them and to you that my experiment matches their results.
SO we will be back to this question in about max 10 days- okay?
Rory
Closed Account
All this talk of an anomaly at Lake Balaton got me interested in looking at the geoid data again, even though we decided way back when (link to posts) that it wasn't relevant.
I went to the geoid height calculator here and entered several sets of coordinates along the line shown below:
These are the coordinates, and the results the calculator returned:
This is a graph plotting the geoid height (height above the ellipsoid) for the above line, starting in the southwest and ending in the northeast:
And this is a graph for the same line plotting the distances from the centre of the earth:
The second graph, I think, is largely irrelevant, as what it shows is the ellipsoid (plus the relatively minute variation in geoid height) which we should expect to appear as an apparently straight line over such a short distance.
The first graph is slightly more interesting, but only slightly. What it shows is a gradual decrease in height above the ellipsoid from southwest to northeast of 32.6cm over almost 70km - or less than 0.5cm per kilometre.
I guess if there is an anomaly it doesn't show itself here. It will be interesting to find out what the anomaly is.
Excel spreadsheet attached if anyone wants to play with this further.
I went to the geoid height calculator here and entered several sets of coordinates along the line shown below:
These are the coordinates, and the results the calculator returned:
This is a graph plotting the geoid height (height above the ellipsoid) for the above line, starting in the southwest and ending in the northeast:
And this is a graph for the same line plotting the distances from the centre of the earth:
The second graph, I think, is largely irrelevant, as what it shows is the ellipsoid (plus the relatively minute variation in geoid height) which we should expect to appear as an apparently straight line over such a short distance.
The first graph is slightly more interesting, but only slightly. What it shows is a gradual decrease in height above the ellipsoid from southwest to northeast of 32.6cm over almost 70km - or less than 0.5cm per kilometre.
I guess if there is an anomaly it doesn't show itself here. It will be interesting to find out what the anomaly is.
Excel spreadsheet attached if anyone wants to play with this further.
- Status
Similar threads
