Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any.

Discussion in 'Flat Earth' started by Sandor Szekely, Jul 31, 2016.

Not open for further replies.
1. Bernard Mc DonnellMember

There you go with an assumption though, when you're having a go at others for the same thing. "It had to be" is not proof that that is the case. Your last "direct camera hit" implies downwards refraction if we take it as an efficient measurement. But as @Mick West and others have said, how is this an accurate measurement?

According to your approximate measurements, it precisely matches only the globe. If a carpenter was 1 centimetre out in the middle and 5 out at the end you'd question their methods no?

2. BoxerBannedBanned

Also google saved some of the article so this is definitely a cheating attempt to fake sources, and its seriously questions the OP honest intentions.

• Like x 1
• Informative x 1
• Useful x 1
3. Bernard Mc DonnellMember

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2016

5. Bernard Mc DonnellMember

It does indeed. I can't seem to find it's creation date, however that's maybe a bit cynical of me thinking it may coincide with the timeline of Sandors video. So I retract my implication!

6. BoxerBannedBanned

But using this so called NUDTZ with straight face to explain the horizon is just a derailing excuse. i saw similar "explanations" in Jeranism's videos, where obscured by horizon = mirage, and its always where we expect the visible horizon.... pretty weak but they use it when their fake perspective lines diagrams wont convince the audience.

• Like x 1
7. Bass In Your FaceActive Member

If @Sandor Szekely does not answer this simple and very important question, the entire experiment means pretty much nothing.

Please, @Sandor Szekely, answer the question on "direct hit", in full detail. You should realize how important this question is, considering the conclusion of the experiment rests solely on these measurements.

If I can see the laser hit the whiteboard, AND the laser's origin, AND the camera height is different than the laser hit on the whiteboard.....then your "direct hit" is nothing close to a direct hit and the experiment is completely moot.

I honestly feel like nothing else matters in this discussion anymore until that question is answered. Am I wrong?

• Agree x 2
• Like x 1
8. deirdreModeratorStaff Member

• Informative x 1
9. Sandor SzekelyBannedBanned

Mick what should I explain here?
That the eyelevel of the camera can not be 4.3 meters high? just because Nicu is not that tall.
or that the laser beam is straight, and if you draw all the measurement points on the 3D map then you get the SAME height as we recorded it?

And of course laser beam (1/2) divergence can not account for that 2.5 meters height difference as well.

You don't need to explain anything. It's clear you did not measure the center of the beam, so you did not get a series of measurements. The experiment failed.

• Like x 1
11. deirdreModeratorStaff Member

you said right in the beginning of your video that the divergence would be huge. i believe he said at 10 miles the beam would be a mile wide. (or am i remembering that incorrectly?)

12. Sandor SzekelyBannedBanned

BASS it's so simple..

the max board height was 1.4 meters so our measurements over longer distances are above that board as the leveling height was at 1.32 meters.
Did you see the excel sheet? it is well expleined there.

In position C11 at a distance of 2.5kms (1.55 miles) we can see the LASER BEAM DIRECT HIT above the board in the boat.
On the FE model: the laser beam should hit exactly at that 1.49 meter (4.88 feet) height as it does in real life!
On the GE model the laser beam should hit at 1.84 meter (6.04 feet) high!

In position C12 at a distance of 2.67kms (1.66 miles) we can see the LASER BEAM DIRECT HIT on the board in the boat.
On the FE model: the laser beam should hit exactly at that 1.51 meter (4.95 feet) height as it does in real life!
On the GE model the laser beam should hit at 1.92 meters (6.3 feet) high!

SO the GE curved water surface model is already debunked here!

All the rest of the measurements are just proving the same: GE model NOT possible

In position C16 at a distance of 3.9kms (2.42 miles) we can see the LASER BEAM DIRECT HIT on the board in the boat.
On the FE model: the laser beam should hit exactly at that 1.63 meter (5.35 feet) height as it does in real life!
On the GE model the laser beam should hit at 2.6 meters (8.53 feet) high!

THIS measurement is showing CLEARLY the direct hit of the laser beam as well.
You can see the beam divergence WELL too.
The distance is almost 4 kms!

In position C18 at a distance over 5kms (3.1 miles) we can see the LASER BEAM DIRECT HIT on the persons in the boat.
On the FE model: the laser beam should hit exactly at that 1.74 meter (5.71 feet) height as it does in real life!
On the GE model the laser beam should hit at 3.45 meters (11.32 feet) high!

DO YOU SEE the laser beam direct hit at their head level?
That is an other impossibility for the GE model
Distance is at 5 kms!

This is our furthest measurement on the last experiment
In position C37 at a distance over 6kms (3.73 miles) we can see the LASER BEAM DIRECT HIT on the persons in the boat.
On the FE model: the laser beam should hit exactly at that 1.84 meter (6 feet) height as it does in real life!
On the GE model the laser beam should hit at 4.32 meters (14.17 feet) high!

Check all the other measurement position pictures on the google drive here and ask for any of it directly.

• Disagree x 1
13. Sandor SzekelyBannedBanned

You miss understood something - the divergence is huge without a collimator.

We had a perfect collimator for the job

here are the details of the laser and camers of the experiment

Cameras: Canon 6d with GPS + Canon 650d + Nikon P900 + Samsung mobile GPS + 2x GoPro
Teleobjectives: Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6 IS L USM optics + Canon 2X MK III extender
Canon 70-200 2.8 L USM

Audio: 2x TascamDR 22WL wifi

• Agree x 1
• Disagree x 1
14. deirdreModeratorStaff Member

then you proved your beam is slanting down. and why are your "direct hit" pics all so tiny? what's up with that?

• Agree x 1
• Disagree x 1
15. Sandor SzekelyBannedBanned

okay that's eighter a joke or your personal opinion.

In my opinion we proved the water surface is NOT curved - just shared some measurement evaluations.
Look for more in the excel

• Disagree x 3
• Agree x 1
16. Hama NeggsSenior Member

Your C11 distance is stated as being 2.5 kilometers or 2500 meters. (actually the pic shows 2490 meters)

Your C12 position is stated as being 2.67 kilometers or 2670 meters.

That is a movement of 170 meters. (180 - the remaining figures not corrected for this)

Your C11 time is shown as being 6:50:28

Your C12 time is shown as being 6:50:46

That is a time interval of 18 seconds.

This means that the boat must have moved 170 meters in 18 seconds or 9.44 meters per second / 34 kilometers per hour. That's not realistically possible, so something is wrong here.

The Cannon camera shows a difference of from 12:25 to 13:04, which is a difference of 39 seconds to move 170 meters, which would be some 4.4 meters per second or 15.8 kilometers per hour. Somewhat more realistic, but if the boat was moving that fast, how can accurate readings have been taken? Why the wide disparity on the two time stamps covering the same event? Again... something is wrong here.

Last edited: Sep 6, 2016
17. Sandor SzekelyBannedBanned

the beam is slanting down? what does that mean?

We measured the laser at 1.62 meters in the C16 position
on the FE model it should be at 1.63 meters
on the GE model it should be at 2.6 meters

that is QUITE a difference!
GE model is NOT possible

why is the laser dot tiny? lol

because it is WELL COLLIMATED
not diverging and far away

• Agree x 1
• Disagree x 1
18. Spectrar GhostSenior Member

Note again direct hits on both the board and camera.

Last edited: Sep 6, 2016
19. Hama NeggsSenior Member

Then why isn't it seen hitting the board on the inset pic? Aren't they supposed to be simultaneous?

No, you can only see that some PART of the beam is clipping the top of the board.

20. Sandor SzekelyBannedBanned

what is this Ghost?

would you please be so kind to write something if you are asking?? thanks a lot

Sorry Sandor, you simply did not measure the center of the beam, so you have no idea where it is. All you shows was that you could see some light from the laser

Why on earth did you not use a bigger board? Or even just hold up that board to show the size of the beam?

• Agree x 2
22. Sandor SzekelyBannedBanned

The beam hit is WELL seen on the C16 position picture (right side zoomed)

AS I said before: you can see the height of the laser and the beam divergence as well at C16

On the FE model: the laser beam should hit exactly at that 1.63 meter (5.35 feet) height as it does in real life!
On the GE model the laser beam should hit at 2.6 meters (8.53 feet) high!

WHERE DO YOU see the beam ?

• Dislike x 1
23. Clouds GivemethewilliesActive Member

• Informative x 2
24. Hama NeggsSenior Member

Now that I look again, the beam seems to be hitting ABOVE the white board. On the person? The beam reflection seems oddly shaped. Hard to tell what we are seeing there.

I don't see it on the white board in the inset pic, but apparently it was above the board at that point. However, the lateral position of the "camera hit" in the inset photo is NOT the same position of the reflected laser beam seen in the right side zoomed. If those are at the same moment, it's just more evidence of divergence.

So this is a "direct hit" in the camera, AND it is hitting the top of the board two feet below?

26. Hama NeggsSenior Member

Perhaps you overlooked my post #514? It raises the same point that others are raising. Are you going to address it?

Interesting that that uses the exact same bit of lake:

I'm not clear what it means though. But there seems to be a 20cm deviation in the surface of the lake from the expected heigh from the north to south shores in the inset section.

28. Steve TorrenceMember

Where do you see 20cm variation? I only see less than 1cm deviation represented in the graph. It seems a histogram graph.

was looking at the histogram here as a key:

• Informative x 2
30. Bass In Your FaceActive Member

I don't think you even once addressed my question.

Im asking HOW CAN YOU VERIFY this "direct hit". Do you acknowledge the margin of error for this "direct hit" method of measurement, considering the beam divergence (that you seem to acknowledge in previous posts)?

In ONE photo:
If the camera height is different than the height of the mark on the whiteboard, and *from* my camera I can SEE the laser's origin AND the mark on the whiteboard, then you've just proven that a margin of error exists for this method of measurement.

Do you acknowledge this? And do you have some sort of controlled setup to test your "direct hit" method.

I don't want a list of your measurements, I want you to verify the control of the method of measurement for the important parts of this experiment.

If you CANT verify some sort of control or knowledge of your "direct hit-beam divergence" margin of error, then this experiment means nothing, and when you present it to a community of scientists who peer review, your experiment will be rejected outright, due to lack of control.

• Agree x 1
31. Steve TorrenceMember

The range is 149.65 to 150.55. That is a .9 cm deviation with most of the deviation falling between 149.95 to 150.4 which is .45 cm. I think 1/2 cm could be attributed to wind currents. Where do you read 20cm deviation?

• Disagree x 2
• Agree x 1
32. Ray Von GeezerSenior Member

According to the scale that looks to be metres, presumably above sea level?

Ray Von

• Agree x 3
33. deirdreModeratorStaff Member

that's too technical for me. you said earlier that
so what all your technical numbers above is telling me is that you started with a one inch beam and it will only spread to 4 inches over 15 miles?

i admit to being totally confused but this is 2.4 miles and it looks bigger than 4 inches. this is the picture you sent me.

and what is the green light hitting above the board? is that some guys back? in a white coat?
edit: ok nix that last part, i found him.. its this rather wide man in the white coat.

Last edited: Sep 6, 2016
34. Sandor SzekelyBannedBanned

THANKS, this is awsome, I am still evaluating my reading!

you knwo, that this is the same people and university that I am preparing my presentation for?

No wonder they were very interested to see my experiemnt results.

35. Sandor SzekelyBannedBanned

beam reflexion is oddly shaped because of the material (jacket) it is reflected from.

If you see the laser beam above the board on the jacket, and the same time in the optics, that is because Nick bent his knees LOL

you know why? to get a hit into the camera

AND

at position C16

On the FE model: the laser beam should hit exactly at that 1.63 meter (5.35 feet) height as it does in real life!
On the GE model the laser beam should hit at 2.6 meters (8.53 feet) high!

I ask again: WHERE do you see the laser beam?
at 1.63 meters OR at 2.6 meters?

36. Ray Von GeezerSenior Member

@Sandor Szekely Looking at these images, the first two measurements look to be taken with the boat still, the rest look to be with it in motion - I can see wake, the top of the motor is closer to the water and I can see more of the people on the boat.

That looks to me like the rear of the boat is "squatting" (I'm sure there's a correct nautical term) and the front is lifting? How did you take this into account in your measurements?

Ray Von

37. BoxerBannedBanned

The only problem is that you didn't conducted any scientific experiment, also presenting scientific data in video form, well just not the best, but i can imagine its look less silly then a mat and methods part of a paper that says this:

"Well because we were to lazy to get a good height board for the experiment after one mile we totally switched measuring method into the standard guesstimation protocol"

• Like x 1
38. Steve TorrenceMember

I don't see the boat squatting in the later pictures. I see the bottom of the boat getting more obscured by the refraction zone near the water just because of the further distance. You can see on the reflection that the missing part of the motor is in this difficult to see area.

• Agree x 1
• Disagree x 1
39. Ray Von GeezerSenior Member

I had wondered about that, but I'm using the yellow line (which I presume is the approximate water surface) and the top of the motor as reference. If it's not squatting, I don't think the yellow line can be correct.

There's also being able to see more of the people on board. There is a seat which looks to be in the middle, in front of the pilot, but the guy on the left appears to be standing all the way through. Maybe the photographer went to higher ground?

Ray Von

40. BoxerBannedBanned

@Mick West @deirdre We have the guy who tried to make the wiki page for their refraction zone hypothesis

So Steven why dont you make a thread here to discuss your new phenomena ?