Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    They obviously had history, Boxer seemed to have some very good info, it was just a shame he had to resort to the baiting and insults (he was the reason I asked for a bit of calm).

    Ray Von
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Good to know. Hopefully he learns something from you; I think he learned from us, but only used it to try to fool others.

    I'm interested in why you haven't challenged the data, since it's clearly not reliable?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    As you can imagine, it is very hard for me to follow the conversation over there, but isn't "unreliable data" implied by the fact that the discussion seems to be about fixing the experiment?
     
  4. Mordred

    Mordred New Member

    Thank you Diedre, that is essentially correct.
    Different techniques, I focus on the physics side. The assumption of laser curving upward, aspect. From the physics viewpoint its only data if mathematically modelled. So from one perspective he hasn't any data.

    Our goal is to teach the scientific method. Which experiment is only one step...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    The moderators have laid down the law and forbid any more references to this forum. I assume that means the war of words over why Sandor was banned, because they have already cited several bits of analysis done here.
     
  6. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Some there are demanding that he quantify and define this NUDTZ thing rather than just referring to it as a known effect. Sandor is balking at that.
     
  7. Mordred

    Mordred New Member

    That's already been pointed out as undefined. thermodynamically speaking
     
  8. DarkStar

    DarkStar Active Member

    Submitted for review... (in combination with the previous photo focused on beam spread)

    LakeBalatonComparisonDiagram.
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I have become confused on how Sandor claims to have made height measurements. Was it from these photos or from "direct hits" in the camera and estimating the camera height(for those above the white board)?
     
  10. snaphat

    snaphat Member

    I was on the fence about whether the data was simply biased or flat out wrong until I saw what Boxer said awhile ago.

    DarkStar's post sums up the most crucial issues here. I don't see HOW they collected the data points we were given at this point. It's one thing if they just had a shotty inconclusive experiment, and quite another if we were given intentionally fallacious data. The data matching flat earth despite the prevalent issues in measurements, and the fact that the their own images/videos don't line up with the measurements really suggests fabrication to me. I don't see how they could have incidentally/accidently happened to match the flat earth results when their own measurement images don't match what we were given in the data set.

    The photos, which are presumably suppose to show the "direct hits." Unless I'm missing something.
     
  11. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    No, I believe the original use by Sandor of "Direct hits" was actually "direct CAMERA hits", meaning that they could see the laser in a shot taken from the boat. They then declared that to be the (precise?) height of the laser beam. This is when the whole question of beam divergence came up, which Sandor repeatedly dodged even though asked about it directly several times.
     
  12. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

  13. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    there are 4 pages of hits if you search for " direct camera hit " . In the night time photos it seemed to me he meant if you can see the laser on the shore (which makes no sense, so i figured i was not understanding right)

    anyway, here are a few excerpts pertaining to the phrase: (there are more but i got bored going back and reading)
    Mick's post linked ehre, showing the perpendicular "hit" (in this one they think the glint off the camera lens is a direct hit.. but then in one of the quotes below Sandor says that we can know no data just from photos... so that sounds like they didnt get height measurements fom photos.) ??

    https://www.metabunk.org/lake-balaton-laser-experiment-to-determine-the-curvature-of-the-earth-if-any.t7780/page-19#post-190620

    So my conclusion is sometimes they got a measurement from the shore pics, sometimes they got a measurement from being able to look down the center of the beam with the camera, and sometimes they got a measurement (? maybe) from being able to see the laser on the shore.. but that last one might only have applied to the nighttime experiment. ?

    Doesnt matter. They got no usable data from any method.




     
  14. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    Just looking back through the thread and noticed something here regarding the 50cm measurement.

    This and other pictures all show the board resting on top of the inflatable, and from the picture the 50cm measurement on the board is approximately 15cm above the top of it, making the top of the inflatable ~35cm above the waterline. As the board is 1m in height, even if the board were at 90 degrees to the waterline, the highest the top could be at that point would be 1.35m, yet their measurements put the board top around 1.40m, even with the board at an angle.

    Looking at the specs for the boat (in Wayback as it's not a current model) the inflatable diameter is 48cm, so if the bottom of the inflatable was resting level and on the top of the water, and the board was perfectly vertical, the board top would still only be at ~1.48m. Clearly, none of those things are the case.

    Selva460-1. Selva460-2.

    [​IMG]

    Ray Von
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. I think this just goes back to two points made previously. Either Sandor and the group didn't really know what they were doing, and thus got measurements that they believed to be true, even if logically it doesn't make sense. Or, Sandor and his group lied about the data, but they weren't clever enough not to include all this ridiculously obvious evidence that they were lying.

    A couple the other forums members are actually just admitting that they either haven't watched the video, or only got about ten minutes in. @Mordred, the first ten minutes (roughly) of the video are redundant, as all the data seems to relate to the fourth attempt, which is the rest of the video. That's where @DarkStar is getting his images and data from that he posted over there.

    Sorry I don't particularly like constantly mentioning the other forum here, but as the experiment is basically debunked, debunked as in he proved neither so "victory" for no one (it sounds so stupid reading that last bit out loud because, well, you know, globe...), what else can we really say about it at this stage except, hopefully the other forum manages to "set him level flat straight"...
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  16. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    I think the biggest "red flag" for me is that there was never any provision for being able to measure the beam at heights where the GE model would have put it, or none that we've seen anyway. About the only rebuttal Sandor did offer to the evidence that their measurements were inaccurate was to say that, even if they had been, the laser still wasn't high enough to match the globe, but they didn't have any apparent method of measuring that high. Perhaps Dave(?) has unusually long arms, or took a selfie-stick with him that they didn't use?

    That, and that they set out with the belief that they could consistently reflect a beam supposedly 4 inches in diameter off a camera lens about the same, at distances of several miles on a boat. If Sandor really believes that's what they did he must be buying a lot of lottery tickets.

    Ray Von
     
  17. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i dont think it matters. i would have preferred to watch the thread at the Science forum play out without input from people who had previously spoken to Sandor. I think the members of that site are perfectly capable of figuring things out for themselves*, and most importantly, it is not a debunking site.

    Their focus is different. Which is a good thing.

    I dont think they need it pointed out (just as we didnt need FB people pointing things out to 'us) that 'something is wrong with the data if the results = Flat Earth'.

    We had fun examining what went wrong with his experiment, and i think people should allow that site to have their own fun (or not) with the topic.

    His video claim of proving Flat Earth with his video - which is MBs focus - has been debunked 6 ways to Sunday. What the Science Forum does or how they wish to handle their own focus is really irrelevant. I think we can conclude based on the data that the chances of Sandor 'being straightened out' are .008-.001% (thats a collimeter joke :)



    *ex: from what little i read there, i highly doubt they are reading the LIDAR paper and thinking it does indeed confirm flat lake like Sandor's OP claims.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  18. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    Hmmm, I'm split. On one hand it would have been nice to see a completely fresh take on it, and it might have given Sandor a "reality check" to have a second view. It's certainly noticeable that he at least seems to be taking some criticism of the experiment from them, and even referred to it as a kind of "trial run" rather than "100% PROOFS!!!!".

    On the other I do think the input from MB members has likely saved considerable tail-chasing by people over there, especially when it comes to clarifying that Sandor has no relationship with the LIDAR experiment he raised in the OP. From the responses that's certainly the impression some of them got.

    Ray Von
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I don't think they ever meant to observe a reflection off the camera lens, or claimed they did that. Their claim is that they took pics of the laser beam WITH that camera on the boat. Still nonsense(for determining beam height), but a different kind of nonsense.
     
  20. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    They are still trying to give Sandor the benefit of the doubt and "stick to the science", but some of them are realizing just how ridiculously flawed his experiment is, and the bias with which Sandor has approached the whole thing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Mordred

    Mordred New Member

    All We needed to see was boat, laser,reflective backboard and lake. To tell that the accuracy can never be convincing enough.
    Simple logic even if their accuracy was 99% accurate in measurements. Thats still a huge error not being accounted for. A 0.1 degree error in the level alignment. This error would propogate throughout the entire length.
    (they used the same laser placement)
    So a single error there, would scew data.
    Next the assumption of the laser being straight. This equals impossible. (atmospheric influence)
    Hence corrective data required.
    Did I need to watch the video? There was no trustworthy reference points.
    (all potential error margins must be accountable. including range of error on each measurement).
    A paper or experiment is never accepted without undergoing peer review. Any paper written without proper (error margins, corrective measures) detail is rejected.

    We didn't need to debunk the video to see the errors the methodology had. Its inherent.

    the methodology used is inherently inaccurate. You can reduce or minimize the error margins but not eliminate them. Statistical averaging via multiple samplings help. (on most cases required to develop an error margin range)
    On a side note, this site did an excellent job showing these errors in action. Saved our site the effort. We don't mind cross discussions pointing out errors and corrective measures. We do have a problem when disputes occur or attacking the OP.
    Particularly from previous disputes.

    I'm positive this site feels the same way.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Wouldn't the best target be some kind of photo-receptive devise that can detect the most intense part of the beam and tune out the scatter, therefore showing the true centre?
     
  23. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    I like their style. They're keeping it objective and he's being much politer than he was here.

    I guess there's room for both approaches. ;)
     
  24. Mordred

    Mordred New Member

    Thats one way you can increase accuracy, but if you don't know to analyze the beam intensity on the reciever...

    A reflective surface can be useful if you also measure the reflected laser angle. (Assuming you can discern the centre)
     
  25. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    To be fair, reread Sandors approach here. I thought he was very polite when discussing his upcoming experiment and looking for suggestions.

    But he pretty much came here arguing "flat earth theory" in general. Hawkins etc. Those were the subjects (off topic broad theory) where he got more 'passionate' in conversation, when people on a debunking site offered a viewpoint that contradicted him.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    They just haven't dealt with him long enough to become frustrated with his antics and call him out on stuff. When they do, he will become more defensive like he did here.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  27. Mordred

    Mordred New Member

    As one who is a member on numerous Physics related sites. I can honestly tell you it extremely rare to have an OP willing to perform his own measurements to confirm his model views.

    Unfortunately many don't know the needed details to properly model a system. Let alone the math
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think this thread has run its course. If Sandor returns with a new experiment, or clarification of his discussion with the academics then we can resume.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.