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

Status
Not open for further replies.
YES, good eyes

the camera focus is causing this phenomenon

Thanks, and congratulations on your huge effort and patience. If nothing else you have proved how difficult such an undertaking can be..

First Id like to say that i really respect that you guys are actually doing something to prove your thesis.

I dont know if this has been up but wouldnt it have been a bit more simple and more foolproof ( to avoid the hassle about the facts that a boat isnt still and using laser close to the water due to refraction) to go with the bedford level experiment ?

Have 3 poles in a line with some sort of marker exactly 12 feet above the waterline below them.
At the first pole you attach the laser to hit the last pole in the line. Given a flat earth, the middle marker should be hit by the laser at the same hight (presumably by the same hight above the waterline)
However a globe earth the laser would hit the middle pole significantly lower than the mark.

Not only would this prove the same thing - curvature over water, but it would eliminate the many variables that seems to cause the problems.

Wouldnt this experiment have been possible on a frozen lake by the way ? Shouldnt this eliminate refraction as well as the problems with a boat bobbing ?

First Id like to say that i really respect that you guys are actually doing something to prove your thesis.

I dont know if this has been up but wouldnt it have been a bit more simple and more foolproof ( to avoid the hassle about the facts that a boat isnt still and using laser close to the water due to refraction) to go with the bedford level experiment ?

Have 3 poles in a line with some sort of marker exactly 12 feet above the waterline below them.
At the first pole you attach the laser to hit the last pole in the line. Given a flat earth, the middle marker should be hit by the laser at the same hight (presumably by the same hight above the waterline)
However a globe earth the laser would hit the middle pole significantly lower than the mark.

Not only would this prove the same thing - curvature over water, but it would eliminate the many variables that seems to cause the problems.

Yes that is a better way of doing it, and was the way Wallace did it in 1870, and I suggested it here:
He drew it himself:

The key here is that measurement are not taken from boats. There are just three sticks (described as "staves" at the time. They are fixed so their tops (or rather the visible points A, B and C) are equal heights above the waterline.

This was done on a canal, which has a very still surface, so very accurate measurements were used. It was also six miles from point A to point C, so a more significant drop. The sticks were also tall enough (13 feet above the waterline) to be well clear of the water surface to avoid both being obscured, and the effects of refraction.

This is probably best done with a powerful telescope at A. However you could do it with the laser at A, assuming you can hit the target at six miles. Both would also work. The staves at B and C would need sufficiently visible targets.

Suggested points:
View attachment 20527

However that's probably too far at 6.9 miles, you might want to try to get it something between 5 and 6 miles, so you can actually see point C from a reasonable height above the water.

There's also the challenge of measuring the height above the waterline in all three locations. It's possible to get a very accurate reading, just not trivial. But for a simple demonstration, assuming A-C is six miles, then within half a foot should work.

Wouldnt this experiment have been possible on a frozen lake by the way ? Shouldn't this eliminate refraction as well as the problems with a boat bobbing ?
A frozen lake would be ideal. You'd still get some refraction though, as there's still going to a temperature gradient near the ice surface.

Having gone back through the thead to the start. I think I can see where the mistake in the beam divergence comes from. The quoted value is not from some measurement, or calculation but is the collimator spec. What is on the end of the laser is better referred to as beam expanding telescope. With perfect lenses and focus, the beam divergence out of the telescope is simply the divergence in divided by the telescope magnification. If he knows the orginal beam expansion and the magnification then he can find out his best actual divergence.

External Quote:
Ian Dalton Have a read through the metabunk page. They used a very accurate method for levelling the laser called slope corrected levelling.
They clearly don't understand what "slope correction" is.

External Quote:
Ian Dalton Have a read through the metabunk page. They used a very accurate method for levelling the laser called slope corrected levelling.
They clearly don't understand what "slope correction" is.

The facebook page however is a good judge of the type of person who follows the flat earth belief. This @Ian Dalton chap is a prime example. @Sandor Szekely told him something that relates to flat earth, and this experiment, and he jumps on it, someone like @Mick West refutes the claim and he's wholeheartedly skeptical.

Their average research and critical thinking ability seems to get overpowered by their confirmation bias. I think that's the basic reason why Mick suggested doing this a different way, and even doing the Bedford level instead. It has to be attempted in the most straightforward manner possible with lots and lots of measurements taken and video and photo evidence so that flat earthers can see that it's not been falsified.

I stumbled across a group a while back that attempted a meet up to try out their own version of the bedford level, by the way they described what they did, they really didn't understand how to perform the experiment at all, and it's not a difficult experiment if you have the right equipment. Apologies I don't have a link to the Facebook group in particular.

Bernard.

External Quote:
Ian Dalton Have a read through the metabunk page. They used a very accurate method for levelling the laser called slope corrected levelling.
They clearly don't understand what "slope correction" is.

We'll it seems less that they don't understand and more that they really just want this to be the end all experiment for the globe. Ian has been particularly against criticism. I'm glad that this is on metabunk though bc it allows for a thorough evaluation and allows for you folks to provide valid criticism without it getting washed away in hostile comments

External Quote:
Ian Dalton Have a read through the metabunk page. They used a very accurate method for levelling the laser called slope corrected levelling.
They clearly don't understand what "slope correction" is.

External Quote:
"Any measurement that you make, without knowledge of the uncertainty, is meaningless." ~ Walter Lewin (MIT)

We seem to left in a situation here where we lack sufficient knowledge of the uncertainty in the angle of the laser, in the diffraction of the laser light, in how laser light appears when pointed at a camera, and in the conditions of the atmosphere affecting refraction.

Unless we can reduce these uncertainties to some acceptable level then the results are inconclusive.

I concur with Hama that at least Ian doesn't seem to understand what the requirement was for 'slope leveling'.

Refresher:

The requirement was to clearly measure the laser spot on a target, at a series of distances, UNDER STABLE CONDITIONS (NOT A MOVING BOAT) where we could, in the video, see the minimum and maximum extents of the laser as the boat bounced up and down (I don't care how much you CLAIM the boat was bouncing, we need the evidence which you don't have because you don't have the laser hitting a board on a stable boat for any of the measurements except maybe the first one). This way we could see both the laser spread in more detail, we could visually verify your marking of the height, we could have better knowledge of the uncertainty, and it would give us a TREND where we could mathematically subtract out the linear SLOPE of the laser - leaving behind the curvature.

ONLY with this level of detail we can even begin to evaluate what happened -- and even that isn't necessarily sufficient because we clearly see from some of the images that the refraction was, at times, pretty extreme. So again, the burden of proof here would be to show that at the time of the measurements you want to present as evidence that the refraction was not extreme in the other direction. Without removing that uncertainty we don't have a valid test.

And despite this not being our first choice in methodology Sandor attempted to do this -- but seemingly failed to actually do it as agreed because we don't have the laser hitting a board for the measurement and Sandor took them on a MOVING boat -- so Sandor pivoted to "direct hit in the camera" which we complete reject as a valid methodology. Sandor's team would have to establish that this is a valid methodology with conclusive evidence before I would accept it (and I reject it on the basis of knowledge about laser diffraction - your claimed magical level of collimation is impossible according to all understanding and actual measurements of lasers -- so again, Sandor will have the burden of proof to show that his collimation conclusively exceeds all theoretical limits).

We gave Sandor the better 'Wallace methodology' multiple times and they rejected using the better methodology in favor of their own already known to be flawed methodology (mostly by putting the laser down near the water).

I sum up 'science' as being a process of removing known sources of error (like using flawed methodologies), bias, and illogic -- sadly this test of curvature left in these errors.

To be fair, we pointed out some of these well in advance.

I would like to remind our friends that by 'leveling' the laser at some distance it should be PERFECTLY LEVEL on a Flat Earth -- it shouldn't be pointing up or down.

On a curved Earth it would be pointing DOWN (relative to a point tangent at the source) -- by pointing DOWN it would first get a little 'lower' on a board when measured until it was past the point where it passes closest to the horizon point and then it would rise up higher over an observer past that point. Where that point lies depends on the angle.

So far, your observations are closer to the curved Earth model because they do not follow a straight-line.

I'll try to do some calculations to find how far out we might expect that point to be.

They clearly don't understand what "slope correction" is.
I concur with Hama that at least Ian doesn't seem to understand what the requirement was for 'slope leveling'.

I think there's some confusion here all round. I think @Sandor Szekely does understand the issues with the slope, but simply used the term "slope correction" differently to how I originally did.

Sandor realizes that on the globe earth, if you draw a straight line between two points A and B that are the same height above sea level, then the line AB will tilt down slightly relative to a level line from A.

Originally Sandor was going to "level" the laser in this way at one mile. I explained this would make the drop harder to see, as the slope of the laser would be closer to the curve of the Earth.

So instead, the leveling was done by aiming the laser at a higher point on the boat. The laser is mounted on the shore at 1.25m, and then aimed at 1.32m on the boat at a distance of 0.75 km. This 7cm rise is a bit higher than the actual drop of 4cm, and should ensure the laser is not pointed down (assuming all measurements are reasonably accurate).

Sandor explained this earlier:
before we get into the calculation of the different positions let's make the leveling accuracy clear:

As you say Mick we have to use slope correction with the GE curved water surface model. That is 4 cms drop at the 717 meters distance, (starting from 1.25 meter height) that makes the laser beam center to be at a 1.29 meter height on the whiteboard.
Our laser beam center was at 1.325 meter according to the picture:
(please check your original size picture too, and mark the height lines : the bottom of the black tape (that is 4.8cms wide) is at 125 cms measured in the harbour. the plastic whiteboard has 0.5cm lines in its material when you zoom into it)
View attachment 20800

on the FE flat water model:
Our beam is starting at 1.25m and leveled with slope correction to 1.32 meters at 717 meters distance this means the beam is upwards a bit when the lake is flat.

on the GE curved water model: Our beam starting at 1.25m is leveled with slope correction to 1.32 meters at 717 meters distance this means the beam is upwards a tiny bit - say as much as the waves probably move the boat. The drop calculation of the distance is 4cms that makes perfect level at 1.29 meter.

So Sandor understands this particular issue. The real issues here are the accuracy of measurements, particularly the "direct hit" measurement, but also the margins of error for the initial "leveling" measurement.

I concur with Hama that at least Ian doesn't seem to understand what the requirement was for 'slope leveling'.

I believe that also applies to Sandor, as far as I can tell. I have posed a question to him regarding that, but no response so far.

So instead, the leveling was done by aiming the laser at a higher point on the boat. The laser is mounted on the shore at 1.25m, and then aimed at 1.32m on the boat at a distance of 0.75 km. This 7cm rise is a bit higher than the actual drop of 4cm, and should ensure the laser is not pointed down (assuming all measurements are reasonably accurate).

Thanks for the clarification Mick, I thought the 1.25m mark was the 717m measurement. I see now what they tried to do.

But there is the problem that the boat is moving at this point and we don't know what the margin of error is for that measurement under that condition so we don't know the slope at that point with much certainty. A video of the journey from start to 717 meters showing that the laser stays on mark and only slowly rises would, I think, help eliminate that uncertainty.

Any thoughts on ways we could reduce the uncertainty in other areas?

I think it's going to be hard without any more distant measurements that didn't hit a white board so we can see them. I just don't trust laser glints in the camera as being reliable enough to find the main part of the laser beam and not merely be catching some of the 'amoeba' - which we already see growing substantially at this 717m shot.

Originally Sandor was going to "level" the laser in this way at one mile. I explained this would make the drop harder to see, as the slope of the laser would be closer to the curve of the Earth.
would it really matter if the laser was level anyway? provided the laser didnt point down.

if you had enough measurements at appropriate intervals and an appropriate size board, you could still do the math to determine the curve but you would have to also calculate the up angle of the laser-which you [should be able] to do with enough mearsurements.

well i guess technically even if the laser was pointing down a bit you should still be able to do the math if enough measurements were taken properly. no?

would it really matter if the laser was level anyway? provided the laser didnt point down.

if you had enough measurements at appropriate intervals and an appropriate size board, you could still do the math to determine the curve but you would have to also calculate the up angle of the laser-which you [should be able] to do with enough mearsurements.

well i guess technically even if the laser was pointing down a bit you should still be able to do the math if enough measurements were taken properly. no?

Yes, if it's accurate enough it does not matter. The curve will look the same, the slope of the laser will vary but you will still get a curve.

However as the measurement were guaranteed NOT to be accurate (bouncing boat at the very least) I recommended the laser be actually level, as then the difference between curve and straight line would be more apparent. The laser pointing up a bit would actually be ideal, if you could get sufficient measurements.

Yes, if it's accurate enough it does not matter. The curve will look the same, the slope of the laser will vary but you will still get a curve.

However as the measurement were guaranteed NOT to be accurate (bouncing boat at the very least) I recommended the laser be actually level, as then the difference between curve and straight line would be more apparent. The laser pointing up a bit would actually be ideal, if you could get sufficient measurements.

Without some way to quantize the diffraction of the laser and refraction due to atmosphere I think all may be lost on this run.

But let me throw some basic numbers out here...

Round Earth Slope

Let's say that over 700m we went from 125cm to 132cm - that's 7cm, 4cm of which would be curvature 'drop' so that leaves 3cm per 700m or just about 26cm over 6km for the rise due to angle above level.

So at 6km (before diffraction and refraction) we would expect the laser to be 283cm + 26cm = 309cm above the 125cm level.

(R1) slope = 3cm/700m
(R2) slope offset at 6km = 26cm
(R3) total rise at 6km = 309cm

I don't have any data to compare this with but that's the basic numbers.

Flat Earth Slope

Ok same thing on Flat Earth, it's 7cm/700m (no subtraction for curvature)

(F1) slope = 7cm/700m
(F2) slope offset at 6km = 60cm
(F3) total rise at 6pm = 60cm (same as (F2) since there should be no curvature)

In this case (again, before diffraction and refraction) the laser should be about 60cm above the 125cm mark.

Problem is... If the laser is up higher than +60cm then Sandor can legitimately wonder if refraction bent it up (diffraction only works in his favor in this arrangement I think), and if it's below +309cm we will legitimately have to wonder about diffraction spreading the beam and refraction bending it down (which IS the normal case).

Meanwhile, here is another question case -- why is there a big green laser stripe on his arm? In addition to diffraction of the beam, this could possibly cause false "camera direct hits". Suspect this is caused by internal reflections from the laser & collimator housing.

And if I may - "just LOOK at that laser, clearly pointing downward!"

External Quote:
Ian Dalton Have a read through the metabunk page. They used a very accurate method for levelling the laser called slope corrected levelling.
They clearly don't understand what "slope correction" is.

Again we're back to quoting the separate discussion on Facebook that has nothing to do with this particular debate and Sandor is not part of. I fail to see why my understanding (or lack of) of the levelling method has got anything to do with anything. I did not carry out the experiment so my understanding of the levelling method is entirely irrelevant. I understand that slope correction is a method of removing the expected slope based on the multiple height measurements retrospectively. I understand that in order for slope correction to work they had to take multiple height readings along the path of the laser then apply the correction formula for the globe model only afterwards. You keep talking about how it's not accurate on a moving boat, but Mick said in the beginning of this thread that it would be accurate if they took enough readings which I understand is what happened. The lake is very shallow and calm, I can't see that the movement of the boat would make much difference, especially given how many height readings they took. It is my understanding that the levelling has been approved as accurate.

The important thing is here that Sandor does fully understand the method and to my knowledge he followed it accurately and Mick has confirmed this.

Again we're back to quoting the separate discussion on Facebook that has nothing to do with this particular debate and Sandor is not part of. I fail to see why my understanding (or lack of) of the levelling method has got anything to do with anything. I did not carry out the experiment so my understanding of the levelling method is entirely irrelevant. ...

It's a bit disingenuous to make claims on facebook and act as if you have an intimate understanding of the experiment, as well as, his claims. And to then to try to distance yourself from it when folks mention those claims here. If you hadn't been acting as if you were an authority on the experiment on facebook, I don't believe these folks would have quoted you or had that bit of discussion

In an ideal world, wouldn't this experiment be easier and more accurate if it was done on a surface like the dry lakes in northern South Australia?

ok I have been following this thread for a while and can I ask if the experiment collected any data? from my understanding we would get at the end of this a set of laser hight compared to distance. did they collect that or did they just go out and mess about on a boat? because to quote a mythbuster.

"the only diffrance between screwing around and science is writing it down"

Again we're back to quoting the separate discussion on Facebook that has nothing to do with this particular debate and Sandor is not part of. I fail to see why my understanding (or lack of) of the levelling method has got anything to do with anything. I did not carry out the experiment so my understanding of the levelling method is entirely irrelevant. I understand that slope correction is a method of removing the expected slope based on the multiple height measurements retrospectively. I understand that in order for slope correction to work they had to take multiple height readings along the path of the laser then apply the correction formula for the globe model only afterwards. You keep talking about how it's not accurate on a moving boat, but Mick said in the beginning of this thread that it would be accurate if they took enough readings which I understand is what happened. The lake is very shallow and calm, I can't see that the movement of the boat would make much difference, especially given how many height readings they took. It is my understanding that the levelling has been approved as accurate.

The important thing is here that Sandor does fully understand the method and to my knowledge he followed it accurately and Mick has confirmed this.

I'm sure people would stop referring to the Facebook chats if you stopped posting things in reference to the people here that simply aren't true;

External Quote:
Mick is the only one on there who understands the experiment, he explained everything to Sandor. Mick has gone quiet since he saw the data...
First of all, people understand the experiment quite well. For you to say that only Mick understands it, do you include Sandor and yourself in that seeing as you both are members here? It's quite incendiary to put down people that you seek an approval of some sorts from. To me it sounds like you're basically saying everyone else here hasn't got a clue.

Secondly, you keep saying "we", and "our" in your Facebook chat as though you've been heavily involved with this experiment. So why shouldn't you be called upon to answer questions in relation to the information that's being put out before the official data is released?

Edit: Oh and Mick never went quiet on here like you say he did. Look back through the thread and pinpoint where he did if you think I'm wrong.

Last edited:
In an ideal world, wouldn't this experiment be easier and more accurate if it was done on a surface like the dry lakes in northern South Australia?

It would have if temperature gradients between the land and air above allowed for less refraction from my understanding. Clearly there wouldn't be a bobbing boat involved in that instance so that would have made it easier. Sandor has given reference to performing this later in the year when the lake has frozen over, so again that would be a better way again.

Your debate on Facebook is quite relevant in my opinion, because you do indeed act like an authority on there, even if you aren't. I've said before that you seem to take everything Sandor says to you as gospel, but when people, mainly Mick, explain to the problems with things like refractio, you simply brush it off as though it's not properly understood outside of a lab.

Metabunk includes the ability to quote external sources, so why wouldn't people use that facility. Also, a lot of people don't use Facebook but can view posts in public groups. What's the problem with that? And also, your particular group, and indeed others like it, are quite hostile. Even the few moderators, yourself included, are quite hostile to "non-believers", so a forum like this to discuss the experiment is much more appealing.

Ok I have never claimed to be an authority lol. I'm just talking about what Sandor has told me
youve made a statement very similar to this one earlier in the thread as well. That seems to make you an authority in my opinion. If you are repeating what Sandor told you, it counts as a statement from Sandor.

That said, if you guys (MB members) want to squabble take it to FB. If you want to examine a specific statement you see on FB regarding the actual experiment, that is fair game imo as long as you provide source links so the rest of us can see context.

bouncing boat at the very least

"Not hardly" as they say. That type of boat is highly damped and it is flat calm. They could improve things further by mounting the screen at the centre of bouancy - somewhere above the boat and in line with the CG. in plan view.

Edit: I should have written 'metacentre' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacentric_height#Metacentre

Last edited:
I'm sure people would stop referring to the Facebook chats if you stopped posting things in reference to the people here that simply aren't true;

I joined this group because of disingenuous comments being made about me. If you think I'm being disingenuous on my Facebook page, feel free to join in there and correct me, I'm always happy to admit if I'm wrong and would welcome the opportunity to be set straight. I'm merely giving my perspective based on what I have read.

1. If the laser was angled downwards, what evidence do you have for that?
2. If the beam was refracted downwards, as apposed to the clearly observed upwards refraction that has been so heavily discussed in this forum, what evidence do you have for that?
3. If the beam had a wide divergence at the time when they took the readings that made the readings inaccurate, what evidence do you have for that?

Last edited:
youve made a statement very similar to this one earlier in the thread as well. That seems to make you an authority in my opinion. If you are repeating what Sandor told you, it counts as a statement from Sandor.

How does claiming not to be an authority make me an authority? I thought it should be the other way round lol.

How does a statement from me count as a statement from Sandor? I could simply be misinterpreting what he has said. Only a statement from Sandor could be a statement from Sandor. A statement from me based on what Sandor has told me is exactly that, a statement from me based on what Sandor has told me. Lol

I fail to see your logic.

External Quote:
1. If the laser was angled downwards, what evidence do you have for that?
2. If the beam was refracted downwards, as apposed to the clearly observed upwards refraction that has been so heavily discussed inthis forum, what evidence do you have for that?
3. If the beam had a wide divergence at the time when they took the readings that made thereadings inaccurate, what evidence do you have for that?
1. There simply hasn't been enough evidence, photo/video/ducumented measurements, to show it wasn't. Some pictures I've seen here seem like it may have been, whether that was before the initial setup as a demonstration is unclear to me.

2. See the first half of number 1.

3. See the first half of number 1.

Sandor has said that there were literally over 100 GB of data, only 32GB has been made available to one member of the forum. So no one can really judge or evaluate this experiment properly except to say that, so far, it was a very poorly done experiment.

I'm not going to comment further on your Facebook group except to say I won't be joining your group, but thanks for offer. However, if there are interesting or falacious things about the experiment there that I feel are relevant I will quote them here and provide links, as per @deirdre above.

I'm with Ian on this one. Comments he posts on facebook are mostly irrelevant to this discussion. Just as comments myself or anyone else makes anywhere else are mostly irrelevant to this or any discussion. Are we to start digging up quotes members have made on other forums? Things they say down the pub? It just feels like using someone as an easy target, and has been a bit relentless and unjustified in my opinion.

I personally would love it if we could stick to the data - of which there really does appear to have been hardly any, thus far - and leave whatever Ian says on facebook out of it, unless it's absolutely necessary.

I'll happily join his group and write things on others' behalf, if they want to PM me.

Cheers.

External Quote:
1. If the laser was angled downwards, what evidence do you have for that?
2. If the beam was refracted downwards, as apposed to the clearly observed upwards refraction that has been so heavily discussed inthis forum, what evidence do you have for that?
3. If the beam had a wide divergence at the time when they took the readings that made thereadings inaccurate, what evidence do you have for that?
1. There simply hasn't been enough evidence, photo/video/ducumented measurements, to show it wasn't. Some pictures I've seen here seem like it may have been, whether that was before the initial setup as a demonstration is unclear to me.

2. See the first half of number 1.

3. See the first half of number 1.

Sandor has said that there were literally over 100 GB of data, only 32GB has been made available to one member of the forum. So no one can really judge or evaluate this experiment properly except to say that, so far, it was a very poorly done experiment.

I'm not going to comment further on your Facebook group except to say I won't be joining your group, but thanks for offer. However, if there are interesting or falacious things about the experiment there that I feel are relevant I will quote them here and provide links, as per @deirdre above.

Ok so you accept that the data hasn't been presented yet (Sandor is currently working very hard with his friend to create an autocad video presentation to display the results and outline the method they followed) so maybe we should stop making claims about the problems with the experiment and unsubstantiated claims that the method was flawed or making presumptuous statements about the laser leveling or direction of refraction until we actually see the presentation?

I'll happily join his facebook group and write things on others' behalf, if they want to PM me.
Although following a link to the initial photo claim doesn't take me to a group, just to his/your personal facebook page.

Is there a group I'm suppose to join to be able to comment?

Ok so you accept that the data hasn't been presented yet (Sandor is currently working very hard with his friend to create an autocad video presentation to display the results and outline the method they followed) so maybe we should stop making claims about the problems with the experiment and unsubstantiated claims that the method was flawed or making presumptuous statements about the laser leveling or direction of refraction until we actually see the presentation?
Surely the same should apply to making claims about what one believes the preliminary results do show?

Sandor actually sought opinions on the information he's made available here, and has had opportunity to address criticisms (such as the apparent inability to take proper measurements).

As far as the FB thing goes, you said yourself that of the two MB is much more suited to reasoned discussion. You've actually linked this MB thread as the source for your FB post, so you should really expect your claims and comments to be discussed, and if people choose to do it here rather than FB then I think you should respect that.

Ray Von

Sandor has said that there were literally over 100 GB of data, only 32GB has been made available to one member of the forum. So no one can really judge or evaluate this experiment properly except to say that, so far, it was a very poorly done experiment.

Maybe @Mick West could go some way to answering my questions based on the 32gb of data he has received? So far we have only heard from Sandor on these issues, his claims need to be confirmed or disputed based on the evidence submitted. If it can be proved that the method was flawed or not followed properly, or if there are other significant problems with the experiment that can be proven, I'm sure it would be very useful to hear the critisms now, before they present the final presentation of the experiment. My questions again are:

1. If the laser was angled downwards, what evidence do you have for that?
2. If the beam was refracted downwards, as apposed to the clearly observed upwards refraction that has been so heavily discussed inthis forum, what evidence do you have for that?
3. If the beam had a wide divergence at the time when they took the readings that made thereadings inaccurate, what evidence do you have for that?

Ok so you accept that the data hasn't been presented yet (Sandor is currently working very hard with his friend to create an autocad video presentation to display the results and outline the method they followed) so maybe we should stop making claims about the problems with the experiment and unsubstantiated claims that the method was flawed or making presumptuous statements about the laser leveling or direction of refraction until we actually see the presentation?

........

Maybe @Mick West could go some way to answering my questions based on the 32gb of data he has received? So far we have only heard from Sandor on these issues, his claims need to be confirmed or disputed based on the evidence submitted. If it can be proved that the method was flawed or not followed properly, or if there are other significant problems with the experiment that can be proven, I'm sure it would be very useful to hear the critisms now, before they present the final presentation of the experiment.

Aren't these two statements contradictory?

My questions again are:

1. If the laser was angled downwards, what evidence do you have for that?
2. If the beam was refracted downwards, as apposed to the clearly observed upwards refraction that has been so heavily discussed in this forum, what evidence do you have for that?
3. If the beam had a wide divergence at the time when they took the readings that made the readings inaccurate, what evidence do you have for that?

From what I can tell from my muggle perspective,

1. If it were, it looks like it wouldn't necessarily be an issue, so long as enough measurements were taken to be able to identify it. It's the apparent lack of accuracy of measurement (they lost the ability to take actual measurements very early on and had to resort to waving the camera in the air), coupled with the divergence of the laser that makes it a problem.
2. The upwards refraction was from the first night-time experiment which Sandor initially raised here but has since expressed a preference to put aside to concentrate on the second experiment. A lot of confusion seems to have been caused because it wasn't initially clear they were two different sets of results.
3. See Mick's post #346, and others.

Ray Von

1. If the laser was angled downwards, what evidence do you have for that?
2. If the beam was refracted downwards, as opposed to the clearly observed upwards refraction that has been so heavily discussed in this forum, what evidence do you have for that?
3. If the beam had a wide divergence at the time when they took the readings that made the readings inaccurate, what evidence do you have for that?
I think the bigger issue, for me at least, is that there doesn't seem to be any data or results or measurements to speak of - at least, nowhere near enough for anyone to start to make any sort of conclusion or deduction.

1&2 I think others can answer better than I. While 3 - as shown elsewhere the beam does have a wide divergence - again, it just doesn't seem that there are any readings to be judged accurate or inaccurate either way.

Hopefully Sandor is saving his best stuff for the big unveil - because at the minute there's not just nothing, but what feels like less than nothing, bar some nice explorations of what lasers do when you point them over water.

Last edited:
. You keep talking about how it's not accurate on a moving boat, but Mick said in the beginning of this thread that it would be accurate if they took enough readings which I understand is what happened.

Right now we have:
1. 0km, 1.25m, tape measure from sea surface
2. 0.75km, 1.32m, photo with GPS on whiteboard with marking (and we make the other colored lines for calculation)
5. 1.86 km, 1.Xm, photo with GPS on whiteboard with marking
X. 5.6km, 1.5 to 1.7, estimated height of camera with "direct hit"
Y. 6km, 1.7m estimated height of camera with "direct hit"

That's the data we have. It is not enough.

Basically the experiment failed to produce results because the target board was not tall enough, and the laser was calibrated at the top of the board, so no measurements exist for the vast majority of the experiment.

Sandor claims to have measured the height of the beam with getting a "direct hit" in the camera, and then estimating the height of the camera. The evidence shown for this (so far) is:

Which shows basically the same thing as scatted light far from the beam, like here:

Last edited:
Basically the experiment failed to produce results because the target board was not tall enough, and the laser was calibrated at the top of the board, so no measurements exist for the vast majority of the experiment.

Sandor claim to have measured the height of the beam with getting a "direct hit" in the camera, and then estimating the height of the camera. The evidence shown for this (so far) is:

Which shows basically the same thing as scatted light far from the beam, like here:

It was certainly not my intention to paraphrase, it was my honest belief that you said levelling method would be accurate if they took enough measurements. Please feel free to correct me publicly. I don't really want to go searching for the quote.

I'm interested to know if you think my explanation of what slope correction is and how it works is correct. If it is, will Hama negs get told off for paraphrasing for saying this:? "They clearly don't understand what "slope correction" is." if it's wrong, please correct me. I would also like to know your opinion as to whether this method was followed correctly. Were the measurements they took before the board height became a problem sufficient to accurately level the laser? There have been a lot of sweeping statements about the method of the experiment being flawed and badly conducted. What is your opinion as to the method they undertook? Did they follow your method? Was it conducted poorly? Did they take on board suggestions put forward in this forum or ignore them?

I'm interested to know if you think my explanation of what slope correction is and how it works is correct. If it is, will Hama negs get told off for paraphrasing for saying this:? "They clearly don't understand what "slope correction" is." if it's wrong, please correct me. I would also like to know your opinion as to whether this method was followed correctly. Were the measurements they took before the board height became a problem sufficient to accurately level the laser? There have been a lot of sweeping statements about the method of the experiment being flawed and badly conducted. What is your opinion as to the method they undertook? Did they follow your method? Was it conducted poorly? Did they take on board suggestions put forward in this forum or ignore them?

This whole "leveling" and "slope correction" thing is basically irrelevant. You just need a series of accurate height measurements at regular intervals up to a sufficient distance. It's good if you can get the laser so it's not pointing down. When you have the measurements you can work out the slope of the laser and the curve of the earth.

However the measurements were not made.

Sandor knew how high the laser was supposed to go (6 feet above where it started in 3 miles, 10 feet in 4 miles), and yet he used a target that only allowed measurement of a few inches, if that. So the experiment yielded no results.

Personally I would like to see @Sandor Szekely share his raw data (including video and photo) and enter into a phase where everyone, or just a chosen few, could properly evaluate and discuss the experiment and its methods, flaws, potential next experiment to correct any errors, or add better means of measurement. I don't think him making a video at present really serves any purpose unless it outlines what they learnt about the experiment itself, rather than the data itself, which has been said to be lacking thus far.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
66
Views
7K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
50
Views
6K
Replies
11
Views
3K