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

[Sandor Szekely]

It is also stated on this thread that a noted authority (Dr. Andrew Young) has stated that such a definative single measurement of this nature is not possible, by you (or Hawkins, by implication), due to (unknown) refraction (magnitude).

WHAT? NOTED AUTHORITY? LOL

WTF is Dr Andrew Young to determine what is a definitive result by nature?

"definative single measurement"
Are you people serious here, or just teasing me? this is getting annoying...
We made 4 measurements on the 2.nd experiment (1st was a pre-rest).

WHY do you think that refraction magnitude is unknown?
YOU may be the one who doesn't know it yet (not your fault) so just wait to SEE the results and not make guesses here -okay?

 

[Ray Von Geezer]

OHH YEAH? THEN WHY NOT WAIT FOR IT AND AVOID STUPID RIDICULOUS COMMENTS AND ATTACK ON ME??????

GOES FOR ALL OF YOU HERE !!

"You have not been able to produce this in the last 10 days. "

HOLLY FUCKING SHIT!! SO NOW I HAVE TO COMPLETE ALL THE DATA ON TIME?? ARE YOU PAYING ME FOR THIS?? lol

"So there is nothing to talk about. You have not done an experiment."

YES I AGREE, I HAVE NOTHING TO TALK TO ARROGANT PEOPLE LIKE YOU HERE...

( AMMM... ACTUALLY I DID DO 3RD AND 4TH EXPERIMENT DATA ANALIZYNG AND SHARED IT WITH MICK AND ALSO ASKED HIM NOT TO PUBLISH THEM UNTIL WE HAVE FULLY CHECK IT MAD MADE IT IN A NICE FORM)

YOU PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO LEARN : RESPECT

NAMASTE

On the whole people seem to have addressed flaws in your methods, not you personally. I do see some questioning of your motives in involving Mick/Metabunk, but that seems to be from Ian's Facebook thread, not here.

The long and short is you asked for opinions on the data you've provided, a couple of those opinions might go a little "close to the bone" but even those have addressed your understanding and execution of the experiments, and are not attacks on you.

The main criticism of the experiment is that you apparently couldn't take any measurements on the board, and that had already been pointed out whilst you were still engaged in dialogue here. So why not just address that and either accept the criticism or show it's incorrect?

It's great you say you did other experiments, but you haven't mentioned them previously (nor has Mick), so of course everyone here could only address the information you did provide. Whether or not you like those opinions, you did court them, so your complaining that opinions were offered rather than addressing them seems a little bad-tempered.

Ray Von

 

[Sandor Szekely]

In fact I expected the data to be available immediately after the experiment. After all, all you have to do is to write down the laser height at each stop in a notebook with a pencil. So by the end of the experiment you have all the data. Of course that assumes that you have a tall enough board to be able to measure the laser height. Which you didn't.

FUNNY PEOPLE HERE... let's go back to kindergarden:

RAW DATA WAS SENT TO MICK (ALL THE PICTURES MORE THAN 1000) FOR EVALUATION

WE SHARED SOME HERE AND IT MADE A CONFUSION... PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND :

WE HAD DIFFERENT SETUPS AND MORE MEASUREMENTS...

DO NOT MIX THESE EXPERIMENTS..

THE EVALUATED DATA ON THE OTHER HANDS NEEDS EVALUATION - NO SUPRISE FOR THAT LOL

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING ROGHT NOW - NOT MAKING BASELESS PRE ASSUMPTIONS WUTHOUT FACTS
(LIKE YOU ALL DO HERE..)

"After all, all you have to do is to write down the laser height at each stop in a notebook with a pencil. So by the end of the experiment you have all the data." HAHAHAHAHA

SO IF I SHOW YOU A CHART WITH MY WRITING ON IT AND YOU ACCEPT IT??? NO JOKE HUH...

MY WAY IS TO PROVE (REPEAT PROVE) EVERY MEASUREMENT WITH: POSITION, DISTANCE TO POS A, HEIGHT OF THE LASER BEAM, PICTURE PROOFS AT THE VERY SAME TIME FROM DIFFERENT CAMERA VIEWS (2, 3 OR 4!!!)

WE HAVE 30 TO 50 MEASUREMENT POINTS AT EACH MEASUREMENT - DO THE MATH ON WORKTIME - OKAY???

"you have a tall enough board to be able to measure the laser height. Which you didn't."

OHH YEAH?? SO THE LASER BEAM CAN BE MEASURED ONLY ON A WHITEBOARD?? LOL
OKAY JUST SIT BACK, GRAB YOUR BEER AND KEEP CALM TILL YOU SEE THE MEASUREMENT EVALUATION (REPEAT REAL EVALUATION)

AND TO CLEAR MY TIMETABLE 4 U:
THE MEASUREMENT WAS MADE ON THE 15th, 16th, and WE GOT BACK HOME 17th NIGHT!
18 - 20 I WAS SENDING OUT OVER 150GB OF PICS, VIDS AND AUDIO
I HAD TO LOOK THROUGH 2000 PICS AND VIDS + 7 HOURS OF AUDIO RECORDING
WE TALKED ABOUT OUR FIRST ASSUMPTIONS WITH MY FRIENDS ZACK AND STEVE WORKING ON THIS EVALUATION
WE HAD ARGUMENTS (REPEAT ARGUMENTS) ON EACH OTHER'S OPINION!
WE REALIZED WHAT HAPPENED BASED ON A 3D ANIMATION OF THE EXPERIMENT MATCHING THE DATA WE COLLECTED.
I POINT OUT HERE THAT WE HAVE A CONCLUSION ON THE EXPERIMENT AFTER (REPEAT AFTER) WE HAVE DONE A SERIOUS EVALUATION - AND THAT IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE THOUGHT BEFORE!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC APPROACH? BASED ON EVALUATED CONCLUSIONS AND NOT "BY THE FIRST LOOK AT THE PICTURES"?? UNDERSTANDING THE OUTCOME THAT MAY NOT EXACTLY MATCH YOUR THEORY? THAT POINTS TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION?

WELL.. TO SAY AGAIN I AM SUPRISED TO SEE A "SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY" IN CHARGE FOR PEER-REVIEWING A THEORY IS JUST LIKE A BUNCH OF TROLLS ON FACEBOOK...
NO THANK'S I HAVE WAY MUCH MORE IMPORTANT WORK TO DO NOW

I get back to you when we are DONE with the evaluation video and measurement data.

 

[skephu]

SO IF I SHOW YOU A CHART WITH MY WRITING ON IT AND YOU ACCEPT IT???

Yes, I would.

SO THE LASER BEAM CAN BE MEASURED ONLY ON A WHITEBOARD?

Yes. I don't think you can measure it with a camera. You need a board to reliably identify the center of the beam.

I WAS SENDING OUT OVER 150GB OF PICS, VIDS AND AUDIO

I'm so puzzled with this "150 GB of pics, videos, and audio" to be analyzed. All you needed was a notebook and a pencil to jot down the numbers. That's how I would have done it, anyway.

 

[Sandor Szekely]

Yes, I would.

Yes. I don't think you can measure it with a camera. You need a board to reliably identify the center of the beam.

I'm so puzzled with this "150 GB of pics, videos, and audio" to be analyzed. All you needed was a notebook and a pencil to jot down the numbers. That's how I would have done it, anyway.

yeah... this is the type of conversation that takes my energy from real stuff...

"YES"
SO you would accept my handwriting on a sheet of paper saying beam was at X.Y meters from surface and Z distance from shore - and no other proofs needed??
you're joking right? PLS don't I am not in the mood... okay let's say NOBODY ELSE would ever believe it.

A camera can determine the laser beam direct hit into the lenses.
2 possible aruments on this: DIVERGENCE AND REFRACTION
WE PROVE BOTH!
(ohh.. and pls everybody coming up with "diffraction" and so on PLS check the meaning okay? don't mix them!)

let's conlcude:
YOU people here have NO IDEA about the experiment results ( not your fault) just taking guesses on some pictures you have seen. You got no video feed to analize and no technical data on the equippments used here.

As ALL here are not asking questions, but making SELF INVENTED RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS with assumptions.
I am not here to argue on these, and how we should have done the experiment!
The Wallace type experiment is NOT POSSIBLE ON THE LAKE OKAY?
I AM NOT GOING INTO THIS NOW! I HAVE WORK TO DO!!!
You really think you can have a perfectly STABLE middle point measurement to calculate saggita - that is a way much smaller value than curvature DROP + laser height??

ohhhh boy..... NEVER DONE A REAL EXPERIMENT - RIGHT?

yeah a notebook and a pencil... LOL

okay I am off to work

 

[snaphat]

MICK? ARE YOU SURE THIS IS THE TYPE OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACH AND DISCUSSION???

SO IS THIS WHAT I SHOULD BE DEBATING? COME ON PEOPLE! I HAVE NO ENERGY TO PLAY FOOL HERE! ESPECIALLY NOT LIKE I AM OFF FOR A DAY AND PEOPLE ATTACK ME FOR THAT!

YOU PEOPLE ARE A JOKE, NOTHING BETTER THAN TROLLS IN THE FACEBOOK PAGE...


NO THANKS!!! I WILL DEBATE THIS ON A REAL - REPEAT REAL - SCIENTIFIC FORUM.
WHAT A JOKE...

I THOUGHT YOU ARE SERIOUS PEOPLE... SORRY TO SEE THIS...

That's a bit over the top. The folks here have evaluated the data you've given and have critiqued it. This is generally how peer-review works. It would be your responsibility to rebuttal. In addition, one of the main issues here is simply that quantifiable measurements have not been provided. I don't think anyone here initially expected a data drop of images/video. What was asked for were measurements.

yeah... this is the type of conversation that takes my energy from real stuff...

"YES"
SO you would accept my handwriting on a sheet of paper saying beam was at X.Y meters from surface and Z distance from shore - and no other proofs needed??
you're joking right? PLS don't I am not in the mood... okay let's say NOBODY ELSE would ever believe it.

Pictures and video are fine and you do need proof of leveling, as well as, evidence that the beam was centered on the target. But, the most important part are the quantifiable measurements.

let's conlcude:
YOU people here have NO IDEA about the experiment results ( not your fault) just taking guesses on some pictures you have seen. You got no video feed to analize and no technical data on the equippments used here.

As ALL here are not asking questions, but making SELF INVENTED RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS with assumptions.

This is simply not true. You've provided a data drop of images, and that's what has been critiqued. Additionally, it's been stated here that regardless of the equipment used that the precision of the equipment would not be enough to get measurements to compensate for the refraction. From my understanding, the basis for this is simply that real equipment has precision limits and that the gradients observed would be below those limits. This is not an unreasonable statement given what we've seen in your data drop. Simply put there is a whole lot going on in terms of gradients near the water here given the bending and mirage and such.

 

[skephu]

A camera can determine the laser beam direct hit into the lenses.

How?
Please explain.
Also, kindly tell us what you mean by a "direct hit", and how you determined it.

 

[Bernard Mc Donnell]

"YES"
SO you would accept my handwriting on a sheet of paper saying beam was at X.Y meters from surface and Z distance from shore - and no other proofs needed??
you're joking right? PLS don't I am not in the mood... okay let's say NOBODY ELSE would ever believe it.

Why would nobody else ever believe it? Would then not make the video or ever have released the video and photos as your physical proof?

I WAS SENDING OUT OVER 150GB OF PICS, VIDS AND AUDIO

To whom? Mick only has about 32GB of data!

I don't think people have a misunderstanding of the experiment, you seem to have a misunderstanding of peer review and critical analysis!

I ask you again, have you reached your conclusion alread? And if so what is it? Because if you have, you shouldn't have even started this thread.

 

[Hama Neggs]

ohhhh boy..... NEVER DONE A REAL EXPERIMENT - RIGHT?

yeah a notebook and a pencil... LOL

I think that is being suggested as an easily available early offering. Not as the ONLY thing you would ultimately provide.

My understanding(from Mick) is that a certain download of data from you failed and then wasn't available again. What happened there?

 

[Rory]

My opinion, for what it's worth (much of which I stated several days ago):

1. People should wait for the finished video presentation before evaluating the results of Sandor's experiment. Though investigating what certain photos may or may not show is valid, and obviously useful in informing the final presentation.

2. There has been something of a "witch hunt" here, and I do feel like respect and politeness haven't always been there, on both sides.

3. It seems like people feel flat earth is an easy target, and it's difficult to resist the temptation to 'shoot it down' at every available opportunity. But I'd like to think that's not what Metabunk's about (though I acknowledge I've been guilty of it too).

4. I don't know if you realise this, Sandor, but your language is often quite inflammatory and derisive - lots of sarcastic LOLs and WTFs, disparaging noted scientists, etc - and though I think most people have managed to look beyond this, it's not surprising that it winds others up.

5. Sometimes people on metabunk get things wrong. Is there enough acknowledgment of this? I'm not sure there is.

6. Sandor says people here are supposed to be scientists. I'm not sure I agree with that: most of us, I guess, are interested and well-intended amateurs with a love of objectivity, truthfulness, and looking at the evidence from all angles rather than rushing to conclusions. A few may be scientists, or have excellent scientific knowledge. But it is only a few, as far as I can tell, and I'm certainly not one of them.

7. Still, having said all that, from what has thus far been presented, I'm not sure you should be surprised, Sandor, by the conclusions people have reached. Maybe the thing to do is look at what people have said with a cool head and take what's useful from it and ignore the rest. Maybe you have some trump cards you're holding close to your chest, and that's why you're upset at the way people have reacted to your experiment. Maybe you have enough extra information now to be able to focus on the finished video presentation and, as has been suggested, come back with that and present it as a 'claim'.

Or maybe you feel all the discussion around refraction has been useful, and will be useful again for you, with regard to the photos and measurements we haven't seen, but which it seems you have.

Maybe presenting your pictures and videos, with data, and asking people what they think it shows as a way to best inform your experiment and conclusion is the way to go - which is why the whole thread was started in the first place, I guess.

8. I'm sorry the response to your presented evidence has been so upsetting for you. I know you put a lot of time and work into this, and I can imagine the response must be very disappointing.

If it helps, perhaps you could take heart in remembering that most experimenters spend years and even decades fine-tuning and perfecting their work before they reach their definitive conclusions.

9. In a nutshell: less squabbling, more cold, hard, emotionally void, good old scientific objectivity please!

 

[Hama Neggs]

WHY do you think that refraction magnitude is unknown?

Because you haven't shown that you were able to determine it accurately.

YOU may be the one who doesn't know it yet (not your fault) so just wait to SEE the results and not make guesses here -okay?

Approximately when? Impatience may not be a virtue, but it is fairly inevitable.

It seems to me that you have been cherry-picking for reasons to be offended and ignored specific valid critique.

 

[NoParty]

FUNNY PEOPLE HERE... let's go back to kindergarden:

RAW DATA WAS SENT TO MICK (ALL THE PICTURES MORE THAN 1000) FOR EVALUATION

WE SHARED SOME HERE AND IT MADE A CONFUSION... PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND :

WE HAD DIFFERENT SETUPS AND MORE MEASUREMENTS...

DO NOT MIX THESE EXPERIMENTS..

THE EVALUATED DATA ON THE OTHER HANDS NEEDS EVALUATION - NO SUPRISE FOR THAT LOL

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING ROGHT NOW - NOT MAKING BASELESS PRE ASSUMPTIONS WUTHOUT FACTS
(LIKE YOU ALL DO HERE..)

"After all, all you have to do is to write down the laser height at each stop in a notebook with a pencil. So by the end of the experiment you have all the data." HAHAHAHAHA

SO IF I SHOW YOU A CHART WITH MY WRITING ON IT AND YOU ACCEPT IT??? NO JOKE HUH...

MY WAY IS TO PROVE (REPEAT PROVE) EVERY MEASUREMENT WITH: POSITION, DISTANCE TO POS A, HEIGHT OF THE LASER BEAM, PICTURE PROOFS AT THE VERY SAME TIME FROM DIFFERENT CAMERA VIEWS (2, 3 OR 4!!!)

WE HAVE 30 TO 50 MEASUREMENT POINTS AT EACH MEASUREMENT - DO THE MATH ON WORKTIME - OKAY???

"you have a tall enough board to be able to measure the laser height. Which you didn't."

OHH YEAH?? SO THE LASER BEAM CAN BE MEASURED ONLY ON A WHITEBOARD?? LOL
OKAY JUST SIT BACK, GRAB YOUR BEER AND KEEP CALM TILL YOU SEE THE MEASUREMENT EVALUATION (REPEAT REAL EVALUATION)

AND TO CLEAR MY TIMETABLE 4 U:
THE MEASUREMENT WAS MADE ON THE 15th, 16th, and WE GOT BACK HOME 17th NIGHT!
18 - 20 I WAS SENDING OUT OVER 150GB OF PICS, VIDS AND AUDIO
I HAD TO LOOK THROUGH 2000 PICS AND VIDS + 7 HOURS OF AUDIO RECORDING
WE TALKED ABOUT OUR FIRST ASSUMPTIONS WITH MY FRIENDS ZACK AND STEVE WORKING ON THIS EVALUATION
WE HAD ARGUMENTS (REPEAT ARGUMENTS) ON EACH OTHER'S OPINION!
WE REALIZED WHAT HAPPENED BASED ON A 3D ANIMATION OF THE EXPERIMENT MATCHING THE DATA WE COLLECTED.
I POINT OUT HERE THAT WE HAVE A CONCLUSION ON THE EXPERIMENT AFTER (REPEAT AFTER) WE HAVE DONE A SERIOUS EVALUATION - AND THAT IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE THOUGHT BEFORE!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC APPROACH? BASED ON EVALUATED CONCLUSIONS AND NOT "BY THE FIRST LOOK AT THE PICTURES"?? UNDERSTANDING THE OUTCOME THAT MAY NOT EXACTLY MATCH YOUR THEORY? THAT POINTS TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION?

WELL.. TO SAY AGAIN I AM SUPRISED TO SEE A "SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY" IN CHARGE FOR PEER-REVIEWING A THEORY IS JUST LIKE A BUNCH OF TROLLS ON FACEBOOK...
NO THANK'S I HAVE WAY MUCH MORE IMPORTANT WORK TO DO NOW

I get back to you when we are DONE with the evaluation video and measurement data.

Just a couple of tips:
Real science rarely gets so defensive.
People running genuine experiments (without pre-determined "results") tend not to resort to ALL CAPS...

 

[Rory]

PS Sandor - do you agree with the conclusion on refraction put forward by DarkStar and Andrew Young? Do you also agree that the "camera direct hit" on the laser doesn't really show anything useful, or that can be measured?

Approximately when? Impatience may not be a virtue, but it is fairly inevitable.

I would say he has all the time in the world. If the video isn't ready till this time next year, that's fine by me.

It seems to me that you have been cherry-picking for reasons to be offended and ignored specific valid critique.

Agree with that. I guess it's not always easy focusing with a clear mind on the points that really matter. Perhaps we can help Sandor do this in some way?

 

[Auldy]

Not trying to drop an appeal to authority fallacy here - but, as a scientist myself, my two cents is that if at the conclusion of an experiment, with weeks - or months - or years of hard work put in, you have to compile it into a journal paper so it can be published, and shared, and read. Imagine you decided to put all your own hard work here down into a scientific paper, how would it look, how would it compare to other journal published works?

You will need:
A descriptive title.
An abstract: a short summary of the intro, results and method, and conclusion.
Your Introduction: what the purpose of this experiment is, who has done what before you, and why.
Your methodology: how you collected your data, what are the specifics, what are your empirical techniques?
Your results: tabulated data, graphs, a visual representation and listing of what you have done.
Your discussion: what did you see, what have you learnt, how do you interpret these results? Does it conform or deny your hypothesis? What can you improve on for future experiments?
A conclusion: the most important part "The conclusions drawn should be based on the new empirical results while taking established knowledge into consideration, in such a way that any reader with knowledge of the field can follow the argument and confirm that the conclusions are sound. That is, acceptance of the conclusions must not depend on personal authority, rhetorical skill, or faith."

Maybe have a look at some other papers, but I think you would find it hard to have any concrete statements built on empirical evidence in your conclusion.

If your paper ends up with glaring holes in it, maybe the experimental method isn't sound and this baby isn't ready to be published yet! Back to the drawing board.

Take the criticism in your stride and work on improving your experimental technique. The measurement and collection of data can be a tedious job, but the correct acquisition of information is what creates strong science. If a couple of lay-people on metabunk can pull apart your experiment via an internet website, it is not going to fare much better if you do it in a real forum or presentation as you mentioned in #435. The suggestions offered here don't seem too extraneous, if your pending video doesn't address all the question marks, then repeat the experiment in a way that it is infallible.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_literature#Scientific_article

 

[Mick West]

WE HAVE 30 TO 50 MEASUREMENT POINTS AT EACH MEASUREMENT - DO THE MATH ON WORKTIME - OKAY???

All we want is
A) A series of measured heights of the laser beam with GPS coordinates (and preferably time and distance))
B) video and photographic documentation of how, where, and when those readings were taken (with filenames for verification)

You don't need to do any math, others will be happy to do it for you. But really what we would do is plot a graph of he readings against the expected readings.

Then we'd have to establish error ranges, and see what curvature your experiment indicates.

Now you sent me a nice photo composition with some of that data, which is a great start, but then you tell me not to share it because it is "NOT NICE DRAWINGS". It also refers to video that I do not have (and possibly photos, as the photos are not labeled).

I'm presuming the reason you sent me videos and photos in the first place is so I can verify what you put in the video you are making?

Can you sent me DSCN2066,DSCN2053, and "Samsung Video"?

And please try to focus on the data, follow posting guidelines regarding quoting, and avoid personal attacks, or I will temporarily remove you from this thread.

The videos I have are listed here. I added a description to some

DSCN2065 Can't Find the laser.MOV
MVI_7083 Levelling attempts, sail away.MOV
MVI_7124 Sail Far Away.MOV
DSCN1827.MOV
DSCN1856.MOV
20160816_045229.mp4
20160816_045332.mp4
20160816_050034.mp4
20160816_050608.mp4
20160816_050713.mp4
20160816_051034.mp4
20160816_051114.mp4
20160816_055019.mp4
20160816_055620.mp4

The full list of files you sent is included in this spoiler

Spoiler

bigmac:Laser Experiment Sandor Szekely mick$ ls  -R

DSCN2065 Can't Find the laser.MOV MVI_7083 Levelling attempts, sail away.MOV wetransfer-38f5ae Lasr Curve, Boat sails away Daylight wetransfer-e90359 Vidoes on boat at night

GOPR5732 Milling around.MP4 MVI_7124 Sail Far Away.MOV wetransfer-3d26f8 Boat Sails Away Daylight wetransfer-f27775 Blurry from shore

GP010191 Night wide laser beam rising from boat.MP4 wetransfer-029062 Night laser hits boat wetransfer-bc72f0 Night laser hits boat

GP015732 More Milling laser on ground.MP4 wetransfer-23444a Various, laser curve wetransfer-c81b64 Low Laser Vid


./wetransfer-029062 Night laser hits boat:

DSCN1827.MOV DSCN1858.JPG DSCN1861.JPG DSCN1864.JPG DSCN1867.JPG DSCN1870.JPG DSCN1873.JPG DSCN1876.JPG DSCN1879.JPG DSCN1882.JPG DSCN1885.JPG DSCN1888.JPG DSCN1891.JPG

DSCN1856.MOV DSCN1859.JPG DSCN1862.JPG DSCN1865.JPG DSCN1868.JPG DSCN1871.JPG DSCN1874.JPG DSCN1877.JPG DSCN1880.JPG DSCN1883.JPG DSCN1886.JPG DSCN1889.JPG DSCN1893.JPG

DSCN1857.JPG DSCN1860.JPG DSCN1863.JPG DSCN1866.JPG DSCN1869.JPG DSCN1872.JPG DSCN1875.JPG DSCN1878.JPG DSCN1881.JPG DSCN1884.JPG DSCN1887.JPG DSCN1890.JPG DSCN1894.JPG


./wetransfer-23444a Various, laser curve:

20160815_181133.jpg 20160815_190111.jpg 20160816_045221.jpg 20160816_050024.jpg 20160816_050950.jpg DSCN1574.JPG DSCN1632.JPG _MG_6924.CR2 _MG_6954.xmp

20160815_181345.jpg 20160815_191501.jpg 20160816_045835.jpg 20160816_050316.jpg 20160816_055618.jpg DSCN1577.JPG DSCN1898.JPG _MG_6935.CR2 _MG_7012 with lines.psd

20160815_181358.jpg 20160815_195533.jpg 20160816_045932.jpg 20160816_050534.jpg 20160816_064208.jpg DSCN1579.JPG DSCN1899.JPG _MG_6938.CR2 _MG_7012.CR2

20160815_181406.jpg 20160815_195601.jpg 20160816_045944.jpg 20160816_050638.jpg DSCN1542.JPG DSCN1581.JPG DSCN2022.JPG _MG_6949.CR2 _MG_7012.xmp

20160815_181415.jpg 20160816_045204.jpg 20160816_050008.jpg 20160816_050947.jpg DSCN1556.JPG DSCN1617.JPG _MG_6918.CR2 _MG_6954.CR2 _MG_7676.CR2


./wetransfer-38f5ae Lasr Curve, Boat sails away Daylight:

_MG_7012.CR2 _MG_7018.CR2 _MG_7024.CR2 _MG_7030.CR2 _MG_7036.CR2 _MG_7043.CR2 _MG_7049.CR2 _MG_7063.CR2 _MG_7069.CR2 _MG_7081.CR2 _MG_7088.CR2 _MG_7094.CR2 _MG_7100.CR2 _MG_7106.CR2 _MG_7112.CR2

_MG_7013.CR2 _MG_7019.CR2 _MG_7025.CR2 _MG_7031.CR2 _MG_7037.CR2 _MG_7044.CR2 _MG_7050.CR2 _MG_7064.CR2 _MG_7070.CR2 _MG_7082.CR2 _MG_7089.CR2 _MG_7095.CR2 _MG_7101.CR2 _MG_7107.CR2 _MG_7113.CR2

_MG_7014.CR2 _MG_7020.CR2 _MG_7026.CR2 _MG_7032.CR2 _MG_7038.CR2 _MG_7045.CR2 _MG_7051.CR2 _MG_7065.CR2 _MG_7071.CR2 _MG_7084.CR2 _MG_7090.CR2 _MG_7096.CR2 _MG_7102.CR2 _MG_7108.CR2 _MG_7114.CR2

_MG_7015.CR2 _MG_7021.CR2 _MG_7027.CR2 _MG_7033.CR2 _MG_7039.CR2 _MG_7046.CR2 _MG_7052.CR2 _MG_7066.CR2 _MG_7078.CR2 _MG_7085.CR2 _MG_7091.CR2 _MG_7097.CR2 _MG_7103.CR2 _MG_7109.CR2 _MG_7115.CR2

_MG_7016.CR2 _MG_7022.CR2 _MG_7028.CR2 _MG_7034.CR2 _MG_7040.CR2 _MG_7047.CR2 _MG_7061.CR2 _MG_7067.CR2 _MG_7079.CR2 _MG_7086.CR2 _MG_7092.CR2 _MG_7098.CR2 _MG_7104.CR2 _MG_7110.CR2 _MG_7116.CR2

_MG_7017.CR2 _MG_7023.CR2 _MG_7029.CR2 _MG_7035.CR2 _MG_7041.CR2 _MG_7048.CR2 _MG_7062.CR2 _MG_7068.CR2 _MG_7080.CR2 _MG_7087.CR2 _MG_7093.CR2 _MG_7099.CR2 _MG_7105.CR2 _MG_7111.CR2


./wetransfer-3d26f8 Boat Sails Away Daylight:

_MG_7078.CR2 _MG_7086.CR2 _MG_7093.CR2 _MG_7100.CR2 _MG_7107.CR2 _MG_7114.CR2 _MG_7121.CR2 _MG_7129.CR2 _MG_7136.CR2 _MG_7143.CR2 _MG_7150.CR2 _MG_7157.CR2 _MG_7164.CR2 _MG_7172.CR2

_MG_7079.CR2 _MG_7087.CR2 _MG_7094.CR2 _MG_7101.CR2 _MG_7108.CR2 _MG_7115.CR2 _MG_7122.CR2 _MG_7130.CR2 _MG_7137.CR2 _MG_7144.CR2 _MG_7151.CR2 _MG_7158.CR2 _MG_7165.CR2 _MG_7172.xmp

_MG_7080.CR2 _MG_7088.CR2 _MG_7095.CR2 _MG_7102.CR2 _MG_7109.CR2 _MG_7116.CR2 _MG_7123.CR2 _MG_7131.CR2 _MG_7138.CR2 _MG_7145.CR2 _MG_7152.CR2 _MG_7159.CR2 _MG_7166.CR2

_MG_7081.CR2 _MG_7089.CR2 _MG_7096.CR2 _MG_7103.CR2 _MG_7110.CR2 _MG_7117.CR2 _MG_7125.CR2 _MG_7132.CR2 _MG_7139.CR2 _MG_7146.CR2 _MG_7153.CR2 _MG_7160.CR2 _MG_7167.CR2

_MG_7082.CR2 _MG_7090.CR2 _MG_7097.CR2 _MG_7104.CR2 _MG_7111.CR2 _MG_7118.CR2 _MG_7126.CR2 _MG_7133.CR2 _MG_7140.CR2 _MG_7147.CR2 _MG_7154.CR2 _MG_7161.CR2 _MG_7168.CR2

_MG_7084.CR2 _MG_7091.CR2 _MG_7098.CR2 _MG_7105.CR2 _MG_7112.CR2 _MG_7119.CR2 _MG_7127.CR2 _MG_7134.CR2 _MG_7141.CR2 _MG_7148.CR2 _MG_7155.CR2 _MG_7162.CR2 _MG_7169.CR2

_MG_7085.CR2 _MG_7092.CR2 _MG_7099.CR2 _MG_7106.CR2 _MG_7113.CR2 _MG_7120.CR2 _MG_7128.CR2 _MG_7135.CR2 _MG_7142.CR2 _MG_7149.CR2 _MG_7156.CR2 _MG_7163.CR2 _MG_7170.CR2


./wetransfer-bc72f0 Night laser hits boat:

_MG_6903.CR2 _MG_6910.CR2 _MG_6915.CR2 _MG_6920.CR2 _MG_6927.CR2 _MG_6934.CR2 _MG_6939.CR2 _MG_6944.CR2 _MG_6949.CR2 _MG_6954.CR2 _MG_6959.CR2 _MG_6964.CR2 _MG_6969.CR2 _MG_6974.CR2 _MG_6979.CR2

_MG_6904.CR2 _MG_6911.CR2 _MG_6916.CR2 _MG_6921.CR2 _MG_6928.CR2 _MG_6935.CR2 _MG_6940.CR2 _MG_6945.CR2 _MG_6950.CR2 _MG_6955.CR2 _MG_6960.CR2 _MG_6965.CR2 _MG_6970.CR2 _MG_6975.CR2 _MG_6980.CR2

_MG_6907.CR2 _MG_6912.CR2 _MG_6917.CR2 _MG_6922.CR2 _MG_6929.CR2 _MG_6936.CR2 _MG_6941.CR2 _MG_6946.CR2 _MG_6951.CR2 _MG_6956.CR2 _MG_6961.CR2 _MG_6966.CR2 _MG_6971.CR2 _MG_6976.CR2 _MG_6981.CR2

_MG_6908.CR2 _MG_6913.CR2 _MG_6918.CR2 _MG_6924.CR2 _MG_6930.CR2 _MG_6937.CR2 _MG_6942.CR2 _MG_6947.CR2 _MG_6952.CR2 _MG_6957.CR2 _MG_6962.CR2 _MG_6967.CR2 _MG_6972.CR2 _MG_6977.CR2 _MG_6982.CR2

_MG_6909.CR2 _MG_6914.CR2 _MG_6919.CR2 _MG_6925.CR2 _MG_6933.CR2 _MG_6938.CR2 _MG_6943.CR2 _MG_6948.CR2 _MG_6953.CR2 _MG_6958.CR2 _MG_6963.CR2 _MG_6968.CR2 _MG_6973.CR2 _MG_6978.CR2 _MG_6983.CR2


./wetransfer-c81b64 Low Laser Vid:

MVI_7072 Low Laser.MOV


./wetransfer-e90359 Vidoes on boat at night:

20160816_045229.mp4 20160816_045332.mp4 20160816_050034.mp4 20160816_050608.mp4 20160816_050713.mp4 20160816_051034.mp4 20160816_051114.mp4 20160816_055019.mp4 20160816_055620.mp4


./wetransfer-f27775 Blurry from shore:

GOPR5667.JPG IMG_6771.CR2 IMG_6779.CR2 _MG_6777.CR2 _MG_6784.CR2 _MG_6791.CR2 _MG_6798.CR2 _MG_6805.CR2 _MG_6812.CR2 _MG_6819.CR2 _MG_6826.CR2 _MG_6833.CR2 _MG_6840.CR2 _MG_6848.CR2 _MG_6855.CR2

GOPR5668.JPG IMG_6772.CR2 _MG_6771.CR2 _MG_6778.CR2 _MG_6785.CR2 _MG_6792.CR2 _MG_6799.CR2 _MG_6806.CR2 _MG_6813.CR2 _MG_6820.CR2 _MG_6827.CR2 _MG_6834.CR2 _MG_6841.CR2 _MG_6849.CR2

GOPR5669.JPG IMG_6773.CR2 _MG_6772.CR2 _MG_6779.CR2 _MG_6786.CR2 _MG_6793.CR2 _MG_6800.CR2 _MG_6807.CR2 _MG_6814.CR2 _MG_6821.CR2 _MG_6828.CR2 _MG_6835.CR2 _MG_6842.CR2 _MG_6850.CR2

GOPR5730.JPG IMG_6775.CR2 _MG_6773.CR2 _MG_6780.CR2 _MG_6787.CR2 _MG_6794.CR2 _MG_6801.CR2 _MG_6808.CR2 _MG_6815.CR2 _MG_6822.CR2 _MG_6829.CR2 _MG_6836.CR2 _MG_6844.CR2 _MG_6851.CR2

GOPR5731.JPG IMG_6776.CR2 _MG_6774.CR2 _MG_6781.CR2 _MG_6788.CR2 _MG_6795.CR2 _MG_6802.CR2 _MG_6809.CR2 _MG_6816.CR2 _MG_6823.CR2 _MG_6830.CR2 _MG_6837.CR2 _MG_6845.CR2 _MG_6852.CR2

GOPR5733.MP4 IMG_6777.CR2 _MG_6775.CR2 _MG_6782.CR2 _MG_6789.CR2 _MG_6796.CR2 _MG_6803.CR2 _MG_6810.CR2 _MG_6817.CR2 _MG_6824.CR2 _MG_6831.CR2 _MG_6838.CR2 _MG_6846.CR2 _MG_6853.CR2

IMG_6770.CR2 IMG_6778.CR2 _MG_6776.CR2 _MG_6783.CR2 _MG_6790.CR2 _MG_6797.CR2 _MG_6804.CR2 _MG_6811.CR2 _MG_6818.CR2 _MG_6825.CR2 _MG_6832.CR2 _MG_6839.CR2 _MG_6847.CR2 _MG_6854.CR2
[code]
[/spoiler]

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

I have a related brain-teaser for Sandor, and everybody else:
Can one tell if a laser beam is straight by looking along the beam?

 

[Mick West]

I have a related brain-teaser for Sandor, and everybody else:
Can one tell if a laser beam is straight by looking along the beam?

You can certainly tell if it's NOT straight. And really you can never exactly look along the beam unless you use a beam splitter. So outward and return paths are never going to be the same. So I'd lean towards yes, in practice.

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

You can certainly tell if it's NOT straight. And really you can never exactly look along the beam unless you use a beam splitter. So outward and return paths are never going to be the same. So I'd lean towards yes, in practice.

But you can't tell how much, is that what you are saying?

 

[Mick West]

But you can't tell how much, is that what you are saying?

Unless you know what the atmosphere is doing every step of the way. You can certainly get some significant clues though, especially if you view it a few feet to the side and above the beam.

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

Unless you know what the atmosphere is doing every step of the way. You can certainly get some significant clues though, especially if you view it a few feet to the side and above the beam.

That would suggest a significant refractive index gradient change over a similar distance (a few feet)..

ps. I just knew someone in that boat farted!

 

[Mick West]

That would suggest a significant refractive index gradient change over a similar distance (a few feet)..

In this case though that's what we are seeing when the beam curves up quite sharply (from this perspective), and then has two return paths. There's a very steep temperature gradient near the water surface.

I guess a better question would be if you could discern a curve cause by standard refraction - i.e. a standard atmosphere pressure/temp profile.

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

You can certainly tell if it's NOT straight. And really you can never exactly look along the beam unless you use a beam splitter. So outward and return paths are never going to be the same. So I'd lean towards yes, in practice.

Just for fans of inverted thinking, how do you know the laser is NOT straight, and the eye-path bent?

 

[Hama Neggs]

Just for fans of inverted thinking, how do you know the laser is NOT straight, and the eye-path bent?

Surroundings.

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

Surroundings.

If you have two paths a few feet apart, why should the eye-path always be the better one?

 

[DarkStar]

Just for fans of inverted thinking, how do you know the laser is NOT straight, and the eye-path bent?

This is actually a very good point that shouldn't be swept under the rug - there are two lines-of-sight and each one is experiencing different conditions to create the total picture -- this isn't normally the case with a more fixed object like a building, then you just have one light path to worry about.

If you were on the far end of the laser you could see where it actually hits but looking out at distant portions could be distorted, at least somewhat.

I agree with Hama that maybe sometimes you can rule out more significant effects by the overall view but looking at a laser with just dark lake behind it wouldn't always give you sufficient contextual information to judge.

Not that this is going to matter here but it's something to keep in mind in the future.

 

[DarkStar]

If you have two paths a few feet apart, why should the eye-path always be the better one?

Even if they are the same the laser light is bending going out and the eye-line is bending coming back so you wouldn't expect to see what was 'actually out there' -- that's kind of the first-order problem. So we have a kind of double distortion right?

 

[Mick West]

If you have two paths a few feet apart, why should the eye-path always be the better one?

The outgoing (laser) path is a single path. The returning image of the laser to the eye is multiple paths.

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

Even if they are the same the laser light is bending going out and the eye-line is bending coming back so you wouldn't expect to see what was 'actually out there' -- that's kind of the first-order problem. So we have a kind of double distortion right?

If the eye and laser are coincident then you see no bending even if it is bent through a prism. I tried it! It should be the same for near-coincident if you look slightly to one side and your refractive index changes uniformly with height. You don't know where the 'context' is just by looking, only where you see it. In the case of the Lake Laser, I can see it hit half way up a building and I know buildings are Big(tm), but the orginal question was general.

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

The outgoing (laser) path is a single path. The returning image of the laser to the eye is multiple paths.

Forget the 'reflection'.

 

[Mick West]

Forget the 'reflection'.

I mean the actual beam. Each point on the beam takes a different path back to your eye.

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

I mean the actual beam. Each point on the beam takes a different path back to your eye.

On the way back to the laser it must take exactly the same path coming as going. Refraction is completely reversible.

 

[Mick West]

On the way back to the laser it must take exactly the same path coming as going. Refraction is completely reversible.

Yes, but we were talking about the eye being a few feet away:

If you have two paths a few feet apart, why should the eye-path always be the better one?

 

[Bernard Mc Donnell]

Sorry about posting screenshots instead of a link to the original thread (I'm on my phone and have a labrador asleep on my good hand). Is anyone here a native Hungarian speaker? The second screenshot shows Facebooks attempt at translating it, but I know from speaking Irish that literal translations often end up "putting the cart before the horse", if you get my meaning. The translation loses context and some meaning. Facebook translate doesn't understand colloquialisms.

This is obviously relevant to the video that will be eventually posted and not about the current points being discussed on laser refraction.

Don't worry about properly translating the Barksdale quote, although I find this Facebook translation amusing to say the least. It gives it a new context for me.

 

[DarkStar]

PS Sandor - do you agree with the conclusion on refraction put forward by DarkStar and Andrew Young? Do you also agree that the "camera direct hit" on the laser doesn't really show anything useful, or that can be measured?

Sandor stated on Facebook that he absolutely believes the Camera method is valid.

My position is that they need to demonstrate five things related to methodology at this point...

1. That the slope of the laser remains constant.
2. That any deviation from constant slope is indeed due to refraction (which I see no way this could be done but would evaluate any method offered) - I do not accept "we only saw upward refraction" (the evidence we have been shown was much later and an obvious inferior mirage consistent with the conditions of warmer water than air, not general upward curvature -- so more evidence would be needed to establish the claim)
3. That the camera 'direct hit' method is valid & reliable, if that is what they used. Laser hit on a white board would provide much more clearly reliable results.
4. That the beam "divergence" (which has a lower bound due to diffraction limits) is acceptably small. Unevidenced assurances that it was, are not sufficient. No photographic evidence of this has been offered so far, a 10cm spot at 6km for example.
5. That their method for taking measurements is reliable (for example: in a still boat, all persons remain in same position, average the laser spot min & max extents over a reasonable period of time - eg, at least a few 'bobs' of the boat)

If they can show 3 then fine. But showing a bright 'hit' in a camera lens doesn't establish the reliability of the method.

But somehow examining the methodology and discussing these extremely basic requirements are taken as an affront so I guess only time will tell if we will see any such things.

 

[skephu]

Is anyone here a native Hungarian speaker? The second screenshot shows Facebooks attempt at translating it, but I know from speaking Irish that literal translations often end up "putting the cart before the horse", if you get my meaning. The translation loses context and some meaning. Facebook translate doesn't understand colloquialisms.

He just says practice refutes the globe earth theory, we have measured Balaton's surface with a laser, results coming soon.
It's weird though that Facebook translates km as miles and meters as feet, without changing the numbers.

 

[Bernard Mc Donnell]

He just says practice refutes the globe earth theory, we have measured Balaton's surface with a laser, results coming soon.
It's weird though that Facebook translates km as miles and meters as feet, without changing the numbers.

I didn't even notice that about the kilometres and metres, quite bizarre! Thanks for that.

[response to off topic discussion removed]

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

Yes, but we were talking about the eye being a few feet away:

Yes, but I would not like to guess when it was not 'quasi-coincident', let alone 'prove' it.

 

[Hama Neggs]

"Ian Dalton said: ↑
The globe model has bigger holes, this fact can't be denied. If it was as concrete as you'd like to believe then you wouldn't need to expell so much time and energy trying to defend it."

In other words, if anyone takes time to show them wrong, it must mean they are right.

 

[Ian Dalton]

Has Sandor been banned from replying?

If so can I ask why?

 

[Mick West]

Has Sandor been banned from replying?

If so can I ask why?

No, he just decided to not post here any more. Although he was ranting a bit earlier, which is generally frowned upon.

Actually, it also looks like his email has bounced too much, so he needs to update it before he can post again.