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

[Bernard Mc Donnell]

say, if refraction occured it HAD TO BE upwards due to the conditions. We did not experience noticabe refraction. (as said in the video)

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

C5 is matching both models (with our measurement picture evaluation precision)

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

 

[Boxer]

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

 

[Bernard Mc Donnell]

http://deletedwikipedia.gawker-labs.com/wiki/N.U.D.T.Z.

This is the actual deleted wikipedia page. @Mick West, @Boxer, @Sandor Szekely. If any of you care to check it out, or comment on it.

 

[Mick West]

http://deletedwikipedia.gawker-labs.com/wiki/N.U.D.T.Z.

This is the actual deleted wikipedia page. @Mick West, @Boxer, @Sandor Szekely. If any of you care to check it out, or comment on it.

It just looks like a clumsy attempt to invent some new terminology.

 

[Bernard Mc Donnell]

It just looks like a clumsy attempt to invent some new terminology.

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

 

[Boxer]

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

 

[Bass In Your Face]

Since you can see the beam in the camera, by your later logic this means that the beam is at 1.72m

Sorry Sandor, these "beam in the camera measurements" are meaningless. You have no idea where the center of the beam is.

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

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

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

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

 

[deirdre]

It does indeed. I can't seem to find it's creation date,

it looks like Sept 3rd. by F11music.

i got those links through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_September_4#N.U.D.T.Z. you have to use "find" tool as N.U.D.T.Z is way down the page.

could be a troll job i guess. ??

 

[Sandor Szekely]

You keep saying this. Please explain how you know this is the center of the beam (and not the bottom), given that the beam is a few feet high at this point.

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

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

 

[Mick West]

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

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

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

 

[deirdre]

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

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

 

[Sandor Szekely]

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

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

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

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

BASS it's so simple..

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Download measurement pictures here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2gyF12ygRBjU0NSSmIxbXU4bVk

Download pictures here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2gyF12ygRBjZktQcmgwZE5CUFk

Download measurement excel sheet here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2gyF12ygRBjZ2RyOTZfSmQ3WXc

 

[Sandor Szekely]

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

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

We had a perfect collimator for the job

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


Laser: 3W laser – adjustable collimator – 0.08mRad divergence


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

Audio: 2x TascamDR 22WL wifi

 

[deirdre]

In position C16 at a distance of 3.9kms (2.42 miles) we can see the LASER BEAM DIRECT HIT on the board in the boat.

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

 

[Sandor Szekely]

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

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

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

 

[Hama Neggs]

BASS it's so simple..

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


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

View attachment 21160


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

zView attachment 21161

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

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

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

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

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

That is a time interval of 18 seconds.

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

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

 

[Sandor Szekely]

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

the beam is slanting down? what does that mean?

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

that is QUITE a difference!
GE model is NOT possible

why is the laser dot tiny? lol

because it is WELL COLLIMATED
not diverging and far away

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

Or this:
View attachment 20837

That's at 1.5km. So it would be four times are spread as that at 6 km. So you could easily be seeing flashes from something 8 feet above you.

Note again direct hits on both the board and camera.

 

[Hama Neggs]

In position C16 at a distance of 3.9kms (2.42 miles) we can see the LASER BEAM DIRECT HIT on the board in the boat.

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

THIS measurement is showing CLEARLY the direct hit of the laser beam as well.
You can see the beam divergence WELL too.

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

 

[Sandor Szekely]

Note again direct hits on both the board and camera.

what is this Ghost?

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

 

[Mick West]

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

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

 

[Sandor Szekely]

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



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

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

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

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

WHERE DO YOU see the beam ?

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

Maybe they stumbled? on a bit of flat lake on a round earth.
http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_228814.pdf

 

[Hama Neggs]

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

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

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

WHERE DO YOU see the beam ?

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

 

[Mick West]

WHERE DO YOU see the beam ?

View attachment 21165

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

 

[Hama Neggs]

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

 

[Mick West]

Maybe they stumbled? on a bit of flat lake on a round earth.
http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_228814.pdf

Interesting that that uses the exact same bit of lake:

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

 

[Steve Torrence]

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

 

[Mick West]

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

was looking at the histogram here as a key:

 

[Bass In Your Face]

BASS it's so simple..

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


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

View attachment 21160


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

View attachment 21161


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

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


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

View attachment 21162

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


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

View attachment 21163

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


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

View attachment 21164

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

Download measurement pictures here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2gyF12ygRBjU0NSSmIxbXU4bVk

Download pictures here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2gyF12ygRBjZktQcmgwZE5CUFk

Download measurement excel sheet here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2gyF12ygRBjZ2RyOTZfSmQ3WXc

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve Torrence]

was looking at the histogram here as a key:
View attachment 21169

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

 

[Ray Von Geezer]

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

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

Ray Von

 

[deirdre]

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

We had a perfect collimator for the job

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


Laser: 3W laser – adjustable collimator – 0.08mRad divergence


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

Audio: 2x TascamDR 22WL wifi

that's too technical for me. you said earlier that

our laser is more than an inch at the start. our beam diverge at 15 miles is 4 inches, without refraction

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

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

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

 

[Sandor Szekely]

Maybe they stumbled? on a bit of flat lake on a round earth.
http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_228814.pdf

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

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

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

 

[Sandor Szekely]

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



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

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

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

you know why? to get a hit into the camera

AND

at position C16

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

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

please answer simply

 

[Ray Von Geezer]

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

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

Ray Von

 

[Boxer]

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

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

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

View attachment 21173

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

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

 

[Steve Torrence]

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

 

[Ray Von Geezer]

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

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

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

Ray Von

 

[Boxer]

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

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

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