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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
If you have a dispute with the evidence, Sandor is more than willing to answer any questions as he has been doing.
There are many questions pending about beam divergence and the idea of camera "direct hit", with some examples shown. Sandor seems to be bypassing them.
 

Boxer

Banned
Banned
Plotted the data just for fun, to me the measured values looks adjusted( yellow circle), with reporting bias or later altering, and of course without knowing the error they are meaningless. Also have to note the measured and the FE data line are diverging, trending away from each other, systematic error or the producer of data wanted close but not to close values for the desired output ?
upload_2016-9-7_17-50-50.png
 
Last edited:

DarkStar

Active Member
To what Darkstar responded it was not even physically possible:
Actually that was initially Spectrar Ghost. I just kept pressing the issue :)

I think your laserist is lying to you.

Content from external source:
There is a fundamental limit to the collimation of a laser due to diffraction. Assuming the laser beam profile is a uniform disk it will be diffracted to an Airy disk at large distances, and the angular spread is approximately given by:

θ≈1.22λdθ1.22λd

where dd is the beam diameter. Assuming a diameter of 1 mm, which seems a reasonable estimate for most lasers I've seen, you get an angular divergence of about 0.6 milliradians for 500nm light.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70415/lasers-and-collimation

And there is no evidence it's actually 0.08 mRad either - that is a claim that is highly suspect, especially in the light of how many other claims were made previously and the visual evidence we are given where the spot is often much larger.

This kind of thing costs in terms of credibility:

SORRY, I wanted to say 0.003 mRad collimator lenses.
We are repeatedly assured that we're dumb and his 'laserist' is magical and can outperform hard physical limits - and then the numbers are silently changed.

And remember, this spreading isn't like an even cone of light, it's more like rings:

http://www.edmundoptics.com/resources/application-notes/imaging/limitations-on-resolution-and-contrast-the-airy-disk/

Mostly caused by diffraction of the beam and the resulting interference patterns. Complicated by all kinds of atmospheric distortions in the real world.

But those rings are dimmer and you might not see them (especially in daylight) until you, oh say, point a lens towards it, focusing it down to a sensitive element (eye or camera). Causing a false positive.
 

DarkStar

Active Member
I believe our next test will remove absolutely all test and will address the main complaints about this one.
Oh? How are they controlling and measuring the actual refraction? asserting "We don't see any" isn't good enough - especially when we can very clearly see massive amount of refraction going on in the video just posted. That was kind of absurd and intellectually insulting.
 

snaphat

Member
Plotted the data just for fun, to me the measured values looks adjusted( yellow circle), with reporting bias or later altering, and of course without knowing the error they are meaningless. Also have to note the measured and the FE data line are diverging, trending away from each other, systematic error or the producer of data wanted close but not to close values for the desired output ? View attachment 21196
Interesting. This IS actually highly suspect. Given all of the issues I summarized in my post, there is no way the data would have been this 'clean.' Single measurements in the presence of large non-controlled for variables, yet they managed to hit this close but then only slightly linearly diverge to a point? It seems as if the the 'estimated' height was used to compensate and match closely to fit the other line or some other data manipulation occurred. Either way, that trend looks completely unrealistic. Thanks for plotting this.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
On C16 I see a "blob" of light which looks to be on the pilot's jacket, I can't see anywhere that shows how big it was, how the height was measured or anything like that, and that's the same with all the images I've seen so far.


The image of the laser hitting the boat is _MG_7136.CR2 (attached). It was taken at 6:52:55AM according to the EXIF, however Sandor claims it was taken at 6:57:22 (+4m 27s)

20160907-101237-3su3d.jpg


20160907-101146-ujj9a.jpg


This next image:


Is from _MG_7119.CR2 (also attached), taken at 6:49:23, but claimed at 6:50:28 (+1m 5s)
20160907-102448-dqv0l.jpg

20160907-102137-2tnnq.jpg
 

Attachments

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Interesting. This IS actually highly suspect. Given all of the issues I summarized in my post, there is no way the data would have been this 'clean.' Single measurements in the presence of large non-controlled for variables, yet they managed to hit this close but then only slightly linearly diverge to a point? It seems as if the the 'estimated' height was used to compensate and match closely to fit the other line or some other data manipulation occurred. Either way, that trend looks completely unrealistic. Thanks for plotting this.
I believe this may be due to the fact that all the "camera hits" were captured at the eye-height of a guy standing in the boat. This means any vertical divergence of the beam was eliminated from those measurements. As long as some part of the beam was visible at that height, it was considered to be the center of the beam. Would that cause what you're seeing there?
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
The few weeks I've known Sandor, I can say he is going all the way with this and the results will get more obvious as test goes to longer distances
I'd rather see actual scientific measurements (on a BOARD) for a shorter distance vs. you guys trying to go further for now. Use a real boat (not rubber) with appropriate boards and SHOW all meaurements. Mount ALL cameras in one spot and keep them there. None of this "Joe is 6 feet tall so his camera was probably about 4 feet high" stuff. etc. Stop the boat every 500 feet and take multiple measurements at each stop. I think the experiment and presentation was made way more complicated then it needs to be.

Oh and hold a wide white board UP to show us the divergence of the beam at each stopped and measured distance too.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member
... I believe our next test will remove absolutely all test and will address the main complaints about this one ...
1 - get a higher board
2 - measure more frequently
3 - never measure with the boat in motion
4 - repeat several times at different times of the day
5 - guarantee that you can see the whole beam spread, measuring top, bottom and center.

I hope you and @Sandor Szekely can enhance the experiment like this. The previous one didn't show a flat earth, and also didn't show a globe earth.
 

snaphat

Member
I believe this may be due to the fact that all the "camera hits" were captured at the eye-height of a guy standing in the boat. This means any vertical divergence of the beam was eliminated from those measurements. As long as some part of the beam was visible at that height, it was considered to be the center of the beam. Would that cause what you're seeing there?
I don't think so. There should be random (unpredictable) jitter and noise in real measured values given the variables. Look at the plot of the difference of the obtained values from nominal values for flat earth I put in this post. Notice what looks like a couple of patterns? Particularly, the first 6 data points, then the next 6 data points. Actual measured data in the presence of even precisely controlled variables would be rather unlikely to have results like this. As in, there should be random jitter, not patterns here.

We know they were moving at high speed, and even currents themselves would be variable moving across the lake... yet, we have what appear to be patterns in the results...

upload_2016-9-7_13-43-21.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
C16:
The image of the laser hitting the boat is _MG_7136.CR2 (attached). It was taken at 6:52:55AM according to the EXIF, however Sandor claims it was taken at 6:57:22 (+4m 27s)
C11:
Is from _MG_7119.CR2 (also attached), taken at 6:49:23, but claimed at 6:50:28 (+1m 5s)
And C12 :
C12.png


Claimed at MVI7083 +13:04. MVI7083 is at 6:36:08, so that's 6:49:12, but Sandor claims 6:50:46, (+1m 34s)

Clearly there are some major discrepancies here.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
I don't think so. There should be random (unpredictable) jitter and noise in real measured values given the variables. Look at the plot of the difference of the obtained values from nominal values for flat earth I put in this post. Notice what looks like a couple of patterns? Particularly, the first 6 data points, then the next 6 data points. Actual measured data in the presence of even precisely controlled variables would be rather unlikely to have results like this. As in, there should be random jitter, not patterns here.

We know they were moving at high speed, and even currents themselves would be variable moving across the lake... yet, we have what appear to be patterns in the results...

View attachment 21210
I see what you're saying now. Does look odd.
 

NoParty

Senior Member


The image of the laser hitting the boat is _MG_7136.CR2 (attached). It was taken at 6:52:55AM according to the EXIF, however Sandor claims it was taken at 6:57:22 (+4m 27s)

View attachment 21204

View attachment 21203

This next image:


Is from _MG_7119.CR2 (also attached), taken at 6:49:23, but claimed at 6:50:28 (+1m 5s)
View attachment 21208
View attachment 21207
Of course, lots of people are sloppy about setting the clocks on their cameras correctly...but you'd certainly expect better if someone was
claiming to use those photos as some kind of scientific evidence...
 

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
Am I reading this correctly? Are people asking if variances in geoid height might be a factor in local earth curvature experiments?

Well gosh darn if I haven't been saying this for months. ;)

Also, are we still debating the "direct hit into the camera"? Perhaps we could focus on that and get some agreement.

As far as I can see, the fact that the camera can see the laser tells us nothing about the height of the beam at the point of the camera.

Sandor, do you agree?

[MODERATOR: Example of Canandaigua Lake, NY, USA "Flat Earth experiment" (showing? a flat earth) moved as it is a seperate claim of evidence https://www.metabunk.org/canandaigua-lake-ny-usa-flat-earth-experiment.t7901/ ]

Did you know that sometimes a huge amount of Corsica can be seen from Genoa, over 95 miles away, when - to borrow the phrase - "it should be hidden behind thousands of feet of curvature"?

Again, does this prove that the earth is flat? Or does it perhaps suggest that further analysis needs to be done?

I believe there's something quite pertinent to learn from these two genuine - and accepted - examples of apparent lack of curvature with regard to all this.[/b]
read the full experiment article on the LIDAR measurement in Hungary. The geoid heigh deviaton is MAX 2 centimeters in Hungary! that is less than an INCH


As far as I can see, the fact that the camera can see the laser tells us nothing about the height of the beam at the point of the camera.

1 a direct laser beam hit in the camera TELLS that the beam is in DIRECT level with the camera. You can argue the divergence, that was NOT accountable for 2.5 meters difference at C37 for example.

2 we have laser beam hit ON the persons standing in the boat from tha Canon view at position A on the shore.
take that at the bard extension. lol

any other debunk claims?
 

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
Probably that Refraction is hard to account for and we know it can be extreme over water. As shown by https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=AcV346e6ysw

View attachment 21180


Here is a slam dunk. This is level from Apple Pie Hill - professional surveyor using a Theodolite. Signal WAY above measurement error. http://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/analysis-apple-pie-hill-to-philadelphia.html

View attachment 21179

But these guys insist on replicating the failure of Rowbotham.

ARE WE DISCUSSING MY EXPERIMENT OR JUST TALKING ABOUT IT IN BROADER SENSE??

THIS COMMENT IS NOT RELEVANT
 

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
@Sandor Szekely , I think there is a huge misunderstanding regarding beam spread since the beginning.

In post #30, AUG/1st, two weeks before you experiment, you said your divergence would be 0.3 mRad, and you were warned the spread would be 69cm:


To what you agreed and replied in post #32 that the divergence would be actually 0.003 mRad, so this was accounted for ...


To what Darkstar responded it was not even physically possible:


After some time you shared more exact info on the colimator ...


So, the 0.03mRad you initially estimated would already be a low precision colimator, as you also agreed in post #32, AUG/2nd, but you ended up using one that was 3 times LESS precise, stating it was the perfect colimator for the job. On top of that you didn't account for any better method of measuring other than an estimation on a direct hit.

Please refer to
https://www.laserworld.com/en/laserworld-toolbox/divergence-calculator.html
to play around with calculations ...

Sandor, you knew that a 0.03mRad colimator was not a suitable tool for this experiment, and you now know that the 0.08mRad one that you used causes a 80cm spread (without taking into account any other external factors).

Are you still going to rely on your experiment, putting all your chips and your name on an experiment that brought no accurate measurements?

Before answering that, please remember that you are ...

I have never said 0.3 mRad...

OUR collimator is adjustable!

NOW we had 0.08mRad - okay?

please qute from me correctly
 

DarkStar

Active Member
At this point in the video:

Source: https://youtu.be/GBhDFO4NMrw?t=1120


It is stated that the Air is ~17C and the Water is ~22C therefore "this means that the direction of any possible refraction would point upwards". And I wonder how this is justified from just two data points - and when & where were they taken and how and with what margin of error (what device, what method)? You need to (at least) measure the temperature of the air at points just below, at, and above the laser to find the approximate lapse rate that would be affecting the laser. But even this would be difficult as you need extremely accurate temperature readings (at least 1/100th of a degree C).

This was in the evening correct (you show the sun setting near the end)? During the day the lower layers are heated by the Suns rays, which keeps it warmer. But once the sun begins to set this warming stops which is when thermal inversion layers are likely to form.

We only need a thin layer of thermal inversion of about 0.114°/m at the laser level to cause the curvature to equal the Earth's curvature, and slightly higher than that and the laser starts to bend down.

And since your own data shows the laser both falling below even the Flat Earth model and possibly bending down sharply at the end (from the chart made by @Boxer)

upload_2016-9-7_14-42-42.png



this is a serious concern.

What evidence do we have about accurate temperatures at the laser level at the time of measurements?
 

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
I am not sure I have no way of telling form the picture if the hight estimations are actuate

more to the point can you explain why you think it should be 1.63 or 2.6 meters what are you basing those fingers off and are you sure that that is actuate?

it seames to me that you should not be tryign to compair your hights to what you think the hights should be on FE and GE but you should be plotting your results and seeing what sort of shape they give. form the figers and graphs you should be able to see ore clearley what was happening.
On the photos you can tell the height of the laser by calculating the number of pixels above the board and comparing them with the board size. If you use a high resolution photoshop you can calculate quite precisely.

The autocad explanation in the video shows how we measured the FE 1.63 and the GE 2.6 meters. They are very different values and ONLY one of them can be TRUE.

you can decide your self, what model fits the height of the laser on the picture. quite big difference. this is why we are comparing the GE anf FE expected height volumes.

that is the proof

C16.png
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
2 we have laser beam hit ON the persons standing in the boat from tha Canon view at position A on the shore.
take that at the bard extension.
that doesnt mean it is a direct hit. you can clearly see in all your pics the green light doesnt show up on dark clothing. so that splash on his white jacket could well be the bottom of the cone, no? you keep saying your divergence is minimal but your pics of splash belie your claims of divergence. that is the problem.
 

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
It's fairly important when the video tries to pass something, even terminology, off as fact. It's dishonest! That's also not how Wikipedia works, although I won't go off topic here by explaining how to use a resource like Wikipedia properly. Your video should probably state that you have "coined" the phrase purely for the purpose of the video, and that it is in no way factual! Because if it was factual, it would have a Wikipedia entry, wouldn't it?

WHAT IS NOT FACTUAL?

NUDTZ non uniform density transition zone

what part is not factual?? or you just don't understand it?
 

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
So in summary:
  1. The collimater by its own specs could not have reduced the beam divergence to be as small as claimed. So beam divergence was not controlled for.
  2. Direct hits were not controlled for and thus any data after a certain distance is invalid and the video evidence even indicates that claims otherwise are unsubstantiated (i.e. showing indirect hits at points).
  3. Boat speed and distances indicated by the data don't line up at some points calling the reliability of the data into question. Additionally, the speed of the boat is evidently far too fast for precise hits to the camera to have occurred IF beam divergence was negligible. It would have been nigh impossible for a fast moving boat to remain precisely aligned.
  4. Refraction was not controlled for and seemingly explained away as an effect of the camera lens (or did I miss something?). Additionally, no data on any gradients presence were taken despite mirages being sufficiently evident. Not that I believe it would be possible to compensate without a ridiculous amount of measurements and curve fitting, but to ignore it out right unscientific.
  5. Single points of data were taken and no graphs were produced. As a result of the lack of measurements, error and variance in measurement were not calculated.
  6. This particular part of the lake is apparently extra 'level' by elevation standards? But, elevation doesn't measure curvature and equipotentially level doesn't mean flat so that's not particularly relevant.
Items 1-5 mean that no claims can be made by scientific standards. At the very least given all of the non-controlled variables, a confidence metric of some sort was needed (i.e. lots of and lots of points of data at the same locations along the path, as well as a computation of the variance at the very least). That would have given an idea about the reliability of the claims being made in spite of the variables present. Without which, it's pretty much a fundamentally flawed experiment.

As a bit of a digression, I'm not really surprised to see these things being ignored and this being used as proof regardless. I do question the intentions of the experimenters and why the experiment was done in the manner it was. But, I suppose that is immaterial in the face of the rest of the issues presence here with the experiment itself.

EDITED to account for what Ray Von said. He's right.
Your summary is just a joke right?

actual proof of any?


FACTS PLEASE I AM TIRED OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS!!!


IF WE HAVE DATA, LET'S LOOK AT THE DATA. IF ALL WE HAVE IS OPINIONS THEN LET'S GO WITH MINE" -BARKSDALE

I suppose you know this quote - right?

SO PLS Deirdre CONTROL the comments here... this is anything but a scientific discussion!

I am only willing to discuss DATA!
 

Boxer

Banned
Banned
1 a direct laser beam hit in the camera TELLS that the beam is in DIRECT level with the camera. You can argue the divergence, that was NOT accountable for 2.5 meters difference at C37 for example.

2 we have laser beam hit ON the persons standing in the boat from tha Canon view at position A on the shore.
take that at the bard extension. lol

any other debunk claims?
1 Just no, maybe others will elaborate but I dont take your correction bait. Is Trolling allowed here ?

2 "lol" Is this a joke to you ?

There is only one simple question here, why do you produced this level of smoke and mirrors after enormous amount of planning an help from metabunk community ? You only had one job, to hit a board with a laser measure it then plot the data. By the way I plotted your data, any comment on that ?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Of course, lots of people are sloppy about setting the clocks on their cameras correctly...but you'd certainly expect better if someone was
claiming to use those photos as some kind of scientific evidence...
But in the one instance I checked it wasn't that the time of day was off. The timed interval was different.
 
WHAT IS NOT FACTUAL?

NUDTZ non uniform density transition zone

what part is not factual?? or you just don't understand it?
You need to calm down with the caps lock and derisory replies!

You and Steve making up a phenomenon for the purposes of your video, and then him creating a Wikipedia page after the fact is dishonest and not factual. I understand that there are a lot of replies for you read through, but how are you going to react towards the folks at this Geodesy university if they also reject your experiment? You keep quoting Barksdale throughout this thread, you made a lot of assumptions throughtout your video (and therefore opinions), so you definitely should listen to the criticisms now and prepare your methods more thoroughly for your next attempt.
 

DarkStar

Active Member
well your calculation is all wrong... where is the value of starting laser diameter? is the 5000 supposed to be the radius?
Starting laser diameter? You seem confused about what is being calculated -- we're not calculating the theoretical minimum divergence (which depends on the axial distance, beam waist, and wavelength).

We're calculating the angular size of the divergence value YOU stated as 0.08mRad.

mRad is a milliradian -- this gives us 1/2 the ANGULAR divergence of the beam from the waist.

To calculate the diameter (size) 'g' at distance 'r' given some full angle 'a' the equation is:

g=2r tan(a/2)

0.08 mRad is 0.00008 radians which is already the half-angle divergence for the beam

2 times 5000 meters distance times tan(0.00008)

2*5000*tan(0.00008) = 0.80 m

Within some margin of error.
 

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
Thanks for the reply Sandor

Understood, but I don't think that really explains how we can see more of the people on the boat over the top of the board. Wouldn't that indicate a change in angle somewhere?

Just to illustrate why I think you need to take into account, here's a picture of a similar boat at rest



and a video of one in motion


Well, not if the rest of the boat is actually raised and you're measuring height within the boat ;)

That's not even the point though, the point is that you should have tried as much as possible to get accurate data, and you've no apparent way to show whether it's accurate or not. Where are the close-ups of the measurements on the boat for example?

It's really not about whether more accurate results would be better or worse for whichever model, it's about the accuracy of the results. That statement alone causes me concern that you'd rather make data fit a conclusion than the other way around. Data vs opinion - which one do you think that statement is apparently most reliant upon? ;)

You were advised to measure with the boat flat, you were advised to keep people in as near the same position as possible, you were advised to have some method to show your measurements. I'm happy to be corrected if wrong, but did you follow any of that advice, and if so where's the evidence?

On C16 I see a "blob" of light which looks to be on the pilot's jacket, I can't see anywhere that shows how big it was, how the height was measured or anything like that, and that's the same with all the images I've seen so far.

Out of interest, the pilot's jacket is clearly white but was it also reflective? Of all the photos I've seen the only place the beam is visible is on the white board and jacket, it'd be interesting to confirm that it's not just that it doesn't show up on anything else (like the people in darker colours) and that's why we don't see the total spread (like the significant spread visible in the other photos). Again, close-ups would be very useful here.

On divergence, I've also seen your claims about the beam and "direct hits on the camera", which aren't borne out by your photographs. Look at the green splotches on the inset photos of the board in C11 and C12 for example, The beam is all over the place. Do you think that, had it'd been dark, those pictures would look much different to the other night-time ones that showed obvious divergence problems?

Ray Von

the back of the boat does NOT rise from water level when the boat goes faster.

OUR boat NEVER went fast like that boat in your video - that is logical right?

OUR DATA is accurate well to the level that we can determine laser positions, like 1.6 meter to 2.6 meters.

NO waves or boat movement or anything can cause a rise like that.

REFRACTION is curving the beam UPWARDS. In our evaluation we experienced marginal refraction of the laser beam.


"You were advised to measure with the boat flat, you were advised to keep people in as near the same position as possible, you were advised to have some method to show your measurements. "

ammm what is this? like teacher to a kid you did that wrong?
OR are you saying the YOU PEOPLE WILL REPEAT THE EXPERIMENT LIKE THIS??

ahhh... yeah just hitting the keyboard from home...

come on BE SERIOUS okay?

about the image evaluation I answered in a comment just before, please check.

DO NOT mix here the night time measurements - I told that already. DIFFERENT SETUP DIFFERENT STORY. We had a REFLEXION at the night measurement.

BEFORE YOU PEOPLE STATE that we had "divergence problems" I NEED SOLID EVIDENCE FOR THAT!

do I have to quote Barksdale here again?

ARE WE TALKING ASSUMPTIONS OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT FACTS?

calculate something to prove me wrong! not just "I think so" and so on...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top