Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
"The high resolution of lidar data showsthis is not correct statement - it is NOT "smoothed"
short-wavelength patterns in water surface height which are
beyond the scale of the current geoid models"
"The high resolution of lidar data showsthis is not correct statement - it is NOT "smoothed"
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.
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.
OUR boat NEVER went fast like that boat in your video
BEFORE YOU PEOPLE STATE that we had "divergence problems" I NEED SOLID EVIDENCE FOR THAT!
that's not what he said.the back of the boat does NOT rise from water level when the boat goes faster.
your "data" is total bunk. I realize wasting money is not something you want to come to terms with, but after C4 which is .44 miles you have NO data.OUR DATA is accurate well to the level that we can determine laser positions, like 1.6 meter to 2.6 meters
and stop quoting Barksdale. you have no data.do I have to quote Barksdale here again?
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.
i cant tell the divergence because only a small bit of the bottom of the cone is visible on his jacket.TELL ME:
BEAM DIVERGENCE?
BEAM HEIGHT?
These have all been covered. You ignoring criticism is not helpful.
i cant tell the divergence because only a small bit of the bottom of the cone is visible on his jacket.
i can't tell the beam height because i dont know what part of the beam is on his coat.
my definition of wide beam. that is the entire board at LEAST, and how far away are you in this picture again?
View attachment 21216
yea well thats the only pic i have where you show at all any beam divergence. its not my fault you didnt have a bigger board during the day. The point is you cant PROVE your beam divergence is 4 inches at 10 miles. You cant prove what your beam divergence is AT ALL. So why you keep opining that the beam divergence isnt this or that, i dont understand. you know that isnt scientific.DID I tell you NOT to mix the experiments???
and stop quoting Barksdale. you have no data.
yea well thats the only pic i have where you show at all any beam divergence. its not my fault you didnt have a bigger board during the day. The point is you cant PROVE your beam divergence is 4 inches at 10 miles. You cant prove what your beam divergence is AT ALL. So why you keep opining that the beam divergence isnt this or that, i dont understand. you know that isnt scientific.
I'm beginning to think that Sander could be trolling.I think Diedre is right, this thread has run its course. Sandor isn't going to accept the plethora of criticisms noted here, and instead has resorted to consistently ignoring them and turned to attacking the messengers and writing diatribes about the folks here....
You're the one that's supposed to be providing solid evidence here, not us! You asked @Mick West and the community here to review your work. It's not up to us to prove your methods.BEFORE YOU PEOPLE STATE that we had "divergence problems" I NEED SOLID EVIDENCE FOR THAT!
i used YOUR data sandor.I DO NOT SEE YOUR DATA IN THIS POST? WHERE IS IT?
It inevitably becomes impossible to tell in so many of these cases.I'm beginning to think that Sander could be trolling.
IS THAT SO???
STOP QUOTING BARKSDALE???????
PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT ASSUMTIONS or OWN OPINIONS
NOPE
THANKS THAT WAS WAY ENOUGH FOR ME FOR TODAY... YOU PEOPLE DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND TRYING TO DEBUNK SOMETHING
LOL WHAT A JOKE
AND I WRITE WITH CAPSLOCK BECAUSE YOU DO NOT RESPECT ME! AND I AM SICK OF IT
ACTUALLY I AM GOING TO DEBATE MY SUBJECT WITH REAL
REPEAT REAL
SCIENTISTS AND NOT WITH A BUNCH OF FACEBOOK TROLLS LIKE THAT BOXER ALIAS SANDOR KOVACS ..
THANK'S THIS WAS FAR MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR ME
(OHH AND YOU CAN SUSPEND / DELETE OR WHATEVER IF YOU LIKE)
I don't know much about beams and divergence and math in general, but I do know that "real scientists" won't be quite as patient as we have been... I wish Sandor nothing but luck on his journey.It inevitably becomes impossible to tell in so many of these cases.
The laser was pointed slightly upwards. There were reasons for this but basically, slightly upwards was preferable because if accurate data was taken it could be accurately plotted on a graph and show results. Downwards would be too close to the NUDTZ.Sorry if this has been answered before, but does Sandor's analysis account for the angle of the laser, or does it just assume the laser is perfectly level? The angle should be treated as unknown, and it should be calculated from the data both in the FE and the GE model.
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...
I don't think that is reliable. The angle should be calculated from the measured data.The laser was pointed slightly upwards. There were reasons for this but basically, slightly upwards was preferable because if accurate data was taken it could be accurately plotted on a graph and show results. Downwards would be too close to the NUDTZ.
I don't think that is reliable. The angle should be calculated from the measured data.
Either way is fine. If you know the angle beforehand it's relatively easy to plot out a graph to compare to the actual results. Without knowing the angle, any refraction could cause errors in coming to conclusions. Refraction can still cause errors, but I'd imagine it would be easier to account for them errors if your setup was accurate and accounted for.I don't think that is reliable. The angle should be calculated from the measured data.
There is no reason to believe the tilt was upward in Sandor's experiment. It may as well have been downward. We should not make assumptions about whether it was upward or downward. The angle was not measured, "slightly" is not a number.A level laser would show this best, but a slight upwards tilt would be fine.
There is no reason to believe the tilt was upward in Sandor's experiment. It may as well have been downward. We should not make assumptions about whether it was upward or downward. The angle was not measured, "slightly" is not a number.
Some things we have to take at face value. He did show his leveling technique and explained the height that he was going to level to. He based this off the globe model, knowing that if it was flat his graph should show a near straight line that rose in a linear fashion. If a globe it would rise at an exponential rate. With enough measurements taken at different times of day he could get an accurate graph and also show deviations for different atmospheric conditions.There is no reason to believe the tilt was upward in Sandor's experiment. It may as well have been downward. We should not make assumptions about whether it was upward or downward. The angle was not measured, "slightly" is not a number.
Sorry if this has been answered before, but does Sandor's analysis account for the angle of the laser, or does it just assume the laser is perfectly level? The angle should be treated as unknown, and it should be calculated from the data both in the FE and the GE model.
Yes, but I think it's the concensus here that that wasn't the issue. Or if it was a potential issue that it was at the back of a queue of issues. He did make two initial measurements, one at the lake edge in front of the laser, and one at 720 metres I think it was. These were his leveling measurements.If my calculations are correct then a laser starting at 1.2 m height and tilting down 0.3 millirads will drop to ~0.7 m at a distance of ~2 km, then start rising and reach 1.8 m at 6 km. Add some mesurement errors and it will be pretty difficult to distinguish it from a slightly upward tilting laser on a flat Earth.
I know, but I don't think we should rely on the assumption that the first two measurements were super accurate.He did make two initial measurements
Again, I think my point on measuring against a tilted whiteboard could potentially come into play there. I'll have to check the video again tomorrow and observe the these measurements more stringently. I'm off to sleep for now, up in a few hours. Toodles.I know, but I don't think we should rely on the assumption that the first two measurements were super accurate.
I have never said 0.3 mRad...
OUR collimator is adjustable!
NOW we had 0.08mRad - okay?
please qute from me correctly
And again ......
Now we will have the 0.03 mRad collimator ready to keep laser beam divergence at 4 inch (10cms)diameter on the 14.3 miles (23kms) distance...
And then you reviewed it to your "one of a kind" in the world 0.003 ......The expected laser beam divergence is calculated from the collimation of 0.03 milli radius - and it is something like 3.9xx on the 14.3 miles distance...
SORRY, I wanted to say 0.003 mRad collimator lenses. this EXACT data will be given to us be the laserist when they calibrated the new collimator lens set unit. These are more lenses that are fixed in a special frame and calibrated by optical company. This is ONE OF A KIND in the world especially made for this experiment!