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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
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.

Part of his summary is from a post I made about discrepancies in the time-keeping apparatus. I specified the DATA in my post #536. You seem to have skipped over it, as you have skipped over my post #514 which showed more specific DATA. ie: a photo demonstrating beam divergence. Please stop demanding we refer to DATA and then ignoring it.
 

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
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.


PLEASE DO NOT teach me - okay?

I am getting bored here... actually NOT ONE comment in this flood that is any kind of FACT BASED debate
this is getting childish and personal here... may see if this is really in my interest to write here...

"You and Steve making up a phenomenon for the purposes of your video"

NO WE DESCRIBED A PHENOMENON

WHAT part of this you do not understand, or think that is not correct?

non uniform density transition zone

PLEASE ANSWER THAT CORRECTLY: WHAT WORD IN NOT VALID THERE?

I am presenting the university my results (as agreed with them forehand) and they will be probably taking part in the next measurement.

OHH... that I may NOT be discussing here... I don't want to BLAME my self with this type of "peer review" here on meta... sorry...


I AM talking about data here - that is why I quote Barksdale
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
the back of the boat does NOT rise from water level when the boat goes faster.
that's not what he said.

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

End of story. Your opinion and your guestimates are not data. I can SEE your pictures. The proof is right there in front of our eyes.

I think this thread has run it's course because you are exhibiting huge confirmation bias and refusing to see the truth. Perhaps when the University staff tell you the same things we are, you will finally believe that you have no data.. but I doubt it.
 

Boxer

Banned
Banned
Well after one mile your data is factually derived from imaginative guesses, hence you dont have your target surface and the method to determine the beam center, and its also looks like fantasy if you check the plot, and How convenient that your board just ended when the spherical earth calculations should start diverge noticeably.

Also as pointed out above there is several shot in your video showing heavy complex refraction.
 

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
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.


Are you talking about assumptions too??

PLEASE ONLY FACTS

someone calculate that divergence YOU think and I will debunk it okay?
now you are just keep repeating "divergence was huge"

OKAY AND EXACTLY? HOW CAN YOU CONFIRM IT WAS HUGE?


this is really a joke here... I feel like on facebook...

PLEASE talk about this position and picture!

I MARK HERE THE SUPPOSED POSITION OF THE BEAM ON THE GE MODEL

TELL ME:

BEAM DIVERGENCE?
BEAM HEIGHT?
WHAT MODEL DOES IT MATCH?
XC16.png
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
TELL ME:

BEAM DIVERGENCE?
BEAM HEIGHT?
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?
gr.JPG
 

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
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?
gr.JPG


NO DEIRDRE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSE FOR ME TO SPEND ENERGY HERE!

this is ajoke... not a peer review article... come on people ...

DID I tell you NOT to mix the experiments???

THIS IS NOT THE SAME EXPERIMENT! HERE WE HAD DIFFERENT SETUP
DIFFERENT SITUATION

WITH


REFLEXION


OHH.. so boring for me... please....
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
In that C16 image your camera "direct hit" (in the left inset) is at least two feet (.6 meters) over from where the beam appears to be hitting the guy's jacket in the right side inset. THAT is significant divergence, and who knows how much farther over the camera could have moved and still registered a "direct hit"? THAT is the point people are trying to make, and you keep ignoring.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
DID I tell you NOT to mix the experiments???
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.
 

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
and stop quoting Barksdale. you have no data.


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)
 

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
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.

If we have data, let's look at data. If all we have is opinions let's go with mine. -barksdale

I DO NOT SEE YOUR DATA IN THIS POST? WHERE IS IT?

OHHH.. just talking bla bla bla again..

back to my work - good night
 

snaphat

Member
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....
 

Akantor

Banned
Banned
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....
I'm beginning to think that Sander could be trolling.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I DO NOT SEE YOUR DATA IN THIS POST? WHERE IS IT?
i used YOUR data sandor.

i'm probably going to confuse you more but hang with me.
here is the beam circle at C4 which is .44 miles ( i made it a bit smaller than it probably actually is based on the slant of the board)
pink.jpg

here i took C16 and scaled it to match the bar holding up your board. and i moved the beam on his back into the pink circle.
overlay.jpg


now C16 is 2.4 miles. So i if your beam is .08 ... then shouldnt the radius be somewhat bigger at 2.4 miles? How much bigger i dont know because i get 253.6 but i dont know what that means.

I wish instead of yelling at people you would just answer simple questions. For example, my question now is: If your beam is collimated at .08 then what should the diameter of the beam be at 2.4 miles? Simple question.
 
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)

Yes, stop quoting Barksdale. You have no data, only confirmation bias. All we have are your assumptions and opinions, and your video somewhat proves that.

We're not trying to debunk you, if your data actually proved anything and we couldn't fault it, guess what? We'd agree with your conclusions. However it looks like you did an experiment to match your preconceived assumptions.

No, you write in caps lock because you can't take the criticisms and for some bizarre reason you can't fathom why we're not blown away by what you consider empirical evidence.

You go and enjoy your debate with real scientists. Let us know how it goes for you. They will have a much higher standard of proof than us. And they won't take it easy on you just because you're not a real scientist either!

It's up to the admins and moderators whether your account is deleted or you're banned. I see no reason why the would though, you've conducted yourself very poorly, but you haven't brokenthe rules as far as Ican see.
 

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
It inevitably becomes impossible to tell in so many of these cases.
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.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
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.
 
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.
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff 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...

It's not simply that. There are at least three ways in which two sequences from two cameras have different offsets. If it were just camera time, then they would all differ by the same amount.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Even Sandor's own numbers don't agree with each other:
20160907-150511-ibatw.jpg
The photo time difference 6:50:28 to 6:50:46 is 18s
The video time different 12:25 to 13:04 is 39s
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't think that is reliable. The angle should be calculated from the measured data.

It should be, but it's not really relevant. If properly executed (and ignoring refraction) then the experiment would show a curved line. The fact that the line is curved would be sufficient to demonstrate the curvature. A level laser would show this best, but a slight upwards tilt would be fine.

This was discussed on the first two pages of this thread, and specifically:
https://www.metabunk.org/lake-balat...-of-the-earth-if-any.t7780/page-2#post-186880
(and subsequent discussion)
 
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have banned Boxer, as he seemed simply intent on attacking Sandor Szekely.

Sandor Szekely has been warned for being impolite, and excessive use of caps, and has been place in moderation (future posts will require moderator approval)
 

skephu

Senior Member.
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.
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
You don't need the angle though; you just need the graph, which will speak for itself. As long as you don't point down and hit the surface or skim it close enough for extreme refraction effects, that is.

Of course, you also need good data, and not guesstimates based on being able to see the laser source.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.

I agree we should just look at the data, however they did attempt to have it slightly above level. But they way they did this is actually part of the data sequence. If their number are correct, and there's no refraction, then it is pointing slightly upwards .
 
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.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
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.

They went through an attempt at leveling it by trying to make it hit the board at the same level after the boat was out a ways. Don't know how successful they were.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
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.
 
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.
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.

Beam divergence, accurate measurements thereafter, lack of an appropriate sized whiteboard, poor photographic evidence (and inconsistent photo evidence, see Micks earlier post about time discrepancies), etc...

But your point is quite valid if his leveling measurements were incorrectly taken, for instance, the whiteboard is clearly tilting backwards towards the front of the boat, if any of the measurements with the measuring tape were taken by using the tilt of the board it would actually add height that wasn't really there.
 
I know, but I don't think we should rely on the assumption that the first two measurements were super accurate.
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.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
I have never said 0.3 mRad...

OUR collimator is adjustable!

NOW we had 0.08mRad - okay?

please qute from me correctly

Yes , Sandor, it was an obvious typo by me, you said 0.03, and it doesn't change anything that I said, let me quote you, from post #1
...
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 again ...
...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...
And then you reviewed it to your "one of a kind" in the world 0.003 ...
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!

Other than that, you didn't read anything else that I wrote, I guess. Your real colimator is 3 times worse than the initial one and 26 times worse than your "corrected" one.

Well, Sandor, your experiment is not surviving a public amateur "peer review" by non-experts. Let's see what the university has to say about those measurements flaws ... :-(
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West TIc-Tac Shaped UFO Near Lake Michigan [Plane] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
LorentzHall 12 June 2021 UFO Over Lake Michigan Chicago (Short Clip) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 24
Mick West 1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo UFOs and Aliens 101
Swifty Blickling Hall Lake UFO UFOs and Aliens 23
Agent K Earthquake at China Lake Current Events 1
edby View across Utah Lake Flat Earth 34
R Utah "Flat Eath" Frozen Lake Experiment Shows Light Visible over Longer Distance than Expected Flat Earth 8
Soundly A Side View of the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain Flat Earth 55
Mick West Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain Flat Earth 91
Mick West Oroville Watershed Weather Forecast, Lake Level and Inflow Calculations Oroville Dam 194
Rory Canandaigua Lake, NY, USA "Flat Earth experiment" Flat Earth 21
Bass In Your Face Stephen Hawking's "Genius" Helicopter Demonstration of Lake Curvature Flat Earth 27
Mick West Folsom Lake Photographs Demonstrating the Curvature of the Earth Flat Earth 36
Mick West Contrails over Sting & Peter Gabriel Concert in Lake Tahoe Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West A Dark Contrail near Salt Lake Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Veronica! Debunked: UFO caught sucking up water out of California Lake (satire) UFOs and Aliens 0
Mick West Local Political Candidate Cindy Lake talks about "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 10
ssfor27 Salt Lake City "Haarp Ring" HAARP 15
jarlrmai ATFLIR and range information (RADAR/LASER/Passive range?) UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 15
R Flat Earth Claim: "The Greatest Laser Experiment In History" - FECORE Flat Earth 11
S Plasma Laser Hologram as a possible UFO sighting Explanation UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 6
M Claim: UFO performs sharp maneuver after laser pointer directly hits craft UFOs and Aliens 20
Mick West Why Flat Earth Laser Tests are Misleading Flat Earth 16
Mick West Improving the Laser Dot Rendering in The Refraction Simulator Tools for Investigating and Debunking 8
Mick West Demonstrating How Refraction Helps You See Over The Horizon Flat Earth 32
Mick West Lasers vs. Flashlights vs. Daylight for Observing the Curve of the Earth Flat Earth 12
Trailblazer Measuring the distance to the moon with laser reflections and the speed of light Flat Earth 5
Trailblazer Greenwich Meridian Laser - Can it Demonstrate Curvature? Flat Earth 20
Z.W. Wolf Upcoming Laser Experiment Flat Earth 3
justanairlinepilot Pilot laser sightings Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Debunked: Chemtrail "Laser Line" and 4 UFOs Contrails and Chemtrails 1
derwoodii Laser could trigger rain and lightning UCF College of Optics & Photonics General Discussion 5
solrey Reward to catch people who point lasers at planes General Discussion 21
Jay Reynolds Laser attacks on airplanes continue Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Jay Reynolds British Pilot's Association Reporting 5 Laser Attacks/Day, Calls for Laser Ban Contrails and Chemtrails 35
Related Articles



































Related Articles

Top