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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
as soon as Boxer posted here Sandor informed me that "Boxer" was a troll he had banned from FB. I might have told him to just block him or ignore him, i dont remember really. Sounds like something i would say though.
They obviously had history, Boxer seemed to have some very good info, it was just a shame he had to resort to the baiting and insults (he was the reason I asked for a bit of calm).

Ray Von
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
Were used to those tactics. After years on forums I learned to ignore them and simply try to teach the physics with the off chance they learn.
We already have a reference to this thread. No need for more lol

Good to know. Hopefully he learns something from you; I think he learned from us, but only used it to try to fool others.

I'm interested in why you haven't challenged the data, since it's clearly not reliable?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I'm interested in why you haven't challenged the data, since it's clearly not reliable?
As you can imagine, it is very hard for me to follow the conversation over there, but isn't "unreliable data" implied by the fact that the discussion seems to be about fixing the experiment?
 

Mordred

New Member
Thank you Diedre, that is essentially correct.
Different techniques, I focus on the physics side. The assumption of laser curving upward, aspect. From the physics viewpoint its only data if mathematically modelled. So from one perspective he hasn't any data.

Our goal is to teach the scientific method. Which experiment is only one step...
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Were used to those tactics. After years on forums I learned to ignore them and simply try to teach the physics with the off chance they learn.
We already have a reference to this thread. No need for more lol

The moderators have laid down the law and forbid any more references to this forum. I assume that means the war of words over why Sandor was banned, because they have already cited several bits of analysis done here.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Thank you Diedre, that is essentially correct.
Different techniques, I focus on the physics side. The assumption of laser curving upward, aspect. From the physics viewpoint its only data if mathematically modelled. So from one perspective he hasn't any data.

Our goal is to teach the scientific method. Which experiment is only one step...
Some there are demanding that he quantify and define this NUDTZ thing rather than just referring to it as a known effect. Sandor is balking at that.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I have become confused on how Sandor claims to have made height measurements. Was it from these photos or from "direct hits" in the camera and estimating the camera height(for those above the white board)?
 

snaphat

Member
I was on the fence about whether the data was simply biased or flat out wrong until I saw what Boxer said awhile ago.

DarkStar's post sums up the most crucial issues here. I don't see HOW they collected the data points we were given at this point. It's one thing if they just had a shotty inconclusive experiment, and quite another if we were given intentionally fallacious data. The data matching flat earth despite the prevalent issues in measurements, and the fact that the their own images/videos don't line up with the measurements really suggests fabrication to me. I don't see how they could have incidentally/accidently happened to match the flat earth results when their own measurement images don't match what we were given in the data set.

I have become confused on how Sandor claims to have made height measurements. Was it from these photos or from "direct hits" in the camera and estimating the camera height(for those above the white board)?

The photos, which are presumably suppose to show the "direct hits." Unless I'm missing something.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
The photos, which are presumably suppose to show the "direct hits." Unless I'm missing something.

No, I believe the original use by Sandor of "Direct hits" was actually "direct CAMERA hits", meaning that they could see the laser in a shot taken from the boat. They then declared that to be the (precise?) height of the laser beam. This is when the whole question of beam divergence came up, which Sandor repeatedly dodged even though asked about it directly several times.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
No, I believe the original use by Sandor of "Direct hits" was actually "direct CAMERA hits", meaning that they could see the laser in a shot taken from the boat.
there are 4 pages of hits if you search for " direct camera hit " . In the night time photos it seemed to me he meant if you can see the laser on the shore (which makes no sense, so i figured i was not understanding right)

anyway, here are a few excerpts pertaining to the phrase: (there are more but i got bored going back and reading)
Mick's post linked ehre, showing the perpendicular "hit" (in this one they think the glint off the camera lens is a direct hit.. but then in one of the quotes below Sandor says that we can know no data just from photos... so that sounds like they didnt get height measurements fom photos.) ??

https://www.metabunk.org/lake-balaton-laser-experiment-to-determine-the-curvature-of-the-earth-if-any.t7780/page-19#post-190620

So my conclusion is sometimes they got a measurement from the shore pics, sometimes they got a measurement from being able to look down the center of the beam with the camera, and sometimes they got a measurement (? maybe) from being able to see the laser on the shore.. but that last one might only have applied to the nighttime experiment. ?

Doesnt matter. They got no usable data from any method.
In position C37 at a distance over 6kms (3.73 miles) we can see the laser beam direct hit in the camera in the boat

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???



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



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

How did you demonstrate that it is indeed a "direct hit"?

Looking at this photo:

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20160816_064208-leveling-1-png.20800/

the direct hit is to the board but the camera still sees a very bright laser spot on the shore. So just because you can see the laser in the camera does not imply "direct hit".

Nope, unfortunately the laser was off the board from about 3 kms distance, so the measurements were taken with the direct hit into the camera lens. That way we can conclude that the normal eyeheight of a camera (and the person holding it) is not more than 1.7 meters (eyeheight not total height of a person).

This type of laser direct hit measurement into the optics excludes the possibility of detecting the laser beam from above this 1.7 meter eyeheight. This means when the camera has a direct hit of the laser beam in the lenses at 6kms where the perfectly horizontal level laser beam should be at 2.83 + 1.25 meters high - then we can exclude the possibility of the GE curved water surface model.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
Interestingly, the 50cm appears to be a lot more accurate than the 130cm line.
20160911-123657-l9gwi.jpg

(you can't see the tape there, but I set the line using the same method as outlined in the video)

233/452 = 0.515, so 51.5cm, within the bounds of accuracy based on Dave's measurement, and variation in the boat's position (less people, but also less blanced).

So it seem like Dave measured fairly vertically up to the 50cm point, and then did subsequent measurement along the edge, not vertically.

This validates the 118.5cm measurement, and hence is more evidence the laser was pointing downwards.
Just looking back through the thread and noticed something here regarding the 50cm measurement.

This and other pictures all show the board resting on top of the inflatable, and from the picture the 50cm measurement on the board is approximately 15cm above the top of it, making the top of the inflatable ~35cm above the waterline. As the board is 1m in height, even if the board were at 90 degrees to the waterline, the highest the top could be at that point would be 1.35m, yet their measurements put the board top around 1.40m, even with the board at an angle.

Looking at the specs for the boat (in Wayback as it's not a current model) the inflatable diameter is 48cm, so if the bottom of the inflatable was resting level and on the top of the water, and the board was perfectly vertical, the board top would still only be at ~1.48m. Clearly, none of those things are the case.

Selva460-1.jpg Selva460-2.jpg



Ray Von
 
Just looking back through the thread and noticed something here regarding the 50cm measurement.

This and other pictures all show the board resting on top of the inflatable, and from the picture the 50cm measurement on the board is approximately 15cm above the top of it, making the top of the inflatable ~35cm above the waterline. As the board is 1m in height, even if the board were at 90 degrees to the waterline, the highest the top could be at that point would be 1.35m, yet their measurements put the board top around 1.40m, even with the board at an angle.

Looking at the specs for the boat (in Wayback as it's not a current model) the inflatable diameter is 48cm, so if the bottom of the inflatable was resting level and on the top of the water, and the board was perfectly vertical, the board top would still only be at ~1.48m. Clearly, none of those things are the case.

Selva460-1.jpg Selva460-2.jpg



Ray Von
I think this just goes back to two points made previously. Either Sandor and the group didn't really know what they were doing, and thus got measurements that they believed to be true, even if logically it doesn't make sense. Or, Sandor and his group lied about the data, but they weren't clever enough not to include all this ridiculously obvious evidence that they were lying.

A couple the other forums members are actually just admitting that they either haven't watched the video, or only got about ten minutes in. @Mordred, the first ten minutes (roughly) of the video are redundant, as all the data seems to relate to the fourth attempt, which is the rest of the video. That's where @DarkStar is getting his images and data from that he posted over there.

Sorry I don't particularly like constantly mentioning the other forum here, but as the experiment is basically debunked, debunked as in he proved neither so "victory" for no one (it sounds so stupid reading that last bit out loud because, well, you know, globe...), what else can we really say about it at this stage except, hopefully the other forum manages to "set him level flat straight"...
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
I think this just goes back to two points made previously. Either Sandor and the group didn't really know what they were doing, and thus got measurements that they believed to be true, even if logically it doesn't make sense. Or, Sandor and his group lied about the data, but they weren't clever enough not to include all this ridiculously obvious evidence that they were lying.

A couple the other forums members are actually just admitting that they either haven't watched the video, or only got about ten minutes in. @Mordred, the first ten minutes (roughly) of the video are redundant, as all the data seems to relate to the fourth attempt, which is the rest of the video. That's where @DarkStar is getting his images and data from that he posted over there.

Sorry I don't particularly like constantly mentioning the other forum here, but as the experiment is basically debunked, debunked as in he proved neither so "victory" for no one (it sounds so stupid reading that last bit out loud because, well, you know, globe...), what else can we really say about it at this stage except, hopefully the other forum manages to "set him level flat straight"...
I think the biggest "red flag" for me is that there was never any provision for being able to measure the beam at heights where the GE model would have put it, or none that we've seen anyway. About the only rebuttal Sandor did offer to the evidence that their measurements were inaccurate was to say that, even if they had been, the laser still wasn't high enough to match the globe, but they didn't have any apparent method of measuring that high. Perhaps Dave(?) has unusually long arms, or took a selfie-stick with him that they didn't use?

That, and that they set out with the belief that they could consistently reflect a beam supposedly 4 inches in diameter off a camera lens about the same, at distances of several miles on a boat. If Sandor really believes that's what they did he must be buying a lot of lottery tickets.

Ray Von
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
A couple the other forums members are actually just admitting that they either haven't watched the video, or only got about ten minutes in
i dont think it matters. i would have preferred to watch the thread at the Science forum play out without input from people who had previously spoken to Sandor. I think the members of that site are perfectly capable of figuring things out for themselves*, and most importantly, it is not a debunking site.

Their focus is different. Which is a good thing.

I dont think they need it pointed out (just as we didnt need FB people pointing things out to 'us) that 'something is wrong with the data if the results = Flat Earth'.

We had fun examining what went wrong with his experiment, and i think people should allow that site to have their own fun (or not) with the topic.

His video claim of proving Flat Earth with his video - which is MBs focus - has been debunked 6 ways to Sunday. What the Science Forum does or how they wish to handle their own focus is really irrelevant. I think we can conclude based on the data that the chances of Sandor 'being straightened out' are .008-.001% (thats a collimeter joke :)



*ex: from what little i read there, i highly doubt they are reading the LIDAR paper and thinking it does indeed confirm flat lake like Sandor's OP claims.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
i dont think it matters. i would have preferred to watch the thread at the Science forum play out without input from people who had previously spoken to Sandor. I think the members of that site are perfectly capable of figuring things out for themselves*, and most importantly, it is not a debunking site.

Their focus is different. Which is a good thing.
Hmmm, I'm split. On one hand it would have been nice to see a completely fresh take on it, and it might have given Sandor a "reality check" to have a second view. It's certainly noticeable that he at least seems to be taking some criticism of the experiment from them, and even referred to it as a kind of "trial run" rather than "100% PROOFS!!!!".

On the other I do think the input from MB members has likely saved considerable tail-chasing by people over there, especially when it comes to clarifying that Sandor has no relationship with the LIDAR experiment he raised in the OP. From the responses that's certainly the impression some of them got.

Ray Von
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
That, and that they set out with the belief that they could consistently reflect a beam supposedly 4 inches in diameter off a camera lens about the same, at distances of several miles on a boat. If Sandor really believes that's what they did he must be buying a lot of lottery tickets.

I don't think they ever meant to observe a reflection off the camera lens, or claimed they did that. Their claim is that they took pics of the laser beam WITH that camera on the boat. Still nonsense(for determining beam height), but a different kind of nonsense.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
They are still trying to give Sandor the benefit of the doubt and "stick to the science", but some of them are realizing just how ridiculously flawed his experiment is, and the bias with which Sandor has approached the whole thing.
 

Mordred

New Member
All We needed to see was boat, laser,reflective backboard and lake. To tell that the accuracy can never be convincing enough.
Simple logic even if their accuracy was 99% accurate in measurements. Thats still a huge error not being accounted for. A 0.1 degree error in the level alignment. This error would propogate throughout the entire length.
(they used the same laser placement)
So a single error there, would scew data.
Next the assumption of the laser being straight. This equals impossible. (atmospheric influence)
Hence corrective data required.
Did I need to watch the video? There was no trustworthy reference points.
(all potential error margins must be accountable. including range of error on each measurement).
A paper or experiment is never accepted without undergoing peer review. Any paper written without proper (error margins, corrective measures) detail is rejected.

We didn't need to debunk the video to see the errors the methodology had. Its inherent.

the methodology used is inherently inaccurate. You can reduce or minimize the error margins but not eliminate them. Statistical averaging via multiple samplings help. (on most cases required to develop an error margin range)
On a side note, this site did an excellent job showing these errors in action. Saved our site the effort. We don't mind cross discussions pointing out errors and corrective measures. We do have a problem when disputes occur or attacking the OP.
Particularly from previous disputes.

I'm positive this site feels the same way.
 
Last edited:

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
No, white is best. You want to maximize reflected light at longer distances. A bright reflection will not change the shape. You could use bracketed exposures if you want to measure the shape and avoid glare.
Wouldn't the best target be some kind of photo-receptive devise that can detect the most intense part of the beam and tune out the scatter, therefore showing the true centre?
 

Rory

Senior Member.
They are still trying to give Sandor the benefit of the doubt and "stick to the science", but some of them are realizing just how ridiculously flawed his experiment is, and the bias with which Sandor has approached the whole thing.
I like their style. They're keeping it objective and he's being much politer than he was here.

I guess there's room for both approaches. ;)
 

Mordred

New Member
Wouldn't the best target be some kind of photo-receptive devise that can detect the most intense part of the beam and tune out the scatter, therefore showing the true centre?

Thats one way you can increase accuracy, but if you don't know to analyze the beam intensity on the reciever...

A reflective surface can be useful if you also measure the reflected laser angle. (Assuming you can discern the centre)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
They're keeping it objective and he's being much politer than he was here.
To be fair, reread Sandors approach here. I thought he was very polite when discussing his upcoming experiment and looking for suggestions.

But he pretty much came here arguing "flat earth theory" in general. Hawkins etc. Those were the subjects (off topic broad theory) where he got more 'passionate' in conversation, when people on a debunking site offered a viewpoint that contradicted him.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I like their style. They're keeping it objective and he's being much politer than he was here.

I guess there's room for both approaches. ;)

They just haven't dealt with him long enough to become frustrated with his antics and call him out on stuff. When they do, he will become more defensive like he did here.
 

Mordred

New Member
To be fair, reread Sandors approach here. I thought he was very polite when discussing his upcoming experiment and looking for suggestions.

But he pretty much came here arguing "flat earth theory" in general. Hawkins etc. Those were the subjects (off topic broad theory) where he got more 'passionate' in conversation, when people on a debunking site offered a viewpoint that contradicted him.

As one who is a member on numerous Physics related sites. I can honestly tell you it extremely rare to have an OP willing to perform his own measurements to confirm his model views.

Unfortunately many don't know the needed details to properly model a system. Let alone the math
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think this thread has run its course. If Sandor returns with a new experiment, or clarification of his discussion with the academics then we can resume.
 
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