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

[DarkStar]

The refraction observations are interesting though, so it's not a total loss. I'm not aware of any similar illustration of total internal reflection of a laser over such a large distance. It's nothing new to science obviously, but a very nice visualization.

Agreed - a very good visualization of the mirage effect showing it clearly isn't a sharp reflection but a continuous bending.


I suspect your criticism of taking subsequent measurements with the boat moving is spot [pardon the pun] on. I thought what had been discussed was stopping the boat and taking a series of observations and marking the average on the board?

So the laser could easily be pointed down sufficiently to swamp the later measurements - pending additional details.

 

[Sandor Szekely]

No, you did not, there are multiple problems with what you show:



Now I'm presuming the marked line is the same height as the laser on the shore. However:
A) There's no indication of how accurate this line is.
B) at 717m, there's a 4 cm drop, so "level" it tilted down.
C) The boat appears to be under power at this point, this might also tilt the back of the boat down, making the laser seem higher.
D) each 1cm of error at 717m is about 8cm of error at 5.6km
E) Your subsequent photos are not measurements of the laser height, they just show the laser in the camera. The photo above ALSO shows the laser in the camera, even though the camera is ABOVE the beam by at least 30 cm
F) at large distances the laser is several feet wide/high.
G) The last photo with the laser visible is at 3.8km, I have not seen the video of the 5.6km "direct hit"

There are no accurate measurements, and there is no series of measurements. For this experiment to work we need a series of measured heights of the center of the laser.

before we get into the calculation of the different positions let's make the leveling accuracy clear:

As you say Mick we have to use slope correction with the GE curved water surface model. That is 4 cms drop at the 717 meters distance, (starting from 1.25 meter height) that makes the laser beam center to be at a 1.29 meter height on the whiteboard.
Our laser beam center was at 1.325 meter according to the picture:
(please check your original size picture too, and mark the height lines : the bottom of the black tape (that is 4.8cms wide) is at 125 cms measured in the harbour. the plastic whiteboard has 0.5cm lines in its material when you zoom into it)

on the FE flat water model:
Our beam is starting at 1.25m and leveled with slope correction to 1.32 meters at 717 meters distance this means the beam is upwards a bit when the lake is flat.

on the GE curved water model: Our beam starting at 1.25m is leveled with slope correction to 1.32 meters at 717 meters distance this means the beam is upwards a tiny bit - say as much as the waves probably move the boat. The drop calculation of the distance is 4cms that makes perfect level at 1.29 meter.

 

[Mick West]

How did you measure the 1.25m above the water line? Howe do you know it's 1.25 in this photo - the boat is in motion, and people are in different positions.

 

[Mick West]

the direct hit is better seen on the video:

Can you send me the video. I don't seem to have it.

 

[Sandor Szekely]

How did you measure the 1.25m above the water line? Howe do you know it's 1.25 in this photo - the boat is in motion, and people are in different positions.

Dave measured the 1.25 meter from water surface in the calm bay and marked that level with the black tape.

They were just floating in the most of these pictures.
The back of the rubber boat is not moving down significanly as the boat is lifting it's nose

PLS tell me your suggestion of the possible height deviance from the 1.32 meters center line. (our accuracy)

 

[Ray Von Geezer]

Interesting thread!

Sorry if I'm pre-empting arrival of an actual timeline, but I'm a little confused by the two different sets of measurements done.

In these pictures the laser is described as being level from close distance, but it's clearly hitting the boat very close to the water line:-

However, this one is supposed to be level with the laser.

Why was the laser levelled so low on the night-time pictures?

Cheers,

Ray VOn

 

[DarkStar]

The back of the rubber boat is not moving down significanly as the boat is lifting it's nose

I've numbered my points for easy reference.

(1) Where is it established that the moving boat doesn't change the measurement at all? You said 'significantly' but that's just not an acceptable assertion, sorry.

(2) Do you have better information than you have shared so far? Like the series of measurements that had been discussed?

You show an image of the laser at a HIGHER level than it was doesn't do anything to demonstrate a Flat Earth. At BEST it proves you haven't actually leveled the laser and/or refraction is playing games with the line of sight rendering the results pretty useless. Hint: The laser hitting higher is what we expect on a curved Earth.

(3) Should I conclude that Earth curvature is confirmed because the laser hit the boat at a higher level?

(4) Here either refraction or angle has the laser hitting near the bottom of your boat -- refraction is questionable because we see the laser curving UPWARDS from here. So I would ask here, why is the laser angled down?

So far the only thing conclusive we have is a neat photo of a laser refracting off an inferior mirage where the laser has been pretty clearly pointed down towards the water rather than being anywhere close to level.

Unless you can demonstrate the level of the laser, this shot completely erases any claims you could possibly make about a Flat Earth - doesn't matter if it's a leveling error or refraction.

(5) You know what would explain the laser dipping down towards the water?

Curvature as shown in Figure 1. And it doesn't match the flat earth case as shown in Figure 2.

 

[skephu]

This experiment is a disappointment. I expected numerical data, a nice plot of laser height vs distance. Instead, we get a few photos with no quantitative data, and we are supposed to conclude from those that the Earth is flat?
I'd say if you want a definitive experiment, go for hidden height. For example, the photos earlier in this thread showing windmills. How can those be explained in a flat earth model?

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

This experiment is a disappointment. I expected numerical data, a nice plot of laser height vs distance. Instead, we get a few photos with no quantitative data, and we are supposed to conclude from those that the Earth is flat?
I'd say if you want a definitive experiment, go for hidden height. For example, the photos earlier in this thread showing windmills. How can those be explained in a flat earth model?

It was a valliant attempt, but doomed once they had a bent beam, regardless of any details.

 

[Sandor Szekely]

http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_5/2_5_7.html

Lists water vapor with a lower refractive index than air. Since refractive indices are calculated from partial pressures, the higher the PP of water vapor, the lower the PP of air, and the lower the overall refractive index.

The difference in refractive indices of water and air is about ten N Units, and at 20C the vapor pressure of water is 2.3388 mb. So at 20C and saturation water vapor has an approximate effect on the index of refraction of -0.2N Units (versus dry air), while a 5C increase in temperature (from 15C ambient to 20C water surface temperature) has an effect of about -6 N Units.

Interesting! So water wapor is less dense than dry air - what is your opinion on the mentioned circumstances, what was the cause that the made the laser beam suddenly rise at a certain point?

some hints: it was very chilly in the morning like 15C or less, the water was about 20C but had a very thin warmer layer before the storm. The Balaton is deeper (like 5 meters) at the north side and shallow for kms on the south side (like 1 meter). We had a storm and rain in the afternoon of the 15th. Wind was low after the rain was gone.
What is your suggestion on these weather elements?

 

[Sandor Szekely]

This experiment is a disappointment. I expected numerical data, a nice plot of laser height vs distance. Instead, we get a few photos with no quantitative data, and we are supposed to conclude from those that the Earth is flat?
I'd say if you want a definitive experiment, go for hidden height. For example, the photos earlier in this thread showing windmills. How can those be explained in a flat earth model?

Okay, sorry I would not even take the time to answer this comment ... but I see that Mick and others aggreed with it?!

I am discussing here the experiment that we have DONE and not taking tips and advices for upcoming ones, once I do I will post about that. It's kinda harrassing to me to read: your experiment is a fail, do it like this... no joke huh? what if you try to understand what we have done and not criticise like "a few photos with no quantitative data".

Mick pls comment on this, I think this is a base of our conversations in the future!

I am not evaluating the measurement pictures until we can not agree on the leveling and the measurement accuracy!

"I'd say if you want a definitive experiment, go for hidden height."
This is a joke right? Mick pls explain skephu WHY WE CALCULATE DROP + LASER HEIGHT - not the target hidden height.

 

[Sandor Szekely]

There will be a fairly steep thermal gradient near the water's surface, since it's temperature is 5C warmer than overnight lows. This is a far more likely scenario than humidity being the driving factor. Such a layer would be extremely shallow, effectively limited to where there is thermal contact between the water and air.

Okay seems logical, please go further with explanation and draw a conclusion on what do YOU think what happened.

The laser was pretty straight for a certain distance but we had a special point of the distance where the laser was bent upwards significantly. What actually happened there?

I gave some other parameters of the lake and the night, please ask for any more details that may be important.
THX

 

[Mick West]

Okay, sorry I would not even take the time to answer this comment ... but I see that Mick and others aggreed with it?!

I am discussing here the experiment that we have DONE and not taking tips and advices for upcoming ones, once I do I will post about that. It's kinda harrassing to me to read: your experiment is a fail, do it like this... no joke huh? what if you try to understand what we have done and not criticise like "a few photos with no quantitative data".

Mick pls comment on this, I think this is a base of our conversations in the future!

Unfortunately I'm not getting much more for the experiment. You were unable to measure the laser after it was above the board.

I am not evaluating the measurement pictures until we can not agree on the leveling and the measurement accuracy!

What measurement accuracy? You did not measure the laser height after it left the board.

"I'd say if you want a definitive experiment, go for hidden height."
This is a joke right? Mick pls explain skephu WHY WE CALCULATE DROP + LASER HEIGHT - not the target hidden height.

Skephu is referring to an entirely different type of experiment not performed with a laser.

The laser+boat experiment has many problems, most importantly refraction and the difficulty in getting an accurate series of measurements.

Doing a totally different experiment like viewing a boat going over the horizon, or measuring the height of buildings on a the other side lake, is actually going to be much more accurate than this laser experiment.

I know you've put a lot of effort into it, and that's great. But you have to accept that your laser was not high enough to avoid refraction, and there is no series of measurements.

If you think otherwise, then draw a graph of the measurements you have.

 

[Sandor Szekely]

Didn't forget - but you pointed the laser downwards when you measured it's height at some distance to 'level it' - so that isn't valid because you don't start with a truly leveled laser. We covered this also At 6km just 0.027 degrees off will erase your 2.83m drop.

When you look back from the boat at some distance and see the laser you are using hidden amount.

You said 1.7 meters before but even at 1m camera, the height hidden is still only 0.46m so you could still easily see the laser when looking back from that position.

We will need to see the full details with multiple height measurements of the laser spot in between, but as shown so far this is not conclusive.

And 6km distance in a bobbing boat simply isn't going to give you enough measurement accuracy to measure the curvature using the method Mick suggested with multiple measurements but at least a consistent downward trend would tell you either refraction or laser angle is to blame. A nearly straight-line will suggest refraction is to blame. And I know that may not sound fair but you were strongly warned against putting the laser down low.

Unless you can overcome that then nothing is proven.

I look forward to more detailed data.

So the camera height in the boat was about 1.5 meters to 1.7 meters as Nicu hold the camera in his hands. This camera and the other Samsung with Dave was taking the pictures of the beam, but as it went off from the whiteboard they recorded it with the direct hit into the lenses.
The height of the camera is not to calculate the target hidden height of the laser but to prove the max level at the boat.

The height of the camera beside the laser at pos A was at 1 meter high, but also not relevant to the measurement.

"We will need to see the full details with multiple height measurements of the laser spot in between, but as shown so far this is not conclusive." Of course

"And 6km distance in a bobbing boat simply isn't going to give you enough measurement accuracy to measure the curvature using the method Mick suggested "
WHAT? LOL
SO HOAXKING MEASURED OVER 8 feet from water level at a SHORTER DISTANCE, and MY EXPERIMENT ON A LONGER DISTANCE IS INACCURATE? WOW tell me more... scientism authoritarian approach? lol

"A nearly straight-line will suggest refraction is to blame. "
I can't follow you on this logic... my opinion is that the laser curved at a special distance that means:
1. refraction at this őpoint 2. laser is not straight (just the same as sunlight)
why would a straight line suggest refraction?

"And I know that may not sound fair but you were strongly warned against putting the laser down low."

hmmm.. Mick - we have to organise the different setups and make a clear explanation - until that time we should stick to the LAST measurement... this is all confused here.

Darkstar: we had different setups with the different measurements, like laser at 50cms (1.6 feet) in the begginig and then raised to 1.25 meters (4.1 feet) at the last measurement. Peopled are confused here with the pictures too...

let's talk about the last measurement: EASY : all the pictures that seem to be at DAYTIME

HAHA! YOU GUYS said everything ... so you can say now: I said that !
LOL this is an other joke...
yeah and Mick said : "You don't have to make the long measurement, 6kms will show"

YEAH... put the laser up and make a short distance measurement... so is that conclusive? WOW LOL

so I have made the measurement plots on the map:

 

[deirdre]

So the camera height in the boat was about 1.5 meters to 1.7 meters as Nicu hold the camera in his hands. This camera and the other Samsung with Dave was taking the pictures of the beam

i'm not going to pretend to understand anything about what was trying to be shown with this experiment, but! you didnt even have the camera mounted at a fixed height? (although i know a bouncing boat isnt really a fixed height, but it is better than a person randomly holding it [while bouncing on a boat])

 

[Mick West]

hmmm.. Mick - we have to organise the different setups and make a clear explanation - until that time we should stick to the LAST measurement... this is all confused here.

But there was no measurement that I've seen

Show video of this measurement.

 

[Sandor Szekely]

"Slope corrected". You are correcting for any slope in the laser beam.



After 5 miles, if the laser is actually level, then it will be 16.6 feet above its original height, so you won't be able to see it. If the laser is tilted down a bit you might see it 8 feet up. But I think it will be clear to you at that point going more that 5 miles is pointless. I would focus on getting many accurate measurements up to 5 miles (probably only 3)

Mick let's go back to the 2nd page of this thread where we discussed the slope correction on leveling.

" So you want the laser to be level, like a carpenter's level would indicate.

Now this is a hard to do with a short level and have it accurate over 5 miles. So adjusting it at 1 mile is a good idea.

However the way you adjust it has different meanings depending on if the Earth is flat or not.


A) If you think the earth is flat you set it 1.6 feet (same as laser at start) to get horizontal. However if the earth is round then this introduces an error (red line in the graph above). It still works fine if you do the math, but is less accurate.

B) If you think the Earth is round, then you'd adjust it to 1.6 + 0.66 = 2.26 feet, and this will give you a perfectly horizontal laser, and the clearest results. However if the Earth is flat, then this will make the laser rise up with distance, linearly.

But like I said, it does not matter which one you do, providing you take lots of readings. Since the Earth actually IS round, then option B is the most accurate. However I can understand the preference for A (and suspicion regarding B), if you actually think the earth is flat. So just pick one."

""Slope corrected". You are correcting for any slope in the laser beam.

After 5 miles, if the laser is actually level, then it will be 16.6 feet above its original height, so you won't be able to see it. If the laser is tilted down a bit you might see it 8 feet up. But I think it will be clear to you at that point going more that 5 miles is pointless. I would focus on getting many accurate measurements up to 5 miles (probably only 3)"

"
The exact setup should simply be:

1. Try to get the laser as horizontal as possible
2. Leave it at that setting for the duration of the experiment
3. Take as many readings as possible with accurate height and distance readings (use GPS for distance)
4. Plot the results on a graph of height against distance
5. AFTER, calculate the value of the laser slope correcton, and the curve of the earth (if any)

You want to get the laser as horizontal as possible as that will show any curvature most clearly. However if it's not perfectly horizontal, then you can still get good results providing you take lots of readings."

1. I DID SO
2. I DID SO
3. I DID SO
4. and 5. are on the way and just discussed now after we aggree on the leveling accuracy

let me repeat this again from Mick: "But I think it will be clear to you at that point going more that 5 miles is pointless. I would focus on getting many accurate measurements up to 5 miles (probably only 3)"

 

[Bass In Your Face]

SO HOAXKING MEASURED OVER 8 feet from water level at a SHORTER DISTANCE, and MY EXPERIMENT ON A LONGER DISTANCE IS INACCURATE? WOW tell me more... scientism authoritarian approach?

The Hawking experiment has been discussed multiple times here.

I tried to make this point before: The laser experiment and the mistakes the editors/producers made when making the show have shown for it to not be a very controlled experiment, but more of a lesson of what to expect, *made for TV*.

To make a more credible comparison, if that's what you want to do, I suggest finding an experiment with more control, and more results than this one from the TV show. Find an actual experiment..not a short segment of a TV show trying to make physics look interesting to the common viewer.

 

[Sandor Szekely]

i'm not going to pretend to understand anything about what was trying to be shown with this experiment, but! you didnt even have the camera mounted at a fixed height? (although i know a bouncing boat isnt really a fixed height, but it is better than a person randomly holding it [while bouncing on a boat])

"i'm not going to pretend to understand anything" haha... yeah.. come'n...

So let me explain : the height of the laser is measured on the whiteboard. As at the last experiment we went off the whiteboard to the top, we had to measure the laser beam direct hit into the camera. Nicu and Dave was filming from the rubber boat so their max camera eyeheight is 1.7 meters.
Remember that Hoaxking's actor had to climb on the top of their boat to take the readings at LESS distance than ours? (like more than 8 feet)

Does it sound reasonable (JUST AS MICK SAID) that we are unable to see the laser beam over 5 kms distance from the boat? Because we are just not that high? The laser beam should have been way over our head at this distance.

A "bouncing boat" has a wave height difference of max 5cms in our case here at sunrise.

We did have a GoPro camera in the boat but was not running by mistake in this last experiment.

I still LUV your quote on the "let's look at the data"

 

[Sandor Szekely]

The Hawking experiment has been discussed multiple times here.

I tried to make this point before: The laser experiment and the mistakes the editors/producers made when making the show have shown for it to not be a very controlled experiment, but more of a lesson of what to expect, *made for TV*.

To make a more credible comparison, if that's what you want to do, I suggest finding an experiment with more control, and more results than this one from the TV show. Find an actual experiment..not a short segment of a TV show trying to make physics look interesting to the common viewer.

Yes we discussed the Hoaxking experiment on the basis of my pre-test as well.

We discussed as well, that IF THE laser was perfectly level in Hoaxking experiment and setup than the laser should have been at DROP + LASER height that is about 8.7 feet (something)

MY experiment now is FARTHER than that, and we are looking for even more laser height.
MY experiment is proven laser level!

SO HOW DID WE RECORD IT WITH A CAMERA IN THE BOAT AT MAX 1.7 meters EYEHEIGHT?

PLS.. just show me ONE ACTUAL OFFICIAL SCIENTIFIC LASER CURVATURE EXPERIMENT EVER DONE!

I can't find any!!

 

[Mick West]

SO HOW DID WE RECORD IT WITH A CAMERA IN THE BOAT AT MAX 1.7 meters EYEHEIGHT?

Exactly, how did you? I've not seen any evidence that this happened.

Where is the series of accurate height readings?

 

[Sandor Szekely]

Unfortunately I'm not getting much more for the experiment. You were unable to measure the laser after it was above the board.

What measurement accuracy? You did not measure the laser height after it left the board.


Skephu is referring to an entirely different type of experiment not performed with a laser.

The laser+boat experiment has many problems, most importantly refraction and the difficulty in getting an accurate series of measurements.

Doing a totally different experiment like viewing a boat going over the horizon, or measuring the height of buildings on a the other side lake, is actually going to be much more accurate than this laser experiment.

I know you've put a lot of effort into it, and that's great. But you have to accept that your laser was not high enough to avoid refraction, and there is no series of measurements.

If you think otherwise, then draw a graph of the measurements you have.

Mick this conversation has NO MEANING... SORRY...

Please make up your mind if you want to do this evaluation with me toghether or just waiting to see our results and commenting on that.
Do you know that I am evaluating the results and making the film with Zack NOW?
But taking my energy to answer these comments?
Let me make it clear, that I think no one understands here what we have measured - exept you maybe.

We have a huge material to evaluate and I am not taking about anything else now exept the last measurement!
You know we have thousands of the teleobjective photos too, but I am NOT JUMPING AROUND in the subjects here! I am like one person answering ALL YOUR question in many different themes... don't play "we fool you"...!
SO if you think that :
"The laser+boat experiment has many problems, most importantly refraction and the difficulty in getting an accurate series of measurements.

Doing a totally different experiment like viewing a boat going over the horizon, or measuring the height of buildings on a the other side lake, is actually going to be much more accurate than this laser experiment."

wait till we finish the video of the laser experiment and then we can discuss the photos too.

"I know you've put a lot of effort into it, and that's great. But you have to accept that your laser was not high enough to avoid refraction, and there is no series of measurements."
YOU DO KNOW we had different setups... different laser levels... no series of measurements??.. so WHAT are U talking about here?

"If you think otherwise, then draw a graph of the measurements you have."

YES! that is exactly what I am doing now and Zack is making the Acad explanation. I am happy that you have the information now and can think about the results so you will have a better knowledge on the experiment to "debunk" us.

Sorry but this pointless conversation here takes my precious energy that I can also use to finish the video sooner. Don't worry, this is not the last experiment we are doing with our state of the art laser so we can have discussions on them too.

I am disappointed that we CAN NOT even get to the first argument of laser leveling accuracy...

anyways.. the video is ready soon so you will understand the measurement from that finally... LOL

 

[DarkStar]

"And 6km distance in a bobbing boat simply isn't going to give you enough measurement accuracy to measure the curvature using the method Mick suggested "
WHAT? LOL
SO HOAXKING MEASURED OVER 8 feet from water level at a SHORTER DISTANCE, and MY EXPERIMENT ON A LONGER DISTANCE IS INACCURATE? WOW tell me more... scientism authoritarian approach? lol

Well, they measured a 6 foot rise at 3 miles but we rejected that experiment due to lack of sufficient data. Maybe they controlled for refraction better - I don't know because they don't say. I don't use that as the basis of my information so not sure why it's relevant. We want to do better right?

However, I've measured the curvature at ~6000 miles, it's entirely conclusive. Just find the subsolar point (where Sun is directly overhead) at your astronomical sunrise time, the altitude angle to the sun at a point halfway between the two is always 45°. On a flat Earth the Sun should be at about 26.565° at your location because you doubled the distance from the subsolar point to 45° point. Curvature confirmed with just a trivial slope observation:

So laugh away but I'll take my 26 full degrees of error over a few feet deflection over a heavily refracting lake where you have the laser going all over the map - from hitting the bottom of the boat to bending up into the air entirely destroying your margin of error.

Mick's assumption is that the refraction would be fairly consistent over the observation and measurement period - doesn't seem like that was the case.

"A nearly straight-line will suggest refraction is to blame. "
I can't follow you on this logic... my opinion is that the laser curved at a special distance that means:
1. refraction at this őpoint 2. laser is not straight (just the same as sunlight)
why would a straight line suggest refraction?

Because we know you are experiencing heavy refraction - you gave a picture of the laser hitting the bottom of your boat so it's either refracting down there or you've got the laser pointing down.

And you show you are taking measurements in a moving boat, this is not valid data. You asserted it doesn't affect the measurement but I asked how you know it doesn't. You need to show how that can be accurate.

We need sufficient evidence to overcome these problems or we just don't have a convincing demonstration.

Mick said : "You don't have to make the long measurement, 6kms will show"
…
so I have made the measurement plots on the map:
View attachment 20820

That just has times unless I missed something - we need the measured height data and some evidence showing how you gathered it at each point. If the methods aren't even consistent the you have a problem.

Is the video footage available anywhere yet?

I appreciate you put a lot of hard work into this. I don't think we have all the information yet so here is hoping that some of this can be cleared up in the videos and additional information. But this is where we stand right now with what we have.

I'll try to be more patient.

 

[Mick West]

All people are asking for is a very simple list of:

A) heights and distances
B) documentation of how these were measured.

That's all. I'd settle for just A to get things going. Surely you have that?

 

[Mick West]

Let me start the table, and you say if it's correct, for the final series of measurements.

0km, 1.25m, tape measure from sea surface
0.75km, 1.25m, tape measure from sea surface
5.6km, 1.5 to 1.7, estimated height of camera with "direct hit"

Is that correct?
Is there video and/or photographic documentation of this?

 

[deirdre]

The laser beam should have been way over our head at this distance.

ah. i see what you are saying.

 

[Sandor Szekely]

Well, they measured a 6 foot rise at 3 miles but we rejected that experiment due to lack of sufficient data. Maybe they controlled for refraction better - I don't know because they don't say. I don't use that as the basis of my information so not sure why it's relevant. We want to do better right?

However, I've measured the curvature at ~6000 miles, it's entirely conclusive. Just find the subsolar point (where Sun is directly overhead) at your astronomical sunrise time, the altitude angle to the sun at a point halfway between the two is always 45°. On a flat Earth the Sun should be at about 26.565° at your location because you doubled the distance from the subsolar point to 45° point. Curvature confirmed with just a trivial slope observation:

So laugh away but I'll take my 26 full degrees of error over a few feet deflection over a heavily refracting lake where you have the laser going all over the map - from hitting the bottom of the boat to bending up into the air entirely destroying your margin of error.

Mick's assumption is that the refraction would be fairly consistent over the observation and measurement period - doesn't seem like that was the case.



Because we know you are experiencing heavy refraction - you gave a picture of the laser hitting the bottom of your boat so it's either refracting down there or you've got the laser pointing down.

And you show you are taking measurements in a moving boat, this is not valid data. You asserted it doesn't affect the measurement but I asked how you know it doesn't. You need to show how that can be accurate.

We need sufficient evidence to overcome these problems or we just don't have a convincing demonstration.



That just has times unless I missed something - we need the measured height data and some evidence showing how you gathered it at each point. If the methods aren't even consistent the you have a problem.

Is the video footage available anywhere yet?

I appreciate you put a lot of hard work into this. I don't think we have all the information yet so here is hoping that some of this can be cleared up in the videos and additional information. But this is where we stand right now with what we have.

I'll try to be more patient.

WHERE DO YOU take atmospheric refraction into account when measuring the sun angles? what is your formula to correct on different sun angfles? what makes you think that sunlight is straight?
HOW COME THAT CURVATURE CAN BE CALCULATED TO FIT THE GLOBE WITHOUT TAKING ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION INTO ACCOUNT?
this Erastothenes triangiulation is a joke (same as gravity) but let's keep the subject here!

You are talking about a DIFFERENT measurement before sunrise when the laser was hitting the boat. WE MUST NOT MIX THE MEASUREMENTS. SO stick with the last measurement pics taken ONLY in daylight.

"
And you show you are taking measurements in a moving boat, this is not valid data. You asserted it doesn't affect the measurement but I asked how you know it doesn't. You need to show how that can be accurate."

I will evaluate the measurement points when we agreed upon the beam leveling accuracy...

I 'd like to know ONE thing:
WAS MY LASER PERFECTLY HORIZONTAL LEVEL on the last experiemnt? Starting from 1.25 meters and going up to 1.32 at 717 meters distance?
WHY people just not answer to this basic question?

"
I appreciate you put a lot of hard work into this. I don't think we have all the information yet so here is hoping that some of this can be cleared up in the videos and additional information. "

Thanks! and you are right you have marginal info yet. the videos are huge several GB, can't upload them here.

 

[Sandor Szekely]

All people are asking for is a very simple list of:

A) heights and distances
B) documentation of how these were measured.

That's all. I'd settle for just A to get things going. Surely you have that?

Mick you have most of the materials I do so you know how we can evaluate this last measurement..

we will have something like this, that will define

1. 0km, 1.25m, tape measure from sea surface
2. 0.75km, 1.32m, photo with GPS on whiteboard with marking (and we make the other colored lines for calculation)
5. 1.86 km, 1.Xm, photo with GPS on whiteboard with marking
X. 5.6km, 1.5 to 1.7, estimated height of camera with "direct hit"
Y. 6km, 1.7m estimated height of camera with "direct hit"

We are proving the measurement points where the laser beam hit at max 1.7m was NOT possible on GE curved surface water model.
SO EASY MICK: we can exclude the possibility of seeing the laser from a certain distance just by placing them on your drop chart!
THIS IS WHY I AM ASKING FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF THE LASER LEVELING ACCURACY

1. laser level at 0kms

laser level at 0 kms

2. laser level at calibration 717 meters: (we will have all the pictures prepared with the coloured measuring lines for easy evaluation)

5. laser level at 5.8 kms (these are some of the Samsung pictures with GPS stamp, others have are coded but not stamped)

the map is not complete here we have some of the Samsung pictures

 

[Rory]

Yes we discussed the Hoaxking experiment.

What is the "Hoaxking experiment"? Or do you mean Hawking?

 

[Hama Neggs]

Mick you have most of the materials I do so you know how we can evaluate this last measurement..


2. laser level at calibration 717 meters: (we will have all the pictures prepared with the coloured measuring lines for easy evaluation)


View attachment 20829

If the laser beam is that diffuse at .7 kilometers, how wide is it at 5 kilometers? I'm not sure if you could tell whether it is hitting the white board or not at that distance. Are you saying that the camera could not detect the beam "direct hit" anywhere but ABOVE the white board?

 

[Sandor Szekely]

What is the "Hoaxking experiment"? Or do you mean Hawking?

YES
just joking, it was in the pre test video.

the video is a deception, so let's say softly: "a hoax"

 

[Sandor Szekely]

If the laser beam is that diffuse at .7 kilometers, how wide is it at 5 kilometers? I'm not sure if you could tell whether it is hitting the white board or not at that distance. Are you saying that the camera could not detect the beam "direct hit" anywhere but ABOVE the white board?

the laser beam was diffuse because of refraction so it was changing shape, but not diverging over distance. We had a very special collimator on the laser as you see, the starting point is NOT a pinpoint!

this is important and have been talked about before! our laser is more than an inch at the start. our beam diverge at 15 miles is 4 inches, without refraction.

Are you saying that the camera could not detect the beam "direct hit" anywhere but ABOVE the white board?

yes the cameras could see the laser beam on the white board up to some measurements and then the beam was higher than the board so direct hit into the camera lens was recorded from then on at 1.5 to 1.7 meters camera eyeheight.
We had measurements up to 6 kms, that is not possible on a GE curved water surface model as the beam should be way above our head when the laser was perfectly leveled with slope correction.

 

[Rory]

YES
just joking, it was in the pre test video.

the video is a deception, so let's say softly: "a hoax"

Ok. Well I guess I find calling such an intelligent and inspiring guy such names a bit offensive, and also perhaps childish.

Plus, I'm not aware of Stephen Hawking perpetrating any hoaxes.

Perhaps you could start a thread in one of the forums? Something along the lines of, "Claim: Stephen Hawking lied about such and such" and people here could look at the evidence for and against the claim.

Cheers.

 

[Hama Neggs]

as the meam should be way above our head when the laser was pefetly leveled with slope correction.

I'm not sure you understand what "slope correction" is. If I understand correctly it's a math process used AFTER the data is in, not anything done to physically level the laser.

 

[Bass In Your Face]

yes the cameras could see the laser beam on the white board up to some measurements and then the beam was higher than the board so direct hit into the camera lens was recorded from then on at 1.5 to 1.7 meters camera eyeheight.
..

X. 5.6km, 1.5 to 1.7, estimated height of camera with "direct hit"
Y. 6km, 1.7m estimated height of camera with "direct hit"

5. laser level at 5.8 kms (these are some of the Samsung pictures with GPS stamp, others have are coded but not stamped)
View attachment 20828

"direct hit"

"1.5 to 1.7"...

Is there a photo of a laser mark on a board with lines marked with height from sea level for this distance, for the sake of being as accurate as possible, considering the margin of error that exists within this experiment?

 

[Sandor Szekely]

I'm not sure you understand what "slope correction" is. If I understand correctly it's a math application used AFTER the data is in, not anything done to physically level the laser.

I understand it clearly well, THANKS to Mick

MICK:
A) If you think the earth is flat you set it 1.6 feet (same as laser at start) to get horizontal. However if the earth is round then this introduces an error (red line in the graph above). It still works fine if you do the math, but is less accurate.

B) If you think the Earth is round, then you'd adjust it to 1.6 + 0.66 = 2.26 feet, and this will give you a perfectly horizontal laser, and the clearest results. However if the Earth is flat, then this will make the laser rise up with distance, linearly.

I don't think the earth is round (lol) but I chose to make the B type laser leveling at the last measurement.
SO the laser was at 1.25 meter at the starting point and 1.32 meter at the calibration point (1.29 meter is the slope correction to horizontal level)
this means that our laser was surely NOT below the horizontal paralel line on the GE curved surface model

IF we had the calibration to 1.25 meters at the 717 meters distance the same as the starting point (example A) ) than we should have made a correction to the laser beam level descending from the horizontal level (like 89.995 degrees)
in our calculations.

So if the laser beam was PERFECTLY LEVEL as our calibration to 1.32 meters than we can look at the MINIMUM height that the beam is detectable. This way we can exclude the possibility of the GE model curved water surface - like the laser shall be not visible at a distance of 6 kms from a 1.7 meters camera eyelevel.

 

[Sandor Szekely]

"direct hit"

"1.5 to 1.7"...

Is there a photo of a laser mark on a board with lines marked with height from sea level for this distance, for the sake of being as accurate as possible, considering the margin of error that exists within this experiment?

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.

 

[DarkStar]

WHERE DO YOU take atmospheric refraction into account when measuring the sun angles? what is your formula to correct on different sun angfles? what makes you think that sunlight is straight?
HOW COME THAT CURVATURE CAN BE CALCULATED TO FIT THE GLOBE WITHOUT TAKING ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION INTO ACCOUNT?
this Erastothenes triangiulation is a joke (same as gravity) but let's keep the subject here!

It's not a joke if you take it at multiple, distant locations. Once you do that the geometry ONLY works out one way as explained:

http://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/simple-proof-for-convexity-of-earth.html

Refraction is taken into account because we know to the microsecond where the Sun is & you can measure it against the stars at twilight. How do you think those fancy telescopes work, where you search for an object and they automatically point in that direction to within a few arc minutes?

And no amount of observed refraction has ever moved the Sun *26 degrees* in the sky so refraction is a small fraction of my measurement but the measurement you are doing can be easily swamped out by refraction of known and demonstrated amounts. Amounts shown in your own pictures.

That's why I measure it over 6000 miles and not 6.

You are talking about a DIFFERENT measurement before sunrise when the laser was hitting the boat. WE MUST NOT MIX THE MEASUREMENTS. SO stick with the last measurement pics taken ONLY in daylight.

You can't just ignore the fact that refraction was at extreme levels. That is what was demonstrated. I'm not mixing up measurements - you haven't given any measurements for us to mix up. We're just taking about the range of conditions.

I will evaluate the measurement points when we agreed upon the beam leveling accuracy...

I 'd like to know ONE thing:
WAS MY LASER PERFECTLY HORIZONTAL LEVEL on the last experiemnt? Starting from 1.25 meters and going up to 1.32 at 717 meters distance?
WHY people just not answer to this basic question?

You have to give us the data so we can comment on that. You have to give all the height & distance (or location) data measured and at least a short note on how it was measured (boat stopped vs moving, etc) before we can even start to evaluate this.

We're not going to agree to something without the data - seems a bit disingenuous to demand we agree to something not in evidence.

 

[Bass In Your Face]

down picture with the Nikon P900

Is this photo a depiction of a laser "direct hit" into the camera?

 

[DarkStar]

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).

Um - no - that isn't how it works.

Did you put the camera up ABOVE the laser so you could measure the bottom and top of this 'direct' hit so we can know exactly how wide it was at each distance?

Beam spread is very relevant to this - because beam spread means we're going with HIDDEN height - and I don't accept these 'direct hit' measurements as, at all, valid unless you can show it's not due to beam spread (which means you need to be able to clearly show the extents).

And in the previous post you demanded that we accept the beam is level - if it was LEVEL it wouldn't be getting higher and higher except on a curved Earth.

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.

So Earth only curved 2.83 meters? How does that make it flat? Can you show all your heights are perfectly linear?