Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any.
- Thread starter Sandor Szekely
- Start date
- Status
Steve Torrence
Member
Mick why are you trying to close this debate with your false photoshop analysis? It looks like you are scared of facing the fact that the data plotted, creates a line and so far I have seen no explanation for that other than the one Sandor proposes which is that the lake is flat. The study by Zlinszky confirms the same fact. Instead you point to refraction even though it would be refracting up and not down and now you think they measured the board wrong because you analyses it in photoshop? This doesn't seem like a serious debate aimed at coming to a conclusion. It seems the conclusion was determined on page 1. What will you say about the next test when it supports the same fact which is the water surface is flat. No curve at all in the data plot.
No, it does not. If you think it does then quote where it does, otherwise retract your claim. Do not post again until you do one of those two things.
Bernard Mc Donnell
Member
No, they measured the board wrong because they showin the video that they measured the board wrong. It's been pointed out numerous times.
How is my calculation wrong? I went through all the steps. I even documented them in a video for clarity.
Which bit is wrong? Where did I miscalculate the height of top of the tape? What error did I make?
your measurement is wrong - you see the outcome with your leveling height?
what does it tell you? photoshop is not a measurement tool. your hypothesis of laser pointing downwards does not match the measdured data:
GE model is sill not possible az 3.19 meters height
FE model 0.71 meter is too low
SO? your calcuéation in photoshop is way wrong
Please explain how it is wrong? Should I print out the image and use a rule?
Do you think the LIDAR measurements are accurate?
Photoshop is not a measureing tool.
How do you take optics distorsion, perspective into account?
do you understand, that with your proposition of laser pointing "slighly downwards" to 1.185 meters the globe model curved water surface is STILL DEBUNKED at 3.19 meters supposed height at 6kms distance?
it is still not possible on GE
you just have to admit it
and do something with your debunked laser leveling downwards video on yube
The 1m long edge of the board is a similar length to the height line, and in the same plane relative to the camera, so they would be practically zero distortion.
Bernard Mc Donnell
Member
No it's not, but counting pixels is a very good measurement tool when you have a reference. Forget about photoshop though, in your video there is evidence of the beam not being leveled with accurate measurements. That's enough for Mick to search for more evidence, which he found, and which he showed how he got. He has been completely transparent and explained every step he took. His data matches your vudeo better than your own does unfortunately.
But you did not measure the laser height at 6km
photoshop is not so accurate to measure a moving boat with bending to the side and perspective distorsion playing a role in the Canon camera.
we checked your assumption, and got the same results as the CORRECT leveling setup in our video
so we can go on and check all the possible leveling heights, but I can tell you : will find no possible angle setup to match the GE model with the measured laser heights.
we will soon get to the point now, how 465 meters of curvature is impossible on the 77kms distance of the lake.
Which laser heights? None of your heights beyond about 2km are valid.
of course to the accuracy we need to determine the existance of curvature
we have a very accurate LIDAR proof
we have a reasonably accurate laser measurement
the 465 meters drop over 77kms is impossible on the lake
does it ring ?
Bernard Mc Donnell
Member
I'm weary. You win Sandor, well done. This is going nowhere, fast.
deirdre
Senior Member
you have no usable data after c5 [as far as what you are 'measuring' as "direct hits]
Last edited:
You seem to misunderstand the study totally, as the result of the study matched the expected globe earth within 80cm on the ellipsoid model, and 8cm on the geoid model.
How can I upload the video, so others can see that your hypothesis of laser bending down is not possible?
Do you understand that it is not possible?
When are you modifying the thread script you wrote?
WHY you write that without me agreeing to it?
No I understand that clearly.
"the close correlation of the two data systems confirmed that standing water has a truly level surface."
Explain that please that is quite a strong argument
snaphat
Member
Level doesn't mean flat... This has been discussed already
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member
When can we expect to hear the results of your presentation?
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member
It's been explained a dozen times at least. Your "direct hits in the camera" are anything but, often being seen while the beam is hitting the board at a very different height. Since everything after c5 is such an observation, they mean nothing.
Actually I think C8 is quite useful. Consider C5 and C8
Conveniently C8 is about twice as far as C5, so we can say the divergence of the beam has at least doubled, so we can take an approximate circle around the C5 scatter, double it, and place it around the C8
Which gives about 40 cm rise from C5
Drop at 0.870 km = 6cm
Drop at 1.808 km = 26 cm
Expected rise of 20cm, so I probably should have lowered the larger circle a bit to account for the decrease in beam intensity making the lower edge less apparent. Maybe more like:
Although that's still about 30cm. Suffice to say though it's going up quite a bit.
Last edited:
That's a HUGE misunderstanding there. They mean level relative to the geoid. Notice that they say "ellipsoidal heights". What do you think "ellipsoidal heights" means in this context?
thanks for asking that, what a relief in this debate
I am making the consultation with the geodezy and as well with the geophysics leader of our new cooperative measurement. I think I will have the presentation at the week after next week when the president and the vice-president is back.
For surely we will have more accurate results of the measurements with their technology and knowledge included.
I will keep you up-to-date on this.
I spoke with them in Hungarian so I know what I am talking about.
They have an anomaly that is likely the one I am talking about.
just look at the conext of those words:
"Variations in the ellipsoidal height of the lake water surface are mainly a product of the variations in local gravity potential represented here by the quasi-geoid height; the slight water-level changes induced by movement of water during the flight period were corrected for."
this means that the slight water level changes of the lake water surface inducted by the movement of the water - were corrected for.
truly level means flat surface
truly level does not mean curved surface
deirdre
Senior Member
sorry i meant usable as "direct hits" as he is using them. i will edit post
Steve Torrence
Member
""the close correlation of the two data systems confirmed that standing water has a truly level surface.""
I understand this quote from the paper to mean level and I understand you don't. Sandor will likely ask them directly if level means flat or spherical.
I understand this quote from the paper to mean level and I understand you don't. Sandor will likely ask them directly if level means flat or spherical.
Talk to them again. Ask them if them mean
A) Level like a flat plane
or
B) Level like the surface of the WGS 84 ellipsoid
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member
Of course it means level. It SAYS level.
You think it means flat.
The authors of the paper quite clearly stated that they measured the heights relative to the WGS 84 ellipsoid. Why would they do that if it were flat? Why not take the heights above a flat plane?
snaphat
Member
That's the mathematical definition of equipotentially level and the only definition that will be apply in reference to wgs 84. This is also discussed in the paper that defines wgs 84. One of the things I keep running into with the flat earth community is misusing this term to mean the laymen definition you'd find in a dictionary as opposed the mathematical definition of levelness.
Actually I did and they said trully level as flat. The word in Hungarian flat is directly corallated with the water level it is like obvious. I will do so on the presentation too.
I talked to them already and asked them if that trully level surface can have a 465 meters curvature drop on it's surface?
should I write? ... NO
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member
Yeah, while at the scales we normally encounter (a shelf, a building) level is so close to a plane it's easier to treat it as such, that is not the definition.
It's basically like how we can use Newtonian mechanics for everyday purposes because general relativity's effects are miniscule, but atomic clocks in jumbo jets have proven that GR works and is more accurate.
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member
What university is this?
Who are you talking to?
- Status
Similar threads
