Boxer

It looks like that you have a false impression that we buy your smoke-and mirrors about "flat lake problem" needed high scientific efforts or even a whole institution, because we discuss here the very delicate details of such experiment. Mind you, those special problems could be eliminated with the mother of all experiment Repetition. But you choosed to parade around and claim victory everywhere with your demonstrably wrong, as pointed out nicely above, and inconclusive single experiment. All we have to do is to look at the very paper that you cited do decide if the balaton lake is follows the curve or not, because it went through all the control, peer review and checking that is the foundation of modern science. So please, point out where those guys made a mistake, and what is your evidence for that, what references could you cite ? Also present your particular claims of evidence what made you think that Balaton could be flat and you need an experiment to check it.

Your outlandish claims about "scientific teams" just hurting the discussion. Don't plant smoke and mirrors, your experiment is not rocket science, its even below high school level, just don't do it in the middle of a blazing refraction. To do it right you need a high enough laser and a board with reference grid, and don't matter how your leveling or refraction estimation was wrong, the data plot will show the shape of the earth, at least after 3 standard technical repetition. You received very clear instruction about how you should do that, and its simple, and only your fault that you intentionally used a board that was prevented accurate measurements just at the right time where the academic model should start to diverge from your flat predictions. So what is your base of confidence, considering that your video is still out there claiming absolute victory ? Exactly what part of your data shows any control or survive review questions, like how do you determined the beam center, or height, without the reference target ? Also at the part in your video where the horizon started to obscure your boat, Why are you referenced a phenomena that is not even described in the history of naval transportation, science, and not even by you ? And why is that NUDTZ is conveniently at the right distance where the curvature of the earth should start to noticeably obscure that boat ? Please Answer !

In figure (a) they measured the ellipsoidal heights and figure (b) showing the orthometric height (ellipsoidal height corrected with the geoid undulation). see below. The following will also answer Michel's concerns about the fluid dynamics and geometry of the lake surface. The Aim of the study cited in the original post (can be read here :http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_228814.pdf ) was to show that measured variation in ellipsoid heights (measured from a surface of the ellipsoid model with rotational symmetry) in standing water surface are matching closely the geoid undulations ( surface defined by points of equal gravitational potential, differing from the rotational symmetry) of that area. The study showed the water surface is close to hydrological equilibrium following a the local curve of the geoid ( "following a gravity potential isosurface at a constant orthometric height above the geoid" ) (runned out of post count, so will continue tomorrow )

Sorry, now I see how it could be misunderstood. To determine elevation and make accurate maps, we need a model of earth shape and a coordinate system, a fixed reference level surface. The elevation above the ellipsoid (ellipsoidal height) is the elevation above a mathematical model that approximates the shape of the earth. It was very accurately described in wikipedia : "TheThe World Geodetic System (WGS) is a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and navigation including by GPS. It comprises a standard coordinate system for the Earth, a standard spheroidal reference surface (the datum or reference ellipsoid) for raw altitude data, and a gravitational equipotential surface (the geoid) that defines the nominal sea level.." Also in a diagram, The relationship between topography and the ellipsoid level surface : (http://www.ee.co.za/article/accuracy-kinematic-gnss-height-observations-road-surveys.html)

Well considering that histogram shows ellipsoidal heights ( "The Ellipsoidal Height of a point of the Earth Surface is the distance He from the point to the ellipsoid.") the surface of the lake pretty much follows the shape of the geoid, and certainly not flat or concave. But leveled to the geoid, with a slight deviation pointed out in the paper.

I made the above statement because the OP tried to plant confusion between elevation and the curvature of the earth. Off course we have deviation from the reference ellipsoid (in more precise measurements geoid) that called geographical elevation, but consider the earth radius 6371 kilometers and the maximum elevation 8.8 kilometers to put that in scale.

On that scale matter have no choice but to follow the equipotential gravitational field and conform to the geoid, every elevation is measured from that level surface. The lake is level to the ellipsoidal levelsurface. Also I am here to inform that Sandor Székely don't have any affiliation or contribution to the LIDAR Balaton observation or with any Other hungarian or other scientific institutions, despite his misleading original post. Just to clarify.