Mike Smith Cosmos Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Small wonder there is confusion. I will come to the correct definitions and usage in due course This subject of water shallowness in big land masses ! Perhaps you can shed more light on this ? Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 That is new to me (the bold part). References? What part of the text did you want further explanation of? Can I assume you agree that water collects in hollows in the ground in preference to on mountain tops for instance? Or that you agree with the densities I quoted? I will then be happy to explain further References, The Seasat project is a matter of common knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkStar66 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Small wonder there is confusion. I will come to the correct definitions and usage in due course My 2nd image is from https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GEOID/geoid_def.html So I'm excited to see your alternative and we can tell the folks at the National Geodetic Survey they are wrong The definition for 'level' as shown is "tangent to an equipotential surface of the gravity field" which is exactly what is shown on the diagram by the right angle indicators on the plumb lines. Or are you objecting to my diagram showing "flat"? There is no geodetic term 'flat' so I've used the colloquial. Would like to close that question out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 ! Moderator Note Further discussion of the geoid has been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98891-questions-about-the-geoid-split-from-lake-balaton-thread/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor Szekely Posted September 29, 2016 Author Share Posted September 29, 2016 To summarise the situation here at ScienceForums. An OP has expressed an interest in measuring the actual water profile on a modest, but significant body of water and carried out a trial measurement which showed several methodological flaws. Some of the flaws go right back to fundamental misunderstandings of the science involved, some to lackadaisical organisation of the actual trial measurement. So the main outcome of the trial, as I see things, is a requirement to go 'back to the drawing board' for a complete rethink from the beginning. I am not interested in mud slinging or raking over past mistakes but am prepared to help develop a proper new strategy. 1) This should start with a standard aims and objectives statement. 2) Then provide an estimate of the expected range of measurement values and accuracies required so suitable equipment and experimental methods can be devised. 3) Offer a system of control or reference points, established to a higher standard than the survey itself and preferably established by a different method, independent of the survey measurement technique. 4) Provide a proper method statement for the survey itself. I think that is enough to be going on with. The issue of (mis)understanding can be dealt with as we go along. Sandar, your once worked in the film industry so you will be familiar with a storyboard. This is the scientific and technical equivalent. We have a basis for (1) So to kick off (2) here is a hydraulic assessment of what we might expect to be found. The surface of larger bodies of water is mostly influenced by gravitational forces. Water collects in depressions in the land surface. Because continental crust is about 2.5 times the density of water and oceanic crust 3 times as dense, the material in the depressions is less dense than the average. This results in a depression of the water surface in the deep ocean and an elevation or bulge in shallow water. Bottom or bed features such as sea mounts, ridges or trenches are therefore reflected in profile disturbances at the surface. An ocean floor feature 1km high results in a surface depression of 2 metres. If you like the water surface follows the bed surface more closely than you might think. Here is a Seasat ocean surface heighting scan showing a fully recognisable bed shape in its own surface. So I would expect the lake surface to show its bed shape in miniature, rather than following a 'truly level' surface, whatever that might mean (I propose to discuss the meaning of that phrase later). watersurface1.jpg Edit I will just add some more hydraulic comments. Lake Balaton has the following hydraulic characteristics. It has a main inflow to the south west and a main outflow to the northeast. These are both relatively narrow channels from the internet pictures, but otherwise unrestricted so at the inlet the inlet water will be slowing down. Therefore there will be a local rise in water surface as the dynamic head (kinetic energy) of the inflow is exchanged for static head (potential energy) in the lake itself. The outlet is flush with the lake so there is no draw down effect, but the necessary static head to propel the water along the outlet channel must be generated so there will be a build up of water around the outlet, again generating a surface rise. This is the backwater curve I mentioned before. Through the main body of the lake the cross section is much larger so the flow rate will be much more sluggish, almost zero. So the head will be essentially static. However about midway there is a projecting peninsula, restricting whatever flow there is so the water will again pile up behind (to the west of) the peninsula reduce through the gap and return to normal lake levels to the east. Dear all! I have made the presentation to the Hungarian Geological and Geodezical Institute, and we have aggreed to make a cooperation on the upcoming Balaton lake and over land laser curvature measurements! We are now applying for director approval and then setup the first measurement on the lake. https://www.mfgi.hu/en/node/456 We will show our plan for the experiment after it has been properly designed and animated so we can discuss the hints and tipps before the measurement is done. 1) This should start with a standard aims and objectives statement. The aim of the experiment is to measure the curvature of water surface at the lake Balaton. 2) Then provide an estimate of the expected range of measurement values and accuracies required so suitable equipment and experimental methods can be devised. We are aiming to take measurements from 10km up to 77kms on the lake surface. Detailed description will include all measurement calculations and experimental methods. 3) Offer a system of control or reference points, established to a higher standard than the survey itself and preferably established by a different method, independent of the survey measurement technique. We are aiming to fixed objects on shore in different heights as planned. 4) Provide a proper method statement for the survey itself. This is not yet ready. I'd like to add one comment to the lake: the Balaton does not have an all time functional outflow, because it is blocked and opened only once in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Dear all! I have made the presentation to the Hungarian Geological and Geodezical Institute, and we have aggreed to make a cooperation on the upcoming Balaton lake and over land laser curvature measurements! We are now applying for director approval and then setup the first measurement on the lake. https://www.mfgi.hu/en/node/456 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriss3d Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Is there anything new in this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Is there anything new in this ? Sandor told me that he has been ill lately. I'm planning to post the next stage of my suggested plan of action soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriss3d Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Sandor told me that he has been ill lately. I'm planning to post the next stage of my suggested plan of action soon. Great. Well not that he's been sick. I hope he gets better soon. But that the project isnt dead. I still think the Alfred Wallace experiment had been much easier to perform and would have given a more conclusive result. But to actually have a modern proof that isnt relying on anything that only a select few are capable of - because lets me honest. Taking a rocket to space isnt something most of us will be able or permitted to launch from our backyard.. Its just a bit odd that there doesnt seem to have been any such experiments that I could find since the Rowbotham himself. But to minimize the refraction the next experiment should be done higher above the sea level right ? Another thing i thought of. Wouldnt there be a more accurate way to get an absolute straight line other than laser ? Wouldnt radio waves in theory be better as they wouldnt be subjected to refraction like light does ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) Yes higher up is better. No radio waves are still affected by refraction. Repetitive sampling can isolate refraction errors. Edited October 11, 2016 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMaker Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) ... We will show our plan for the experiment after it has been properly designed and animated so we can discuss the hints and tipps before the measurement is done. ... Sandor told me that he has been ill lately. I'm planning to post the next stage of my suggested plan of action soon. Hi, Sandor, Stu. Any updates on this? Wasn't the next experiment supposed to happen last December? Regards Edited January 3, 2017 by MrMaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandelbrot213 Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Hey guys,seeing that on his youtube experiment video's comment section he's calling you trollforums and claiming that all you did is talk talk talk because you couldn't disprove his flat earth proposition,I don't think you'll be hearing from him here again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Hey guys,seeing that on his youtube experiment video's comment section he's calling you trollforums and claiming that all you did is talk talk talk because you couldn't disprove his flat earth proposition,I don't think you'll be hearing from him here again. Flat earth?! Is this really whats this about? Could you link that please? Astonishing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandelbrot213 Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 I don't know if i can post links here,just hit "Flat Earth | Laser Test Proves The Flat Earth - Part 2" on Youtube. He also says that he debunked the forum leader on FB,i don't know who that might be. In short,the earth proved to be flat,you are all trolls! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) I don't know if i can post links here,just hit "Flat Earth | Laser Test Proves The Flat Earth - Part 2" on Youtube. He also says that he debunked the forum leader on FB,i don't know who that might be. In short,the earth proved to be flat,you are all trolls! Got it. Wow, this is truly astonishing. His comments there are truly something...I will never stop to be amazed by the level of dillusion that people are capable of: "WE are happy to present to you the ultimate proof of FLAT WATER SURFACE. Globers buckle up this will be a tough ride NO DROP over the 6kms distance - how is the globe model accounting for FLAT water surface? EARTH IS FLAT! " Edited April 1, 2017 by koti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Got it. Wow, this is truly astonishing. His comments there are truly something...I will never stop to be amazed by the level of dillusion that people are capable of: "WE are happy to present to you the ultimate proof of FLAT WATER SURFACE. Globers buckle up this will be a tough ride NO DROP over the 6kms distance - how is the globe model accounting for FLAT water surface? EARTH IS FLAT! " I don't see the point of going to all that trouble when you can just watch a ship disappear over the horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 I don't see the point of going to all that trouble when you can just watch a ship disappear over the horizon. I was suspicious of this thread the day it started over half a year ago. Its truly incredible that Sandor the crackpot went through all this trouble and was actually able to get people like studiot, DrKretin and others into discussing his hidden agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 I was suspicious of this thread the day it started over half a year ago. Its truly incredible that Sandor the crackpot went through all this trouble and was actually able to get people like studiot, DrKretin and others into discussing his hidden agenda. Studio and Dr Krettin will just have been interested in the experiment setup itself and how to make it work. Done properly, the conclusion would have been the same as the ship observation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Studio and Dr Krettin will just have been interested in the experiment setup itself and how to make it work. Done properly, the conclusion would have been the same as the ship observation. Right. It seems though that the outcome of this "experiment" is that the earth is flat and as I said, I was suspicious of this from the start. Why would anyone want to perform such an experiment in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) Right. It seems though that the outcome of this "experiment" is that the earth is flat and as I said, I was suspicious of this from the start. Why would anyone want to perform such an experiment in the first place. In effect, they would have helped him to prove himself wrong, like the Michelson-Morely experiment, devised by themselves, to show the existence of an aether but it showed otherwise. He did the experiment because he's convinced the conventional view is wrong. Edited April 1, 2017 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) He did the experiment because he's convinced the conventional view is wrong. Yes, Im aware of that. Devising an experiment to prove or disprove earths shape just doesn't parse with me. Edited April 1, 2017 by koti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) This thread is a waste of time No. He is a flat earther. He is not searching for a flaw. He wants to make points on this forum (getting upvotes from friends) and use it afterwards as a reference (that nobody could debunk the experiment). IOW it is a trap. I have pointed earlier that he is a flat earther. It is a trap. Swansont disagreed. Edited April 1, 2017 by michel123456 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 I have pointed earlier that he is a flat earther. It is a trap. Swansont disagreed. ! Moderator Note No, I did not disagree. I pointed out that such an observation is irrelevant, and trying to gently make the point that such an observation is a rules violation (2.5). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 I think we have to all admit that we got hoaxed. Psycho-flat-earth-Sandor got us. I would have been all over this thread 6 months ago if I was 100% convinced there was crack-pottery going on but I wasn't. Lesson learned for me - no mercy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 ! Moderator Note OK, that's enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts