Geocentric Forum Stop Press

[worzel]

Originally Posted by Dr Neville Jones

Hence, if the acentrists can prove the existence of the geostationary satellite, then I would have to concede that Biblical geocentrism is wrong.
...
Hopefully, you will not be surprised to know that I do not accept the geostationary satellite idea of the unrepentant, homosexual paedophile, Arthur Clarke

To say the first paragraph suprised me would be an understatement. But that second one -- I'm speechless!

[Maksutov]

The person's ethics are as pathetic as his "scientific" theories. [-(

[Grand Vizier]

Originally Posted by Maksutov

The person's ethics are as pathetic as his "scientific" theories. [-(

Not to speak of his legal judgement. Dr Jones is resident in the UK. Repeating allegations of criminal activity that were reckoned as being unfounded by a police investigation a few years ago opens him up to the prospect to prosecution under our excessively draconian libel laws (which admittedly, I deplore, in the sense that they allow juries to determine disproportionate damages for even minor slurs).

And if I had fully quoted the post myself, I too would be a party to any potential libel.

Dr Jones, I believe, is in a huff because one of his flock has strayed and bought a satellite dish, which he now reckons must be pointing somewhere.

[worzel]

Originally Posted by Grand Vizier

And if I had fully quoted the post myself, I too would be a party to any potential libel.

I don't think quoting someone else counts, hence the constant use of the word "alleged" in the English gutter press. And libel laws apply to the publisher, who in this case is outside the juristiction of the British laws. But if people (and particularly the BA) think I should remove this and replace it with a link I will.

Dr Jones, I believe, is in a huff because one of his flock has strayed and bought a satellite dish, which he now reckons must be pointing somewhere.

The person I think you're referring to did a stint of satalite tracking for Nasa and has been arguing his case against the lunar conspiracy theory for quite a while with Dr Jones.

[Grand Vizier]

Originally Posted by worzel

I don't think quoting someone else counts, hence the constant use of the word "alleged" in the English gutter press. And libel laws apply to the publisher, who in this case is outside the juristiction of the British laws. But if people (and particularly the BA) think I should remove this and replace it with a link I will.

Nah, I think you are OK. And these cases are rare on the web, because of the complexities of agreeing on who is publishing and who is distributing (the latter are liable too!). In running a bulletin board, Dr Jones could, in fact, be seen as a publisher. This board is not UK-based and so has no problems, but I have a habit of caution from working on UK publications. The law can be weird and is definitely in need of reform.

But repeating a libel can be seen as promulgating it - even if it was repeated with no such intention, or even with the intention of deprecating it. (I refer you, m'learned friend, to the case of John Major versus The New Statesman, though I will not obviously, repeat the allegations involved. ) As I say, it doesn't matter in this case, but caution is always a good idea.

Originally Posted by worzel

The person I think you're referring to did a stint of satalite tracking for Nasa and has been arguing his case against the lunar conspiracy theory for quite a while with Dr Jones.

Well, Dr Jones has now firmly nailed his colours to the mast. We have one simple point that can falsify his theories.

[Edited to qualify libel law.]

[TrAI]

Hmmm... I don't see how it such allegations, unfounded or not, would make the idea of geostationary satellites any more or less feasible anyway, it really is not relevant to the subject.

To me the quote given in the OP seems more like an attempt to win support by playing on people's fear of being associated with negative things.

[Yorkshireman]

Originally Posted by Grand Vizier

Well, Dr Jones has now firmly nailed his colours to the mast. We have one simple point that can falsify his theories.

Although I do wonder what his definition of acceptable proof would be. If a fixed dish pointing to one part of the sky, and receiving transmissions, is insufficient evidence for him.

Can geostationary satellites be observed through sufficiently powerful telescopes?

[Meteora]

Originally Posted by Yorkshireman

Can geostationary satellites be observed through sufficiently powerful telescopes?

That shouldn't be necessary. Just watch a weather satellite loop. How else could we get imagery like that without geostationary satellites? (Things like hemispheric images of clouds and terrain - every hour - and sometimes close-ups of storms with less than 5-minute updates - all without any significant "motion" of the earth under the satellite.)

But, to answer your question, obviously yes! But, that brings up the question as to what "sufficiently powerful" might be. :wink:

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Meteora

But, to answer your question, obviously yes! But, that brings up the question as to what "sufficiently powerful" might be. :wink:

Kech?

[Meteora]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Kech?

:-s

[Fortis]

Originally Posted by Meteora

:-s

Possibly Keck?

[Fortis]

Originally Posted by Meteora

That shouldn't be necessary. Just watch a weather satellite loop. How else could we get imagery like that without geostationary satellites?

They're just attached to the firmanent on long bits of string...

[Meteora]

Originally Posted by Fortis

Possibly Keck?

Ah... okay.

[Meteora]

Originally Posted by Fortis

They're just attached to the firmanent on long bits of string...

But... the firmament spins around the earth once a day!!! :^o

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Meteora

But... the firmament spins around the earth once a day!!! :^o

It's very stiff string with a tensile strength you wouldn't believe! :wink:

[Waarthog]

Well, Dr Jones has now firmly nailed his colours to the mast. We have one simple point that can falsify his theories.

Simple in theory but difficult in the execution since you would also have to nail him down to a standard of proof to which you would both agree. I suspect this will be harder than it looks as his confirmation bias will lead him to reject any evidence that does not conform to his presupposition of belief.

[AstroRockHunter]

Yorkshireman asked:

Can geostationary satellites be observed through sufficiently powerful telescopes?

Don't even need a telescope. All you need is a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens (the standard one that comes with it), a tripod and know the alt. az. of the satellites in question.

Set the camera on the tripod, point it in the general direction of the satellite and take about a 2hr time exposure around dawn.

Pretty little points of light that don't blur are what you'll get.

You could use a telescope to look at them with your eye, but you need to do it just after sunset and/or just befor dawn. During the night, the sunlight won't reflect off of them. Of course, you would be hard pressed to tell them from the background stars because you probably won't have time to tell if they're moving against the background stars.

edited to add: WOW, I didn't get ToSeeked!!!

[Grand Vizier]

Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter

Yorkshireman asked:

Don't even need a telescope. All you need is a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens (the standard one that comes with it), a tripod and know the alt. az. of the satellites in question.

Set the camera on the tripod, point it in the general direction of the satellite and take about a 2hr time exposure around dawn.

Pretty little points of light that don't blur are what you'll get.

You could use a telescope to look at them with your eye, but you need to do it just after sunset and/or just befor dawn. During the night, the sunlight won't reflect off of them. Of course, you would be hard pressed to tell them from the background stars because you probably won't have time to tell if they're moving against the background stars.

I also remember a piece I read a few years ago, but haven't been able to trace right now, that rotationally stabilised, 'drum' satellites could be seen 'winking' as they rotated (typically 60-70 rpm speed, so maybe once a second), and this effect could be seen in quite a modest telescope. Bit like Iridium flares.

I can't remember why the variations of reflectivity occurred from the satellites' solar cells, though - I'd expect them to show very little variation - maybe some of the older ones have suffered damage?

(I suppose it is also possible that a slower variation might be seen in old 3-axis 'bird' sats as they lose attitude control, something causes them to tumble, and the extended panels catch the light.)

[iFire]

Satelite television is fake, it is just an antenna made to look like a satelite thingey!!!!! And weather satelites don't exist!!!!! Have you ever noticed how weather prediction is so unreliable?!?!

Thats prolly what they would say. And a photo of a satelite would be doctered, they may say.