[geocentrism] Re: Geostationary satellite myth
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:38:15 +1000
We cannot, therefore, simply see these things.
Neville.
Agreed with common sense Neville, we could not see it. because of the small
light output. But could you please re apply your figures to computing
decernibility of a source at that distance by RF antennaes (not governed by eye
or LIGHT FREQUENCY limitations) of a transmitter producing say 100 watts, or
even perhaps 1000 watts of close to light frequency, that is by special
antennas directed directly at the specific footprint , ( area of the earth) ie
Norh Australia and Indonesia.
Another way Neville is to suppose the point we are looking at is or has a 20Kw
light source.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:04 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Geostationary satellite myth
Dear All,
Just before I work on the eclipse paper, I remembered that someone on this
forum claimed that a geostationary satellite could (or possibly could) be seen
with a powerful telescope. (Apologies for not looking back and addressing who
actually hinted at this.)
"Geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) [occurs at] exactly 35,786 km above the
equator"
(http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/glossary/geosynchronous_transfer_orbit.htm).
At such a distance, a sizeable 2 m satellite would subtend only
2 m / 35,786,000 m = 5.6 x 10-8 rads,
whereas the theoretical angular resolution of the Keck 10 m telescope in the
visible is
1.22 x 5.6 x 10-6 / 10 = 6.8 x 10-7 rads.
I.e., even in the absence of the atmosphere, the World's largest ground-based
astronomical telescope could not detect a supposed geostationary satellite.
We cannot, therefore, simply see these things.
Neville.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
