Satellites : general discussion and musings

[hoi.polloi]

A portable mid wave radio can only do one bounce so you will not get around the earth with that. To do that you need low frequency and very high wattage and a large receiving antenna. GPS receivers are small.

So you're still insisting that satellites must be necessary as the only way of translating signals from one form to another? I don't get you.

[anonjedi2]

A portable mid wave radio can only do one bounce so you will not get around the earth with that.

Why do you assume that the Earth is shaped exactly as NASA tells us it is?

[patrix]

So you're still insisting that satellites must be necessary as the only way of translating signals from one form to another? I don't get you. :blink

As I have tried to explain short wave radio does not bounce. Medium wave does it only once and long wave needs a very large transmitter and antenna to be able to bounce enough times to get around the Earth. But I'm not going to argue on this any more. If the faked Sputnik images and the fact that *some* radio waves can travel around the earth is irrefutable evidence to you that sattelites is a hoax, so be it ☺
Edit: I didn't answer the question I guess - Yes there are of course other ways to get signals around the earth and optic fibers are making communication sattelites obsolete in many ways. But they came after sattelites and does not explain GPS or Sattelite TV I think. But as I said I give up.

Why do you assume that the Earth is shaped exactly as NASA tells us it is?

Because it's a well founded assumption regardless of what NASA has to say about it.

Merry Christmas Cluesforum. I owe you. Hope I can return some insights down the road. /Patrik

[hoi.polloi]

As I have tried to explain short wave radio does not bounce. Medium wave does it only once and long wave needs a very large transmitter and antenna to be able to bounce enough times to get around the Earth.

But GPS signals are said to specifically come from local ground transmitters that "coalesce" data from "satellites" which could come from elsewhere.

GPS in the middle of the ocean would simply be a matter of having the question answered any number of different ways. Can you give an example of being in the middle of an ocean far enough away from all coasts, from any other ship and from any platform and from any kind of machine of any kind? Have you ever been so isolated?

And even so, how is it that your limited expertise, which you haven't yet explained the extent of though that's rather critical to the discussion of human knowledge about signals, tells you there are only the methods and technologies which you are aware of?

You still haven't offered evidence of satellites except that you think there must be some technology you don't understand. So you contradict yourself in insisting satellites are the sole explanation for oceanic positioning signals. It seems odd.

[patrix]

But GPS signals are said to specifically come from local ground transmitters that "coalesce" data from "satellites" which could come from elsewhere.

Says who? Never heard that. I know about DGPS. That was a system that Ericsson developed that improved GPS with a local radio signal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_GPS

GPS in the middle of the ocean would simply be a matter of having the question answered any number of different ways. Can you give an example of being in the middle of an ocean far enough away from all coasts, from any other ship and from any platform and from any kind of machine of any kind? Have you ever been so isolated?

I find it hard to explain GPS "simply" without sattelites. Yes I've been a sea with only horizon around me many times.

And even so, how is it that your limited expertise, which you haven't yet explained the extent of though that's rather critical to the discussion of human knowledge about signals, tells you there are only the methods and technologies which you are aware of?

There is a lot to read about these things (I provided links). My personal experience is that I have a radio certificate and when I was in the army (we had drafting in Sweden) I worked with signalling and radio.

You still haven't offered evidence of satellites except that you think there must be some technology you don't understand. So you contradict yourself in insisting satellites are the sole explanation for oceanic positioning signals. It seems odd.

Um. Sounds a bit like I'm obliged to or something. You still haven't offer any counter evidence. And neither of us will be able to provide any irrefutable proof that cannot have been fabricated. All we can do in this sea of lies is to reason based on our various experiences about what might be real and what is fake. That's what I thought this place was about. Am I mistaken?

[HonestlyNow]

You still haven't offer any counter evidence. And neither of us will be able to provide any irrefutable proof that cannot have been fabricated.

It is up to the story teller to provide the evidence of his story.

We, on the other hand, have evidence that the people we are dealing with have a history of telling untruthful stories.

[hoi.polloi]

"Patrix" and a very in sync Göteborg friend recently came on Fakeologist.com to discuss their apparently indefensible opinion (which perhaps we might call the "Göteborg defense" from now on?) that satellites must be in existence because they cannot explain the power of signals any other way.

Why did they treat their position so weakly? Why did people who claim to have expertise in signals not give one single layman's explanation or even a technical explanation of how the signals work? They had given themselves at least an hour to speak and said virtually nothing, and Ab easily countered with reasonable opinions that they didn't wish to discuss.

If you actually understand something and you are not just memorizing facts, you can explain it to others, even if it takes many questions or a lot of time, which Ab offered the Göteborg duo.

Let's just do a few comparisons, shall we, of what we supposedly are seeing in the sky:

— BALLOONS —

• safe environment
• expensive communications materials but simple principles
• anyone can achieve balloon experiments
• practically no need for fuel
• relatively stationary
• simple and cheap vehicle motivation using propellors, currents
• failures can be corrected, monitored, anticipated, perhaps finally result in collection
• safe and effective distances (perhaps 70km-100km) for signals and for interaction

— AIRCRAFT —

• safe environment
• effective and approachable distances (perhaps operating just under top height, let's say 20km-60km) for signals and for interaction
• many secrets within aircraft principles and culture to be nationally defensible
• variations of vehicles might even motor near the surface of the atmosphere at the 100km ("X-15") distances with minor friction
• expensive communications materials but known principles
• relatively cheap fuel from the empire
• anyone can understand and demonstrate principles of aircraft
• standard patterns can be achieved with constant energy
• failures can be corrected, monitored, anticipated and airplanes can be landed

— "Satellites" —
- extremely hazardous, completely unshielded environment
- astronomically, insanely expensive communications materials
- incredibly high speeds of several miles per second through conflicting materials in every direction
- much larger distances to travel, for vehicles, for signals and supposedly for humans!
- no reasonable safety measures, can be punctured and destroyed in an instant
- impossible to repair or absurdly expensive to repair at best
- insecure from nationalist standpoints
- failures almost always result in total loss of entire vehicle/computer/project
- burns up in atmosphere, never to be investigated or find out any unloggable errors or lurking variables
- extremely questionable means of self correction

How much are the "unexplainable" signals that the "Göteborg defense" claims actually explicable through safe, proven and unrisky technologies such as balloons and aircraft? How much is explicable through digital signals and digital technologies that have transitioned from energy-intensive to super efficient fiber optic cables and so on? We may never know because the "Göteborg defense" does not care to investigate or explain other explanations besides the increasingly untenable "manmade satellite" fantasy hypothesis.

Admittedly, the satellite myth is very attractive and exciting. A magical vehicle that is heavier than air, which, thanks to understandings of the fishy "Astronautics" programs of highly connected and powerful men, can function not only in high atmosphere but high society!

Who doesn't want an an old hairy white guy with shiny cuff links breathing down their neck with caviar-champaign breath and a shiny metal watch explaining why he should be trusted to explain the lights in the sky?

But, on practical terms, these sorts of people don't really live up to expectation, because they are unwilling to give their disciples the basic means of explaining the technology they claim to be "following" or "leading" (rather than, say, fantasizing, profiteering or gambling). The whole concept of major signals broadcast around the world or even GPS signals developed alongside the very concurrent technologies we've already mentioned: analog signals, microwave signals, digital signals; early oceanic shipping, modern oceanic shipping; communications standards; balloon experiments; ionic bounce experiments; air wave and ground wave technologies; etc.

---

Finally, let us take a look at the mysterious "Karman line" we are told exists at "about 100km" as calculated by renowned hucksters Van Braun and so forth (the full article should really be read — and it is brief, I promise — about the particular era of separating Aeronautics and "Astronautics") from this site :

2.- The separation of Aeronautics and Astronautics


a) The idea of separating both fields

All the above knowledge was available in the 1930’s. But it was in different areas: Aeronautics, Newton theories and atmospheric properties. So very few scientists had the vision of them all at the same time.

It took a most notable man, Hr. Theodore Von Karman to put things together. He was born at Budapest (nowadays in Hungary; then a part of the Austria- Hungarian Empire), the 11 of May 1881. It is difficult for modern readers to realise the international scientific prestige in aeronautics that Von Karman had accumulated by the early 1950’s. But so was it. He had such a prestige, that certainly no engineer or scientist in the world, interested in Aeronautics and/or Astronautics, would decline an invitation to co-operate with him, even, needless to say, without any reward in terms of money.

[...] Aeronautics needed the presence of atmosphere. And atmosphere existed near the Earth’s ground, but did not exist far above the ground. In Astronautics, speeds impossible to maintain in atmospheric drag could be kept for very long periods without power applied to the vehicle.

Without power applied to a vehicle, it is a certainty that it will be doomed to fall or collide or otherwise be destroyed by means that it cannot correct for, so how can this Karman fellow be taken seriously? Ah, but he is just talking in theory now. Let's move on ...

Thus, in the mid 1950’s, Von Karman got in touch with a series of (at the time) young leading scientist and engineers in Aeronautics and Astronautics with the view of defining a separation, as far as possible, between both disciplines.

Hmm, his mission is clear enough and plainly admitted: to separate disciplines rather than the more typical intellectual goal of merging disciplines for greater understanding. Could it be the Karman fellow was useful for building an intellectual and military wall between two disciplines, rather than merely an imaginary line?

He had got to know them trough two international private, i.e. no government dependent, organisations. One was the recently created IAF (International Federation of Astronautics), which had held its first International Congress in 1950. The second, at the time by far more important, was the well known and very prestigious FAI (Fédération Aéronautique Internationale), organised in the first years of the XX Century, and which sanctioned and recorded all Aeronautic records.

So we're already in need of sanctioning each flight. The military curiosity and observation (if not direct control) of all aeronautical matters is implied.

It is for me impossible to name all the people that co-operated with Von Karman in this matter. Since there was no money involved, just free interchange of opinions trough private letters or conversations [...]

Okay, okay, we get it. There's nothing untoward because no money is involved. Just like a good old boys club.

Members of that rather informal group were my father, Prof. Sanz Aránguez (from Spain; later Major General in the Corps of Aeronautical Engineers in the Spanish Air Force; co-founder and Vice President of the International Commission of Astronautical Records of FAI). Prof. Sheiffert (from the U.S., author of a book in Astronautics, “Principles of Orbit Mechanics”, now out of print, which was the main source for orbit and orbit injection knowledge and calculation up to the end of the 1960´s; he was later full professor at Stanford University in California). Prof. Von Braun (from Germany, later in the U.S.; expert in rocket propulsion, involved in the V2 development, and later on U.S. orbit injectors). Prof. Eula (from Italy; involved in rocket propulsion and also in atomic research). Prof. Sokolsky (from the U.S.S.R.; probably one of the biggest names in the Soviet Astronautical development afterwards). Mr. Robert Genty (from France; later Colonel in the French Air Force and named Judge Unique Worldwide of Astronautic Records in the FAI). Prof. Dillaway (from the U.S.; later Delegate of the U.S. in the Commission of Astronautical Records of FAI). And, of course, some other scientists whose names I am sorry no to remember at this moment.

Interesting discussion of the myth building, even if really applicable to science, about how numbers are certainly futzed with by groups of people — for cultural or popularity reasons rather than scientific accuracy:

b) The Karman separation line: Scientific significance.

The interchange of ideas was finally conducted to a clear cut: In Aeronautics, level flying higher and higher meant to deal with less and less dense atmosphere, thus to the need of greater and greater speeds to have the flying machine controllable by aerodynamic forces. A speed so big in fact, that, above a certain altitude, could be close or even bigger than the circular orbital speed at that altitude (i.e. lift was no longer needed, since centrifugal force took over; and consequently aerodynamic flight was meaningless). Conversely, in Astronautics, lower and lower orbital flying led to encounter more and more dense atmosphere, so much that it would be impossible to keep the orbit for a number of turns around Earth without a significant forward thrust (thus making the free fall, or orbiting, concept meaningless). A lot of calculations were made, and finally it was reached the conclusion, accepted by all scientist involved, that around an altitude of 100 Km. the boundary could be set. By the way, most calculations, which I could see at the time, were using nautical miles for altitude. That was probably because it was the only unit of length more or less common at the time (in fact, less common; even British and U.S. nautical miles, both at the time defined in feet, differed; European nautical mile, defined in meters, was also different; but the differences were small). So the altitude decided upon had a very uneasy number to remember. It was apparently Von Karman himself who realised, and proposed to the rest, the very round number of 100 Km (very close to the calculated number). The rest of the people eagerly accepted it.

The 100-Km altitude, ever since named the “Karman Line”, came thus into existence as the boundary separating Aeronautics and Astronautics.

c) The Karman Line: Adoption in International Standards

Von Karman presented the result of this work in front of the IAF, which accepted it without much interest, because they were really not concerned with the problem of separating both fields. But the things worked differently for the FAI, deeply involved in human records for Aeronautics.

It was plainly clear at the time (mid 1950´s), that as soon as a man will get into orbit, most significant aeronautical records will be pulverised. Aeroplane’s altitude, speed, distance, time of flight, and many other parameters could no longer compete with an orbiting vehicle. Some of the people who had been working with Von Karman were somehow connected to FAI, among them, Sanz Aránguez from Spain, Dillaway from the U.S., several scientists from the U.S.S.R. (I do not remember their names; probably Sokolsky was among them) and Genty from France. They proposed to FAI to create a new category of flying machines, later named spacecraft in the FAI rules, which would have separated records.

Sure. Double books won't work without compartmentalized records!

The FAI was more than willing to do so, and decided to create the International Commission of Astronautics (CIAstr; the name was changed in 1987 to International Commission of Astronautical Records, ICARE). Prof. Sanz Aránguez was made delegate of Spain, and Vice President of the Commission. Professor Dillaway was the Delegate of the U.S., and Col. Genty (from France) was named Secretary. These three people (as far as I know), together with a member of the U.S.S.R. delegation (I am not sure whether or not was the delegate himself, Mr. Skouridine) were the main ones involved in the drafting of the first set of rules for Astronautical Records. Several other countries, of course, named delegates whom, doubtless, contributed to the rules as well. The approved rules became Chapter 8 of the FAI Sporting Code. Naturally, they started by setting the rule that a flight could only be considered an Astronautical flight, and then qualify for a record under Chapter 8 of the FAI Sporting Code, when that flight goes beyond the 100 Km line, i.e. the Karman Line.

Once more we see a large cross over between "sporting" and psychological control of scientific development. Same boys club culture, eh? I wonder how many of them were into frats. In any case, the magic is born:

3.- Demonstration of usefulness of Karman Line

Although the Karman Line had been a theoretical construction, it was later demonstrated to be a real thing. I do not mean there is anything magic about the exact 100 Km., but it has been shown that, about that altitude, things change.

In the early 1960´s, the U.S. X-15 Aircraft was flown up to 108 Km. In that part of the flight it was really a free falling rocket, with no aerodynamic control possible. In fact, it was considered an astronautical flight, and the pilot got, as a consequence, his “astronautical wings”, i.e. the recognisance of being an astronaut.

Yes, if he wasn't also thrown into deep space forever and/or burned up in reentry. The X-15 aircraft stories are very interesting, and probably signal a major military departure and containment of aeronautics information to coincide with these cultural changes. And yet, doesn't that feel familiar about how these things tend to work?

Later in the same decade (or very early in the next; Soviet information at the time was very scanty) the Soviet Union put in orbit an unmanned satellite, in very low orbit, whose attitude was controlled by aerodynamic forces. The real reason of such an experiment is not yet known. It is known however that it successfully described a few orbits just above the 100 Km line (how much higher I do not know), but collapsed rapidly shortly after he crossed, or got too much close to, the 100 Km. Karman line.

Dr. S. Sanz Fernández de Córdoba
ICARE President
Fédération Aéronautique Internationale

- http://www.fai.org/icare-records/100km- ... tronautics

So back off our Karman line, alrigh' chuck?

Gee, I thought this was about scientific understanding. This settled into "Cold War" right quick.

[Peter]

I link below to an interesting BBC TV documentary supposedly following the manufacture of a satellite in the UK. Coming to it not believing in satellites I could spot flaws, but to 99.9% of the public it would appear credible and well produced.

My reasons for disbelieving man made satellites are the same as those of many others in this thread. But I mention a couple of others which I’ve not seen covered.

Firstly the crudeness and inaccuracy of rocket control as regards the small attitude or orientation rockets. A satellite supposedly has a receiver and transmitter and solar panels and these would have to be constantly re-aligned as it moves and as the earth moves relative to the sun. Let’s pretend radio signals can be magically transmitted to a geostationary satellite 35,000 km away, to open 2 valves and ignite an orientation rocket. The satellite would then be spinning and would need an opposing rocket to fire up, and then between the two (or more) rockets get the satellite in the right alignment. Seems much too delicate a task to be achieved with rockets and without any other braking forces (such as atmospheric resistance precisely varied with moveable control surfaces “flaps”). I couldn’t find any record of testing such rocket procedures in a vacuum chamber on earth. Like the Lunar Lander they just knew it would work.

Also it seems implausible trying to target a transmission to a small object 35,000 km away in the first place, in contrast to say targeting the ionosphere only 50 km away and covering the entire plane so therefore can’t be missed. This deep layer (which presumably give us protection from space radiation) repels radio waves but somehow not those sent to and from satellites.

“How To Build A Satellite BBC Documentary 2013”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fGpCRHV7Tg

What seemed implausible to me was their heat protection and even their understanding of heat. They told us a satellite without protection could vary between 150°C in the sun and -270°C in the shade.

Kapton is the supposed first line of defense. Kapton is used to insulate electrical wiring in planes because it doesn’t degrade with extreme changes of temperature. The space lie has adopted Kapton (DuPont – created during Apollo), pretending that it also reflects extreme heat (although it doesn’t seem to have been adopted on earth for the same purpose). See if you think that very thin layer of transparent yellowish plastic film – Kapton - will repel the sun’s intense radioactive heat.

Second line of defense against heat is a convection system with pipes, like a fridge. We are told ammonia takes heat from a hot part of the satellite and dumps it in a cold part. But wouldn’t conduction of the sun’s extreme heat from the part of the satellite in the sun to the rest of the satellite mean that there are no cold parts? And how does a satellite ultimately lose any heat without atmosphere to absorb it?

Third line of defense is a wafer thin layer of mirrors. It seemed to be their outermost layer. But then so did the Kapton earlier (unless I missed something).

Maybe people here can spot more implausibility about other aspects of “satellite manufacture” in this film.

Are the workers actually MI5 bureaucrats doing a spot of acting or are they real workers really believing they are building a satellite? The 2 UK factories shown are Astrium (EADS). (Solar panels made in Germany and final assembly in France). Judging from the time-frame of construction and number of workers it seems that Astrium UK, which is supposedly one of the biggest satellite manufacturers in the world, produces only a few satellites per year. Maybe they do employ some duped people full time to actually build these things to keep the lie going. As with Apollo only a few at the top need know the whole story. (Even commanders of Trident submarines don’t need to know that there are no nuclear warheads in the missiles.) But in this case, something about the “scientists” seemed unbelievable. Especially the little guy growing crystals – “I can say with certainty we make the purest crystals in the world” (or words to that effect).

A satellite in space is a godlike endeavor. If they existed there would be much more fuss about them here on earth before they went up into space. Manufacturers, factory workers, operators, host nations, would all want to proudly boast and publicize. There would be thousands of photos of satellites in the factory, in transit, and being loaded onto rockets. Instead, there are hardly any. A void. Rather like the complete lack of awe from Armstrong and Aldrin.

[SacredCowSlayer]

First of all, welcome to the forum! It's so refreshing to see a new member come and contribute in such a well thought out manner. And especially on this topic. [We've certainly had enough new members come on here to say that they simply believe in man made satellites, and they "don't understand how ____" without them.]

I enjoyed reading your analysis and observations, and I'm in agreement that there is essentially nothing about man made satellites that make any sense, apart from propaganda.

And as Hoi aptly noted before, it would be impossible to physically access and repair these things, even if they made sense, and could get up there (and stay) to begin with. I can't think of any mechanical/electrical equipment that doesn't (at some point) require some hands-on maintenance of some kind.

In fact I'd be happy if they could just make modems and routers that don't have to be reset all the time. And those are in safely controlled environments with relatively consistent temperature etc.

. . .

A satellite in space is a godlike endeavor. If they existed there would be much more fuss about them here on earth before they went up into space. Manufacturers, factory workers, operators, host nations, would all want to proudly boast and publicize. There would be thousands of photos of satellites in the factory, in transit, and being loaded onto rockets. Instead, there are hardly any. A void. Rather like the complete lack of awe from Armstrong and Aldrin.

I couldn't agree more. It really is the epitome of arrogance and deceitfulness. And you make a good observation about how there would be so much authentic documentation and evidence for these things if they were real.

Again, welcome to the forum.

[bongostaple]

Hi Peter, thanks for your post on the documentary. I was sent a URL to this by my other half's sister as she knows I like a giggle. You mentioned the heat transfer functions, I remember watching this and thinking 'temperature between +150 and -270 centigrade?' 150C is a huge underestimate for anything in the thermosphere, or passing through it. During the day, temperatures can get as high as 2,500 centigrade. The Wikipedia page makes some nonsense statement that because of 'the very large gaps between air molecules', you wouldn't 'feel' that temperature. That is just so much horseshit - it's that temperature because of solar radiation, and anything up there will be exposed to the same radiation and therefore those rather hot temperatures. There is very little in a satellite that hasn't deformed or melted completely by 2,500 centigrade. But supposedly there's a whole space station up there in the thermosphere? I think not

[bongostaple]

P.S. there are a handful of elements with melting points above 2,500C, one is Tungsten, and the others are similarly Very Heavy Indeed. But it's a moot point, as the ISS 'crew' are clearly not made from tungsten, and they will be subject to the radiation up there like everything else.

Peter, I was interested in your comment about space 'probably' not being a vacuum. I've thought about that for a while - for instance, I wonder how our atmosphere doesn't just Thompson-Joule its way off into the vacuum... Doing no work as it goes, of course. As for what it really is? Who knows.

[sharpstuff]

Quote:

Postby bongostaple on January 15th, 2017, 5:56 pm

Peter, I was interested in your comment about space 'probably' not being a vacuum. I've thought about that for a while - for instance, I wonder how our atmosphere doesn't just Thompson-Joule its way off into the vacuum... Doing no work as it goes, of course. As for what it really is? Who knows.

As far as I can fathom from years of research there are issues here.

If you agree (believe?) with the notion that the Universe is made up from ‘atoms’ and that ‘atoms’ are made up of different ‘particles’ (never defined so far as I can see), we are dealing with objects.

Objects are things which we can sense. We therefore verbalise that sense (or those senses) which create the object in our personal mind. Thus my word for ‘chair’ evokes what sensually I have appreciated as a chair. This sensual experience may/will be different from yours because we are all different. However, we may agree that your idea of a chair is the same as mine, (however we may do it!). Thus we may be able to communicate with each other the concept of ‘chair’ when I ask you to sit down upon a device that I interpret through my senses as a ‘chair’ and you accept. However, another creature, such a cat may interpret what I say/indicate is a chair to the non-verbal as ‘this is a nice bed’.

The word ‘chair’ is a noun. As you are aware, a ‘noun’ is a word that ‘names something’. But the naming of something does not make it ‘real’ only to the person using it. A name does not make a thing a ‘reality’.

The word ‘vacuum’ implies that there is no thing ‘there’. Thus, in a vacuum, into what do ‘things’ exist? Does the moon just hang there without strut or support?

Personally, I believe the Universe to be in the nature of a plasma. How it works, I have no idea that could be written down because of the interpretive nature of the notion. Thus the Universe is ‘constructed’ in a plasma (whatever that ‘actually’ might be.

However, at:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/plasma

We find:

noun
1.
Anatomy, Physiology. the liquid part of blood or lymph, as distinguished from the suspended elements.
2.
Cell Biology. cytoplasm.
3.
whey.
4.
a green, faintly translucent chalcedony.
5.
Physics. a highly ionized gas containing an approximately equal number of positive ions and electrons.

In the first definition, we find “the liquid part of blood or lymph, as distinguished from the suspended elements.” So, if my reading is correct, there needs to be a substance within which we might find suspended elements. They cannot be suspended without the medium for their suspension.

In the fifth definition we find that ‘plasma’ is an ionised gas.

At:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12760/whats-the-difference-between-gas-and-plasma

We find this question:

“Is a gas a plasma?

“What's the difference between gas and plasma?

A friend stated that stars are hot balls of gas, however we know that technically stars are plasma. Is his statement entirely incorrect? Can a plasma be considered a form of gas or should be referred to as a distinct form of matter?”

I think the first answer nails it:

“Good question! The defining difference is that in a gas the atoms are intact, and in fact are typically bonded into molecules, whereas in a plasma at least some of the electrons separate entirely from their atoms. In other words, particles of a plasma are charged, but particles of a gas are mostly uncharged. So technically, a plasma is not a gas and it should be said that a star is a ball of plasma, not gas. (Actually, there is a thin outer layer called the photosphere which actually consists of gas because the temperature isn't hot enough to form plasma)

However, outside of physics, people often use the word "gas" to refer to any sort of vaporous substance, and in that sense I suppose a plasma counts. So there is a sense in which your friend's statement might be considered correct. But that's a question for the English site.”

I am not enamoured by the reference to the notion of ‘atoms’ (a human construct) because these would be ‘objects’ not manifestations of a plasma as a medium.

If the Universe is a plasma, then whatever is constructed from this, by whatever means, I am pretty sure we can never understand, we should be able to construct some sort of theory.

A plasma would be an electro-magnetic medium. All that we can sense, as individual human creatures would be the manifestations of this plasma, which must dynamic and result (in some way) to what we appear to observe.

I would sincerely offer that you try to get hold of the following book which I found in the Science Research Council’s library when I worked at SRC in 1967 and which changed my way of thinking for good.

I found a purchased copy through a book-finder site many years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levels_of_Knowing_and_Existence

https://www.amazon.com/Levels-Knowing-Existence-Studies-Semantics/dp/0910780005

Best wishes.

[bongostaple]

Thanks for that - the whole 'aether' area is something I've thought about a lot, from the perspective of what I a) 'know' from experience, or b) 'know' from reading some words and taking them to be true. Whilst initially it might seem that my own experience wins hands-down, I can only experience what I can sense in any way. Therefore personal experience is seriously inadequate once I give it sufficient scrutiny. I'll go find that Weinberg book as you recommend it strongly - I don't often take reading recommendations unless they are from a trusted source. And for whatever it's worth, based only on your postings here, you are a trusted (by me) source

[Flabbergasted]

The word ‘vacuum’ implies that there is no thing ‘there’. Thus, in a vacuum, into what do ‘things’ exist? Does the moon just hang there without strut or support?

Indeed, the vacuum of "space" is not nothingness, though it may seem that way to our senses (and certainly counts as "absence of a medium" for the sake of rocketry), for the simple reason that there can be no discontinuity in the physical world and the coexistence of "something" and "nothingness" at the same level of manifestation is a metaphysical impossibility.

Whether space is "filled with" highly ionized super-gas, dark matter, luminiferous ether, Akasha, ectoplasm, or something else will probably remain a matter of debate forever.

In any case, the paradigm of particles ('objects' as you say) moving about in a perfect void, false as it may be, is undeniably useful in practical applications, as shown by the possibility of exact predictions.

[aa5]

Between me and the window in my office, there could be a huge amount of nothingness. But I can't see it, because presumably nothingness would have no spatial dimensions and no characteristics.