I assume it would be good to use a light class launch vehicle, intended for Sun- Synchronous Orbit or microravity spacecrafts like satellites, micrasatellites or guided or unguided light-class launch vehicles like Skylark Nano IIHow to apply the red-shifting-of-light explanation of the darkness of the sky to the space between the Earth and the Moon: we see this area dark though the Sun's light travels through it?
The density of the medium through which the Sun's radiations travel and the angle at which this medium is hit by the radiations are important factors in determining the degree of heating this medium will reach: right angle and dense medium are hotter.Do the radiations emitted by the Sun have no effect of illumination nor of heating up until they come in touch with a substance: is it for this reason that outer space remains dark and at minus 270 centigrade?
I think that the darkness of the universe is not due to its vastness or a lack of sources of light. The radiations that crate visible light dominate every spot of the universe, but the universe remains dark only because there is no enough material to “turn on” the illuminating effect of the radiations emitted by the countless billions of stars found within.True or not: if we could fill the area between Earth and the Moon with any material - air, for instance - we would get this area of the sky illuminated?
“My problem” is not with the solar wind, it is with the radiations emitted by the stars: these radiations do not have any effect of heating nor of illuminating except they travel through a medium or contact with a substance; were these radiation visible or hot, the universe would have experienced unbearable brightness and heat.Our sun produces a solar wind. 99% of this wind is isolated charge,(free electrons and protons) which is accelerated out beyond Neptune. When that wind passes Neptune, it is traveling much faster than when it passed Earth. We have not found where this acceleration stops. We can find no evidence of any of this charge, recombining. Recombining charge would emit EM and would be detected. Free charge is not visible, and can not reflect visible light.
And free charge, is not attracted to any gravitational object. It appears to be immune to gravity. This wind has been blowing for billions of years. Image all the wind for all the stars for all these eons. What's the likelihood of there being more mass that is not gathered together with gravity? After all this time, most of the mass in this universe might be in this free state. In other words, there might be more matter dissolved/dispersed out in space, than in all the stars and in all the galaxies.
Perhaps, the real function of a star is to disperse mass. Not collect it.
The universe remains a very mysterious place.
There actually is matter between the earth & moon. We just can't see it because our eyes have evolved to see what's in their environment. We see the light reflecting off objects, not the object itself.Contemplation of the various images of our universe reveals that the distinctive darkness of the universe cannot be attributed to the red-shifting-of-light explanation. In these images, we see cosmic objects—those that emit light and those reflect light—appearing amid absolute darkness. During a total solar eclipse, for instance, the gases that make up the outermost atmosphere of the Sun, the corona, are illuminated; but just beyond the corona, the space is dark, although the Sun’s light is indisputably traveling through that area.
The space that separates the Earth and the Moon offers another good example: the Sun’s light has no effect of illumination throughout this area. It is only when the Sun’s light contacts with the Moon’s surface that its illuminating effect is “turned on.” Similarly, the space beyond the Moon, which is undoubtedly filled with the Sun’s light, appears dark. The light traveling through it remains invisible until it illuminates the surface of a planet, a comet, or any other object that may be traveling through this area of space.
Wouldn’t these examples suggest that where there is material in the universe, there is illumination, rather than where there is light? Wouldn’t they further suggest that the very radiation that creates visible light is invisible; and that visible light―instead of being considered as visible radiation―may be simply just a visible effect ensuing from the contact of some invisible radiation(s) emitted by hot bodies with an object?
Does this notion give a clue to the secret why the outermost layer of the Sun's atmosphere, the corona, is hotter than the inner layer of the Sun's atmosphere, the chromosphere? Would the answer be: simply because the corona is denser than the chromosphere?The density of the medium through which the Sun's radiations travel and the angle at which this medium is hit by the radiations are important factors in determining the degree of heating this medium will reach: right angle and dense medium are hotter.