Question Turning on the light traveling through the dark space!

Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
How 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?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bearnard1616
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
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?
 
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
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?
 
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
In the photographs taken by astronauts on the surface of the Moon, a likely affirmative answer to these two questions can be found. In these photographs, which were taken during the Moon’s two-week-long daytime, we see the astronauts against a dark background of space, while the Sun illuminates the ground on which they are standing. If the Moon had an atmosphere through which the Sun’s radiations had traveled, the astronauts would have appeared against an illuminated background. But such material—gases for an atmosphere—was not found, and so the effect—illumination—did not occur. For that very reason, if a photograph was taken for the Sun from the Moon’s surface, the space between the Moon and the Sun would not have appeared illuminated; in other words, a looker at the Sun from the Moon’s surface would see all the area between the Sun and the Moon is in absolute darkness.
 
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
Would the seven colors into which the white light we receive from the Sun is split up when passing through a prism indicate that the white light we receive from the Sun ensues from the contact between seven invisible radiations emitted by the Sun, each one of these radiations is responsible for one of the rainbow colors?
 
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
Since the Sun is a source of electromagnetic radiations, could each one of the six electromagnetic radiations other than what we call light―gamma, x-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, microwave, radio wave― be responsible for one of the rainbow colors into which the white light received from the Sun split? If it is so, the seventh color should represent one unknown type of electromagnetic radiation!
 
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
Along with what we call visible light, the electromagnetic spectrum includes six different radiations, three of which are of wavelength shorter than that of what we call light, while the three others are of a wavelength longer than that of light. Note that James Clerk Maxwell’s equation proves that all forms of electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light, and there is a characteristic phenomenon which light shares with the other forms of electromagnetic radiations―the process of so-called diffraction, that is, light and all the electromagnetic radiations bend to the sides when they pass through a small hole, and then spread out.
 

bearnard1616

BANNED
Nov 18, 2020
85
27
80
How 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?
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 II
Thus, we can get appropriate intel about darkness of the sky to the space between the Earth and the Moon
 
  • Like
Reactions: F. M. Mossa
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
Does the device that researcher in Finland and Belarus produced, which they called “metasheet”―a material into which were embedded wire helices capable of absorbing electromagnetic radiation in a very narrow band of wavelengths, but remain transparent for the others in the spectrum; the metasheet worked for microwave radiation, and a modified design was obtained to work for visible light― support my notion that light is produced at the interference point of the electromagnetic radiations when contact with an object or travel through a medium?
 
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
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?
 
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
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?
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.
 
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
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?
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.
 
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
Sweeping the Universe to keep the light traveling through it “turned off”!
I think that gravity plays a major role in keeping outer space dark by attracting dust particles and gas into the domain of nearby space objects. Earth’s gravity attracts about 15,000 tons of space debris yearly, preventing their amassing across the nearby outer space. If this amount of dust particles were to let buildup around our planet, it would have turned the night illuminated.
 
Mar 4, 2020
336
44
730
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.
 
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
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.
“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.
 
Mar 13, 2021
5
0
30
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?
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.
 
Jan 25, 2020
22
4
535
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.
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?
 
Mar 4, 2020
336
44
730
Without a media, one can not see the side of light. One can see the flashlight beam from the side, because of the air media. Out in space, you can't see side light.

The velocity of the particles in the sun's liquid state, is lower than the velocity of the particles in the gaseous atmosphere.....the less dense environment gives the particles a longer acceleration time....to go faster. Not as many collisions. But the collisions are more energetic.

Density controls the acceleration time, which determines the velocity. The velocity is the amount of energy the particles has.

It's a density gradient that gives us a light bow(rainbow). Or can bow a flashlight beam thru a tank of sugar water. Another density gradient is used as evidence of a gravity bow.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY