Cosmic Light, Dark Energy/M, Distance, Error?

[Meem]

I was just watching the clouds and sky. Their might have been five minutes of dusk left, somewhere behind the Rockies, about ten minutes west on the horizon. It is about 9:25pm when I am looking at the brightest "star" or light in the sky. It's about fifty degrees off the horizon and more so, what appears to my perspective, to be more to the southern sky. I am not sure what it is exactly. It's been there for at least a few months, but appears to be moving to its apex in the sky. It's strange thinking of space and direction simultaneously. Well at least I think so. There has to be some distance to it.

I am just ... going on about how I got to my question, which is yet to come. I hope nobody expects something concrete, certainly not provable or profound.

I'd like to say it is a planet, though there are lots of stars out there too. I've always, well sometime in the past few years, thought of space like an ocean. Of air or water, take your pick. There was a I suspect a whiff of cloud the passed in front of it, while in the window of a clear patch. It appeared to dim and waiver a bit.

Could measurement of distance and curvature be flawed, due to "dark"-clouds in space? People suspect it is a larger majority of volume in the universe, dark-matter. It's right in front of your face, and you can't see it. Because it's translucent. What if it is something like the UV-filter on my Cannon? Could other stars be closer than they appear, in the mirror, or radio ... x-ray. Because it makes them appear to be dimmer than they are?

Could its shape and make-up behave something like radar wave on a stealth plane that has a very low signature? Or would it be more like those invisibility cloaks we are making? Or shields we are raising? Ok, I know I have a hard time with seriousness, but wouldn't that make something like peering out to measure "the curve" of the universe .... extremely problematic, if even possible.

That last portion, too assumptive on the end?

[labelwench]

You raise, to me, an interesting question, when I am able to observe first hand, how easy it is to trick our mind with visual images.

The mind seeks to fit things to an existing or hypothesized pattern.

How many things may we have looked right past, and not seen them for what they are, because we were looking for something else, or did not recognize the simple, in plain sight, when we are examining something in the combine?

Our views from and into space have produced marvelous images, and yet how can we be certain of what we view, and what our mind makes of it?

Yes, a good question, in my opinion.

[Graybeard]

Because it's translucent. What if it is something like the UV-filter on my Cannon?

I think you mean Canon .... otherwise you have a very strange artillery piece, which don't normally have UV filters on them.

Measurements of space are parabolas.

cool bananas ... greg

[Meem]

It's something a lot more passive then a uv-filter. Also, unlike a uv-filter, the camera is submerged in it. (edit**) *All subjects are submerged in it as well.* But the largest difference is, it filters all light waves and signal in space.

[labelwench]

I think you mean Canon .... otherwise you have a very strange artillery piece, which don't normally have UV filters on them.

Measurements of space are parabolas.

cool bananas ... greg

Canon, Cannon, those on board spell-check devices do have certain limitations, lol.....

Recently saw an otherwise professional looking poster for a returning local band that read 'THERE BACK', and that's not the name of the group, ROTFL.....