Re: Seeing in the Dark

On Sep 23, 8:44 am, Margo Schulter <mschul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 22, 5:55 am, br...@xxxxxxx (Brian Tung) wrote:
Margo Schulter wrote:

One more: William
Herschel may have observed spiral galaxies, but he did not identify
them as such--their spiral nature was not discovered until Lord Rosse
sketched M51 in 1845--some two decades after Herschel's death.

Galaxies were first observationally observed ,as such,in the mid
1920's and Rosse only identified them as spiral nebulae ,read it
yourself unless you have a severe reading disability aloing with an
intellectual and intutive one -

Hello, there, Gerald.

Here I would take Brian to be saying that William Herschel may have
observed objects now recognized as spiral galaxies, but that their
spiral nature was discovered by Lord Rosse in 1845, not necessarily
their nature as galaxies.


Galaxies,as seperate stellar islands,were observed in the mid 1920's
and before that,the perception of stars scattered willy nilly
throughout space was the only idea known to humanity.You should be
laughing your socks off at Albert's idea for the structural universe
given that he wrote it before Galctic structure and the seperation of
these stellar islands was observed -

"There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although
very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the
same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we
should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of
approximately the same kind and density."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

Funny,funny,funny !.

Maybe you can instruct Brian here on why it is hilarious but more
often than not there is a tendency to defend what should be cast aside
in an instant.Perhaps galaxies are not beautiful enough for you to set
aside the zodiacal geometry of Flamsteed/Newton where the outward
symptoms emerged in the early 1900's with the exotic relativity junk.

http://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/images/m100.jpg










In fact, the "island universe" interpretation for some of these bodies
(itself a term of Kant) is nicely presented by William Herschel,
although he doesn't happen to use the word "galaxy."

"In 1845, Lord Rosse constructed a new telescope and was able to
distinguish between elliptical and spiral-shaped nebulae. He also
managed to make out individual point sources in some of these nebulae,
lending credence to Kant's earlier conjecture."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

What this means is that in 1920 they knew nothing of these massive
rotating stellar islands,in fact they went out of their way to reject
such notions in 1920.I think it is the most hilarious prediction in
all my time dealing with the material but then again,it takes an
astronomer toi know what is being said -

Read the Shapley-Curtis debate of that era and you'll see that Curtis
views spiral nebulae precisely as external galaxies, with Shaplow
acknowledging the attractions of his opponent's views in this debate,
but arguing that other factors make this interpretation less likely.
It turns out that Curtis was right about the nature of the spiral nebulae,
but Shapley right as to the generally greater scale of the Milky Way
itself.


Those guys were arguing without the benefit of modern imaging
techniques and powerful magnification,I use modern imaging to dispel
most of the junk that surrounds the great astronomical insights,and
especially the Copernican/Keplerian insights, yet I have to find an
individual who can think like an individual and depart from worshiping
mathematicians who can't reason properly with astronomical
material,even with images in front of them.





By the way, while the debate was an engaging and lively one, both
of the participants acknowledged some value in the other's contribution.
As it turned out, Hubble and others would use the Cepheid yardstick in
the following decade to resolve the issue; but this marked the point
at which "spiral nebulae as external galaxies" became the generally
accepted view, not then that view was first conceived.


My dear Margo,I am working with the combined cycles of the Earth,the
daily axial,the annual orbital,the galactic orbital and looking
further into how the structure of spiral gaxies indicate a greater
rotation present,just as hurricane structure is influence by a
rotation suppied by the Earth -

http://www.etymonline.com/columns/hurricane-galaxy.jpg

Most people instinctely know this but what you have is people trapped
in zodical/constellational geometry who remain praising those who
invented it.Einstein ,and those who follow the relativistic
precepts, is an unfortunate example of somebody who thinks they have
escaped the zodical framework of Flamsteed/Newton but are in fact
burying themselves deeper in it.

Regards




Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschul...@xxxxxxxxxx
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Seeing in the Dark
    ... them as such--their spiral nature was not discovered until Lord Rosse ... Galaxies were first observationally observed,as such,in the mid ... views spiral nebulae precisely as external galaxies, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Seeing in the Dark
    ... them as such--their spiral nature was not discovered until Lord Rosse ... Galaxies were first observationally observed,as such,in the mid ... 1920's and Rosse only identified them as spiral nebulae,read it ... She was not saying anything that disagreed with that - Lord Rosse, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)