Seeing In The Dark thread
- From: oriel36 <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:46:43 -0700
Apologies to Margo for posting a response as a seperate
thread,something up with posting through the Google newsreader
On Sep 23, 10:33 pm, Margo Schulter <mschul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 -
Hi, there, and thank you for an invitation to clarify some basic points
regarding the history of astronomy and just what the "cosmological
principle" does or doesn't mean.
First of all, while indeed the contributions of Hubble and others in
the 1920's were indeed a dramatic watershed in galactic astronomy,
I would consider it a total misconception to opine that before this
breakthrough, there was only a "perception of stars scattered willy
nilly throughout space."
So Margo,who would you like to attribute the discovery of galaxies
to ?,tell me in what year did another observational
astronomer,other than Hubble, determine that these giant rotating
stellar islands known as galaxies are distinct from ours .I quite
like the historical trajectory the way that it is but as this is a
different era where even the history of discovery is flexible,even
poor Edwin is not exempt -
'The universe goes beyond the Milky Way galaxy'
"Hubble's arrival at Mount Wilson in 1919 coincided roughly with the
completion of the 100-inch Hooker Telescope, then the world's largest
telescope. At this time, the prevailing view of the cosmos was that
the universe consists entirely of the Milky Way galaxy. Using the
Hooker Telescope, Hubble identified Cepheid variables (a kind of star;
see also standard candle) in several objects, including the Andromeda
Galaxy, that, at the time were known as "nebulae" and had been assumed
to lie within the Milky Way. His observations in 1923-1924
conclusively proved that these objects were much more distant than
previously thought and were hence galaxies themselves, rather than
constituents of the Milky Way. Announced on January 1, 1925, this
discovery fundamentally changed the view of the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble
Reading William Herschel's prefaces to the catalogues of 1786 and 1789
each containing 1000 nebulae observed by his sister Caroline Herschel
and himself, would quickly dispel any such misconception.
What is it you wish to do,an intelligent person notes that before
Hubble discovered galaxies in the mid-1920's,the Andromeda galaxy was
known as the Andromeda Nebula and considered part of the Milky Way.Do
you clearly understand the difference between an apparent
concentration of stars within a galaxy as nebula and galactic
structure itself.Good,you do,then let's move on or would you rather
argue the point ?
He writes
as different types of nebulae or clusters as likely representing
different stages of evolution in "sidereal systems," rather like
plants in a garden at different stages of their life histories.
Further, he proposes that universal Newtonian gravitation helps
shape sidereal systems just as it shapes our own solar system.
Herschel is talking Nebula while I am talking from as a 21st century
person who recognises galaxies,distinct stellar islands apart from
our own Milky Way galaxy.When you decide to join me in the 21st
century and acknowledge seperate stellar islands then let me know.A
mediocre person is patient Margo,a truly talented person learns to
live with their impatiernce so if you wish to waste my time then let
me know.
As to Albert Einstein:
As to Albert indeed !,I quite enjoy the hilarious pronouncements
coming from that guy but favor dealing with Newton's original work
where some damage was done and even further back to John Flamsteed
where the real damage was done.
"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
Since even pre-1920's, Einstein was very likely aware of the variety
of sidereal systems (Caroline and William Herschel had started their
"sweeps for nebulae" in 1782-1783 as a result of her successes with
modest instruments in finding new objects not catalogued by Messier),
I would interpret his statement reasonably to mean that the universe
is essentially isotropic on _very large scales_. So interpreted, its
validity is enhanced rather than falsified by Hubble's wonderful
discoveries, facilitated by Henrietta Swan Leavitt's cepheid
period-luminosity correlation (whose centennial we will be celebrating
2008-2012).
Look,you did not find the passages from Albert to be genuinely funny
so what can I say further .the lead in of those passages was the
lament that light leaving stars (minus galaxies,remember !) would go
to waste hence 'warped space' ect.I have'nt dealt with that material
for years now but it still is as funny now as it was back then -
"This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html
It takes a very 'special' person to take Albert's reasons seriously
but then again he give the guys in the early 20th century hope that
they had escaped Isaac's clockwork solar system .
Funny,funny,funny !.
Indeed the real changes and surprises regarding our view of the universe
_are_ humorous, but I'd see it as a benign Olympian laughter, the
insight that comes from "standing on the shoulders of giants," with
Newton and the Herschels not the least of these.
The Olypiam laughter is that when you think you are standing on the
shoulders of giants,make sure that Flamsteed is not one of them,the
poor guy created a false correlation between axial rotation and
constellational or 'fixed star' geometry,The early 20th century
nonsense is a consequence of Flamsteed's error,not Newton's.
Today, as in the youthful Einstein's era, an isotropic universe at the
largest scales does not imply a lawless or structureless universe. It's
notable that Bishop Nicholas of Cusa, who in the mid-15th century
proposed a stellar universe "whose center is everyone and whose
circumference is nowhere," also took an interest in the concept of
impetus, and came close to formulating Newton's First Law of Motion.
Newton was an Arian heretic which is why it is easy enough to work
through his errors or rather his maneuvering with ease,he behave like
an Arian in how he operates and the ends he seeks but as you are
probably not Christian,I would not expect you to know this.
Nicolas of Cusa,in using that saying,was working with the
contemplative Christian tradition for he approaches natural/celestial
phenomena with the same respect as he approaches Spiritual
matters.Contemplative Christianity is not sitting alone and pondering
material,it means putting oneself in the cauldron where ideas are
reduced to a molten state before they reform.The center of Cusa's life
is a life of love and not knowledge,I know this because he uses an
author that is beloved by all Christians from the contemplative
tradition notwithstanding that you can be both a denominational
Christian and a contemplative Christian simultaneously.
The 'laws' of Newton are just old testament 'moral laws' rewriten for
an audience suited to consider nature,celestial and terrestrial in
those terms ,a weak form of gnosticism in other words.The thing is
that Newton's followers extract the pseudo-religious element of
Newton ,impose an astrological element and being neither religious or
scientific,exist in a very anonymous and unstable state between
science and matters of faith.It shows in the way you act as one voice
with no distinction between one or the other.
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.
Actually the advent of photographic imaging and spectroscopy in the
middle to late 19th century paved the way for lots of discoveries,
including, critically, Leavitt's. The emerging concept of the main
sequence provided one line of argument for Shapley and Curtis, while
the cepheid "standard candle" helped neatly to resolve the
controversy. Maybe if Leavitt had had better support to follow
through on her germinal research and papers of 1908-1912, she might
have helped to reach Hubble's conclusion on spiral nebulae as
external galaxies before 1920.
Maybe I'm biased as a visual observer <grin>,
In the 1920's when these giant stellar islands were discovered it
should have consigned the exotic nonsense of relativity to
oblivion,instead they simply went from 'stars everywhere' to galaxies
everywhere ' and kept on talking as if nothing happened.Magnification
is a facet of astronomy but only a facet,putting those images into
correct context makes a person an astronomer.
but I think we should
applaud and celebrate the tentative conclusions drawn by an
astronomer such as William Herschel in seeking out "the construction
of the heavens" and the application of universal gravitation to
sidereal as well as planetary systems as well as the technology
of the times would permit.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschul...@xxxxxxxxxx
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
Presently you are not doing the Herschel's any favors,in fact you are
undermining their achievements along with Edwin Hubble and all the
other minor astronomers.The trajectory of discovery of galaxies as
seperate stellar islands to our own is truly a 20th century
observational achievement that cannot be forced back into the late
18th century,you can try if you wish,but this is why I am correct in
seeing nothing but astrologers here.
I can take people like Isaac apart because he was at least consistent
in his maneuvering whereas the early 20th century notions are mere
trivia,something that can be found easily in the late 19th century
excellent sci-fi novel by H.G. Wells -
"Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it.
It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference
between time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our
consciousness moves along it. But some foolish people have got hold of
the wrong side of that idea. You have all heard what they have to say
about this Fourth Dimension?'" 1898
http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html
Last week I give you a new motion to look at,the orbital change in
orientation of the planet attached to orbital motion,it is tricky
enough to discern the motion save that Herschel's discovery of Uranus
and the extreme difference between axial and orbital orientation helps
ease the perceptual difficulty.Now that ,Margo,is how you praise the
Herschels -
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg
Thank you for responding anyway,
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Seeing In The Dark thread
- From: Mike Simmons
- Re: Seeing In The Dark thread
- Prev by Date: Major ISPs likely behind bombing of usenet with nonsense posts
- Next by Date: Re: Which major star parties have Bortle Class 1 skies?
- Previous by thread: Major ISPs likely behind bombing of usenet with nonsense posts
- Next by thread: Re: Seeing In The Dark thread
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
