How is it known that the Milky Way is a spiral galaxy ?

In article om,
Weatherlawyer wrote:
Something is either moving or the path it takes has
undulating features it can not "be" both.

What makes you think that?

-- Richard

In article . com,
Weatherlawyer wrote:



Define science, clot.
(But keep it to yourself. You have lost my attention.)


I wouldn't be able o do it in such a fashion as to reach your infantile
level - so welcome to Mr Killfile.

--
The true enemy of science is psuedoscience...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi,
I'm an absolute newbie
I just wonder how light propagates 13 billion years to hit our
retina,
through void, with nothing to prop against?
And as in a crime novel, "cherchez la femme", if you look at the
universe, it's packed with light no matter
where you go, why is light so meaningful to understand the system?

Hi,

Newton's first law of motion:

Every object...

So you consider light is an object?

If you study the Meyer Zender interferometer, it would be an object
with a mind of its own?
So an electro magnetic wave is a thinking object?


How sad, pretending to be an ingenue to get people hooked then 'blinding
them' with your superior knowledge.
Except that you got the name wrong, its the Mach Zehnder interferometer
and nobody cares but you.

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Dworetsky wrote:

This was the one used to observe high precision stellar positions,
motions, and parallaxes for around 100,000 stars. You have just claimed
it
couldn't be done.

Not quite.

I was informed that parallax had yet to be determined for any stars in
a thread some weeks back.

You what ? ? ?
You were told 3 times that parallax had been measured.

Obviously I should have kept up to date in the intervening weeks.


Paying attention to what people have told you would be a start!

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Dworetsky wrote:

This was the one used to observe high precision stellar positions,
motions, and parallaxes for around 100,000 stars. You have just claimed
it
couldn't be done.

Not quite.

I was informed that parallax had yet to be determined for any stars in
a thread some weeks back.

Obviously I should have kept up to date in the intervening weeks.


Or kept up with science that is only 170 years old?

Who was this person whom you regarded as an expert on the question?
Wouldn't be a Creationist idiot named McCoy, would it? He showed up making
such claims on other groups not long ago. Usually he confines his prattle
to talk.origins.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

wrote in
oups.com:


Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
wrote in news:1149050310.985264.243480
@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Hi,
I'm an absolute newbie
I just wonder how light propagates 13 billion years to hit our
retin
a,
through void, with nothing to prop against?
And as in a crime novel, "cherchez la femme", if you look at the
universe, it's packed with light no matter
where you go, why is light so meaningful to understand the system?

De la discussion jaillit la lumière

Ishke Baha


Light is a self-propagating electromagnetic wave, and unlike sound
waves doesn't need a medium to wave against, per se. Light is a
electric and magnetic wave at right angles to each other, and to the
direction of motion.

The universe is currently dark energy dominated, but was matter
dominated and in the early days was radiation dominated. A quick
readup on the cosmic microwave background would give you a good
starter to cosmology.

--
The true enemy of science is psuedoscience...

Hi,
Light is a self-propagating electromagnetic wave
How can it propagate without consuming energy?

Newton's first law of motion:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state
of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

As long as the photon doesn't interact with anything else it continues
on its' merry way.

The erroneous belief that things come to rest unless a force is
applied, was debunked by Galileo. A force is required to change the
state of motion as stated by Newton. The source of the error is that we
are used to things being slowed down by mechanical friction, air
resistance etc.

I thought there was no such thing as perpetual movement

You thought wrong. You are probably confused with perpetual motion
machin
es
of the first and second kind.

Klazmon.




SNIP

Hi,

Newton's first law of motion:

Every object...

So you consider light is an object?

You stated:

"How can it propagate without consuming energy?
I thought there was no such thing as perpetual movement"

I pointed out that the belief that propagation requires consumption of
energy is erroneous.

Case closed.

Klazmon.

Nonsense snipped

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in
:

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Dworetsky wrote:

This was the one used to observe high precision stellar positions,
motions, and parallaxes for around 100,000 stars. You have just
claimed
it
couldn't be done.

Not quite.

I was informed that parallax had yet to be determined for any stars in
a thread some weeks back.

Obviously I should have kept up to date in the intervening weeks.


Or kept up with science that is only 170 years old?

Who was this person whom you regarded as an expert on the question?
Wouldn't be a Creationist idiot named McCoy, would it? He showed up
making such claims on other groups not long ago. Usually he confines
his prattle to talk.origins.

I saw that particular t.o thread where McCoy was making all sorts of
idiotic claims about surveying saying that stellar parallaxes were too
small to measure because the angles were smaller than surveyors liked to
use. He didn't even realise that Tycho Brahe was measuring positions to an
accuracy of a couple of arc minutes or better even before the invention of
the telescope.

Klazmon.

"Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message
7.6...
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in
:

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Dworetsky wrote:

This was the one used to observe high precision stellar positions,
motions, and parallaxes for around 100,000 stars. You have just
claimed
it
couldn't be done.

Not quite.

I was informed that parallax had yet to be determined for any stars in
a thread some weeks back.

Obviously I should have kept up to date in the intervening weeks.


Or kept up with science that is only 170 years old?

Who was this person whom you regarded as an expert on the question?
Wouldn't be a Creationist idiot named McCoy, would it? He showed up
making such claims on other groups not long ago. Usually he confines
his prattle to talk.origins.

I saw that particular t.o thread where McCoy was making all sorts of
idiotic claims about surveying saying that stellar parallaxes were too
small to measure because the angles were smaller than surveyors liked to
use. He didn't even realise that Tycho Brahe was measuring positions to an
accuracy of a couple of arc minutes or better even before the invention of
the telescope.

Klazmon.

McCoy is good mostly for entertainment. He is far too easy a target.
uk.sci.astronomy readers who are interested in evolution are welcome to lurk
at talk.origins and contribute. Uh, except for oriel36.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)