Seeing In The Dark thread

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 wrote:
oriel36 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

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/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

Thank you for responding anyway,

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:46:43 -0700, oriel36 wrote:

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

Margo is right that the understanding of the nature of the cosmos did not
suddenly go from a kind of dark ages into the light with one of Hubble's
observations. There were many others who believed in the "island universe"
concept and there was good evidence for it. The red shift of galaxies was
observed years before Hubble and it was noted that the highest red shifts
were associated with "nebulae" with the smallest apparent size and lowest
luminance, both of which suggested that they were farther away. But there
wasn't conclusive proof that the red shift was caused by the "nebulae's"
radial velocity nor that the smaller and fainter appearing "nebulae"
appeared that way because they were more distant. Individual stars were
observed and photographed with the 60-inch telescope before the 100-inch
was built and their faintness -- if they were stars -- indicated that they
were at extreme distances. But there was no proof that they were stars
rather than "nebular condensations".

What Hubble did was show that at least some of the "nebular condensations"
were indeed stars and that their faintness was due to their extreme
distance. It was a great accomplishment and the original observation even
survived someone else's marking the variable star as a nova before Hubble
took a look and identified it as a Cepheid. I have no bias against Hubble
but quite the opposite -- I've been at Mount Wilson for 25 years and have
written articles and made countless presentations on its history. And I've
described his discovery and his continuing projects many hundreds of times
in giving tours of the 100-inch. I've seen the original plate discovery
plate, too -- the black and white reproductions are wrong -- he wrote
"-VAR!-" in red marker! But while science very occassionally will move in
one giant step it never progresses from such a gross lack of understanding
to understanding as simply as you've described. Hubble was a giant and a
visionary who had intuition for many things that proved to be right (others
I know who knew him will admit as much despite disliking him personally,
sometimes quite intensely). This doesn't diminish his discoveries. In
some ways it makes them even more important -- others sometimes had the
data but Hubble's insight led him to conclusions that others missed. But
the idea that the spiral nebulae were separate galaxies was not his alone.
He put the matter to rest in one dramatic observation, though, and that is
indeed a very rare event for which he deserves the credit he gets.

Mike Simmons

On Sep 25, 6:48 am, Mike Simmons wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:46:43 -0700, oriel36 wrote:
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

Margo is right that the understanding of the nature of the cosmos did not
suddenly go from a kind of dark ages into the light with one of Hubble's
observations.

Tell me,who discovered the moons of Jupiter ? ,the answer is Galileo
using a 33X telescope announced in 1610

Tell me,who discovered galaxies ?,the answer is Edwin Hubble using the
100-inch Hooker Telescope announced in 1925


When Albert wrote that hilarious passage in 1920,his view of the
organisation of stars in space would not have been much different than
Newton's even allowing for the lie he dumped on Isaac -

"As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite. 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.
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a
finite island in the infinite ocean of space"

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

Newton's idea of the stars is pretty much what could be expected for
the late 17th century -

"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." Newton












There were many others who believed in the "island universe"
concept and there was good evidence for it. The red shift of galaxies was
observed years before Hubble and it was noted that the highest red shifts
were associated with "nebulae" with the smallest apparent size and lowest
luminance, both of which suggested that they were farther away.

The red shift of 'galaxies',tell me,who,apart from Hubble knew that
these nebulae were galaxies ?.What unamed person before 1925
discovered external galaxies before Hubble ?.




But there
wasn't conclusive proof that the red shift was caused by the "nebulae's"
radial velocity nor that the smaller and fainter appearing "nebulae"
appeared that way because they were more distant. Individual stars were
observed and photographed with the 60-inch telescope before the 100-inch
was built and their faintness -- if they were stars -- indicated that they
were at extreme distances. But there was no proof that they were stars
rather than "nebular condensations".


What Hubble did was show that at least some of the "nebular condensations"
were indeed stars and that their faintness was due to their extreme
distance. It was a great accomplishment and the original observation even
survived someone else's marking the variable star as a nova before Hubble
took a look and identified it as a Cepheid. I have no bias against Hubble
but quite the opposite -- I've been at Mount Wilson for 25 years and have
written articles and made countless presentations on its history.

Who would you like,apart from Hubble,to attribute the discovery of
external galaxies to( which infers our own is a seperate galaxy) ?.You
want to rewrite history top put the discovery before 1920 then be my
guest,I have seen a good deal worse applied to Kepler and Copernicus.






And I've
described his discovery and his continuing projects many hundreds of times
in giving tours of the 100-inch. I've seen the original plate discovery
plate, too -- the black and white reproductions are wrong -- he wrote
"-VAR!-" in red marker! But while science very occassionally will move in
one giant step it never progresses from such a gross lack of understanding
to understanding as simply as you've described.

The guy knew what he had done and that is some experience for an
astronomer.I am never tired of telling people here that observational
astronomy is a facet of astronomy but then I look at what the concepts
those images are attached to.Maybe when you guide people to the 100-
inch,you can tell them how in 1920 they went out of their way to
consider stellar islands but in 1923-1925 the telescope discovered
otherwise -

"The latter theory rather requires that the universe should have a
kind of centre in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and
that as we proceed outwards from this centre the group-density of the
stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is
succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe
ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space."

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

You probably will never find that passage from 1920 funny but then
again you appear to have lost the generous correlation which Hubble
drew in viewing an external galaxy to infer that we reside in these
huge stellar islands.Take a look at the magnificence of the
observational discovery -

http://www.dur.ac.uk/e.j.younger/m100.jpg








Hubble was a giant and a
visionary who had intuition for many things that proved to be right (others
I know who knew him will admit as much despite disliking him personally,
sometimes quite intensely). This doesn't diminish his discoveries. In
some ways it makes them even more important -- others sometimes had the
data but Hubble's insight led him to conclusions that others missed. But
the idea that the spiral nebulae were separate galaxies was not his alone.
He put the matter to rest in one dramatic observation, though, and that is
indeed a very rare event for which he deserves the credit he gets.

Mike Simmons

He deserves credit as an astronomer for infering that our own Milky
Way is a galaxy through observing that some of the antecedent
'nebulae' such as the Andromeda 'nebula' was actually an external
galaxy. I infer the change in orbital orientation of the Earth by
observing the behavior of Uranus which allows the Earth a seperate
motion attached to orbital motion -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

It is rare that a group of people involved in an endeavor would
willingly deface their own accomplishments ,even recent one like
Hubble let alone the older ones of Copernicus and Kepler.I enjoy
Hubble's contribution in a slightly different way than I enjoy the
older astronomers nevertheless the ability to infer through correct
intepretation seems to be entirely lost in this era and that is what
binds Hubble to Copernicus,Galileo and Kepler.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:56:56 -0700, oriel36 wrote:

Tell me,who discovered the moons of Jupiter ? ,the answer is Galileo
using a 33X telescope announced in 1610

Tell me,who discovered galaxies ?,the answer is Edwin Hubble using the
100-inch Hooker Telescope announced in 1925

First, trying to equate Galileo's discovery -- which was made in a complete
vacuum of knowledge -- and Hubble's -- which was made after decades of
observational research and centuries of conjecture -- is absurdly
inappropriate. No one had ever seen the moons of Jupiter before. Galaxies
(or spiral nebulae or whatever you want to call them) were nothing new.
Indeed, the nature of the Galilean moons was debated after Galileo's
discover of them just as galaxies were. Does that mean they weren't
"discovered" by Galileo but instead were discovered by the person who
proved the nature of Jupiter and its moons?

You've redefined the word "discover". Most would agree that the galaxies
were not discovered by Hubble any more than the Moon was "discovered" by
the first person to prove its nature. Galileo discovered the existence of
the moons of Jupiter. Hubble discovered the strong evidence (but not the
first evidence) to the extreme *distance* to one of the known spiral
nebulae.

-- Lots of irrelevant stuff about Einstein, Newton and humor skipped --

There were many others who believed in the "island universe"
concept and there was good evidence for it. The red shift of galaxies was
observed years before Hubble and it was noted that the highest red shifts
were associated with "nebulae" with the smallest apparent size and lowest
luminance, both of which suggested that they were farther away.

The red shift of 'galaxies',tell me,who,apart from Hubble knew that
these nebulae were galaxies ?.What unamed person before 1925
discovered external galaxies before Hubble ?.

Look at the paper Margo cites. It was published in 1919 and cites other
earlier works using the term "galaxies". Hubble didn't invent the term.
As to who knew they were galaxies, there were many who were convinced of
their nature from a prepondance of evidence at the time. At what point
does someone "know" their nature? One could use your reasoning to argue
that Walter Baade was the first to "discover" the galaxies and "know" their
true nature when his work in the 1940s showed that there were two types of
Cepheids and that most galaxies' distances had been underestimated by a
factor of two. That really changed how we see them. So who decides when
the state of knowledge has reached a threshold at which we say we "know"
about them? What's the threshold? There isn't one (except that you seem
to have defined one for your own use).

Why do you think Hubble was looking at stars in M31 anyway? Was he just
lucky he happened to be looking there for no reason and stumbled across a
Cepheid? His work was based on what was already known. He was looking for
further evidence of the theory he believed to be true. Was he the only one
who believed this? Nope. He wasn't working in a vacuum (no pun intended).

And how would Hubble's discovery of a Cepheid in M31 been received if there
was no other evidence of the extra-galactic nature of that spiral nebula?
The interpretation that it proved a great distance to M31 would have been
highly controversial and adapted by a very small number of astronomers. We
can look at the work of Slipher on measuring the red shift of galaxies and
say that he had "proof". Or that the spectra was continous in contrast to
the gaseous nebulae (and many other differences in characteristics). Or
that the spiral nature corresponded to the star stream work showing the
Milky Way also had arms. But none of these by themselves gave proof.

What Hubble did was take a very large step from what he and many others
thought was a convincing argument for the extra-galactic nature of the
spiral nebulae to an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. The question
went from controversial to virtual certainty in one discovery, which is
quite rare. Hubble further solidified his reputation through decades more
outstanding work on the nature of the galaxies (which even he continued to
call "nebulae" at times). But he didn't suddenly come upon an insight that
was not already shared by others. That rare event is reserved for such as
Galileo in first observing the moons of Jupiter and a few others.

I suggest that instead of railing against everyone else rewriting history
you do some reading and learn a bit about it yourself. The best way to do
that, IMHO, is to go to the source material like old papers such as the one
Margo cited. Or better yet, that review paper's original sources. You can
see what people knew and thought in their own words.

Mike Simmons

On 26 Sep, 01:52, Mike Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:56:56 -0700, oriel36 wrote:
Tell me,who discovered the moons of Jupiter ? ,the answer is Galileo
using a 33X telescope announced in 1610

Tell me,who discovered galaxies ?,the answer is Edwin Hubble using the
100-inch Hooker Telescope announced in 1925

First, trying to equate Galileo's discovery -- which was made in a complete
vacuum of knowledge -- and Hubble's -- which was made after decades of
observational research and centuries of conjecture -- is absurdly
inappropriate. No one had ever seen the moons of Jupiter before. Galaxies
(or spiral nebulae or whatever you want to call them) were nothing new.
Indeed, the nature of the Galilean moons was debated after Galileo's
discover of them just as galaxies were. Does that mean they weren't
"discovered" by Galileo but instead were discovered by the person who
proved the nature of Jupiter and its moons?

You've redefined the word "discover". Most would agree that the galaxies
were not discovered by Hubble any more than the Moon was "discovered" by
the first person to prove its nature. Galileo discovered the existence of
the moons of Jupiter. Hubble discovered the strong evidence (but not the
first evidence) to the extreme *distance* to one of the known spiral
nebulae.

-- Lots of irrelevant stuff about Einstein, Newton and humor skipped --

There were many others who believed in the "island universe"
concept and there was good evidence for it. The red shift of galaxies was
observed years before Hubble and it was noted that the highest red shifts
were associated with "nebulae" with the smallest apparent size and lowest
luminance, both of which suggested that they were farther away.

The red shift of 'galaxies',tell me,who,apart from Hubble knew that
these nebulae were galaxies ?.What unamed person before 1925
discovered external galaxies before Hubble ?.

Look at the paper Margo cites. It was published in 1919 and cites other
earlier works using the term "galaxies". Hubble didn't invent the term.
As to who knew they were galaxies, there were many who were convinced of
their nature from a prepondance of evidence at the time. At what point
does someone "know" their nature? One could use your reasoning to argue
that Walter Baade was the first to "discover" the galaxies and "know" their
true nature when his work in the 1940s showed that there were two types of
Cepheids and that most galaxies' distances had been underestimated by a
factor of two. That really changed how we see them. So who decides when
the state of knowledge has reached a threshold at which we say we "know"
about them? What's the threshold? There isn't one (except that you seem
to have defined one for your own use).

Why do you think Hubble was looking at stars in M31 anyway? Was he just
lucky he happened to be looking there for no reason and stumbled across a
Cepheid? His work was based on what was already known. He was looking for
further evidence of the theory he believed to be true. Was he the only one
who believed this? Nope. He wasn't working in a vacuum (no pun intended).

And how would Hubble's discovery of a Cepheid in M31 been received if there
was no other evidence of the extra-galactic nature of that spiral nebula?
The interpretation that it proved a great distance to M31 would have been
highly controversial and adapted by a very small number of astronomers. We
can look at the work of Slipher on measuring the red shift of galaxies and
say that he had "proof". Or that the spectra was continous in contrast to
the gaseous nebulae (and many other differences in characteristics). Or
that the spiral nature corresponded to the star stream work showing the
Milky Way also had arms. But none of these by themselves gave proof.

What Hubble did was take a very large step from what he and many others
thought was a convincing argument for the extra-galactic nature of the
spiral nebulae to an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. The question
went from controversial to virtual certainty in one discovery, which is
quite rare. Hubble further solidified his reputation through decades more
outstanding work on the nature of the galaxies (which even he continued to
call "nebulae" at times). But he didn't suddenly come upon an insight that
was not already shared by others. That rare event is reserved for such as
Galileo in first observing the moons of Jupiter and a few others.

I suggest that instead of railing against everyone else rewriting history
you do some reading and learn a bit about it yourself. The best way to do
that, IMHO, is to go to the source material like old papers such as the one
Margo cited. Or better yet, that review paper's original sources. You can
see what people knew and thought in their own words.

Mike Simmons

I have given you the change in orbital orientation of the Earth by the
same method which Copernicus and Hubble used ,albeit in different ways
and for different ends.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

You want to destroy your own reputation by denying Hubble credit for
the observational discovery of galaxies thereby recognising our
stellar island as a seperate galaxy then that is your own business,

There were astronomers before Copernicus who believed the Earth was
not the center of the Universe but the exquisite reasoning of
Copernicus led to the replacement of the Sun's position between Mars
and Venus with that of the Earth allied with assigning axial rotation
as the cause of the daily cycle.An astronomer deserves credit for how
he reached a conclusion rather than the conclusion itself,Copernicus
did it with observations,Hubble did it with observations and I did it
with observations of Uranus and applied it to the Earth.

"Once at Mount Wilson, Hubble used the 100-inch to attack the spiral
nebulae problem. Believing them to be "island universes" (now called
galaxies), Hubble looked for variable stars (which vary in brightness)
in the Andromeda nebula. He found several, but one proved to be very
important. It was a Cepheid variable, a type that had been shown to be
useful as an indicator of distance. The search for Cepheids was
expanded to other spiral nebulae, and dozens were found, all of which
indicated that the distances to the nebulae were far too great for
them to be a part of our galaxy. When the results were announced to a
meeting of the American Astronomical Society on New Year's Day, 1925,
the debate was over. According to Mount Wilson and Las Campanas
Observatories staff member Allan Sandage in the "Hubble Atlas of
Galaxies", Hubble's discovery with the 100-inch had "proved beyond
question that nebulae were external galaxies comparable to our own. It
opened the last frontier of astronomy, and gave, for the first time,
the correct conceptual value of the universe. "

http://www.mtwilson.edu/his/art/g1a4.php

I read your article from 1984 and look at what you wrote yesterday in
your response to me (minus the name I was looking for other than
Hubble) .If a person is willing to destroy his own reputation for
numbskulls like Isaac and Albert then so be it but how you are going
to remain as a tour guide for Mount Wilson I do not know.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:38:18 -0700, oriel36 wrote:

I have given you the change in orbital orientation of the Earth by the
same method which Copernicus and Hubble used ,albeit in different ways
and for different ends.

Beats me why you're doing that. You seem to present lots and lots of
tangential and irrelevant stuff. I'm not interested.

You want to destroy your own reputation by denying Hubble credit for
the observational discovery of galaxies thereby recognising our
stellar island as a seperate galaxy then that is your own business,

Hubble did make a big discovery but you've simply misstated it.

I read your article from 1984 and look at what you wrote yesterday in
your response to me (minus the name I was looking for other than
Hubble) .

To paraphrase someone else, you don't do nuance, do you? There's nothing
inconsistent between what I wrote 23 years ago and what I said yesterday.
Hubble made a great discovery -- as I said in 1984 and in our discussion --
but he didn't discover galaxies. I see now that your argument is simply
semantics. You've given your own definitions to commonly used words and
substituted them. I've given you some additional information (rather than
a new language) but you don't seem open to anything new. I have nothing
more to educate you with.

By the way, that article you quoted -- which credits Hubble for his
discovery of a Cepheid in M31 but not the discovery of galaxies -- was
reviewed by someone who worked closely with Hubble. Read it a bit more
carefully.

If a person is willing to destroy his own reputation for
numbskulls like Isaac and Albert then so be it

This is the stuff I don't get. What do Newton and Einstein have to do with
any of this? You keep bringing in irrelevant stuff. Is Barney the
dinosaur involved somehow?

but how you are going
to remain as a tour guide for Mount Wilson I do not know.

First, that's not an accurate description of what I do. I still do give
tours sometimes but I'm busy with quite a bit more including maintaining
the web site you're browsing (which I also created). After 25 years of
doing a lot of different things at Mount Wilson (including training most
of the guides) my reputation seems solid enough there and elsewhere. The
one thing you say that I can agree with is your last four words -- "I do
not know."

Mike Simmons

Mike Simmons wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:46:43 -0700, oriel36 wrote:

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

Margo is right that the understanding of the nature of the cosmos did not
suddenly go from a kind of dark ages into the light with one of Hubble's
observations. There were many others who believed in the "island universe"
concept and there was good evidence for it. The red shift of galaxies was
observed years before Hubble and it was noted that the highest red shifts
were associated with "nebulae" with the smallest apparent size and lowest
luminance, both of which suggested that they were farther away. But there
wasn't conclusive proof that the red shift was caused by the "nebulae's"
radial velocity nor that the smaller and fainter appearing "nebulae"
appeared that way because they were more distant. Individual stars were
observed and photographed with the 60-inch telescope before the 100-inch
was built and their faintness -- if they were stars -- indicated that they
were at extreme distances. But there was no proof that they were stars
rather than "nebular condensations".

Hi, Mike, and thank you for your expert commentary that fleshes out and
more fully substantiates what I've been trying to say. I have immense
respect for the observational experience and knowledge of Hubble's work
behind your insights.

There's a fine article that I found on the Web which, along with the famous
Shapley-Curtis debate, may give people an idea of how the issue of "external
galaxies" stood in the years immediately preceding Hubble's great discovery:
"The Problem of Island Universes" by Hector Macpherson (1919)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1919JRASC..13..360M.

In addition to chronicling some of the ebb and flow of scientific opinion
on this question, Macpherson gives some nice illustrations of the use of the
term "external galaxies" in this 19th- and early 20th-century era, whether
the hypothesis was favorably viewed for some types of nebulae (as sometimes
with Proctor, e.g. 1869, 1886), or regarded as no longer a serious contender
(as with Clerke, 1905).

What this discussion says to me as an amateur astronomer, with your remarks
providing much enrichment, is that many people may be involved in the
formulation, testing, refinement, and ultimate demonstration of a hypothesis
like that of island universes or external galaxies, with everyone involved
sharing in the beauty and honor of it all -- and not least, of course,
Hubble with his decisive demonstration.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter

Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430

On 25 Sep 2007 22:22:02 GMT, Margo Schulter wrote:

There's a fine article that I found on the Web which, along with the famous
Shapley-Curtis debate, may give people an idea of how the issue of "external
galaxies" stood in the years immediately preceding Hubble's great discovery:
"The Problem of Island Universes" by Hector Macpherson (1919)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1919JRASC..13..360M.

Nice article. I particularly like learning history not from modern books
but from the writings of the time. There's no interpretation involved here
-- the author is describing the evidence and theories of the time without
benefit (or hindrance) of the knowledge we have when looking back. It's
the best way to really learn what the state of the science was at the time.

What this discussion says to me as an amateur astronomer, with your remarks
providing much enrichment, is that many people may be involved in the
formulation, testing, refinement, and ultimate demonstration of a hypothesis
like that of island universes or external galaxies, with everyone involved
sharing in the beauty and honor of it all -- and not least, of course,
Hubble with his decisive demonstration.

That's exactly right. There is no one huge step that takes us from
ignorance to enlightenment as Oriel sees things. Hubble made a huge step
-- far greater than any other single observation and greater than most
other whole research projects -- but if taken alone without the benefit of
fore-knowledge based on others' work his finding couldn't be interpreted so
definitively.

Mike Simmons

On 26 Sep, 01:22, Mike Simmons wrote:
On 25 Sep 2007 22:22:02 GMT, Margo Schulter wrote:

There's a fine article that I found on the Web which, along with the famous
Shapley-Curtis debate, may give people an idea of how the issue of "external
galaxies" stood in the years immediately preceding Hubble's great discovery:
"The Problem of Island Universes" by Hector Macpherson (1919)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1919JRASC..13..360M.

Nice article. I particularly like learning history not from modern books
but from the writings of the time. There's no interpretation involved here
-- the author is describing the evidence and theories of the time without
benefit (or hindrance) of the knowledge we have when looking back. It's
the best way to really learn what the state of the science was at the time.

What this discussion says to me as an amateur astronomer, with your remarks
providing much enrichment, is that many people may be involved in the
formulation, testing, refinement, and ultimate demonstration of a hypothesis
like that of island universes or external galaxies, with everyone involved
sharing in the beauty and honor of it all -- and not least, of course,
Hubble with his decisive demonstration.

That's exactly right. There is no one huge step that takes us from
ignorance to enlightenment as Oriel sees things.


Convince yourself of what you wish,I asked,who other than Hubble
determined that external galaxies exist in order to affirm that we
exist in one ?.I happen to enjoy Hubble's observation,reasoning and
conclusion and if you do not then suit yourself.



Hubble made a huge step
-- far greater than any other single observation and greater than most
other whole research projects -- but if taken alone without the benefit of
fore-knowledge based on others' work his finding couldn't be interpreted so
definitively.

Mike Simmons




I looked at how Copernicus used the data of the Ptolemaic astronomers
to replace the Sun's position between Venus and Mars with that of the
Earth and wonder how in the hell Newton managed to replace the
argument with a hypothetical observer on the Sun and it is still
defended by people who call themselves astronomers -

" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde But from the sun
they are always seen direct ," Newton

The periodic times argument is one of the oldest in astronomy,the
Ptolemaic astronomers knew it and the Copernican astronomers used it
to infer that the Earth has an orbital motion between Venus and Mars
-

Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler


Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their
whole system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe
wishes,but in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one
place,while the centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.


Argument 10


" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but
the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Johannes Kepler

The Copernican astronomers never resorted to hypiothetical observers
on the Sun,they simply reworked the Ptolemaic data to replace the
Sun's position with the Earth and then apply axial rotation as the
cause of the daily cycle.You see,the insight of Copernicus had a
distinguished background,far more distinguished that Hubble's great
discovery that some of the nebula were seperate stellar islands.

Insights are individual achievements,for all the data collected by
many it takes an individual to make the huge leap into productive
working principles.If you cannot give Hubble credit then that is
fine,you come from a great tradition for diluting astronomical
discoveries be they that of Hubble,Copernicus ,Kepler,Roemer ect and
what can I say when nobody has actually called you on it.

Tell me what do you think of Newton's approach to and resolution of
retrogrades ?.

On 25 Sep, 23:22, Margo Schulter wrote:
Mike Simmons wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:46:43 -0700, oriel36 wrote:

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

Margo is right that the understanding of the nature of the cosmos did not
suddenly go from a kind of dark ages into the light with one of Hubble's
observations. There were many others who believed in the "island universe"
concept and there was good evidence for it. The red shift of galaxies was
observed years before Hubble and it was noted that the highest red shifts
were associated with "nebulae" with the smallest apparent size and lowest
luminance, both of which suggested that they were farther away. But there
wasn't conclusive proof that the red shift was caused by the "nebulae's"
radial velocity nor that the smaller and fainter appearing "nebulae"
appeared that way because they were more distant. Individual stars were
observed and photographed with the 60-inch telescope before the 100-inch
was built and their faintness -- if they were stars -- indicated that they
were at extreme distances. But there was no proof that they were stars
rather than "nebular condensations".

Hi, Mike, and thank you for your expert commentary that fleshes out and
more fully substantiates what I've been trying to say. I have immense
respect for the observational experience and knowledge of Hubble's work
behind your insights.

There's a fine article that I found on the Web which, along with the famous
Shapley-Curtis debate, may give people an idea of how the issue of "external
galaxies" stood in the years immediately preceding Hubble's great discovery:
"The Problem of Island Universes" by Hector Macpherson (1919)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1919JRASC..13..360M.

In addition to chronicling some of the ebb and flow of scientific opinion
on this question, Macpherson gives some nice illustrations of the use of the
term "external galaxies" in this 19th- and early 20th-century era, whether
the hypothesis was favorably viewed for some types of nebulae (as sometimes
with Proctor, e.g. 1869, 1886), or regarded as no longer a serious contender
(as with Clerke, 1905).

What this discussion says to me as an amateur astronomer, with your remarks
providing much enrichment, is that many people may be involved in the
formulation, testing, refinement, and ultimate demonstration of a hypothesis
like that of island universes or external galaxies, with everyone involved
sharing in the beauty and honor of it all -- and not least, of course,
Hubble with his decisive demonstration.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter

Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My dear Margo,most here cannot escape the zodiacal framework of
Flamsteed,let alone appreciate the magnificent stellar islands.I could
ask you what is the value for axial rotation through 360 degrees and
you would probably answer fractions of a second off the 23 hour 56
minute 04 second value.I will even show you what it looks like -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

The introduction of an astrological framework into heliocentric
reasoning via Newton results in situations where people like Simmons
here cannot even credit Hubble for applying common sense to an
external galaxy to infer that we live in a seperate one called the
Milky Way -

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." Newton

So,the price of a geocentric/heliocentric equivalency is that you are
trapped in a constellational framework,you get your Ra/Dec system but
cannot work with axial rotation,heliocentric orbital motion,galactic
orbital motion and greater motions influencing galactic orbital
structure.

I am sure Hubble would be surprised that his discovery is no longer
his but I certainly am not.I wonder who will discover that the Earth
does not keep the same face to the Sun over the course of an annual
orbit ?.