Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristophe
To claim that there can hardly be better astronomy, though, is laughable. You're saying that just about everyone who followed Kant, and did actual science (and astronomy is a science) are not performing at the same level as someone who simply made claims.
.
|
What is laughable is that most (if not all) astronomers that followed Kant were under the impression that the Galaxy was surrounded by an infinite void.
What is laughable is that most (if not all) astronomer that followed Kant thought that nebulae, with their wispy tendrils and compact entrails (now called galaxies), were embedded inside the Milky Way Galaxy.
What is laughable is that most (if not all) astronomer that followed Kant, and who were likely aware of Kant's Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens (great title), refused to let go of the old dogma that the Milky Way was unique. That would last from 1755, en passent par the SN in the Andromeda nebula (1880's) all the way to 1929 (Hubble's famous paper, A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebula).
What is laughable is that you, Kristophe, permit yourself the rather frivolous remarks of the kind posted above without apparently knowing the subject of the discussion very well at all.
Stick to questions, others will provide the answers.
Don't fight the chill.
Coldcreation