KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") (03/07/86)
From: "Josh Knight" <JOSH%YKTVMH.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
As an aside, it is interesting to note that in the early part of this
century, an incorrect accounting for interstellar absorption caused many
astronomers to believe our galaxy was a small elliptical one, rather
than the large spiral it really is.
Actually, I think it was the other way around. For a while it was
thought that this galaxy was unusually large.
...Keithweemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/07/86)
>>As an aside, it is interesting to note that in the early part of this >>century, an incorrect accounting for interstellar absorption caused many >>astronomers to believe our galaxy was a small elliptical one, rather >>than the large spiral it really is. > > Actually, I think it was the other way around. For a while it was >thought that this galaxy was unusually large. You are both essentially correct. Incorrect accounting for absorption made our galaxy seem much smaller than it actually *is*. An incorrect method of finding the distance to galaxies made other galaxies all seem five times too small, giving the impression that our galaxy was unusually large *relative* to other galaxies. Now why can't all net.arguments have a happy ending? Everybody's right this time! ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/07/86)
In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].841623.860306.KFL>, KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: > > From: "Josh Knight" <JOSH%YKTVMH.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> > > As an aside, it is interesting to note that in the early part of this > century, an incorrect accounting for interstellar absorption caused many > astronomers to believe our galaxy was a small elliptical one, rather > than the large spiral it really is. > > Actually, I think it was the other way around. For a while it was > thought that this galaxy was unusually large. > ...Keith Both your statements are literally correct. A small galaxy was imagined when interstellar absorption was not understood. Subsequently the size of the galaxy was overestimated. -- "Ma, I've been to another Ethan Vishniac planet!" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Department of Astronomy University of Texas
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/08/86)
> As an aside, it is interesting to note that in the early part of this > century, an incorrect accounting for interstellar absorption caused many > astronomers to believe our galaxy was a small elliptical one, rather > than the large spiral it really is. > Actually, I think it was the other way around. For a while it was >thought that this galaxy was unusually large. If memory serves me, current numbers list Milky Way as one of the biggest single galaxies we know of. Is there an astronomer in the house? C. Wingate
mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (03/09/86)
>If memory serves me, current numbers list Milky Way as one of the biggest >single galaxies we know of. Is there an astronomer in the house? >C. Wingate > I'm not an astronomer, but the Milky Way is not an extremely large galaxy. It is the second largest galaxy in the Local Group (Andromeda is far larger). The Milky Way is big, probably in the upper tenth percentile of the galaxies in the Universe. But not "one of the biggest" -- Rick.