Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Size of the Galaxy
Message-ID: <12226@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 00:47:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12226
Posted: Fri Mar  7 00:47:26 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Mar-86 05:20:50 EST
References: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].841623.860306.KFL>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 18

>>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