Oooh, pretty. I am constantly in awe of spectra. I don't know what I consider Fraunhofer's biggest contribution to science -- the discovery of spectral lines, the equitorial telescope mount (plus siderial clock drive!), the heliometer, or his significant improvements to achromatic optics.
Are you saying spectral lines aren't physics? Chemistry? Sure, he didn't contribute greatly to biology but one man can only do so much, no? I would point out that optics isn't really limited to astronomy either.
I realize that Steven't misinterpretation was not unreasonable. What I meant was that that is the order in which I would rate the scientific value of each contribution. The order indicates my estimation of the breadth of each contribution's influence.
Oooh, pretty. I am constantly in awe of spectra. I don't know what I consider Fraunhofer's biggest contribution to science -- the discovery of spectral lines, the equitorial telescope mount (plus siderial clock drive!), the heliometer, or his significant improvements to achromatic optics.
ReplyDeleteSpectral lines, achromatic optics, heliometer, equitorial mount.
ReplyDeleteIf by "science," you mean a set of fields, of which astronomy is a proper subset.
Are you saying spectral lines aren't physics? Chemistry? Sure, he didn't contribute greatly to biology but one man can only do so much, no? I would point out that optics isn't really limited to astronomy either.
ReplyDeleteI am informed by Colin that I misread is post. So nevermind.
ReplyDeleteI realize that Steven't misinterpretation was not unreasonable. What I meant was that that is the order in which I would rate the scientific value of each contribution. The order indicates my estimation of the breadth of each contribution's influence.
ReplyDelete