DiscussMormonism.com

I believe it’s true that Kant made contributions to astrophysics. I haven’t read them themselves. I have read some Kant, but Kant’s introductory chapters are a lot easier to follow than the dense masses of archaic philosophical terms that he throws at you in chapter 2. Kant is frequently cited in astrophysics texts, however, as the originator of the still-current theory that solar systems form by gradual accretion of dust and gas clouds (the “nebular hypothesis”).

Galaxies are enormously larger than solar systems, but the principle is thought to be the same, just on a much larger scale. It was not clear until the 20th century that “spiral nebulae” are enormous collections of stars like the Milky Way and far outside it. On the one hand, it has been known since ancient times that the universe is unimaginably large. On the other hand, just how ridiculously large it is has been a modern realization. Ptolemy’s idea of “big” was crazily big yet nowhere near big enough.

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 19, 2025 5:39 pm

I believe it’s true that Kant made contributions to astrophysics. I haven’t read them themselves. I have read some Kant, but Kant’s introductory chapters are a lot easier to follow than the dense masses of archaic philosophical terms that he throws at you in chapter 2. Kant is frequently cited in astrophysics texts, however, as the originator of the still-current theory that solar systems form by gradual accretion of dust and gas clouds (the “nebular hypothesis”).

Galaxies are enormously larger than solar systems, but the principle is thought to be the same, just on a much larger scale. It was not clear until the 20th century that “spiral nebulae” are enormous collections of stars like the Milky Way and far outside it. On the one hand, it has been known since ancient times that the universe is unimaginably large. On the other hand, just how ridiculously large it is has been a modern realization. Ptolemy’s idea of “big” was crazily big yet nowhere near big enough.

Cool.

Speaking of galaxies, DCP’s plagiarisms is in full effect here:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... c-god.html

In particular: “The Greek word kosmos means “order, good order, orderly arrangement.” The verb kosmein (given here in its infinitive form) meant generally “to dispose,” “to prepare,” but especially “to order and arrange [e.g., troops for battle],” “to set [an army] in array,” as well as “to establish [a government or regime],” and (particularly with regard to women) “to deck,” “to adorn,” “to equip,” “to dress.” It is closely related to our common word cosmetic.”, which he lifted without attribution from:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/cosmos

“.. of Greek kosmos "order, good order, orderly arrangement," a word with several main senses rooted in those notions: The verb kosmein meant generally "to dispose, prepare," but especially "to order and arrange (troops for battle), to set (an army) in array;" also "to establish (a government or regime);" "to deck, adorn, equip, dress" (especially of women). Thus kosmos had an important secondary sense of "ornaments of a woman's dress, decoration" (compare kosmokomes "dressing the hair," and cosmetic) as well as "the universe, the world."

The follow-on paragraph pasted below is also mosaically plagiarized from:

https://tinyurl.com/DCP-Plagiarism-Checker

“It seems to have been Pythagoras, in the sixth century BC, who first used the term cosmos for the orderly and harmonious universe that we observe, as opposed to the chaos that it could be and might once have been. And, although little is known for certain about him, Pythagoras appears to have been the first, or among the first, to have seen that nature could be represented and discussed mathematically. One of his influential notions was that of the “music of the spheres” or the “harmony of the spheres.”

- Doc