You know, I kind of feel bad for astronomers.

In general, but especially astronomers before the mid-1800s.

I mean, by this time, they had telescopes, big telescopes, big observatories,

they were studying the planets in the solar system, they were discovering moons and asteroids

and comets, they were looking at nebula and classifying them and drawing sketches. They were observing double

stars and triple star systems. They were measuring stars as they moved across the sky. I mean,

they were learning a lot, but they had no clue what anything was made of. They were just making a bunch of records of where things were

and what they looked like. But you could say, like, say, hey, Astronor, what's the sun man of? I don't know.

Why is Jupiter kind of orange? I don't know. Why is that star blue? I don't know. They just didn't know what

stuff was made of. And so I get this sense. And this is just probably my own personal bias.

Then the mid-1800s when it comes to astronomy, astronomy itself as a field was just kind of stuck.

Like, they were just measuring stuff with just going along.

Like, okay, here's another night, another map of the sky.

Okay.

Oh, look, comet.

Yay.

What's a comet?

Don't ask us what a comet's made out.

We don't know.

And it's funny when you look at the past few hundred

years of science, how scientists in a completely different field can be working on something

in parallel just for their own interests, their own field, without realizing how they're about

...