The first thing that was argued in the Shapely-Curtis Debate is how big the Milky Way galaxy is. Shapely was correct in saying that the galaxy in which we live is bigger than everybody thought, but he was so stunned at how vast the Milky Way is that he simply could not believe that other galaxies could exist. Curtis believed that this galaxy is smaller than it really is—he accepted the erroneous data of his day—but he was right in guessing that the Milky Way isn’t the only galaxy in the universe. Another point of contention was if there are nebulae in the galaxy or not. Shapely said that there are no huge clouds of dust and gas that are star nurseries because he could not see them. Curtis insisted that while it looked like the nebulae were not in the galaxy, there was something blocking our ability to see them. He was right; he just didn’t know that the gas and dust between stars absorbs light. Shapely noticed that some stars are really, really bright if they are far away when they die. A star’s death is called a nova. Curtis came up with the idea that these very bright explosions are a whole different kind of star death called a supernova. Both men were correct in their views about their observations …show more content…
Shapely saw that how bright he thought nebulae were was different than how he though they would look if he was looking at the Milky Way from very far away. This difference meant these nebulae were not part of this galaxy. Curtis just did not know what to say to that; his peers lacked the knowledge we have now. The interstellar dust makes things look different than they are by hiding some things and sometimes by changing the colors. Despite his lack of response to Shapely’s fourth argument, Curtis was correct in saying that other nebulae have stars and planets as our own does, although what kind of stars and planets might well be very different than in our own solar