<p>In view of the various (and varying) answers above (3 at the current posting: Sir Cumference, Allure, User123), the relevance of this annoyingly challenging question is established. Nevertheless, the posted answers seem to contradict themselves, if not containing contradictions individually. Even if there seems to be agreement that Cosmology and Astronomy are different, there doesn’t seem to be a clear consensus on how they differ and are related. There may be a vague convergence on the notion that Cosmology is characterized as more holistic (eg “whole”, “bigger/higher”) than Astronomy.  One answer even goes as far as saying that Astronomy is “less precisely defined” (implying perhaps that Astronomy can encompass Cosmology, “depending on who you are talking to”).</p>
<p>So let’s assume that the author of this question is looking for clues to decide on his academic future (say which department to enroll in, in a prestigious university that puts Astronomy and Cosmology in different departments). Let’s ask ourselves whether Astronomy SE has answered satisfactorily here?  I think we have not completely yet. So let me try to throw in additional arguments and clues.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Are Astronomy and Cosmology the same?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No... But, there are commonalities (which make things confusingly intriguing indeed!)</p>
<p>The ancient Greek invented these two concepts. <a href="https://www.loc.gov/collections/finding-our-place-in-the-cosmos-with-carl-sagan/articles-and-essays/modeling-the-cosmos/ancient-greek-astronomy-and-cosmology" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The following site gives a brief intro</a></p>
<p>Astronomy in ancient Greek means “laws of the (visible) stars”. Today, we extend this definition to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The science of the celestial bodies and the Universe, dealing especially with the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, chemical composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.
(<a href="http://dictionary.obspm.fr/index.php?showAll=1&amp;&amp;search=A&amp;&amp;formSearchTextfield=&amp;&amp;page=41" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://dictionary.obspm.fr/index.php?showAll=1&amp;&amp;search=A&amp;&amp;formSearchTextfield=&amp;&amp;page=41</a>)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Cosmos in ancient Greek means “order (of everything)”. Today, we use it as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The science of the origin, structure, and evolution of the Universe including the origin of galaxies, the chemical elements, and matter.
(<a href="http://dictionary.obspm.fr/index.php?showAll=1&amp;&amp;search=C&amp;&amp;formSearchTextfield=&amp;&amp;page=57" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://dictionary.obspm.fr/index.php?showAll=1&amp;&amp;search=C&amp;&amp;formSearchTextfield=&amp;&amp;page=57</a>)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So in ancient Greek, Astronomy is the science that look for the order (the laws governing) in the observations (of the Celestial Sphere). Cosmos designates the abstract whole thing that would be governed by the discovered set of laws. If you know the laws, by definition you can predict the evolution of anything in Cosmos (that Cosmos), visible or not, detectable or not yet detectable. If you don’t know the laws, you can’t predict and it would be Chaos, not Cosmos that is observed.</p>
<p>This begs the question: Has these 2 fields merged today. Put differently, can I specialize in one field, but not the other?</p>
<p>The answer is no, they haven’t merged (yet). As an example, Stephen Hawkins has never been described as an astronomer. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wiki</a> describes Carl Sagan as both an astronomer and a cosmologist (among other qualifications), which seems to indicate that the two fields are getting closer, or at least very closely related. It would be difficult to specialize in one while having only casual knowledge of the other.</p>
<p>Another clue to support this answer that Astronomy and Cosmology are different fields of researches, but increasingly related, is that last year’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/science/nobel-prize-physics.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nobel prize in Physics</a> was rewarded to 3 scientists:</p>
<p>(Sir) Roger Penrose, a mathematician and cosmologist.
Andrea Ghez, an astronomer.
Reinhard Genzel, an astrophysicist.</p>
<p>As a closing note, we use “astronaut” and “cosmonaut” interchangeably (taikonaut for the Chinese). Which seems to defeat the answer that the 2 terms are different. In fact, it may indicate that, for these _nauts, the difference is irrelevant. All they need is to master the overlap of the 2 sciences.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-10T14:06:07.763Z
Thank you! That's the kind of answer I was looking for.  This helped!
S. M. JAHANGIR
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-10T12:13:27.147Z
2021-06-10T12:13:27.147Z
Ng Ph
<p>(Physical) cosmology analyzes the universe on its largest scale. Rather than studying individual objects in the universe, it focuses on the overall universe's properties (its shape, composition, age, etc.) and its evolution (how it originated, how it's changing, and how it will end).</p>
<p>&quot;Astronomy&quot; is a less precisely defined term. In its broadest sense, it's simply the study of outer space, but it can take on more specific meanings depending on the context and who you ask. Some people will say astronomy solely analyzes the universe observationally, whereas  &quot;astrophysics&quot; does so with physics; others consider &quot;astronomy&quot; and &quot;astrophysics&quot; to be interchangeable. Likewise, some will say astronomy solely studies the <em>contents</em> in the universe, making it distinct from cosmology's focus on the overall universe; others consider astronomy to be a more broad field encompassing cosmology.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-07T00:06:15.390Z
2021-06-07T00:06:15.390Z
Sir Cumference
<p>Cosmology is a subfield of astronomy. Cosmology deals with very big things (even by astronomical standards). Astronomy on the other hand is an umbrella term that includes lots of smaller-scale stuff.</p>
<p>Here are some topics in cosmology:</p>
<ul>
<li>Hubble expansion</li>
<li>Big Bang nucleosynthesis</li>
<li>Cosmic Inflation</li>
<li>Quintessence</li>
<li>Cosmic Microwave Background</li>
</ul>
<p>Here are some topics in astronomy, but not cosmology:</p>
<ul>
<li>Extrasolar planets</li>
<li>Extraterrestrial life</li>
<li>Stellar / Neutron star / Black hole collisions</li>
<li>Galaxy dynamics (e.g. how do galaxies evolve?)</li>
<li>Stellar nucleosynthesis</li>
</ul>
<p>Here are some topics that overlap between the two fields:</p>
<ul>
<li>Dark matter</li>
<li>Dark energy (although this is significantly more in cosmology than astronomy - at non-cosmological distances, dark energy is seldom relevant)</li>
<li>Structure formation (although the biggest structures such as galaxy clusters are within cosmology; the smaller ones like galaxies are no)</li>
<li>Redshift (by <span class="math-container">$z = 1$</span>, we are firmly in the regime of cosmology, but smaller redshifts are relevant to astronomers too)</li>
<li>Gravitational lensing</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-08T08:23:17.087Z
When I draw 2 circles and one is inside the other, the intersection is the smaller circle (mathematically). At first reading, you seem to contradict yourself by starting to state that Cosmology is a subfield of Astronomy then end by listing the non-overlapping and overlapping subjects.
Ng Ph
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-08T06:24:51.673Z
2021-06-08T06:24:51.673Z
Allure
<p>No, they are not the same. Astronomy basically represents the &quot;old science&quot; about the universe: predicting motion of the stars and planets, eclipses, and so on. Look on astronomy as something Greeks would do (but it is not equal to their astronomy; many other modern methods have evolved since then, like neutrino, X-ray or gravitational-wave astronomy).</p>
<p>Cosmology views the universe as a whole: its expanding, objects on large scale, laws, etc. One branch of it is also some sort of philosophy: why do we exist, how did everything start ... It is called philosophy of cosmology. Cosmology is thus on higher scale, while astronomy is on lower scale.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T20:19:15.967Z
gravitational-wave astronomy does not seem to be very "old"...
Daddy Kropotkin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T20:47:58.910Z
@DaddyKropotkin I just wanted to say that it has roots in Ancient Greeks, but many modern methods developed since then. Edited in the text to raise understanding.
User123
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T21:24:22.310Z
OP presumably means **physical** cosmology, not the philosophy, but that is ambiguous here..
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-07T15:00:49.740Z
I think this answer suggests that people don't use the term "astronomer" anymore, which is not true. I have many colleagues who call themselves astronomers. I tend to think of myself as an astrophysicist because I'm more theoretical, but if people ask what I'm doing I usually say astronomer, because "physicist" sounds a bit intimidating to some.
pela
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-07T16:12:19.697Z
@pela How does my answer suggest that? Please, justify your response. Have I ever mentioned in the answer the term "astronomer"?
User123
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-07T19:16:03.400Z
Well, to me it's implicit that "astronomy" is the field studied by an astronomer, "cosmology" is studied by a cosmologist, "astrophysics" is studied by an astrophysicist, etc. I don't mean to start a fight (and I'm not the one who downvoted you), I just don't think that "astronomy" only represents the "old science". I agree that it _is_ an old field, but it's definitely still a highly active field. I also agree, as you say in the beginning, that astronomy and cosmology are not the same.
pela
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-07T20:17:37.397Z
@pela I also wrote that many new methods developed since then, so I don't see any implication. Greek astronomers certainly didn't use neutrinos to observe the universe.
User123
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-08T09:24:07.250Z
I upvoted but consider that in ancient times astronomy and cosmology were basically the same.
Alchimista
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-09T06:11:01.927Z
I guess we sort of agree, and when I wrote my comment I don't think I saw your writing about the new methods. But I still don't really get why you talk about the old science and the Greek. Astronomy and cosmology are both old sciences, both studied by the ancient Greeks, and have both evolved since. Cosmology is just the part of astronomy dealing with the Universe on its largest scales, its composition, origin, and evolution, while astronomy is usually thought of as the part dealing with the smaller scales (although in principle cosmology is a subbranch of astronomy). Anyway, it's no biggie :)
pela
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T18:06:53.680Z
2021-06-06T20:49:35.717Z
2021-06-06T20:49:35.717Z
User123
<p>Are astronomy and cosmology same?  If not, what are the differences? And which one is greater in terms of subject area?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T16:43:03.613Z
Cosmology is a subfield of astrophysics. Astronomy is a purely observational science, astrophysics interprets far away things in terms of physics.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T16:49:17.607Z
^... and cosmology interprets the large scale universe in terms of physics.
Daddy Kropotkin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-06T21:02:50.920Z
Following Wiki, I conclude that Cosmology is a branch of Astronomy. Nevertheless some universities put it under Astrophysics or Physics (Stanford, Oxford,...). So it is NOT above Astronomy, but whether it is under Astronomy or something else, I think the jury is still out ... In terms of the breadth of the respective subject areas, they are equally vast, IMHO. I would advance that Astronomy is older than Cosmology, simply because I think we have to wait until Einstein to truly apprehend correctly (well almost) the Universe, its approx dimension, (assumed) origin and possible future.
Ng Ph
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-07T16:09:25.103Z
Another single-line question! Show your work first, please: What is your analysis of these questions? From your questions, It seems you have done no research. I'd suggest more searching. The only way people could optimize the level of their answers is if the original poster provides some details. Now the answer to the question will be very broad. If you do not edit the question, you give the impression that you just want to use other people as a tool for something you are too lazy to do yourself.
Ad Astra
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-07T22:53:37.373Z
@AdAstra in general questions should show research, yes. But there are very few *absolute rules* in Stack Exchange and there are none that say that every question must have N sentences and M links and must show evidence of work or they will be deleted. Take a look at the OP's first question. **+10/-2** votes and a hefty, thorough, in-depth, high quality answer by an expert at **+22**. That question was a *smashing success* and luckily for all of us and future readers those two close votes there had no effect. This question while not as popular also has a definitive *and informative* answer.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-07T22:57:42.347Z
It simply doesn't need any research; in this particular case it seems to be best to just leave the differentiation to the answer authors, as the answers have value to the site. Yes there are Wikipedia articles, but let's see how this community differentiates the terms. It has bearing on our tag definitions, which may or may not need revising based on how the community responds here. So I'm **voting to keep open!**
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-07T23:32:30.840Z
That said, unless your questions continue to be exceptional, I think it's probably wise to add some evidence of research (or at least attempts to work a problem or think things through) to your future questions. Just fyi the "tool-tip" recommendations for down voting includes "this question does not show any research effort" which is only a general recommendation displayed on all questions in all SE sites. And while many folks ignore it, some don't. https://i.sstatic.net/URt72.png
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-08T07:56:23.383Z
@uhoh I retracted my close-vote and up-voted instead, thanks for the reasoning.
B--rian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-08T08:08:25.590Z
@B--rian super! Stack Exchange is all about the answers. In active sites like Stack Overflow question curation is triage, but in the slower sites we should think of it more like pruning Bonsai, sometimes we can simply leave it alone and watch it grow :-)
uhoh
<observational-astronomy><cosmology><terminology>
What are the differences between astronomy and cosmology?
S. M. JAHANGIR
# What are the differences between astronomy and cosmology?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-06-06)

Are astronomy and cosmology same? If not, what are the differences? And which one is greater in terms of subject area?

**Tags:** observational-astronomy, cosmology, terminology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Cosmology is a subfield of astrophysics. Astronomy is a purely observational science, astrophysics interprets far away things in terms of physics.  
> **username_2**: ^... and cosmology interprets the large scale universe in terms of physics.  
> **username_3**: Following Wiki, I conclude that Cosmology is a branch of Astronomy. Nevertheless some universities put it under Astrophysics or Physics (Stanford, Oxford,...). So it is NOT above Astronomy, but whether it is under Astronomy or something else, I think the jury is still out ... In terms of the breadth of the respective subject areas, they are equally vast, IMHO. I would advance that Astronomy is older than Cosmology, simply because I think we have to wait until Einstein to truly apprehend correctly (well almost) the Universe, its approx dimension, (assumed) origin and possible future.  
> **username_4**: Another single-line question! Show your work first, please: What is your analysis of these questions? From your questions, It seems you have done no research. I'd suggest more searching. The only way people could optimize the level of their answers is if the original poster provides some details. Now the answer to the question will be very broad. If you do not edit the question, you give the impression that you just want to use other people as a tool for something you are too lazy to do yourself.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 in general questions should show research, yes. But there are very few *absolute rules* in Stack Exchange and there are none that say that every question must have N sentences and M links and must show evidence of work or they will be deleted. Take a look at the OP's first question. **+10/-2** votes and a hefty, thorough, in-depth, high quality answer by an expert at **+22**. That question was a *smashing success* and luckily for all of us and future readers those two close votes there had no effect. This question while not as popular also has a definitive *and informative* answer.  
> **username_5**: It simply doesn't need any research; in this particular case it seems to be best to just leave the differentiation to the answer authors, as the answers have value to the site. Yes there are Wikipedia articles, but let's see how this community differentiates the terms. It has bearing on our tag definitions, which may or may not need revising based on how the community responds here. So I'm **voting to keep open!**  
> **username_5**: That said, unless your questions continue to be exceptional, I think it's probably wise to add some evidence of research (or at least attempts to work a problem or think things through) to your future questions. Just fyi the "tool-tip" recommendations for down voting includes "this question does not show any research effort" which is only a general recommendation displayed on all questions in all SE sites. And while many folks ignore it, some don't. https://i.sstatic.net/URt72.png  
> **username_6**: @username_5 I retracted my close-vote and up-voted instead, thanks for the reasoning.  
> **username_5**: @username_6 super! Stack Exchange is all about the answers. In active sites like Stack Overflow question curation is triage, but in the slower sites we should think of it more like pruning Bonsai, sometimes we can simply leave it alone and watch it grow :-)  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-06-10. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

In view of the various (and varying) answers above (3 at the current posting: username_7, username_8, username_9), the relevance of this annoyingly challenging question is established. Nevertheless, the posted answers seem to contradict themselves, if not containing contradictions individually. Even if there seems to be agreement that Cosmology and Astronomy are different, there doesn’t seem to be a clear consensus on how they differ and are related. There may be a vague convergence on the notion that Cosmology is characterized as more holistic (eg “whole”, “bigger/higher”) than Astronomy. One answer even goes as far as saying that Astronomy is “less precisely defined” (implying perhaps that Astronomy can encompass Cosmology, “depending on who you are talking to”).

So let’s assume that the author of this question is looking for clues to decide on his academic future (say which department to enroll in, in a prestigious university that puts Astronomy and Cosmology in different departments). Let’s ask ourselves whether Astronomy SE has answered satisfactorily here? I think we have not completely yet. So let me try to throw in additional arguments and clues.

> Are Astronomy and Cosmology the same?

No... But, there are commonalities (which make things confusingly intriguing indeed!)

The ancient Greek invented these two concepts. [The following site gives a brief intro](https://www.loc.gov/collections/finding-our-place-in-the-cosmos-with-carl-sagan/articles-and-essays/modeling-the-cosmos/ancient-greek-astronomy-and-cosmology)

Astronomy in ancient Greek means “laws of the (visible) stars”. Today, we extend this definition to:

> The science of the celestial bodies and the Universe, dealing especially with the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, chemical composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.
> (<http://dictionary.obspm.fr/index.php?showAll=1&&search=A&&formSearchTextfield=&&page=41>)

Cosmos in ancient Greek means “order (of everything)”. Today, we use it as:

> The science of the origin, structure, and evolution of the Universe including the origin of galaxies, the chemical elements, and matter.
> (<http://dictionary.obspm.fr/index.php?showAll=1&&search=C&&formSearchTextfield=&&page=57>)

So in ancient Greek, Astronomy is the science that look for the order (the laws governing) in the observations (of the Celestial Sphere). Cosmos designates the abstract whole thing that would be governed by the discovered set of laws. If you know the laws, by definition you can predict the evolution of anything in Cosmos (that Cosmos), visible or not, detectable or not yet detectable. If you don’t know the laws, you can’t predict and it would be Chaos, not Cosmos that is observed.

This begs the question: Has these 2 fields merged today. Put differently, can I specialize in one field, but not the other?

The answer is no, they haven’t merged (yet). As an example, Stephen Hawkins has never been described as an astronomer. [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) describes Carl Sagan as both an astronomer and a cosmologist (among other qualifications), which seems to indicate that the two fields are getting closer, or at least very closely related. It would be difficult to specialize in one while having only casual knowledge of the other.

Another clue to support this answer that Astronomy and Cosmology are different fields of researches, but increasingly related, is that last year’s [Nobel prize in Physics](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/science/nobel-prize-physics.html) was rewarded to 3 scientists:

(Sir) Roger Penrose, a mathematician and cosmologist.
Andrea Ghez, an astronomer.
Reinhard Genzel, an astrophysicist.

As a closing note, we use “astronaut” and “cosmonaut” interchangeably (taikonaut for the Chinese). Which seems to defeat the answer that the 2 terms are different. In fact, it may indicate that, for these \_nauts, the difference is irrelevant. All they need is to master the overlap of the 2 sciences.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you! That's the kind of answer I was looking for.  This helped!  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2021-06-07. Score: 8

(Physical) cosmology analyzes the universe on its largest scale. Rather than studying individual objects in the universe, it focuses on the overall universe's properties (its shape, composition, age, etc.) and its evolution (how it originated, how it's changing, and how it will end).

"Astronomy" is a less precisely defined term. In its broadest sense, it's simply the study of outer space, but it can take on more specific meanings depending on the context and who you ask. Some people will say astronomy solely analyzes the universe observationally, whereas "astrophysics" does so with physics; others consider "astronomy" and "astrophysics" to be interchangeable. Likewise, some will say astronomy solely studies the *contents* in the universe, making it distinct from cosmology's focus on the overall universe; others consider astronomy to be a more broad field encompassing cosmology.


---

### Answer by username_8 on 2021-06-08. Score: 3

Cosmology is a subfield of astronomy. Cosmology deals with very big things (even by astronomical standards). Astronomy on the other hand is an umbrella term that includes lots of smaller-scale stuff.

Here are some topics in cosmology:

* Hubble expansion
* Big Bang nucleosynthesis
* Cosmic Inflation
* Quintessence
* Cosmic Microwave Background

Here are some topics in astronomy, but not cosmology:

* Extrasolar planets
* Extraterrestrial life
* Stellar / Neutron star / Black hole collisions
* Galaxy dynamics (e.g. how do galaxies evolve?)
* Stellar nucleosynthesis

Here are some topics that overlap between the two fields:

* Dark matter
* Dark energy (although this is significantly more in cosmology than astronomy - at non-cosmological distances, dark energy is seldom relevant)
* Structure formation (although the biggest structures such as galaxy clusters are within cosmology; the smaller ones like galaxies are no)
* Redshift (by $z = 1$, we are firmly in the regime of cosmology, but smaller redshifts are relevant to astronomers too)
* Gravitational lensing

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: When I draw 2 circles and one is inside the other, the intersection is the smaller circle (mathematically). At first reading, you seem to contradict yourself by starting to state that Cosmology is a subfield of Astronomy then end by listing the non-overlapping and overlapping subjects.  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2021-06-06. Score: 3

No, they are not the same. Astronomy basically represents the "old science" about the universe: predicting motion of the stars and planets, eclipses, and so on. Look on astronomy as something Greeks would do (but it is not equal to their astronomy; many other modern methods have evolved since then, like neutrino, X-ray or gravitational-wave astronomy).

Cosmology views the universe as a whole: its expanding, objects on large scale, laws, etc. One branch of it is also some sort of philosophy: why do we exist, how did everything start ... It is called philosophy of cosmology. Cosmology is thus on higher scale, while astronomy is on lower scale.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: gravitational-wave astronomy does not seem to be very "old"...  
> **username_9**: @username_2 I just wanted to say that it has roots in Ancient Greeks, but many modern methods developed since then. Edited in the text to raise understanding.  
> **username_1**: OP presumably means **physical** cosmology, not the philosophy, but that is ambiguous here..  
> **username_10**: I think this answer suggests that people don't use the term "astronomer" anymore, which is not true. I have many colleagues who call themselves astronomers. I tend to think of myself as an astrophysicist because I'm more theoretical, but if people ask what I'm doing I usually say astronomer, because "physicist" sounds a bit intimidating to some.  
> **username_9**: @username_10 How does my answer suggest that? Please, justify your response. Have I ever mentioned in the answer the term "astronomer"?  
> **username_10**: Well, to me it's implicit that "astronomy" is the field studied by an astronomer, "cosmology" is studied by a cosmologist, "astrophysics" is studied by an astrophysicist, etc. I don't mean to start a fight (and I'm not the one who downvoted you), I just don't think that "astronomy" only represents the "old science". I agree that it _is_ an old field, but it's definitely still a highly active field. I also agree, as you say in the beginning, that astronomy and cosmology are not the same.  
> **username_9**: @username_10 I also wrote that many new methods developed since then, so I don't see any implication. Greek astronomers certainly didn't use neutrinos to observe the universe.  
> **username_11**: I upvoted but consider that in ancient times astronomy and cosmology were basically the same.  
> **username_10**: I guess we sort of agree, and when I wrote my comment I don't think I saw your writing about the new methods. But I still don't really get why you talk about the old science and the Greek. Astronomy and cosmology are both old sciences, both studied by the ancient Greeks, and have both evolved since. Cosmology is just the part of astronomy dealing with the Universe on its largest scales, its composition, origin, and evolution, while astronomy is usually thought of as the part dealing with the smaller scales (although in principle cosmology is a subbranch of astronomy). Anyway, it's no biggie :)  

---

