Talk:Supercluster

INTRODUCTION

This article's intro is @SS. "...Is part of the virgo supercluster is part of the lankianea supercluster" ... Yeahyeayeah sure, and that is part of my assholes supercluster which is part of your moms supercluster... Like BRUH??? WHAT!? Make it make sense! Fucking lay out the terms first in order of size and only use 1 term at a time for consistency, not fucking double terms for the same thing interchangeably. Then start explaining what is part of what. So how can a supercluster be part of another supercluster ya cunt. It's like saying an atom is part of an atom and that atom is another atom. How many different fucking atoms are there! EXPLAIN IT LIKE YOU WOULD EXPLAIN IT TO A CHILD.

Repetition

The second and fifth paragraphs appear to have roughly the same information. I don't consider myself expert enough to judge which paragraph is better therefore I'm not comfortable simply deleting one or the other. Can an expert delete/rewrite as apprpriate.Finewinescotland 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Both the 5th paragraph and the 2nd paragraph were added by User:WilliamKF, as was the reference to the paper by Hu et al. The 5th paragraph turns out to be the first paragraph of the paper by Hu et al. The second paragraph looks like a rewrite of the 5th paragraph. I'm guessing WillamKF may have copied the paragraph for convenience, rewritten it so that it was not a copyvio, and then simply forgotten to delete the source he was working from. Therefore, I have deleted the 5th paragraph. Cardamon 12:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The first sentence of the second paragraph seems to contradict the third paragraph. Which of these is correct? TV4Fun 00:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhfnykg7f 41.116.26.13 (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Distance between Superclusters?

Is their any data about distances between the Superclusters? Specifically just how far of a streach is needed, minimum and maximum, to overcome the Horizon problem?--Zerothis (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

old list

Nearby superclusters

• Local Supercluster: contains the Local Group with our galaxy, the Milky Way. It also contains the Virgo cluster near its center, and is sometimes called the Virgo Supercluster.
• Hydra-Centaurus Supercluster
  • Hydra Supercluster
  • Centaurus Supercluster
• Perseus-Pisces Supercluster
• Pavo-Indus Supercluster
• Coma Supercluster
• Phoenix Supercluster
• Sculptor Superclusters
• Hercules Superclusters
• Leo Supercluster
• Shapley Supercluster
• Sloan Great Wall

Distant Superclusters

• Pisces-Cetus Supercluster
• Bootes Supercluster
• Horologium Supercluster
• Corona Borealis Supercluster
• Columba Supercluster
• Aquarius Supercluster
• Aquarius B Supercluster
• Aquarius-Capricornus Supercluster
• Aquarius-Cetus Supercluster
• Bootes A Supercluster
• Caelum Supercluster
• Draco Supercluster
• Draco-Ursa Majoris Supercluster
• Fornax-Eridanus Supercluster
• Grus Supercluster
• Leo A Supercluster
• Leo-Sextans Supercluster
• Leo-Virgo Supercluster
• Microscopium Supercluster
• Pegasus-Pisces Supercluster
• Pisces Supercluster
• Pisces-Aries Supercluster
• Ursa Majoris Supercluster
• Virgo Coma Supercluster

This list was completely subsumed into the new tabular format 70.51.8.75 (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional material

[1][2]

This PDF http://www.aai.ee/~maret/rmf.pdf might be useful for additional information. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

From SIMBAD: http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=SCL+*&NbIdent=wild&Radius=2&Radius.unit=arcmin&submit=submit+id 76.66.196.139 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The "SCl" survey (1996): http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9610088v2 76.66.196.139 (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The old survey the SCl survey references (1994): Bibcode:1994MNRAS.269..301E 76.66.196.139 (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 1011 entries in SIMBAD for "otype=SCG"... which would just about fit as a single list page...

Using a name search in SIMBAD nets you 75 entries...

76.66.197.30 (talk)

Dynamically bound?

I was given to think that the SCL were the largest bound systems... but according to (Bibcode:1998A&A...336...35J) they are not dynamically bound, hence their ellipsoidal structure, instead of spherical... (or are they all just in the process of condensing?) 76.66.196.139 (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up studies suggest that the Laniakea Supercluster is not gravitationally bound; it will disperse rather than continue to maintain itself as an overdensity relative to surrounding areas. Ra-raisch (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

local supercluster r < 70 Mpc/h

According to Bibcode:1989MNRAS.238..155E (EEG 1989), the superclusters closer than 70Mpc are:

• Local Supercluster
• Coma Supercluster
• Perseus-Pisces Supercluster
• Ursa Major-Lynx Supercluster
• Hydra-Centaurus Supercluster
• Sculptor Supercluster
• Pavo-Corona Australes Supercluster

76.66.197.30 (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

superclusters 75-150Mpc (same source):

• Hercules Supecluster
• Ursa Major-Leo Supercluster
• Pegasus Supercluster
• Aquarius-Capricornus Supercluster
• there are more that were not listed.

76.66.197.30 (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Intrasupercluster medium?

It seems that, logically, the medium between galaxy clusters within a supercluster would be slightly denser than the medium in the surrounding voids. Is there any description of this medium? Eebster the Great (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah...very disperse molecular hydrogen? -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 04:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How come no meniton of God?

I think He exist between the superclusters and propose calling these "spaces" heavenverse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewwankenobi (talk • contribs) 01:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not gravitationally bound?

This is misleading, at best. The Shapley supercluster, for instance, is generally assumed to be gravitationally-bound. Not all superclusters might be, yet what really holds them together - or heaped them up in the first place - or whether at least some of them really do partake in Hubble expansion, is, as of today and for all I know simply unknown. Zero Thrust (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This source says that (at least some) known galaxy clusters are in fact gravitationally bound: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/us-space-galaxies-idUSKBN0GY2C820140903 This source implies it: http://www.vox.com/2014/9/4/6105631/map-galaxy-supercluster-laniakea-milky-way .

Therefore i suggest we change the text saying that some superclusters are known to be gravitationally bound. Any objections?

Fresheneesz (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Objection. First, I can't see the implication in the source claimed. Second, an implication (if there is one) is not enough. cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Z-FORGE z=2.2 2012 protosupercluster

I can't seem to find a location for the center in the discovery paper, it gives three overdensity centres, (10:00:15.753, +02:15:39.56), (10:00:18.380, +02:14:58.81), (10:00:23.552, +02:14:34.13), and has a discussion that this is possibly a proto-super-cluster, or perhaps a cluster, it does however say it is not a protocluster. Bibcode:2012ApJ...748L..21S ; a possible entry into the proto list. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

List

I was wondering if the list should be split off. List of superclusters -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, because there's not enough non-list content here yet to stand on its own.

We could split the list, but we should only do that if we start to need the space. That's a long way off. 82.132.228.183 (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There's enough material for the list to stand on its own. There's enough research for the article to be greatly expanded. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup/Potential copyvio

Writing this because it seems that the bottom three lead paragraphs (as well as the section titled "Distribution: cosmic voids and sheets") were added by one user seemingly unnoticed in 2015 and rely mostly on a textbook source and one link, according to the diff. I'm seeing some close paraphrasing here, as well as in the given link. I wouldn't be opposed to removing all of this content entirely.

TemporalArtifact (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Conducting Astronomy Education Research: A Primer and Universe: The Solar System, Part 2. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Split list into separate article?

It seems like 3/4 of this article is just a list of superclusters. Why isn't that list split off into a separate article?

Sam-2727 (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it should be split off to List of superclusters (like list of galaxies is a separate list) -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd delay that until the article is a bit bigger. It's pretty small currently Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)