Talk:Virgo Supercluster

message: Is a section on Formation and evolution required? See the equivalent entry under Galaxy. This could be included within the Structure section. Presumably the process of development of the disc structure corresponds to the formation of structures at other orders of magnitude - such as disc galaxies and protoplanetary discs --Tediouspedant (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation and evolution

message: What is considered "large" apparent size? Ardric47 02:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some arbitrary cut-off in terms of angular size: 100 arcseconds. I modelled our list after the one in http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/galaclus.html, which also uses this cut-off. It keeps the listing from including heavy but very distant clusters that have been relatively poorly observed. -- Xerxes 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent size criterion

message: "The local (Coma-Virgo), Perseus-Piscus, Hydra-Centaurus, Orphiuchus, Vela, and a number of other superclusters are observed to move towards the Great Attractor as speeds of greater than 600,000 km per second,"
Isn't this about 3 times the speed of light?
:It's twice the speed of light. Although it's possible for different parts of the universe to be moving away from each other at faster-than-light speeds (by some definitions) due to the expansion of space, I'm suspicious about that happening so close to us. Ardric47 00:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't want to know. Or maybe you do. This might possibly be harnessed somehow for future spaceships. This is better than an Scramjet!--Mac Lover Talk 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great attractor

message: The group/cluster member list is a mess.  Moreover, this list gets really messy when considering the difficulty in identifying whether galaxies are parts of groups (see the Sombrero Galaxy under "Environment") and the difficulty in distinguishing whether galaxies are subdivided into small groups or combined together into large groups (see my revisions to the M101 Group article and the section labelled "Nearby groups").  This section could be misleading or confusing, and its accuracy will always be questionable, so I am removing the section. GeorgeJBendo 21:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be a Members of the Virgo Supercluster article with that list, fleshed out, with notes on why some may or may not be members of the LSC. 70.51.9.132 (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Group/cluster list

message: There were complaints that :Image:Local_supercluster.jpg (the image on the right) was unreadable because it used km, so I made one using light years instead: :Image:Local_supercluster-ly.jpg. Hairy Dude 01:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have references for all of the distance measurements in that figure?  For that matter, are those terms for various clusters of galaxies actually in use (i.e. have those terms been used in a scientific journal article published in the past 10 years)?  If the answer to either of these questions is no, then maybe the picture should not be used.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The orgiginal image created by nasa had distance measurements in it in km. Performing a simple unit conversion is allowed. McKay 16:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A NASA public outreach website may not be the best source of information for this data.  I would contend, for example, that some of these designations are not in use.  For example, a search for "Draco Group" in professional astronomy journals with the ADS Abstract Service turns up no articles that use the term.  I would also like to see references from journal articles for the distances.  The distance to Messier 81 and Messier 82 given by , which are part of the M81 Group, is 11.5-11.8 Mly, not 11 Mly as shown in this figure.  Similarly, the distance to Messier 51 in the M51 Group is given by  is 23 Mly, not the 31 Mly shown in this figure.  I sincerely recommend deleting it, as it is inaccurate.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: A list of (some) members should be included, and the major divisions of the LSC... (halo, disc, etc)... there's this Leo Spur and Local Sheet... and is the Local Void part of the LSC, or next to it? 70.55.203.50 (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  expand 

message: Here's the pre-rewrite version of the article (w/o the clickable maps) 76.66.195.159 (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old version of article

message: There's an overabundance of computer-generated maps. Should there be a least one image that is taken by a telescope in this article?--128.119.51.64 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many maps 

message: I was curious to find what percentage of the mass of Virgo Supercluster is within the Virgo Cluster. It says that the Virgo Supercluster has mass of 10^15 solar masses, and on the article of Virgo Cluster, it says it has mass of 1.2 time 10^15 solar masses. This is absurd, the Virgo Cluster is a part of Virgo Supercluster, and yet Virgo Cluster is heavier. Can someone fix the article, and add information about mass distributions? Is the mass distribution predicted to be the same as luminousity distributions discussed in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnu (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like Virgo Supercluster currently interprets the current source for the mass of the Virgo Supercluster incorrectly.  Right now Virgo Supercluster currently says the mass is 10^15 solar masses, but the source actually says the value is different, at 1 x 10^15 * h^(-1) solar masses.  What is h?  I'm not sure, but Parsec#Megaparsecs_and_gigaparsecs gives one plausible interpretation.  Combining that interpretation with the numeric values in Hubble constant, it seems h is around 0.67 or 0.72.  If so, the mass of the Virgo Supercluster would be around 1.3-1.5 x 10^15 solar masses.  Can someone with an astronomy background say if this is the proper interpretation of h?  Mynameisnoted (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  mass contradiction 

message: There's an article from the Eurekalert site today that reports the designation of a new name for the local supercluster; "Laniakea".  If true, then perhaps this article will have to be renamed again. Tmangray (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is a different structure. Laniakea is a combination of Virgo SCl and Hydra-Centaurus SCl, so it is not the same thing. Virgo SCl is a lobe in the new structure, so should remain where it is. The problem is what to do with the redirect , since all research until now is about this Virgo SCl, and not the new structure "Laniakea". I've opened a discussion at WT:ASTRO. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Name, again

message: Isn't that the Virgo Supercluster? That's still a thing, right? Serendipodous 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Local supercluster"? 

message: ...could potentially make for a (somewhat) interesting list article. Or perhaps just a NavBox? Praemonitus (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "List of galaxy groups in the Virgo Supercluster" 

message: This article, like Laniakea Supercluster, mixes up binding mass and total mass in the infobox. The binding mass given here, ~1.48 × 1015 solar masses, is the total mass of the cluster, but it is not its binding mass, which is of the order of 1029 solar masses. See Caelum Supercluster for an example of an article that gets it right. Renerpho (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the binding mass so large? Wouldn't it be a tiny fraction of the total mass? I would've thought gravitational binding mass would be defined relative to infinity. Patallurgist (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binding mass is not total mass