|Supercluster has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Physics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
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)
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)
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)
From SIMBAD: http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=SCL+*&NbIdent=wild&Radius=2&Radius.unit=arcmin&submit=submit+id 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:31, 16 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...
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?) 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
local supercluster r < 70 Mpc/h
- Local Supercluster
- Coma Supercluster
- Perseus-Pisces Supercluster
- Ursa Major-Lynx Supercluster
- Hydra-Centaurus Supercluster
- Sculptor Supercluster
- Pavo-Corona Australes Supercluster
superclusters 75-150Mpc (same source):
- Hercules Supecluster
- Ursa Major-Leo Supercluster
- Pegasus Supercluster
- Aquarius-Capricornus Supercluster
- there are more that were not listed.
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?
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?
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. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2012 (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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)