Talk:Virgo Cluster

Untitled, 2004

I've changed the units to megaparsecs. It's the standard unit for galactic astronomy. -- Decumanus 03:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also rewrote that part about M87 being the "dominant member". Such a thing is really not possible in a cluster of >2000 galaxies, and is misleading. That seds.org site is useful, but I would be suspicious of using it as an authoritative source on this, since it seems to be written by students and not professional astronomers (still a useful site, however). -- Decumanus 03:55, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Changing wording from "galaxy cluster" to the more preferred term "cluster of galaxies". "Galaxy cluster" is sometimes avoided in astronomy because it is very close to the previous term galactic cluster, which is a cluster of stars, and thus is an object on a vastly smaller scale than a cluster of galaxies. -- Decumanus 21:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adjusting population figure i intro. The accepted number is around 1300 definite members, but there are are around 600 more that are included in the VCC (Virgo Cluster Catalog) as possible members. -- Decumanus 01:28, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Total mass ?

Could someone add an estimate of total mass? 131.111.69.91 12:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Discovery

I edited the 2nd paragraph to clear some things up. Though Messier did discover quite a few of them, he did not discover the cluster as such or all of its members. In fact, until the 1920's astronomers general consensus was that the Milky Way was the only galaxy in the universe. See: http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn/astron/Messier/dis-tab1.html for a list of discoverers of M objects among others.--Kalsermar 19:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

distance

I don't think the distances 52 million light years and 20Mpc agree very well. Comments? Achoo5000 05:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

20 Mpc equal about 65 Mly, feel free to change it to that figure.--Kalsermar 15:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Virgo cluster of galaxies → Virgo Cluster – The object is primarily known as the "Virgo Cluster" with the first letters of both words capitalized because the name is a proper noun. GeorgeJBendo 13:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support for reasons given in the nomination. GeorgeJBendo 13:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. QmunkE 19:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support 132.205.44.134 03:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Moved. Teke ^(talk) 03:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternate names "Field of the Nebulae" and "Coma-Virgo Cloud"

I am proceeding to turn "Field of the Nebulae" and "Coma-Virgo Cloud" into redirects to the Virgo Cluster. The May 1998 Newsletter of the EXPLORIT Science Center links both phrases to the Virgo Cluster. This reference and the few others on the web that do not duplicate Wikipedia indicate that "Field of the Nebulae" is a phrase used in old astronomy textbooks. However, none of these webpages adequately reference their sources of information, and things like an astronomy club newsletter are hardly reliable references. I own a few astronomy books from the 1930's - 1950's, and none of them refer to a "Field of the Nebulae", although they sometimes use the phrase "nebulae" for galaxies, they do refer to an identified grouping of galaxies/nebulae in Virgo, and they sometimes use the phrase "Coma-Virgo Cloud". I also cannot find the phrase "Field of the Nebulae" listed in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, the SIMBAD Astronomical Database, or the ADS Abstract Service, even though the ADS Abstract Service contains references from the beginning of the 1900's. I therefore would like to withhold placing the name "Field of the Nebulae" on the Virgo Cluster page until someone finds a book that actually used the phrase to refer to the Virgo Cluster. (I also think that both phrases are so uncommonly used that they would not be missed from the article page.) GeorgeJBendo 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pulling us along

Hi. Isn't this cluster pulling us into it as well? I read this in a book. If so, how quickly are we heading towards it, and should it be mentioned in the article? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 18:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, the Virgo Cluster is in the Hubble flow (e.g. it appears to be moving away from the Milky Way as part of the expansion of the Universe). However, it does appear to be at the center of the Local Supercluster, which would encompass the Local Group. I'm honestly not certain as to what the state of the art is regarding this research. Dr. Submillimeter 21:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Galaxy: Exploring the milky way

Galaxy: Exploring the milky way says the distance from earth is 52 million LY and the size is 20 million LY. Should I put this in? Mocha2007 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it gravitationally bound

Given the huge range of recessional velocity values in the table, what is known about the escape velocity of the cluster and if the galaxies listed are considered gravitationally bound ? (ignoring proper motion, that we cant measure?) - Rod57 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

We could add distance estimates (eg distance modulii from Gavassi 1999) to the table ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Table of galaxy data eg Messier 86

The table of member galaxy data does not make its source(s) clear (could be the following 1985 ref?). It has Messier 86 with recessional velocity of 37 km/s but Messier 86 says it is approaching at about 244 km/s. Maybe the whole table is out of date ? - Rod57 (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)