Talk:Laniakea Supercluster

"Local" Supercluster of Galaxies

I've opened a discussion at WT:ASTRO about it -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, what is the new preferred term to describe the previous superclusters such as Virgo, now regarded merely as lobes of Laniakea? 86.0.80.106 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder is the Laniakea Supercluster still called the Local Supercluster? 2001:8003:9008:1301:28D6:2329:294E:AEB6 (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Vic Park (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent and untested

A couple of things about this stub.

1. Generally, the etymology is mentioned in the lede (eg Laniakea is a word? phrase? portmanteau? from the Hawaiian words lani "heaven" and akea "spaceous/immeasurable").
2. The Nature paper was just published: this doesn't (yet) constitute established science; a fact that needs to be mentioned here.
3. The previous (and established) hierarchy should also be mentioned: Milky Way is part of the Local Group (cluster of xxx galaxies with 2(?) major galaxies) which in turn is part of the Virgo Supercluster of an estimated xxx clusters, xxx galxaies, and xxx stars. Superclusters form the filamentary structure of the Universe, the structure of our Observable Universe at the largest scale - or some such.
4. Distance measures should be consistent, (Parsec (mega) is preferred in cosmology, so distances should be: xxx Mpc (xxx Mly) and not xxx Mly (xxx Mpc) ← the point being which is main unit and which is parenthetical.
5. I'd like to see an independent reference (not the Nature paper) to the claim that the direction of movement (when expansion is subtracted) DEFINES a supercluster. I guess that this idea is being PROPOSED, and is not in fact accepted by the experts in Cosmology (but IDK).173.189.78.173 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Problems with the Image Credit

Problems with the Image Credit and the link to the original images. I don't know how to change the information in the image or I'd do it my self.

1. The link cited is broken - http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/2002/cr.gif The correct link to the original source should be on this page - http://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/cr/images.shtml#refs

2. The current source cites, Author, Klaus Dolag. While he does work at the Max Plank Institute I'm sure he just created this particular version of the image. The original image was created by a team. The peer-reviewed paper that defines this group can be found at http://xxx.uni-augsburg.de/abs/astro-ph/0111099 - and Klaus Dolag is not one of the cited authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.141.222 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move: September 6, 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move request done. Laniakea has successfully been moved to Laniakea Supercluster. SkyFlubbler (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Laniakea → Laniakea Supercluster – I think it's much better to move this to Laniakea Supercluster since it is much more formal. Perhaps one may ask when he/she heard "Laniakea". To be honest, when I first heard that word I thought it was an animal bearing out milk. So adding the word "Supercluster" makes it go like the other superclusters' names in Wiki (ex. Coma Supercluster, Hercules Supercluster, etc.). Originally typed in by SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC); edited by SkyFlubbler (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support moving this to Laniakea Supercluster and the current Laniakea (disambiguation) to Laniakea — improves clarity, and beyond the temporary "recent news bubble" it seems that the Hawaiian beach may well be a roughly equivalent candidate for the "primary topic" of the term. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support move, but oppose suggestion by 77.57.25.250: instead of moving the disambiguation here, this should be redirected to the disambig, per how it is usually done. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I did a quick check of Category:Wikipedia disambiguation that the majority of entries do not have the "(disambiguation)" suffix. Usual convention appears to be to have the disambiguation page without the "(disambiguation)" suffix if there is no clear primary topic for a given term. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment this isn't the way to propose a move. You should follow the instructions at WP:RM, which will properly notify the related projects -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I've already changed it. Thanks. SkyFlubbler (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support Yes, most other superclusters have "Supercluster" attached. "Laniakea Supercluster" would clarify the article's subject from the get-go. The term "Laniakea Supercluster" is used in the wild (ie. outside of Wikipedia). -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support move - for the reasons noted above - including consistency with the names of other Superclusters (List => Coma Supercluster, Hercules Supercluster, Shapley Supercluster, Virgo Supercluster, etc.) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name first

I recall that on wikipedia pages, etymology comes first? If so, the section on the name should be moved up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.225.104 (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of main article edit changing "binding mass" to "mass"

The concept of binding mass is confusing at best. The link from binding mass to the page Gravitational binding energy seems completely unrelated to making any estimate of how much mass is present in the Laniakea supercluster. It is reasonable to convert energy to mass equivalent by dividing by c^2, but a calculation of how much kinetic energy must be removed from "a spherical mass of uniform density" seems completely irrelevant to the topic of the Laniakea supercluster. BuzzBloom (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Image doesn't maintain circle when clicked

Or only circle comes up when clicked. Would be nicer imo if they were combined or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.220.209 (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The text that requests/submits info for update on the observable universe

Relating to the text that says "It was defined in September 2014, when a group of astronomers including R. Brent Tully of the University of Hawaii and Hélène Courtois of the University of Lyon published a new way of defining superclusters according to the relative velocities of galaxies." I have requested/submitted the following at 11 October 2013, 10:19 (CEST):
"Yet another, under Physics and Astronomy:

The text of cosmology as Big Bang Theory holds the Hubble's Constant based on WMAP-data/background radiation, this grants new insights to or against The Big Bang Theory by determining the relative speed to our own planet Earth inside the Solar System.

Let me introduce "essential flat Universe" or "qualifiers for the essentially expanding Universe".

The points:

• whether all or some of these entities are moving away from us:
  

1. the limit/boundary of the Milky Way disc
2. the other local galaxies
3. some of the outer objects inside the Milky Way
4. whether the outer objects beyond the local group galaxies are moving away from us
5. the movement or not of CfA2 Great Wall
6. the movement or not of Sloan Great Wall
7. the status of all objects inside the two categories Sloan Galaxies and Sloan Quasars"
from the link to my blog:
https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2013/02/my-name-olsnes-lea-nobel-prize-maybe.html?showComment=1381479559104#c1303549832293381853 109.189.66.223 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Image caption does not represent image

"The complete map of the Observable universe and its Galaxy filament's names, including the Laniakea Supercluster." It's actually a much more local area in the image. 199.127.199.37 (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed the caption to, "The complete map of the observable universe and its galaxy filaments' names, including the Laniakea Supercluster", since the only errors I saw were capital letters and a misplaced apostrophe and full stop. I'm no expert but I don't think the image could properly be described as a much more local area, considering that it appears to cover a radius of 3,600 Mpc (11.7 billion light years). Since the furthest galaxies in the observable universe are now thought to be around 45 billion light years away it may just be a case of not accounting for the metric expansion of space in the labelling of the diagram. Perhaps somebody else can explain? nagualdesign 02:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Laniakea

This wiki article explains who proposed the name Laniakea, but not when, or whether it has any official status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.152.223 (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Laniakea was used in material published by the International Astronomical Union when the 49th General Assembly met in Honolulu. The PDF can be found here. There was another PDF of a proposal to the IAU in May 2019 referencing Laniakea on page 56, here. I found these while looking for a source on the person who named it, as currently citation 11 is dead. The National Science Foundation does link to this page, which named Nawa'a Napoleon. 2600:1700:B250:1440:50D6:657E:F278:2516 (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

State of Knowledge

So if Laniakea is not bound together by gravity as recently found as it says on this webpage, and is not visibly connected by baryonic matter, is it even a cosmic body, or is it held together by dark matter or some other means not mentioned in this article? I am having trouble finding this in other online articles, and I am beginning to have doubts as to whether this even exists or it is all a blunder. --JLavigne508 (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

it's all passingly odd. apparently, they pitched a new way of classifying superclusters which allowed them to put a bunch of well-known structures under a new heading (obviously definitions can always be arranged to deliver any desired outcome). it somehow made its way into Nature, probably because the senior author is (no doubt deservedly) prominent in the field and a good mate of Nature's editors... then a huge media circus surrounding largest object ever discovered ensued which must have irked the many good people who had spent their careers studying the constituents of this newly discovered thing.

folks, it's a cosmic web of interconnected filaments. playing the definitions game with naming bits of it really does not add much.

still, Laniakea sounds lovely, it is my cat's name 81.49.8.92 (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess consider what the definition is and how it was arrived at, in order to decide if Pluto is a planet or not. Oh wait.

But still—- their reasoning seems sensible to me. Also, “not gravitationally bound” doesn’t mean not gravitationally attracted to something in common. 2603:9001:4A00:1672:11CD:873F:E797:B693 (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Outdated image

“ Map of superclusters within the nearby universe, with Laniakea shown in yellow”

Still has the Supercluster named as Virgo UsersLikeYou (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Nearby

"the galaxy supercluster that is home to the Milky Way and approximately 100,000 other nearby galaxies"

What definition of nearby are you using here? The other galaxies are a very very long distance from the milky way 83.45.78.189 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

On the scale of the size of the local supercluster, or universe. 2603:9001:4A00:1672:11CD:873F:E797:B693 (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Brightest member infobox entry

An uncited entry in the infobox specifies “Brightest member/Milky Way (mag –5.0)”. That seems absurd, the only way our local galaxy would qualify as brightest would be by using some kind of local brightness, rather than an absolute value. Where does this come from, and is it worth keeping? Tarl N. (discuss) 19:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed that item under WP:BOLD. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Supercluster nesting terminology overlap

This article explains how the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex, a galaxy filament, contains the Laniakea Supercluster, which itself contains the Hydra–Centaurus Supercluster, which itself contains the Hydra and Centaurus Superclusters (each of which seemingly peers to our own Virgo Supercluster). Thus, supercluster nesting seems to suffer from quite the terminology overlap. El_C 01:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)