Kiss my Virgo Supercluster

The BBQ Pit
1

Not sure if this is really Pit material, but since it’s more or less a rant against astronomy, of all things, I’ll dump it here.

Okay, recently (on Nova) I hear the term “supercluster” for the first time. Superclusters, I learn, are large groups of galaxies bound by gravity. The Milky Way is part of the Virgo supercluster.

I enjoy astrology, very casually, and this seems like basic stuff, but it is new to me. It’s as if I know I live in Pennsylvania, am vaguely aware of the United States, but have never heard of Canada. Or “Earth.” I figure I better bone up on the basics: the galaxies in our local group, other nearby local groups, and other nearby superclusters. So, when Regis asks me which of the following our sun does not belong to, I can say “B: the Macaroni Supercluster. The Macaroni Supercluster is our nearest neighboring supercluster, but our sun is part of the Virgo Supercluster. Everybody knows that. Final answer.” I’d like to point out at this point that I’ve already used the word “supercluster” 8 times, which is giving my spellcheck fits.

Anyway, I should just check the Internet, right? Geez. There are a few astronomy sites out there, huh? Most of them seem pretty unintelligible to people who aren’t already astronomy buffs, although a few of them look like they were slapped together by people whose only knowledge of astronomy came from catching the first 20 minutes of the same Nova episode that I saw. Maybe I should just post to the General Questions board. Nah, I’d get links to pages I don’t understand, jokes about superclusters with chocolate coatings and nougat centers, and inferences that I don’t know how to use Google. Okay, I’ll try to tough it out with the websites.

Here is what I found out before I gave up…

The Milky way is one of about 30 galaxies in our local group. Yes, about 30. We’re talking about galaxies here, which are hard to misplace, but we haven’t zeroed in on an exact number in our local group. Sort of like there have been about 40 US presidents, but no one knows the exact number for sure.

Our local group is named Local Group. Go fig. If you feel insecure from all those times that you’ve heard our sun is a nondescript star in a typical spiral galaxy, take heart: the Milky Way kicks ass in Local Group. Apart from Andromeda, all the rest of the galaxies are wimps. Most of them don’t even have names as exciting as “Local Group”. The Milky Way contains about 100 million stars. No, wait, the Milky Way contains at least 300 million stars. And, Milky Way and Andromeda are going to collide! No, they’re not! Yes they are!

Other groups of galaxies within our supercluster get lousy names. One such group is called M77 Group, but it also goes by the name NGC 1068 Group. Catchy. The most significant group in the Virgo Supercluster is the Virgo Cluster, which can be found in the direction of the constellation Virgo. Hmmm, that’s going to cause a little confusion. Mind if I call them all ‘Bruce’ to keep it clear? Local Group will eventually crash into Virgo Cluster! No, maybe not. Yes it will! It’s not clear if it will.

The Virgo Supercluster is the only supercluster that anyone talks about! Just try to find out about other superclusters. One site names another supercluster as the Great Wall and says that it is 250 million light years away. Some people believe that there are structures even larger than superclusters. If so, I presume the one that we are in will be called the Virgo Superdupercluster. But I’ll just call it Bruce.

2

I’d move it to MPSIMS if I were Queen for the day, but damn entertaining. I laughed, I cried, I bought the DVD.

Good show!

3

Astrology? That is fortune-telling, read-the-horoscope kinda stuff. You must be thinking of astronomy, a real scence.

4

That’s billion. With a “b”. Geez, didn’t you ever watch Cosmos?

Oh, and be careful about that “astrology/astronomy” thing. We have some professional astronomers around here, and you’re already in the Pit.

5

The “Great Wall” seems not to be a supercluster, but part of a larger structure altogether. As if the entire Universe (why did I capitalize that? I dunno…) has a structure to it… like a mass of soap bubbles (the soap film being the galaxies, with huge empty areas between).Makes you feel small, eh?

More info here… and here

6

Oh, and since we’re in the Pit (capitalized that too, but I know why! I tremble with every post I make here!):

Re: the Astronomy/Astrology issue… FELCH YOU!

[sup]Wait… that didn’t come out right… uh… or did it?[/sup]:smiley:

7

Here we have a person who either doesn’t know the difference between astronomy and astrology, or is a dabbler in astrology. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which is worse.

This person thinks that most astronomy sites are too hard to understand. Huge shock.

This person feels that astronomers should understand absolutely everything about the Universe. Just like those slacker doctors should have figgered out how to cure cancer, and why we age. Everybody knows that detecting and counting stars and galaxies is just as easy as counting noses. And supercluster dynamics? Child’s play.

This person also thinks that we should give creative and amusing names to each and every object that has ever been observed, presumably because it makes it easier for people who don’t know the difference between astronomy and astrology to keep them straight.

There are a wealth of GQs that could be mined from the OP, like “How many stars are there in the Milky Way, and why is this a difficult question to answer?” and “Will the Milky Way collide with M31?” and “Is extragalactic dynamics significantly harder than balacing my check book?” However, we are in the Pit, not General Questions, and while I’m usually willing to answer any astronomy question for someone who’s genuinely curious, that’s not really the vibe I’m getting from Borborygmi.

::Pats Borborygmi on the head and hands him/her/it a lollypop.:: Stick to getting your astronomy off the back of cereal boxes, okay, kiddo?

8

Jesus, he used “astronomy” four times, and everyone dogpiles on him for one slip up when he typed astrology. Here’s someone with a genuine interest in learning more about the universe, frustrated because he can’t get a straight answer. That bastard! Let’s all kick his ass!

9

People who want an answer usually post in General Questions.

Flame me and my colleagues, and of course I’m going to kick your butt for making a bunch of stupid-ass mistakes.

It’s like flaming English teachers by saying, “Their dumb.”

“I enjoy astrology,” indeed.

10

Podkayne: Oops, hadn’t thought of it that way.

[Gilda Radner] Nevermind! [/Gilda Radner]

11

Just look at the pictures.

:wally

12

Podkayne sizes Borborygmi up. Should he or she respond with insults? This is the Pit after all. Or a brief astronomy lesson? Perhaps, but, indeed, no real question was asked in the OP. Podkayne’s response is a mix of both, which surely seems appropriate.

Certainly, I should be taken to task for the millions/billions gaffe and, since this is the Pit, the slip for typing “astrology” one friggin’ time. Call me any variation of a BHA that you wish.

However, I did not post to GQ for the good reason that I did not have a good question to ask there, and did not want to waste the time of folks like yourself. Do you really think any of the questions that you proposed in GQ would fly? Sure, they’re better than a lot of those asked, but they are also the sort of question that, with perseverance, can be answered for oneself by searching elsewhere on the web, even by us cereal-eaters. (I’ve made the mistake of asking an inappropriate question there before; thankfully no one responded and it never formed into a thread.)

If you think the OP was a flame against you, then clearly you are WAY too oversensitive. The joke was on my own lack of knowledge, on how frustrating searching the net can be, and on the poorest of the astronomy sites out there. But if you take the post seriously, then you shouldn’t just dismiss the frustrations I encountered out of hand, unless you want “you and your colleagues” to be the only ones who will ever understand this stuff.

  • The astronomy sites on the net are, in large part, an unorganized mess. Not much that you can do about this, I suppose, but you should be aware that anyone trying to find answers to basic astronomy questions on the net is in for a rough experience.

  • Astronomy sites really do contradict one another. Sure, the internet teems with bad information of all stripes. But don’t blame me for it.

  • I do not think detecting and counting stars is easy, and never said it was. I do find it odd that there is not a consensus on how many galaxies are in Local Group, since it seems to be only in the 30s. I can count to 30 with just one friend, and one of us doesn’t even have to take our shoes off. Of everything I wrote, perhaps this would be the most appropriate subject to throw to GQ.

  • As a matter of fact, I do think more objects (no, not every single object) should be graced with creative and amusing names. Yes, because it would make astronomy easier to study and more accessible to the general population. Gosh, what am I thinking? My apologies.

The OP was mostly me blowing off steam after a frustrating web search, with the curiosity of how I would be flamed for it and what interesting factoids might come up in such a thread. And these replies are all well and good. Podkayne, I presume that if I someday post a genuine astronomy question to GQ that we’ll both take a different tone.

13

Borborygmi, I’m pleased to see a response with a great deal of good humor. I’m not made of stern enough stuff for the Pit, really. I always regret a flame. :slight_smile:

It’s unfortunate that you couldn’t find a good site that answered your question, but the questions you’re asking aren’t as basic as you think. They’re cutting-edge stuff. Just to briefly address an example (because I’ve been presuaded that, despite your pique in the OP, you do display genuine curiousity :wink: ), counting the number of galaxies in the Local Group is tough for a number of reasons. Some are undoubtably hidden behind the bulk of our own Galaxy. Others are dim enough that they’re devilishly difficult to detect, even if they are unobscured. And once one has found a galaxy, then one has to answer the much more difficult question: is it gravitationally bound to the Local Group? To know that, you have to know its speed, its distance, and the total mass of the Local Group. None of those is trivial to measure.

As for your complaints that there aren’t enough web pages that have the information you want boiled down into ready-to-serve, bite-sized factioids, well, boo hoo. Astronomers generally are excited about their work and happy to share with the public. However, no scientist is under any obligation to make a pretty web page for your amusement. The more time astronomers spend noodling around with their web pages, the less time they’ll spend answering those interesting questions you’ve brought up. In fact, there are people who are paid to provide exactly what you’re looking for: science writers. You can find their work online, and also in books and periodicals. To find those, though, you’ll have to go to a library or something like that, which is harder to do than typing a few words into a search engine.

I don’t think that astronomy web pages as a whole are worse than, say, biology pages or history pages, or the web pages of other disciplines. Indeed, there are a lot of astronomy web pages, particularly those by dedicated amateurs, that are really great. I answer questions for an ask-the-expert page, and I’d say that about 95% of the time I can find a nice, basic web site to answer the question (though, admittedly, I’m armed with more knowledge than the layman, so it’s easier for me to guess the relevant keywords and filter out the crap.)

Regarding intersting names for objects, you mentioned NGC1068. Think about that for a second. If there’s an NGC1068, it stands to reason that there’s an NGC1067, and maybe even an NGC1069. And indeed, there are. As a matter of fact, there are almost 8000 objects in the New General Catalog. Now, Your Tax Dollars can go to somebody naming eight thousand galaxies, star clusters, and assorted other fuzzy things in the sky, or they can go to someone answering interesting scientific questions. Further, the more boring the name, the easier it is to figure out what it is. Again, would you rather have astronomers wasting their time saying “The Harvey Cluster? Where the fuck is the Harvey Cluster?” or would you prefer that they say, “Ah, the NGC1068 cluster. That must contain NGC1068,” pick up the copy of the NGC on their desk, and flip immediately to the page that has the position of that galaxy?

One last bit of unsolicited advice: you’ll rub fewer people the wrong way by “wasting” their time in General Questions than posting jerky things in the Pit.

14

Well, I don’t have anything to flame with, so maybe I don’t belong here, but I’d still like to make a few observations.

[ul]
[li] So the astronomy web sites are an unorganized mess. And so is the web in general. Like you said, can’t do much about that, but please bear in mind that astronomy is a fairly broad and complex subject (as the saying goes: astronomy covers about 99.999% of the material in the universe), so by its very nature it won’t be easy to quickly find answers to your questions.[/li]
[li] Maybe what you think are basic questions really aren’t. I don’t watch NOVA (don’t own a TV), but I get the impression that part of the show’s purpose is to disseminate knowledge from the frontiers of science to a lay audience. At its frontiers, science gets messy, the data is incomplete, and people will disagree on how to interpret the available information.[/li]
[li] Why is it so hard to count galaxies in our local supercluster if there are only 30 or so of them? I’d guess it’s because you have to find them first - not so easy. In the night sky are point objects (stars), extended objects (round disks, such as the moon and the planets through telescopes), and fuzzy objects, which include nebulas, galaxies, and far-away comets. They’re dim. They’re small in comparison to the celestial dome, and when you see one, how do you know a) which type of fuzzy object is it? and b) if it belongs to our neighborhood?[/li]
[li] Scientists, like everyone else, do things that make their own lives easier, so they name things for classification and cataloging purposes and don’t much bother with the creative names. (More work? Bah!)[/li]
[li] If you ever want to get more serious about astronomy, I’d suggest going the book route, since they’re a lot more organized than (as you well know) haphazard web searches. My recommendations:[/li]- The Stars, by H.A. Rey. Good for learning the constellations.

  • Nightwatch, by Terence Dickinson. A good all-around introduction to the subject.
  • 365 Starry Nights, by Chet Raymo. Good descriptions of the stars you’re looking at.
  • And get a planisphere, some star charts, and start looking up.

[li] If you just want to have questions answered as you think of them, give The Astronomy Cafe a try.[/li][/ul]

15

Ooh, (nearly) simultaneous posts with almost the same information. Spooky.

16

Podkayne and Philistine, thank you both for such detailed and informative responses. Even if it’s not in the spirit of the Pit, I’d like to apologize for anything said in the OP that may have offended anyone on a personal level; I’m still shocked that it sparked something of an emotional response. I was expecting replies, if there even were any, to be on the order of puns involving Uranus.

Okay, if anyone else posts anything for which they should be thanked, consider yourself appreciated in advance. I don’t want to be accused of bumping the thread unnecessarily.

17

You want a pun on Uranus? You got one:

I used to have a T-shirt that showed a map of the solar system, with the sun and all the planets labeled. Uranus, however, is pointed to with big red letters and a big red arrow. Across the bottom, it says “Where farts come from.”

I’ve since outgrown that shirt, but only in size, not in its sense of humor.

18

Yes, I know, 8 months late. But what the hell.

I gently suggest that instead of a Pit thread, this could easily have been in GQ: “Hi! Does anyone here know a good astronomy site that will explain things like superclusters, galaxies and the like?”

Whereupon a hundred friendly individuals would have fallen all over themselves to send you different sites. I humbly (ha!) suggest my own: http://www.badastronomy.com, and more specifically the Bitesize pages, where I have some info on clusters of various sorts.

There are good websites out there; you just have to know where to find them. Try my links page and check out the Top Ten sites I like, and you’ll get more info then you’ll know what to do with.

19

[puns enabled]But it’s bad astronomy, done by a bad astronomer! That’ll leave the OPer much worse off than before!

20

he’s the Bad Astronomer 'cause he’s bad. he’s the “shaft” of astronomy. he takes faulty astronomy and punches it in the nuts before breaking his foot off in it’s misinterpreted-data ass.

and then he lays out the good stuff.
::starts humming the “shaft” theme::

bow-chikka-bow-wow!
he’s bad!
shut yo’ mouth!
i’m just talking 'bout…
Bad astronomer!
yeah, bad astronomer…
he gots the Astronomy!
…
and on that note, i run off into the night… woosh!