Talk:Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies

Addition of the complete catalog
As of 12 July 2006, I have started to add the complete catalog to the Wikipedia article. Rather than do this all at once and risk losing some work, I am doing this in small steps. I also plan on adding references to the page as I complete it, but the early versions of the page may contain some unreferenced information. (It's also hard to explain that I have scientific images of NGC 4618 where I can clearly see that it is interacting with NGC 4625. I need a real reference for something like that.) GeorgeJBendo 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

On 10 August 2006, I found a notice stating that the article had exceeded the recommended article length for Wikipedia. I realize that this may be a problem, but I am going to continue to add in all of the entries on one page for now. By providing textual descriptions of each of the categories as well as occasional pictures, I am hoping that I have enhanced this catalog so that it is not merely a list but something that can be browsed by other readers. Later, it may be preferable to split the catalog list into five separate Wikipedia entries (spiral galaxies, elliptical galaxies, amorphous galaxies, double and multiple galaxies, and very unusual galaxies). GeorgeJBendo 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the best articles on Wikipedia, standing as both a description of, and a history of, the understanding of nature. Even if the article runs a little long, the categorisation and the pictures used to describe the variants of galaxies are true and concise. It's a little bit awe inspiring that so many objects as large as galaxies remain red links. 81.110.20.205 (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

NGC 5679 (Arp 274) needs to be moved
NGC 5679 was recently imaged by Hubble and found to actually not be gravitationally interacting as was previously thought. Someone should move this galaxy (group) to another section of the list. Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Galaxies with the appearance of fission
, I have removed this material from the section. Wikipedia articles are not essays and do not include editors personal observations of a subject. It would need to be supported by references to published material.


 * Arp is not around to explain his terminology thus we might be able to anecdotally explain his conclusions. There has been many studies of object pairs that were conducted to look for interaction. The term "merger" is often used to justify these collections. One recent study eliminated over 98% of its objects to speculate about less than 2% as "multi-mergers." Why not use all the data as fission and emergent data? For eleven years one group looked for the elusive "merger" systems but they gave up in futility. Several astronomers used programmed modelling and failed to show interaction. Another author uses the term "working hypothesis" to define "merger' researches. Often as we read in Level5 NED monographs about this subject scanning 50 years of searching for an objective equivalent to the "merger" metaphor there are no hard fast conclusions, named objects or recognized authorities. When these objects are viewed they conjure the descriptions "collision," "tidal debris," "flyby" etc., to evoke some form of "violent" crashing. How does one object suddenly spontaneously accelerate wildly? No evidence has been found that the cosmos expands by fits and starts. Even if the cosmos had irregular gravitational flux then all objects would be affected at the same time. No one mentions that many of these pairs have very similar compositions which cannot favor an interpretation that random objects are moving randomly in space. There is also the paradigm that many paired-object systems appear as distinctive types which should not be so if they are random objects. Arp may have observed that from relatively small to the fully ‘cloned,’ multi-object systems can be generated from a single primordial astronomical anlagen. There are more galaxies rather than fewer in the cosmos. No one has ever posited a theory for galaxy creation by merging objects but there is evidence that very large galaxies existed and they are not around now. The majority of paired-object systems always show a greener or bluer minor object and a redder, larger object. One may also observe dust lanes that migrate with the fission object(s). A minor object leaving an emergent system would be expected to 'drag' dust from the 'parent' and be incapable of producing its own dust lane otherwise. The largest fission 'clones' show objects with similar spectra as do the minor fission type objects with more than one minor object ‘twin.’ These objects can be extrapolated back to the emergent system which give rise to pairs and multi-object systems. Luckily for the authors who expended so much time and effort into their flawed publications, they can be redeemed by rewriting the "merger" paper as a fission paper. It is not necessary to invoke an emergent/fission mechanism to proffer this phenomena.


 * You say No one has ever posited a theory for galaxy creation by merging objects but that is no longer true. Recent observations with the DEEP2 Redshift Survey and the Hubble Space Telescope show that spiral galaxies as well as elliptical galaxies form from mergers. See Galaxy formation and evolution. A lovely video illustrates how this happens and show that the mergers at times may look like fission. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced correspondence
The following was on the article page, rather than here on the talk page where it belongs. Pasting exactly as-is. Reyk YO!  12:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Starry Grandma,

I can be reached at joinpep at sign yahoo dot com. We need to chat.

You say No one has ever posited a theory for galaxy creation by merging objects but that is no longer true. Recent observations with the DEEP2 Redshift Survey and the Hubble Space Telescope show that spiral galaxies as well as elliptical galaxies form from mergers.[1] See Galaxy formation and evolution. A lovely video illustrates how this happens and show that the mergers at times may look like fission.[2] StarryGrandma (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

These references are not what you say they are. The first is from 2012 and the second is a video. Neither reference mentions fission or emergent systems and they have the same caveats all the other articles do. And why did you NOT take down the other opinions written in this article? They are "opinions" and NOT "facts."

Please write me so that I may improve this edit to meet your vaunted expectations.

References

Jump up ^ Reddy, Francis (19 October 2012). "Astronomers Uncover A Surprising Trend in Galaxy Evolution". NASA. Retrieved 19 July 2016. Jump up ^ Anderson, Christina (9 August 2014). The Evolution of Galaxies Short College Documentary. Retrieved 19 July 2016.

Arp is not around to explain his terminology thus we might be able to anecdotally explain his conclusions. There has been many studies of object pairs that were conducted to look for interaction. The term "merger" is often used to justify these collections. One recent study eliminated over 98% of its objects to speculate about less than 2% as "multi-mergers." Why not use all the data as fission and emergent data? For eleven years one group looked for the elusive "merger" systems but they gave up in futility. Several astronomers used programmed modelling and failed to show interaction. Another author uses the term "working hypothesis" to define "merger' researches. Often as we read in Level5 NED monographs about this subject scanning 50 years of searching for an objective equivalent to the "merger" metaphor there are no hard fast conclusions, named objects or recognized authorities. When these objects are viewed they conjure the descriptions "collision," "tidal debris," "flyby" etc., to evoke some form of "violent" crashing. How does one object suddenly spontaneously accelerate wildly? No evidence has been found that the cosmos expands by fits and starts. Even if the cosmos had irregular gravitational flux then all objects would be affected at the same time. No one mentions that many of these pairs have very similar compositions which cannot favor an interpretation that random objects are moving randomly in space. There is also the paradigm that many paired-object systems appear as distinctive types which should not be so if they are random objects. Arp may have observed that from relatively small to the fully ‘cloned,’ multi-object systems can be generated from a single primordial astronomical anlagen. There are more galaxies rather than fewer in the cosmos. No one has ever posited a theory for galaxy creation by merging objects but there is evidence that very large galaxies existed and they are not around now. The majority of paired-object systems always show a greener or bluer minor object and a redder, larger object. One may also observe dust lanes that migrate with the fission object(s). A minor object leaving an emergent system would be expected to 'drag' dust from the 'parent' and be incapable of producing its own dust lane otherwise. The largest fission 'clones' show objects with similar spectra as do the minor fission type objects with more than one minor object ‘twin.’ These objects can be extrapolated back to the emergent system which give rise to pairs and multi-object systems. Luckily for the authors who expended so much time and effort into their flawed publications, they can be redeemed by rewriting the "merger" paper as a fission paper. It is not necessary to invoke an emergent/fission mechanism to proffer this phenomena.

Galaxy mergers
I've added to the article Arp's interpretation of the association between objects, interpreted today, by others, as galaxy mergers. Arp's view was missing previously, and yet forms the basis of much of his subsequent research on "ejections". I also split up the lead, which was too long, and moved some of it to a new section, 'Background', where a quote by Arp could more easily be placed. Coldcreation (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"Galaxy scale"
It's basically the next invariant the universe, from solar system scale to galaxy scale, why usual organizations in matter follow (the galaxy's). Still in most all the theories "galaxies are entirely small to the entire space of the universe", while effectively larger than the solar system. 75.172.96.27 (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)