Talk:Galaxy merger

Redundant
Recommend merging this article with: Interacting galaxy. Or that article with this one. KyuuA4 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't necessarily agree: interacting galaxies are an observational class of galaxy while a galaxy-galaxy merger is a (albeit-related) physical process. If we were to merge, I suggest changing the name to e.g. Galaxy-galaxy interactions. 84.101.53.254 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently I was logged-out when I wrote the above. For the record. Cosmo0 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest that this article be summarized (WP:SS-style) as a section on the Interacting galaxy article.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Pea galaxy
I have added a link in the "See also" section to the "Pea galaxy" article as I'm sure that it is relevant to this subject. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming major edit
Just a quick note to let everyone know. The Astronomy 533 graduate astronomy class at the University of Michigan is updating a small number of astronomy-related wiki pages, this is one of them. The page will be significantly changed; please feel free to have a look when it comes online in mid-December. EFBell (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Classifications
I have added a new "Classification" section where galaxy mergers are distinguished by number of galaxies involved, their size and their gas richness.

RickV88 (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional information
I also added some additional information from the Galaxy formation page, where it talked about galaxy mergers. I then added a link to this article as the main one for galaxy mergers. RickV88 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Major merger?
we have one red link to major merger? Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked Estopedist1 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Strange gloss
"The gravitational potential (i.e. the shape)". . . ?! I can see that the shape of the galaxy's gravitational well is correlated with the shape of the galaxy, and if the shape changes so does the gravitational potential at a given location, but saying they're the same thing seems a bit of a stretch.

I'm guessing the time taken for gravitational waves to propagate across the galaxy is also significant, given the distances involved, so the gravitational field experienced at one side of the galaxy won't reflect the current positions of the stars on the other side? (I don't know how the timescale of the collision typically compares with the distance in lightyears across the galaxies.) Musiconeologist (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Update: I've removed the part in parentheses. I couldn't access the full paper (the PDF link didn't load), so couldn't check what it actually says. I'd have liked to change it to something like The gravitational field resulting from the galaxy's shape, but changing quickly could just as easily be a misreading of something about steep gradients (ie strong fields) or sharp changes in direction over a short distance, and I think it would be OR to assume what the original says. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)