Talk:Phoenix Cluster

Image needed
They are owned by Chandra. How can we get an image? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Central galaxy?
Is the central galaxy the Seyfert2 galaxy 6dFGS gJ234443.9-424312 ? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Black hole 103.242.156.99 (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * black hole 103.242.156.99 (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The central galaxy of the cluster is making news headlines now... ; it would be nice to have a designation for the central galaxy. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The convention is to refer to the most massive galaxy as "A". So the central, star-forming galaxy would be Phoenix A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.101.8.202 (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That is certainly not true. "Phoenix A" is a radio source located in the Phoenix constellation, the first discovered in that constellation. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, they also refer to the central BCG as "Phoenix A." So there you have it. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

NED
I can't seem to find this in NED -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible images
Can we use these? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Star Formation Rate of Milky Way
This article cites a reference which says Milky Way star formation rate is 1 solar mass per year. Andromeda Galaxy says that Milky Way star formation rate is 3 to 5 solar masses per year (the citation doesn't seem to support this assertion). Another WP article (I forget which ) cites saying the rate is 10 solar masses per year. Which one is the best estimate?

Keep watch
Keep an eye on this article due to the ongoing massive flux of audience, which has been apparent over recent months.

Major channels on YouTube drew videos about this object, and we should keep a close eye if this article might get some vandalism based on those videos. Thanks! SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The Space Enthusiast (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * oops, I forgot about the remark that we must do the same on the article's of astronomical superlatives (Stephenson 2 DFK-1, ESO 383-76, IC 1101, Abell 1413, VY Canis Majoris, etc). The Space Enthusiast (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Has a mass of 100,000,000 solar masses ( the mass of the sun)?
It has a mass of 10^11 Solar Masses. That translates to 100,000,000,000 Solar Masses.It is simply wrongNonamon (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I reverted you and the other guy's edits. This is not a Guinness Records contest. SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If the distance of the galaxy is around 8.6 billion light years, it means that we're seeing it at that depth back in time. Now, if the Super Black Hole is estimated to grow by 60 solar masses per year, then it follows that it has long since gobbled up the entire galaxy! ;) 188.150.64.57 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Stop with the assumptions.
 * Quasar activity in black holes can only last for millions of years at best. They are unsustainable in the long run. It is most likely to have shut down at this point; what we are looking is 5.7 billion years (light-travel time, because 8.6 billion is comoving distance) ago. It did not "gobbled up the entire galaxy." SkyFlubbler (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry for my messages on your talk page! The Space Enthusiast (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Radius
> Assuming it is a non-rotating black hole...

The article then goes on to make crazy size predictions of the event horizon. But the chances of it not having any rotation is next to impossible, since we've never seen any celestial object in any system with zero spin.

We should use size predictions based on the Kerr metric black hole predictions at minimum. 2601:182:800:8090:28A8:7FB4:7C16:E0D (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * We can, if we know the parameters for angular momentum and charge. Which we don't.
 * There is no need for further complications, since the sizes for the event horizon are placed there to give a simplified mental picture for the reader. Obsession to mathematical intricacies demands challenging calculations that are both exhausting and not really worth it to be spent on the subject, which also misses the point of why those figures are included there in the first place. SkyFlubbler (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)