Talk:Messier 82

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

we need more info on the nature and cause of the X rays mentioned, if anyone knows of them or how they are related to the galaxy, add. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 06:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I know there are already 3 photos on the page, but here is another that is from NASA (no copyright) that maybe be useful.--Andrew c 17:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- Kjkolb 04:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cigar Galaxy → Messier 82 – This galaxy is best known by both professional and amateur astronomers as "Messier 82" or "M82". "Cigar Galaxy" is not a well-known name and could cause confusion. George J. Bendo 14:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support for reasons given above. George J. Bendo 14:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - All Messier objects should have the same naming convention for articles. --Exodio 14:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - only a few deep-sky objects have well-known names (e.g. Andromeda Galaxy), this is not one of them. Chaos syndrome 16:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Use of "common" names should be done sparingly, Andromeda Galaxy, Dumbbell Nebula etc, definitely not to be used here. --Kalsermar 17:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - "Cigar Galaxy" should be mentioned in the article, but the most common name of NGC 3034 is M82. --Fournax 20:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - see Exodio's comments above - Williamborg (Bill) 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

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

[edit] Incorrect trivia

Storkk added this trivia item:

In approximately 100 Million years, due to the rotation of the Milky Way, M82 will be the largest celestial object visible from Earth, appearing close to 40 times the diameter of the moon.

This article ("Sky Lights: The Dark Side of the Universe" by Bob Berman, Discover Magazine, V27, No. 8) was cited as the reference.

This information is plainly wrong. First of all, the Discover article (or at least the online version) never made such a claim. Second, the solar system is already near its closest location to M82 in its orbit (according to the galactic coordinates from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database); M82 will only appear to be smaller when the solar system completes another half-orbit in the Milky Way. Third, Messier 81, which is interacting with M82, is physically twice or three times as large as M82; M81 would therefore appear larger than M82 regardless of where it was viewed from. Finally, the solar system's radius from the center of the Milky Way is only ~8 kpc, whereas the distance to M82 is ~3-4 Mpc; the change in distance to M82 as the Sun orbits the Milky Way is so small that the apparent size of M82 (~11 arcmin) will hardly change.

I am deleting this trivia item. Please do not add it back in. George J. Bendo 08:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small telescope photo

That view of M82 is what you would get with a large (200 mm and larger) telescope under higher magnification under a clear, transparent sky (I can attest to it because I have seen it with my 12-inch Dobsonian telescope at 166X). A person with a smaller telescope would not get that type of view, instead it would look like an elongated smudge. Rwboa22 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot use your own personal observations to write Wikipedia articles. That would be original research, which is avoided in Wikipedia. Can you supply a reference to support your claim? Dr. Submillimeter 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)