648 replies to this topic

[AllanDystrup]

.     

     And a close-up view of the P Cygni LBV star and the Crescent with the WR 136 Wolf-Rayet  star; There's also a variable luminous red giant star (HD193469:type K5Ib) between and to the right (West) of the open clusters Do5 and Berk86.

 

*c*

 

PS: Note this is a 30 second averaged live-view iPhone image through my 4" refractor with a TV 55 Plössl eyepiece + my night vision monocular attached a-focally; Not a long-exposure tracked and stacked astro-photo.

     

     -- Allan

[raa]

.

Hi raa, -- I thank you for your thoughts and questions on my "Classic Rich Field" project!

 

     First some background info; This project has been in the making over the past 5 years by now, so there has indeed been several sub-projects along the way, from observations of our Local Bubble co-moving star groups, to stellar streams in surrounding bubbles and further out to the local shell of interstellar molecular clouds (IMC) with their embedded OB-associations in our own Orion-Cygnus spiral arm (Gould's Belt, Radcliffe Wave) and out to similar shells in the surrounding Sagittarius and Perseus Milky Way arms; And further out to our local group of galaxies (Andromeda etc.), the Local Sheet (M81, Leo, Virgo), then further diving into surrounding galaxy superclusters (UMa, Virgo) and out to distant voids and walls, attractors and galaxy streams, all as observable on my suburban backyard night sky with my small 2-4" refractors.

     Some CN'ers have followed this CRF-thread as it unfolded, and several have participated with valuable contributions, -- data and information, suggestions and points of view. Also, the scientific knowledge of many astronomical objects has increased dramatically in the recent years (e.g., new data provided by the ESO GAIA mission), so my observation logs have also been updated along the way. All this has added to the volume of the thread, but there's absolutely no need to plow through it end-to-end, as you can just dive into any sub-project or search for any object that has your current interest.

 

 

     Wherever possible, I do try to document my observations with sketches and/or snapshots to make it easy doing follow-up studies plus sharing and comparing my views with those of fellow amateur astronomers; Also, to understand the astrophysics of the objects, I like to include maps and figures from recent scientific publications in my observation logs, often annotated to further my own understanding.
 

     When I share my observations in an informal way (as here at CN or on my personal web-page), I normally just post my observation logs "as is", usually without wanting to clutter the documentation with long lists of references and credits to academic research, articles and litterature. If you think about is, how much of actual astronomical information that is typically shared on astronomical fora has been collected by the poster himself, and how much is properly referenced and credited as required by scientific publication? Not much, really, -- and that is OK in my opinion.
 

     When publishing observations in articles and books, it is another story. When I collected some of my observations for publication in the NightFall Magazine  and on LuLu books, I did take the time and effort to properly reference all information and illustrations, as should be.

 

     As an example, i have an amateur astronomy friend who (like you) has done a lot of personal observation and research into open clusters, encompassing photometric and spectroscopic recordings and analysis, including studies of stellar evolution with generation of color-magnitude diagrams for the OCs. All with a small RC-reflector from his backyard. So it is certainly possible (and fun and educational) to get results in this field, but OC membership selection for an amateur is restricted to an estimated cluster radius, whereas for a professional, membership data is currently based on precise stellar kinematics (proper motion and velocity data) that effectively can exclude contamination from field stars.

 

     If you search the CRF thread, you will find some of my observations of R associations (Mon R1 and Mon R2 & following) plus on Strömgren Spheres (68 Cyg).

 

Thanks again!
     -- Allan

Thanks for the reply!  I'm not going to use multiquote, as that tends to confuse me, so I hope you can follow the following :-

 

Wherever possible, I do try to document my observations with sketches and/or snapshots to make it easy doing follow-up studies plus sharing and comparing my views with those of fellow amateur astronomers; Also, to understand the astrophysics of the objects, I like to include maps and figures from recent scientific publications in my observation logs, often annotated to further my own understanding.

 

Indeed, I tried that once long ago, but unfortunately I had no staying power!  Also, observing chances declined dramatically.  A little bit of quite basic physics, often with no maths, goes a long way in astronomy.  It was just after I bought the Hipparcos conference book and data CDROMS.  Especially as a lot of things are set up (eg logarithmic scales etc, or units relative to the Sun with the Sun being = 1) so you can think of things in simple arithmetic terms, sometimes just addition and subtraction or relative values!

 

I tend to be spotty in my traget of concentration, and or jump about needlessly at times.  I blame the internet.  I find it very difficult to read a book cover to cover anymore, for instance, I'm too used to jumping around web interfaces to pick up information.  Can't get back into the concentrated and single track though processes, and will sometimes hatch on to one aspect and dig deep into it like a puppy worrying a slipper, whilst barely glance at something else of a similar nature.

 

Coincidentally, I am also very interested in many of the aspects you are, what I somewhat lamely call the Galactography or even the Galactomorphology, the structure of it all, both as classes of things and also as a whole, it really helps the understanding of it all does the contextual aspect.

 

However, from the look of all your data and clips from sources, I've been slipping a great deal!  I must have missed out on one or two review type sources, especially given all those HR diagrams you have found.

 

The last thing I concentrated on was using GAIA EDR3 G, Bp and Rp and parallax to make HR diagrams in terms of both variability type and spectral type via crossing it with the GCVS, which I quite liked.  Similar for common motion and distance double stars, in that case using LAMOST data too, but I haven't figured out a way to represent the A and B stars in a connected way graphically, just one for A stars and one for B stars, but no interrelation route.  I did try some separation in AU based histograms in relation to spectral type or delta colours or delta absolute magnitude related to said, but it didn't really work as I had no firm concept of what I was really after.  Besides which, double star data are riddled with discovery selection effects, so I doubt even a well thought out approach would have much chance of getting meaningful results.

 

When I share my observations in an informal way (as here at CN or on my personal web-page), I normally just post my observation logs "as is", usually without wanting to clutter the documentation with long lists of references and credits to academic research, articles and litterature. If you think about is, how much of actual astronomical information that is typically shared on astronomical fora has been collected by the poster himself, and how much is properly referenced and credited as required by scientific publication? Not much, really, -- and that is OK in my opinion

 

Ah, I agree, that is okay.  I didn't mean to infer otherwise, formal stuff, give references, informal stuff, not so much, and if given at all just a general reference (eg to a much used entire book without page numbers and figure numbers and such).

 

I didn't intend to imply anything underhand, it is just in the computer age it is not always possible to tell what has been designed formally in a publication and cut and pasted, or what some skilled people can do to augment their observations.  Some were obviously from sources, especially heavily annotated and coloured graphs and plots.  However, some plots could have been generated with something like gnuplot and some data from VizieR, and even the evolutionary isochrones and the like could be formula-ed in.  So it wasn't always clear.  Also, to be more honest about it, I thought it easier to ask than to keep looking in the thread, given the thread's size ; )

 

So it is certainly possible (and fun and educational) to get results in this field, but OC membership selection for an amateur is restricted to an estimated cluster radius, whereas for a professional, membership data is currently based on precise stellar kinematics (proper motion and velocity data) that effectively can exclude contamination from field stars.

 

Indeed, I had a thought and attempt at moving groups when GAIA DR2 came out, but gave up as I didn't have the mathematical skills.  Binaries are easy enough, but even triples can become problematic quite quickly.  Mostly getting rid of the immense number of false positives without losing the true positives, which in itself can be tedious for even binaries if you take too wide a separation.

 

Also, you shouldn't trust professional papers too much.  The statistical tools they use nowadays are so assumption ridden a lot of the time there is more belief in results than scientific method.  Most of the thoughts and ideas on Stellar Streams and exoplanets of late will look embarrassing when looked back from the future.  Some stellar streams have been independently confirmed via spectroscopic studies using metallicity and the like on top of the kinematics, but most of the kinematics are using clever statistics to over-ride the fact that the errors in GAIA are far too large in real terms to do this thing.  Yet some streams turn out to be independently confirmed, it seems.  Yet in DR2, and to some extent in DR3, parallax for two stars in a binary that has been watched complete two or more orbits over time can have values where one is impossibly more distant than the other, by a sizeable fraction or more of a parsec, should the parallax be as good as claimed for GAIA.  Things of that ilk.

 

It can be tricky.

 

A "recent" paper I saw on arxiv said most of the OB Associations it examined in Cygnus (I think it was Cygnus) were shown false by GAIA EDR3, meanwhile they had found some "real" ones in the same area, quite a few, using GAIA.  I can imagine some of the Cygnus OB Associations are poorly defined, but they pretty much only confimed the big one, OB2, which has Cygnus X etc involved.  And even then they redefined it and I think broke it up into subsections.  This is actually pushing GAIA data to the limit, especially pre-spectroscopic data as exists now, just pretty much using low parallax values and the very broadband photometry from it, with also very few radial velocities as of yet.

 

It's all a bit up in the air at the moment.  But that at least makes it interesting!

 

Given that though it is difficult to do some amateur level work, and even if, increasingly, python scripts are available to do some processing in sophisticated ways, you have to still fully follow the basic concepts, and understand python, which I cannot.

 

If you search the CRF thread, you will find some of my observations of R associations (Mon R1 and Mon R2 & following) plus on Strömgren Spheres (68 Cyg).

 

I knew I should have searched better! ; )  I thought they'd be there.  Somehow I'd missed out on 68 Cyg being a Stromgren Sphere, I'd only just started in on them, and the season was more Perseus and Cassiopeia orientated at the time if I remember rightly, before high pressure sodium, and more recently the dreaded LED, street lighting came into use.  The latter fully ruins sky brightness, despite being downward pointed it reflects off road asphalt very efficiently.

 

Anyway, thanks for the reply, interesting stuff.

 

Now, thanks to another thread I responded to where I mentioned I had found a handful of preprints on arxiv/astroph for chapters from a book on star forming regions, I did a deeper search and found the book was in fact two monographs, for norther and south skies, from Astronomical Society of the Pacific.  As it is dated 2008, websearch revealed it was no actually available as a public access download.  Scroll down and click on monograph 4, or 5, 4 is North, on the following webpage.  You then get links to each chapter to download as a PDF.  Pick one for an area of interest, each chapter is named after a region or major object in that region.

 

2008 might just be a bit out of date on some of this, but the figures and diagrams are still as valid today, and even if some are infrared, microwave or radio plots, they are at times overlain with optical, and it helps to understand the structure.  Have a look, see what you think.  For all I know you may have the originals in your personal library!

 

https://www.aspbooks.org/a/volumes

 

 

Anyway, five years, I'm impressed!  Glad you're still enjoying it rather than having it have turned into a chore.

 

Just think, when you started on the Gould Belt, the Radcliffe Wave hadn't even been known about, and now it is claimed that the Gould Belt is not real and an artefact consequent of the local Radcliffe Wave, but apparent, not real.

 

There was also a paper very recent on the Local Bubble, I think I found a news item on it on phys.org.  That included something new to me that I'd never heard of called "The Split", although it apparently had a more traditional name.

 

I wish they'd stop using common words and acronyms for things and for surveys, it makes it very difficult to find the relevant thing when doing a websearch!

 

I've certainly become a bit more familiar with some Galactomorphology.

 

Here's an Halpha image resource you may not be aware of

 

http://www.star.ucl....&halpha=on&i=on

 

I've tried to set it for 12 arcminutes boxsize on this 68 Cyg field.  You just change the URL RA and DEC figures %20 is HTML code for space character. Boxsize is the size in arcminutes I think.  There's a form for searching somewhere, but I find these things easier to do directly.

 

.fz is a new compressed fits format, if it is unknown to you, but Aladin will load them, and some things will uncompress them I believe.  I just tried it, I had to play with the pixel histogram option in Aladin to see the Halpha cloudes, but it has some utility.  IPHAS was around +/- 5 degrees north and south of the Galactic Equator.

[AllanDystrup]

.

Hi raa, -- sure the Web is a mixed blessing; Easier to search for information, but at the same time the gold nuggets are now hidden in "a ton of dirt". I've let go of the ambition of doing "serious" amateur astronomy research; it requires too much time and investment in tools for mounting, tracking, recording, post-processing, visualizing, analyzing, modelling... Though, as I've mentioned, it could be fun and educational, but at my current age (72) I'll rather spend my time and energy as an astro tourist, leisurely cruising the night sky with my small grab/go classic refractors, all along the way researching what the latest science has to say about the structure and evolution of the objects i observe, and taking snapshots of my views as "postcards" to share with my friends.

 

    It is true that science is a process of refinement, still with wiggling room for interpretation, but as the confidence level of data gets higher and models more coherent, astrophysics does tend to converge towards a consensus on basic theories. I find it exciting to follow this process! And yes, I have used the research in the ASPCS Handbook of Star Forming Regions (N. Sky), but as we've talked about, research is moving on fast, so new data is available now on many of the regions described in the excellent SFR Handbooks.

_____________________

 

*c*

     -- Allan

[AllanDystrup]

.

*c*

     -- Allan

[raa]

.

Hi raa, -- sure the Web is a mixed blessing; Easier to search for information, but at the same time the gold nuggets are now hidden in "a ton of dirt". I've let go of the ambition of doing "serious" amateur astronomy research; it requires too much time and investment in tools for mounting, tracking, recording, post-processing, visualizing, analyzing, modelling... Though, as I've mentioned, it could be fun and educational, but at my current age (72) I'll rather spend my time and energy as an astro tourist, leisurely cruising the night sky with my small grab/go classic refractors, all along the way researching what the latest science has to say about the structure and evolution of the objects i observe, and taking snapshots of my views as "postcards" to share with my friends.

 

    It is true that science is a process of refinement, still with wiggling room for interpretation, but as the confidence level of data gets higher and models more coherent, astrophysics does tend to converge towards a consensus on basic theories. I find it exciting to follow this process! And yes, I have used the research in the ASPCS Handbook of Star Forming Regions (N. Sky), but as we've talked about, research is moving on fast, so new data is available now on many of the regions described in the excellent SFR Handbooks.

_____________________

 

CMO SN-10.png

*c*

     -- Allan

Well, I'm glad you picked projects that are not only do-able for your circumstances, but didn't let you run out of things to do!  You can look back on a very successful decision.

 

I've a decade on yourself, but I'm beginning to notice that I must have spent a lot longer than I thought not taking note of any astronomy news that would have been of interest to me, as I seemed to have fallen behind quite significantly.

 

I churned through a heck of a number of backlog projects once the initial lockdown hit (although I actually stopped work two weeks before it was declared, I'd asked them for an unpaid sabbatical but it ended up being two weeks of my annual leave, which didn't matter in the end given the lockdown length!)

 

I exhausted them within six months, once I had lots of free-er time.  Took about a year and a half for all of them to appear in 'print', but once upon a time they wouldn't have as I would have been ashamed to submit them, as I cannot write like I used to, not as succinctly nor concisely, and definitely not with the same clarity.  The 'papers' were of varying quality because of this, however some of them were informal venues, and all of them only "pro-am" outlets by the kindest of definitions.  A few publishing venues have either disappeared, or irregular to barely existent editions/updates.  And more are disappearing.  A bit of work on variable or double stars can still be done, but often it doesn't amount to much, as so much has been done now it has hard to find new things to highlight.  It was the release of GAIA DR2, then EDR3, data that allowed me to simply revisit old stuff which previously had insufficient data to say anything about.

 

When full DR3 comes out I might play with some brighter nearby open clusters given it is supposed to be increasing the radial velocity data to 35 million objects, just to see how it works and how it looks.  It will be nothing new, it has all been done before with dedicated work, and it won't lead to anything, but it is nice to reproduce stuff from time to time as an aid to understanding, instead of just reading.  There may not still be enough measured objects to allow this to work, though.

 

I find short term memory is going too, save for numbers, I looked up The Split when I saw it mentioned in the recent Local Bubble news article, found it was a nickname used by one group for the already known -  and that's the issue, I've forgotten what that name was!

 

I used to try to be a polymath in terms of astronomical objects but there is so much new stuff across the board nowadays I invariably have to resort to using wikipedia as an aide memoire for objects (had to do it again recently for some brown dwarf objects), I check out the data, the figures and the references to papers (sometimes), but read between the lines for the body text, as it is of very mixed quality.  Some are quite factual, some carry to many hypothetical and model papers' conclusions, that is, unproven.  Which, as you say, is a mixed blessing.  The web golden age is passed since Web 2.0 which evolved into social media, the golden nuggets used to be whole rich veins you could come across, nowadays you search for data on a star and one of the first links you end up coming across will be its entry in an online role-playing space trading game!  Or some blog.  I like this old style forum aspect (admittedly with newer interface), but blogs are something not of interest.

 

When it comes to new objects, I certainly can't keep up with all the acronyms for galaxy types anymore!  They seem to invent a new one every object!  I can remember ULIRG and one or two others, but that's it.  I do enjoy looking at ALMA images of young stellar objects though, in papers and press releases, where they can actually map data to images instead of contours of rainbow false colour intensity mapping.  Wish they'd use greyscale though, not redscale.

 

I usually just follow the data, and if my maths skills are up to it, play with that, that's why I had a resurgence with all the new GAIA stuff, although not a long lasting one.

 

Anyway, I shall be dipping into your thread from time to time, and I'm glad you found some route for both observing and learning combined that was both sustainable AND rewarding!  I'm a bit jealous on that front ; )

 

All the best!

[AllanDystrup]

.

raa, -- I gather from your posts here that you have a deep background and interest in following recent developments in astrophysics as well as doing analysis and observation projects on recent data from stellar astronomy.

     It is true that getting your results to a state where it can be optimally polished and formally published in order to share them, is adding a lot of hard work to the fun part of research and discovery. My solution has been to just put up my observing reports including notes from recent research articles as posts in threads on public astro-fora (like CN here), to share and benefit from interaction with like minded fellow amateurs. And later to gather these "post cards from my Universe" into PDF-files to download for anyone interested.

     I have maybe 10-15 years left of active participation at this level in amateur astronomy, and I want to use this on as much "quality time" as possible, cruising and observing under the stars and sharing my "postcards" with fellow amateurs. I'd like more like minded amateurs like you to start their own threads here at CN, and share their projects and results, thoughts and observations with us. Please? 

 

__________  

 

*c*

     -- Allan

 

[AllanDystrup]

.

*c*

     -- Allan

[AllanDystrup]

.

*c*

     -- Allan

[AllanDystrup]

.

*c*

     -- Allan

[AllanDystrup]

.

*c*

     -- Allan

[AllanDystrup]

.

 

     On the basis of the Messier objects, I've now described stellar evolution from (1) the 7 young emission- and reflection nebulae, to (2) the 29 aging open clusters, and I'm now looking at (3) the final death throes of stars; In this last category we only find 5 Messier objects: one supernova remnant from a high mass star plus 4 planetary nebulae. 

 

     I've described the Type-II core collapse Crab SNR (M1) together with other supernova remnants in the previous section on the death of high-mass stars. A PDF with my observation logs from my observations of these objects is available here: https://qualitycode....essier-sn-l.pdf.

 

     I'll now move on to describe how low-mass stars expire, including the 4 members that ended up as (proto)planetary nebulae in Messier's catalogue.

Edited by AllanDystrup, 27 January 2022 - 03:16 AM.

[AllanDystrup]

.

*c*

     -- Allan

[AllanDystrup]

.

*c*

     -- Allan

[Corcaroli78]

.

CMO SN-14.jpg

*c*

     -- Allan

I really enjoyed this visual essay on the Veil Nebula. I will dedicate some time to it in my next observing opportunity as it is still well positioned in the sky.

 

Thanks Allan,

 

Carlos

[AllanDystrup]

.

Thank you, Carlos!  -- I've described my observation of the Cygnus Loop earlier in this thread (https://www.cloudyni...ield/?p=8069717 and following posts). I was not able to see it visually with my small refractors from my suburban backyard, but both the eastern and the western Veil could be studied using my small R2 security camera in live EAA; And of course these objects are breathtaking sights in my 4" refractor with a 55mm eyepiece (13x @ 3dg FOV) and a H-alpha narrowband filter with night vision on top!

     I have also observed the Cygnus Loop in a 20" Obsession reflector, and it was a splendid sight with many fine details, but due to the higher magnification only a small part of the veil could be seen at any one time...

_____ 

 

*c*

     -- Allan

 

 

 

[AllanDystrup]

.

*c*

     -- Allan

[Millennium]

.

DSO reboot...

          

          

     5 years ago, in January 2016, I started my Classic Messier logbook, observing and sketching the objects mostly visually, using my classic 3” Vixen FL-80S refractor (https://www.cloudyni...ier/?p=6987922I); I was covering the objects in no specific order, just season by season as they showed up on the night sky, and when in August 2016 I had gone through most of the Messiers, I started my Classic Best NGC observation project (https://www.cloudyni...-ngc/?p=7390137) based on a comprehensive object list, which I compiled from different sources, including the RASC, SAC, Caldwell, Herschel-400 plus O’Meara’s catalogs.

 

     This “list based” approach had me jumping, observing and researching all types of deep sky objects: stars, GLOBs, OCs, reflection and emission Nebulae and Galaxies, in a mixture of young and old, near and far, back and forth in no particular order; This was fun enough, but after a year I started longing for a coherent mental map of the location, morphology and astrophysics of all these diverse objects, as seen in an overall structural and evolutionary context.
    
   
    Thus, in February 2017, I started my Classic Rich Field (CRF) journey here (https://www.cloudyni...ield/?p=7682123), which took me systematically from aging stellar streams and younger open clusters in the immediate solar neighborhood (our “Local Superbubble”), out to bright blazing newborn OB-associations (such as the Orion-Eridanus superbubble) in the Gould’s Belt around the waist of  our own “Local Bubble” in the Local Orion-Cygnus spiral arm, then further up the  Local Arm to more distant stellar associations and emission nebulae in the spring Milky Way (the Cygnus superbubble and the inner Sagittarius Arm Eagle-Swan-Trifid-Lagoon complex), then further on to the outer Perseus arm in the autumn Milky Way (with the Cepheus Bubble, Cassiopeia Arc and Cassiopeia Window), and finally leaving our Milky Way galaxy behind to sweep up the nearby galaxies in the Local Sheet and the surrounding Ursa Major and Virgo galaxy superclusters, all the way out to the far far away “Great Wall” galaxy filaments in Hercules, Coma, and beyond.

 

     After a couple of years with the CRF project, I basically put it “on hold” to concentrate more on our solar system objects, including the 2020 Venus and Mars oppositions (https://www.cloudyni...ion/?p=10758807) plus a survey of the Lunar Surface features (https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/483673-the-classic-moon/?p=9809768). The Sun is now also slowly awakening to its 25 solar cycle (https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/617935-classic-solar-observation/?p=10945772), so there are more observations to be done in this area, -- but I feel I’m now ready to reboot my CRF DSO project.

     

     
     In this, my continued CRF logbook, I’d like to “complete the circle” of my recent observations by once more taking the Messier object list as my starting point, -- but this time zooming in on the morphology and astrophysics of selected Messier objects in a cosmological evolutionary order, starting with nebulae (molecular clouds with emission or reflection nebulosity), then on to young open clusters and evolved older open clusters, then remnants of dying stars (supernovae and planetary nebulae), all in our own Milky Way, and finally moving on to selected Messier global clusters and other galaxies surrounding our Milky Way.

     

     Here’s a (preliminary) overview of the Messier objects according to this plan:

     

Messiers Cosmologically.jpg
*click*

     

     -- Allan

     

 

    

    

 

Allan,

 

I'm catching up with your last year's shared work here on the 'Messy' Evolution.

I downloaded first preliminary Messier Plan, as well as the 68 page CRF summary, and the messier-oc.pdf.

 

I've been hard at work the last two months evolving my model of proto-Stellar and Stellar-formation from high velocity electron clouds compressed into charge clusters in the hydrogen filaments, and merged (in anti-rotational phase resonance) with the existing protons there to form diprotons or deuterons (PPs and NPs). Thus new protons, growing the stars without limit, as the focused magnetic and velocity fields of the region permit.

 

My goal, two months ago was simply to extend my stellar-formation model to to Stellar Clusters, and the Greater Milky Way Galaxy -- the velocity, voltage, magnetic field reversal 'rotation curve' structural 'shells' we observe.

 

Then, expanding that with a month's online-photographic observation and literature-review of the Andromeda Galaxy, and now extended views of the Velocity Field mapping of the Whole Local Group of Globular Clusters, Streams, and Galaxies -- I am now prepared to show that continuum of the Velocity/Voltage/Magnetic Shell Field all the way from the ~300,000 km/sec SGRA* across the Milky Way and Local Group to the Core of M31 Andromeda, and the Whole of the Local Group. [Just came across the PAndAS survey this week, to add to my focus and inspiration.]

 

Thus I was glad to see your discussion and illustration of the Local Group of Galaxies, and Local to Sculptor Groups on pages 52 and 54 of your Summary, then onto our Local Virgo SuperCluster and beyond.

 

However I am going to try and stop myself from venturing much beyond the Local Group this season -- so that I can very clearly delineate the electromagnetic velocity field maps of the Local Group -- with all the peaks and troughs of the 'velocity-reversals', 'voltage-reversals', and 'magnetic-reversals' -- inductive and capacitive shells -- wholly depicted and numbers crunched. So that, henceforward, when I myself or others visit and revisit the mapping -- and all those further and other corrections and refinements come in -- I can forever be refining the numbers. And yes, having the Local Group Model to extend further to the Virgo and further Superclusters.

 

Meanwhile, will share your links to many of the Astro-focused Facebook groups, and continue to review what you have shared here in the ongoing Classic Rich Field reporting!

 

Millennium

 

Cosmotronic Creation link

https://twitter.com/...109238453276672

[AllanDystrup]

.

Millenium, -- he he, yes, the 'Messy' evolution   Surely at the level of detail you're researching and modelling, there must be an almost chaotic interaction of charged gas and dust being swirled, twisted and crunched through gravitation and electromagnetic fields into streams of stars and clusters, galaxies and beyond... Very interesting perspective, and looking forward to read up on your results at the link you provided, thanks!

 

_____ 

     

     

*c*

     -- Allan

 

[Millennium]

I am definitely overwhelmed, Allan!

 

How is it for you? Are you able to see the 'whole' of your say Local Cluster and Virgo SuperCluster explorations in your mind's eye, or just a piece at a time?

 

Sadly, there are no good, clear, labeled and detailed online maps or illustrations of the Local Group. Only poorly illustrated, and internally and mutually-contradictory maps. None making clear there relative orientations and rotations with respect to Galactic Coordinate System and Equatorial Coordinate System. Thus, of no use. {Except to confuse Sky Observers, Astronomers, Astrophysicists, Educators and the Public further!}

 

I've only just had an hour or so over the last day to peruse your recent work, but get the impression that you have looked rather intimately at the greater Solar Neighborhood and Local Arms, and the Deep Sky. Whereas for the last couple of decades I have been half-focused on indigenous archaeoastronomy, and half-focused on SGRA* and the Hyades Cluster, and Local Open Clusters in general. And challenging our global astrophysics community to create usable 4D Milky Way Galaxy maps for public access.

 

I definitely overlooked the greater picture of our Galactosphere or Milky Way 'SuperGalaxy', which apparently is now officially named the 'Halo', though it is an order of magnitude larger than any mere Halo! All the ~60 Dwarf Galaxies, plus perhaps 200 Globular Clusters, and the 'SuperSphere' of hot high-velocity gas AND stars!

 

In fact it was only during the last week of google and literature searching that I found that our SuperHalo Globular Clusters are largely of Population 2 (hydrogen and helium) stars. I am looking forward to exploring their inferred histories, and creation stories, in the months ahead. As well as looking at the hydrogen/helium/metallicity and suggested histories, and creation, of our SuperHalo Dwarf Galaxies.

 

Ideally, and this is my intention, I can construct a one-page illustration that shows all the Galaxies of the Local Group, their orientations, co-orbital planes, and rotation curve peaks and troughs, with values of voltages, magnetic fields, inductances and capacitances labeled! Certainly two more closely focused Supermaps for the M31 SuperHalo, and the Milky Way SuperHalo!

 

Millennium

Edited by Millennium, 30 January 2022 - 06:33 PM.

[AllanDystrup]

.

Hi Millenium, -- I'd say I did manage to get a coherent mental map, backed up by observations of the overall galaxy distribution, from our Local Cluster, to the Local and Virgo Superclusters (the Spring Milky Way "sheet" of galaxies), to the surrounding UMa-I and Coma-I galaxy clusters and even to the distant supercluster filaments (Perseus-Pisces), walls (CfA2 Great Wall, Sloan Great Wall) and voids out to the CTA 102 blazar at 8 Gyr distance...

 

     This was done though, by piecing together mostly overlapping 2D projection maps, like a jigsaw puzzle, and I did miss a larger 3D (or even, if possible, 4D) map of the galaxies, like we are starting to have based on GAIA data of the surrounding gas-and dust clouds and stellar associations in the Milky Way. Maybe with JWST, astronomers can get sufficiently good data to start creating such galaxy maps...

 

   I'll be describing my observations of the 'Messy' globs in the MW Halo next in this thread, -- and there are some recent GAIA kinematic and compositional data that cast new light on the origin of these objects.

     _ _ _ _ _  

 

     

*c*

     -- Allan

Edited by AllanDystrup, 01 February 2022 - 02:08 AM.

[AllanDystrup]

.

*c*

     -- Allan

[AllanDystrup]

.

*c*

 

     -- Allan.

[AllanDystrup]

.

*c*

     -- Allan

[Terra Nova]

Happy Birthday Allan, many happy returns of the day! “Earth to Earth, and above us, only the Sky!”

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[j.gardavsky]

Happy Birthday Allan,

 

and many more Classic Rich Fields from you,

 

JG