Quote:
Originally Posted by ngcles
Hi Trevor & All,
Thanks for posting the link to Swinburne Magazine. The short article in the Fairfax press posted earlier (and it's not MikeyB's fault) was so "boiled-down" that I had almost no idea what it was reporting.
First (in par 2) it says the new object is "in isolation", then later (par 4) said it was within M104.  What par 4 is trying to say, is, well, hard to say.  The whole short article is very confusing. No wonder lay-people sometimes find astronomy so incomprehensible.
The Swinburne Magazine article, despite being written for a "scientific publication" and a scientific audience explains the new finding simply (in a way that can be comprehended by most people) but equally, fully. Yes, I know it's longer and I know there is only limited space in newspapers (even broadsheets) but ...
Thanks for clearing up my confusion Trevor!
Best,
Les D |
Hi Les,
There is still a problem, even with the Swin Mag article. Obviously it was not proof read by Duncan, or for that matter any of his team.
In the article the distance to SUCD1 is said to be similar to M 104, the distance is then given as 33,000 light years, obviously wrong and in need of another three zero's or 10 mega parsecs, obviously correct.
If you look at the published paper via the link in the previous post in this thread you will see the recessional velocity given for SUCD1 is 1293.1 +- 9.5 km/s. The recessional velocity for M 104 is 1024 +- 5 km/s, this gives a relative velocity for SUDC1 to M 104 of 269 +- 11 km/s.
Obviously from this data SUDC1 is not within M 104 but externally associated with it. There is also a couple of images in the original paper, of M 104 with SUCD1 highlighted to show its position relative to M 104.
Regards
Trevor