As ever, I feel I know this topic more completely after a DeepSky lesson from Professor Merrifield. Can we have a DeepSky dive into The Great Attractor?

I was 15 when I discovered this channel. I'm 25 now. Thank you for continuing to make videos all of this time!

The great irony of the great attractor being in one of the most difficult areas of the sky to actually view past our galaxy.....

Thank you for actually saying we'll probably never know for sure. The most scientificly honest thing I've heard in a while..

Remember to make a new playlist for the NGC catalog as well! I'm enjoying the videos, keep up this amazing content.

2 done, 7838 to go

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us, professor!

Thank you Dr. Merrifield for continuing to come back and teach us new things.

Now I want to see a post on the great attractor.

From the perspective of nice objects, you might want to look at the Arp catalog of peculiar galaxies. There is also a list of Finest NGC which are about nice to observe NGC. That would be one way to pick and choose in the NGC more intersting objects.

So happy to see a new upload! I watched the entire messier series, and I'm terribly excited about the prospect of one on the ngc's! The messiers took ten years but I expect the ngc's would take a whole lot longer! Fingers crossed that you keep going!

Amazing video! I loved all the graphics and animation!

Episode 2 of the new 8000 part series. That's like the number of episodes of The Bold and the Beautiful, better get cracking with one episode a day! 🙂

That graphic at about 1:00 showing the redshift going from blue to red via violet!

This video is really perfect.

Michael l just read sbout the latest work studying Stephen's Quintet. It was presented today at the astro conference. Congrats on a new video it's been quiet awhile. 👍

Very informative!

Last time, NGC 1. Tonight, NGC 2. This is going to keep you guys busy for a while.

Finally I knwo how the great attractor has been discovered. Nice!

I will probably create images for the wikipedia articles of NGC objects. For the articles are missing images or have low quality images. Already added a better image for NGC 7.

Goes to show, science is about dealing with uncertainties not absolutes (which most people seem to expect)

Love these videos. Could we get a video explaining why JWST images of nebula (like NGC 346) show no galaxies even in dark margins at the edges, and the deep field seem full of galaxies? Is it exposure time, settings used to create the images, that the light doesn’t make it through …? Seems perfectly on topic for this channel.

This "Great Attractor" must be *massive* since gravity scales so poorly over long distances. How massive are we talking?

Thank you, I did not have this.

Love Mike's talks, sadly the volume on this video was all over the place.

Ty for the video; qq, any plans on moving up from 1080p?

"Small... Far away." "Uh huh" "Small... Far away." "Uhhh" "You get it?" "No, I don't think so."

Would this need to be checked in different times of the year?

I never hear it mentioned in videos and articles on the subject of measuring distances to galaxies, but is any account taken of any matter in intergalactic space that would slightly dim the galaxy's apparent brightness? I expect that the amount of matter is small, but over such huge distances, could that add up to a significant amount? There is probably little known about the matter between galaxies, but as far as I can tell, it is a assumed to be zero. Or is it?

From what distance away from the great attractor are thing falling towards it faster than the expansion of the universe? As in given enough time they will end up in its neighborhood.

The Tully-Fisher distances seem much more reasonable cause just by eyeballing it you can see they both have similar spacial resolution...

Nice video. though not a Cepheid in sight.

Is there an upper limit on the size a galaxy can be? If rotation speed is related to mass- do especially massive galaxies rip themselves apart through rotation? Also- can the effects of the Great Attractor be seen distorting galaxies?

I've got a slight problem with what he said at 5:00. If the galaxy is rotating at the same rate, but much further away, wouldn't it NOT give the same answer due to it being further and therefore your rotational measurement would be shifted as well? Or would this be relative to the other side of the galaxy and still give the same difference.

When it comes to galaxies, it seems a million light years here, a million there all are tending to become small change...

👍

likingandcommenting to appease the algo-deities of the tube-u-all

NGC 1...NGC 2...lol, looks like they're actually gonna do it 😄

no mention of systematic error...

Is there a galaxy where we see it neither blue shifted or red shifted?

I think Deepsky should colab with Astrobiscuit (London based youtuber fyi)

I'm curious to know if the area of the great attractor's centralized area is also moving away from our perspective faster relative to other areas of expansion? In my Grand Fission Theory I describe our universe as a bubble being squeezed in the middle. If you turn that same analogy to look straight on to both sides being parallel (like two lenses in a telescope,) there would be a distant area that seems to draw inward. Because of the distance in conjunction with space time it would appear that a centralized point would emerge and be diluted showing only a slight movement to a particular area comparative to the rest of the universe. If true, this could also lead to more extreme lensing effects that could allow us to see multiple times farther back in space time. Just a thought. ;O)-

How do people know the red light from a galaxy is due to the universe expanding rather than the light from the galaxy just having a red hue?

What if the universe isn't expanding, but it's the photons that shift because they experience a tiiiiny bit of passage of time and they're not traveling at the maximum speed. They got no mass, but a tiny bit of energy - if the universe doesn't care about that distinction then (according to E=MC²) they would (in the vast distances and times) decay by having their frequency energy be spent on interacting with the Higgs field. Hypothesis: universe is not expanding, the photons interact extremely weakly with the higgs field over long distances/time and as a result their frequency lowers. Please correct me.

What if time (like space) is 'expanding' as the universe gets older ? Wouldn't that disrupt the calculations ?

Redshift might not always be an indication of movement. See Halton Arp's work.

Nas

And the distance to other galaxies affects daily life on Earth how?

first

Halton Arp

Ever considered that your premise of an expanding universe might be false?

4 and a half "inch" telescope? It is not the dark ages anymore, use standard units of measurement.