Talk:GN-z11
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GN-z11 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
 | A news item involving GN-z11 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 March 2016. |  |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
apparently, it's not a galaxy as per Oct. 8th 2021 news
edithttps://www.space.com/oldest-gamma-ray-burst-space-junk-mistake all the 'work' done on this page is junk too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.48.3 (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- The news is that what looked like a gamma-ray burst in GN-z11 was instead probably a reflection off space debris. It has nothing to do with the status of GN-z11 as a galaxy. - Mysterius (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Stream of information
editI know the page looks like shit right now, (I created it, so being honest), but Yale's full findings will be published in a few days, so we can expand and formalize to a comprehensive extent then. I can't wait to include the infobox information that's not yet available! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- thank you for the page and colorful language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.113.90 (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I hope either one helped you. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- thank you for the page and colorful language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.113.90 (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Understanding distances and speeds
editI've reworded your "Note 1" to show how the ratio of distances matches the expansion factor given by 1+redshift. The rate at which the galaxy is receding in terms of rate of change of proper distance is more than double the speed of light so I'm wondering if quoting the "Heliocentric radial velocity" is perhaps misleading for lay readers. What is your opinion? George Dishman (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Fourth citation
editThe fourth citation seems to be acting weird for me. Rather than link me what it says it links to, it links to rebelmouse.com. -174.141.135.242 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Video about the suspected gamma ray burst (the flash)
editI did just watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUj0rTyaSQc
Might be interesting somewhere?
--Codegrinder (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Helio radial velocity not in line with other most distant astronomical objects
editHello,
The Helio radial velocity given here, sourced from Sindbad, doesn't seem correct. In other most distant astronomical objects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects) this is simply "cz", here it is something else.
cz is also available in Sindbad :3057883, and should be quoted here. It can also be sourced from NED (https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/byname?objname=GN-z11&hconst=67.8&omegam=0.308&omegav=0.692&wmap=4&corr_z=1), perhaps a bit more precise: 3324698.825000 +/- 35975.100000
The Helio Radial Velocity data for:
MACS1149-JD1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACS1149-JD1 EGSY8p7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGSY8p7 EGS-zs8-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGS-zs8-1
Are consistently as cz.
As GN-Z11 is not (it's difficult to say what it is, it might be an invalid entry in Sindbad), it is quite misleading.
Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Niedośpiał (talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Life
editIs there like on it 204.141.212.61 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- let me take a trip over there and ask, ya? 2600:6C47:A0F0:8390:18FF:D3F:CBB4:6BAC (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)