2,402 research outputs found

    Galaxy size trends as a consequence of cosmology

    Get PDF
    We show that recently documented trends in galaxy sizes with mass and redshift can be understood in terms of the influence of underlying cosmic evolution; a holistic view which is complimentary to interpretations involving the accumulation of discreet evolutionary processes acting on individual objects. Using standard cosmology theory, supported with results from the Millennium simulations, we derive expected size trends for collapsed cosmic structures, emphasising the important distinction between these trends and the assembly paths of individual regions. We then argue that the observed variation in the stellar mass content of these structures can be understood to first order in terms of natural limitations of cooling and feedback. But whilst these relative masses vary by orders of magnitude, galaxy and host radii have been found to correlate linearly. We explain how these two aspects will lead to galaxy sizes that closely follow observed trends and their evolution, comparing directly with the COSMOS and SDSS surveys. Thus we conclude that the observed minimum radius for galaxies, the evolving trend in size as a function of mass for intermediate systems, and the observed increase in the sizes of massive galaxies, may all be considered an emergent consequence of the cosmic expansion.Comment: 14 pages, 13 figures. Accepted by MNRA

    Data on Burned District at Salem, Mass.

    Get PDF
    Nature of Buildings Burned - Materials of Original Construction - Assessed Valuation on Land and Buildings - also Insurance on Buildings and Contents, where obtainable. Arranged according to Name of Owners, Street Location and Classes of Buildings. 20 pages.https://digitalcommons.salemstate.edu/fire_documents/1001/thumbnail.jp

    Comparing PyMorph and SDSS photometry. II. The differences are more than semantics and are not dominated by intracluster light

    Full text link
    The Sloan Digital Sky Survey pipeline photometry underestimates the brightnesses of the most luminous galaxies. This is mainly because (i) the SDSS overestimates the sky background and (ii) single or two-component Sersic-based models better fit the surface brightness profile of galaxies, especially at high luminosities, than does the de Vaucouleurs model used by the SDSS pipeline. We use the PyMorph photometric reductions to isolate effect (ii) and show that it is the same in the full sample as in small group environments, and for satellites in the most massive clusters as well. None of these are expected to be significantly affected by intracluster light (ICL). We only see an additional effect for centrals in the most massive halos, but we argue that even this is not dominated by ICL. Hence, for the vast majority of galaxies, the differences between PyMorph and SDSS pipeline photometry cannot be ascribed to the semantics of whether or not one includes the ICL when describing the stellar mass of massive galaxies. Rather, they likely reflect differences in star formation or assembly histories. Failure to account for the SDSS underestimate has significantly biased most previous estimates of the SDSS luminosity and stellar mass functions, and therefore Halo Model estimates of the z ~ 0.1 relation between the mass of a halo and that of the galaxy at its center. We also show that when one studies correlations, at fixed group mass, with a quantity which was not used to define the groups, then selection effects appear. We show why such effects arise, and should not be mistaken for physical effects.Comment: 15 pages, 17 figures, accepted for publication in MNRAS. The PyMorph luminosities and stellar masses are available at https://www.physics.upenn.edu/~ameert/SDSS_PhotDec

    Receipt, 1860

    Get PDF
    https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aldrichcorr_c/1243/thumbnail.jp

    Receipt, 28 March 1856

    Get PDF
    https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aldrichcorr_c/1126/thumbnail.jp

    Cotton receipt, 4 October 1856

    Get PDF
    https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aldrichcorr_c/1123/thumbnail.jp

    Receipt, 30 June 1866

    Get PDF
    https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aldrichcorr_d/1099/thumbnail.jp

    Receipt, 11 January 1862

    Get PDF
    https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aldrichcorr_d/1075/thumbnail.jp

    Cotton receipt, 1 December 1860

    Get PDF
    https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aldrichcorr_c/1234/thumbnail.jp
    corecore