From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Fri Oct 3 14:48:29 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 14:48:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: double double-lobed FR IIs Message-ID: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310045 Double-double radio galaxies: remnants of merger of supermassive binary black holes Sounds like a model from what andrzej presented yesterday. From jarekr w ncac.torun.pl Tue Oct 14 14:48:29 2003 From: jarekr w ncac.torun.pl (Jarek Rzepecki) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:48:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, paper astro-ph/0310207 ("A maximum Likelihood Analysis of the Low CMB Multipoles from WMAP") explains values of quadrupole and octupole without topology involved. Cheers, Jarek From magda w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Oct 14 14:53:27 2003 From: magda w astro.uni.torun.pl (Magdalena Kunert) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:53:27 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > hi everyone, > i definitely think we should respond to this - but i would prefer > it to be a collective response - there's no reason why only my name I have just read the article and I think the idea is interesting. I mean, this the science: to have an idea and then check it. This idea seems to me similar to what Boud and Andrzej wanted to obtain with radiosources (multiple images) and it is worth cheking. Magda From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Oct 14 15:04:18 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:04:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/OswiadczeniePrasoweDodekahedron On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Marcin Gawronski wrote: > stuff. From my point of view I'm not sure that the quality of data is > sufficient to be convicted about validity of these results. It's all. i've put: Oczywiście, jeszcze myślemy że jakość danów jeszcze nie są dość dla mówić że hypoteza jest prawdziwa. From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Oct 14 15:06:04 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:06:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Magdalena Kunert wrote: > I have just read the article and I think the idea is interesting. I mean, > this the science: to have an idea and then check it. This idea seems to me > similar to what Boud and Andrzej wanted to obtain with radiosources > (multiple images) and it is worth cheking. > > Magda > > i think that's included in the text: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/OswiadczeniePrasoweDodekahedron From amr w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Oct 14 15:12:07 2003 From: amr w astro.uni.torun.pl (Andrzej Marecki) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:12:07 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200310141312.PAA14460@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> > http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/OswiadczeniePrasoweDodekahedron OK. Teraz trzeba troche poprawić, żeby było w 100% po polsku. ;-) a. From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Oct 14 15:30:06 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:30:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi, i'm not very good at negotiating on the telephone - Łukasz said he needs the text today (by 18.00) so that it can be included in tomorrow's edition - and he accepted to print our text of about 2000 characters, if i understood correctly. On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Jarek Rzepecki wrote: > Hi, > paper astro-ph/0310207 ("A maximum Likelihood Analysis of the Low CMB > Multipoles from WMAP") explains values of quadrupole and octupole without > topology involved. > Cheers, > Jarek > > http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/OswiadczeniePrasoweDodekahedron Te?, jest ewidentny ?e hypoteza gdzie Teorem Pytagorasa jest dok?adnie prawdy i ?e ca?y Wszech?wiat jest miliard raz albo wi?cej du?szy ni? Wszech?wiat obserwacyjny, jest taki sp?jny z danych jak hypoteza ,,przestrze? dodekahedralnej Poinc From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Oct 14 17:50:23 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:50:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: prosba o komentarz In-Reply-To: <2D039E36-FE2E-11D7-AC74-000A95714172@rzeczpospolita.pl> References: <2D039E36-FE2E-11D7-AC74-000A95714172@rzeczpospolita.pl> Message-ID: Dear Łukasz, We have a draft version of a text here: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/OswiadczeniePrasoweDodekahedron but clearly the po polsku is not yet correct. It would probably be better that one of us corrects the po polsku in order to avoid introducing scientific errors, but it is unlikely that this will be ready by 18.00 today. If you can wait till later in the evening, then maybe we will have a better version ready for you. Alternatively, you could just click on "Register" on that page and make yourself your own username + password, then return to the page and click on Edit. Make the language corrections, click Preview and Save when you're happy. I (and maybe some of the others) will check later this evening to see if the scientific meaning is still correct after the corrections, but I'll be offline for the next few hours. Feel free to reply directly to our mailing list (cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl). *** Please keep the URLs (http links), at least you may shift them as references to the end of the article if you don't like them in the middle of the sentence - the aim of an article about cosmology in a major newspaper should not only be to "inform" readers, but also to give the power to readers to *inform themselves*. By including URLs - even in the paper version - some fraction (10-20%) of the readers will be able to explore further and will have some independence both from Rzeczpospolita editors/writers and from CA-UMK/CAMK scientists. Maybe only 1% will really do this, but the principle of giving maximum power to the reader is a fundamental part of intellectual freedom. pozdrawiam boud On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Lukasz Kaniewski wrote: > Szanowny Panie doktorze! W zeszlym tygodniu w "Nature" ukazaly sie > wyniki badan dotyczacych ksztaltu i rozmiaru Wszechswiata. > > http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-10/ns-dtu100803.php > > Czy moglby Pan wyslac mi swaja opinie na temat tych wynikow? Prosze o > kilka lub kilkanascie zdan - mailem, bylbym wdzieczny za szybka > odpowiedz. > Sprobuje zadzwonic jeszcze do Pan okolo trzeciej. > Dziekuje - Lukasz Kaniewski, dziennik "Rzeczpospolita". From l.kaniewski w rzeczpospolita.pl Tue Oct 14 18:56:32 2003 From: l.kaniewski w rzeczpospolita.pl (Lukasz Kaniewski) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:56:32 +0200 Subject: prosba o komentarz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5CC6BE86-FE67-11D7-AC74-000A95714172@rzeczpospolita.pl> Drogi Panie Baud. Bardzo Panu dziekuje. Pozdrawiam Lukasz Kaniewski ps. Panska dziedzina jest fascynujaca! From michalf w ncac.torun.pl Wed Oct 15 14:50:52 2003 From: michalf w ncac.torun.pl (Michal Frackowiak) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:50:52 +0200 Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F8D42AC.9050100@ncac.torun.pl> Marcin Gawronski wrote: >On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Boud Roukema wrote: > > > >>hi everyone, >> i definitely think we should respond to this - but i would prefer >>it to be a collective response - there's no reason why only my name >>should be cited - e.g., we could at least have the official "team" >> >> > hello all > >I think Boud is the man in the position to say something about this >stuff. From my point of view I'm not sure that the quality of data is >sufficient to be convicted about validity of these results. It's all. > >cheers > >mpg > > I am SURE the data is not convincing. but people get excited even if there is only 1 sigma difference between theory and observations. theoretists have very little to do since everything matches perfectly and even 1 sigma is an event... in case of cmb and low multipoles - with a slightly different analysis it does not give such exciting results ;-) regards - michal forgive me but I am quite sceptic about this all. From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Wed Oct 15 15:59:40 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:59:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3F8D42AC.9050100@ncac.torun.pl> References: <3F8D42AC.9050100@ncac.torun.pl> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Michal Frackowiak wrote: > Marcin Gawronski wrote: > >On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Boud Roukema wrote: > > > >>hi everyone, > >> i definitely think we should respond to this - but i would prefer > >>it to be a collective response - there's no reason why only my name > >>should be cited - e.g., we could at least have the official "team" ... > I am SURE the data is not convincing. but people get excited even if > there is only 1 sigma difference between theory and observations. > theoretists have very little to do since everything matches perfectly > and even 1 sigma is an event... in case of cmb and low multipoles - with > a slightly different analysis it does not give such exciting results ;-) > > regards - michal > forgive me but I am quite sceptic about this all. i didn't put the following in the text since it's too subtle for a general audience (requires explaining what spherical harmonics are etc), but Efstathiou's increased quadrupole value provides a better match to the Luminet et al quadrupole. :) Of course, the octupole increases above the Luminet et al value. :( In any case, (1) our journalist contact has already had the article printed pA11 Rzeczpospolita 15.10.2003 http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/gazeta/wydanie_031015/nauka/nauka_a_1.html and (2) he didn't include all our names and (3) he misspelt my first name. However, given that he works for a "controlled" newspaper, what he finally printed is probably not too bad in terms of - except that the credit for our collective opinion all goes to me - how's that for an example of intellectual capitalism... As for the real science, i've been in cosmology long enough to remember how many, many times cosmologists wrote similar words to "forgive me but I am quite sceptic about this all" about a non-zero cosmological constant. Until the years 1997-2000 when those people shrunk to a tiny minority (including at least one highly respected cosmologist). Only when the results are really solid will we know one way or the other whether cosmic topology is still a useful subject... boud ### Baud Roukema z Centrum Astronomicznego Uniwersytetu Miko?aja Kopernika Hipoteza Jeffreya Weeksa i Jeana-Pierre'a Lumineta jest bardzo interesuj?ca. Przyjmuj? oni za model wszech?wiata przestrze? dodekahedraln? Poincarego. Niestety, nie mamy jeszcze do?? danych, by stwierdzi?, czy hipoteza jest prawdziwa. To, ?e jest sp?jna, to za ma?o. Mo?na poda? przyk?ad innej idei, przedstawionej np. w pracy George'a Efstathiou (http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310207), wed?ug kt?rej wszech?wiat jest du?o, du?o wi?kszy i niezakrzywiony. Ta hipoteza jest tak samo sp?jna jak przestrzeni dodekahedralnej Poincarego. W Centrum Astronomicznym Uniwersytetu Miko?aja Kopernika przeprowadzimy analiz? hipotezy, korzystaj?c z tych samych danych. Wykorzystamy te? katalogi galaktyk radiowych i kwazar?w. B?dziemy bardzo zadowoleni, je?li hipoteza oka?e si? prawdziwa. Na razie sprawa jest otwarta. NOT. ?.K. ### From amr w astro.uni.torun.pl Thu Oct 9 09:58:03 2003 From: amr w astro.uni.torun.pl (Andrzej Marecki) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:58:03 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Dodecahedral space topology Message-ID: <200310090758.JAA09445@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> ----- Forwarded message from NatureAlert ----- [...] Dodecahedral space topology as an explanation for weak wide-angle temperature correlations in the cosmic microwave background JEAN-PIERRE LUMINET, JEFFREY R. WEEKS, ALAIN RIAZUELO, ROLAND LEHOUCQ & JEAN-PHILIPPE UZAN http://info.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/eMJG0BfWLH0Ch0EeW0Ay [...] ----- End of forwarded message from NatureAlert ----- Nature's politics require embargo for articles before they are in the current issue on Nature so the authors couldn't post it on astro-ph but hope they'll do so. ;-) A.M. From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Wed Oct 15 16:19:03 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:19:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: prosba o komentarz In-Reply-To: <5CC6BE86-FE67-11D7-AC74-000A95714172@rzeczpospolita.pl> References: <5CC6BE86-FE67-11D7-AC74-000A95714172@rzeczpospolita.pl> Message-ID: hi Łukasz, i guess our communication about the text was not as consensual as it could have been - there were some misunderstandings - but it's printed now so there's not much point discussing details. In any case, IMHO the version you printed was reasonably consistent with the opinion of our cosmology group - apart from the fact that only my name was cited, so i got all the credit for the whole group. Just one small request: could you please correct the spelling of my first name in the electronic edition (it's too late for the printed edition): "Boud", not "Baud". thanks boud On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Lukasz Kaniewski wrote: > Drogi Panie Baud. Bardzo Panu dziekuje. Pozdrawiam > Lukasz Kaniewski > ps. Panska dziedzina jest fascynujaca! > > From l.kaniewski w rzeczpospolita.pl Wed Oct 15 16:41:59 2003 From: l.kaniewski w rzeczpospolita.pl (Lukasz Kaniewski) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:41:59 +0200 Subject: prosba o komentarz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: hi boud sorry for the mistake in your name. We will correct it. I tried to call you yesterday in the evening, but the secretary said, that it is impossible to contact you. It was all because of the hurry. thank you for cooperation - Lukasz From amr w astro.uni.torun.pl Thu Oct 16 13:13:57 2003 From: amr w astro.uni.torun.pl (Andrzej Marecki) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:13:57 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: prosba o komentarz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200310161113.NAA08602@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> Boud wrote: [...] > i got all the credit for the whole group. Very good, you deserve it! On behalf of the other members of the group i just want to say that what have finally went to press is reeeealy not bad. Well done, Łukasz! The most important message that goes to the public from that article (apart from the scientific content, of course) is that making science is - and always was and always should be! - a DEBATE. So it is absolutely normal and desirable that there is a lot of criticism whenever a new result is published. In science there is no place for "because I say so" and there should always be a plenty of room for "I don't believe it". All in all it is very good that people have learned from that article that there is "group B" that says "group A is wrong". It's very, very, very good for science it works this way!!!! Andrzej -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrzej Marecki | Torun Centre for Astronomy | e-mail: amr w astro.uni.torun.pl N. Copernicus University | WWW: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl ul. Gagarina 11 | tel: +48 56 6113032 PL-87-100 Torun, POLAND | fax: +48 56 6113009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If Bill Gates actually had to admin his own stuff, he'd shoot himself." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From michalf w ncac.torun.pl Thu Oct 16 13:35:09 2003 From: michalf w ncac.torun.pl (Michal Frackowiak) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:35:09 +0200 Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <3F8D42AC.9050100@ncac.torun.pl> Message-ID: <3F8E826D.2070305@ncac.torun.pl> about my scepticism - I 100% agree with your comment in the newspaper. it is not enough for the theory to be consistent. my scepticism is more about the data, not the idea itself - it would be great to verify it! but it is amazing how people (theoretists) react to even small inconsistencies within the model/data.... and I suppose this quadrupole level is a fake alert although it can wake up some brilient theoretical ideas. regards - michal Boud Roukema wrote: >On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Michal Frackowiak wrote: > > >>Marcin Gawronski wrote: >> >> >>>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Boud Roukema wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>hi everyone, >>>> i definitely think we should respond to this - but i would prefer >>>>it to be a collective response - there's no reason why only my name >>>>should be cited - e.g., we could at least have the official "team" >>>> >>>> > ... > > >>I am SURE the data is not convincing. but people get excited even if >>there is only 1 sigma difference between theory and observations. >>theoretists have very little to do since everything matches perfectly >>and even 1 sigma is an event... in case of cmb and low multipoles - with >>a slightly different analysis it does not give such exciting results ;-) >> >>regards - michal >>forgive me but I am quite sceptic about this all. >> >> > >i didn't put the following in the text since it's too subtle for a >general audience (requires explaining what spherical harmonics are >etc), but Efstathiou's increased quadrupole value provides a better >match to the Luminet et al quadrupole. :) Of course, the octupole >increases above the Luminet et al value. :( > >In any case, (1) our journalist contact has already had the article >printed > >pA11 Rzeczpospolita 15.10.2003 >http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/gazeta/wydanie_031015/nauka/nauka_a_1.html > >and (2) he didn't include all our names and (3) he misspelt my first name. > >However, given that he works for a "controlled" newspaper, what he >finally printed is probably not too bad in terms of - except that the >credit for our collective opinion all goes to me - how's that for >an example of intellectual capitalism... > >As for the real science, i've been in cosmology long enough to remember >how many, many times cosmologists wrote similar words to "forgive me >but I am quite sceptic about this all" about a non-zero cosmological >constant. Until the years 1997-2000 when those people shrunk to a tiny >minority (including at least one highly respected cosmologist). > >Only when the results are really solid will we know one way or the other >whether cosmic topology is still a useful subject... > >boud > > >### >Baud Roukema z Centrum Astronomicznego Uniwersytetu Miko?aja Kopernika > >Hipoteza Jeffreya Weeksa i Jeana-Pierre'a Lumineta jest bardzo >interesuj?ca. Przyjmuj? oni za model wszech?wiata przestrze? >dodekahedraln? Poincarego. Niestety, nie mamy jeszcze do?? danych, by >stwierdzi?, czy hipoteza jest prawdziwa. To, ?e jest sp?jna, to za >ma?o. Mo?na poda? przyk?ad innej idei, przedstawionej np. w pracy >George'a Efstathiou (http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310207), wed?ug >kt?rej wszech?wiat jest du?o, du?o wi?kszy i niezakrzywiony. Ta >hipoteza jest tak samo sp?jna jak przestrzeni dodekahedralnej >Poincarego. > >W Centrum Astronomicznym Uniwersytetu Miko?aja Kopernika >przeprowadzimy analiz? hipotezy, korzystaj?c z tych samych >danych. Wykorzystamy te? katalogi galaktyk radiowych i >kwazar?w. B?dziemy bardzo zadowoleni, je?li hipoteza oka?e si? >prawdziwa. Na razie sprawa jest otwarta. NOT. ?.K. >### > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >LISTNAME: cosmo-torun >HELP: send an email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" >WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ >UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun" > > > > From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Thu Oct 16 13:58:50 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:58:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3F8E826D.2070305@ncac.torun.pl> References: <3F8D42AC.9050100@ncac.torun.pl> <3F8E826D.2070305@ncac.torun.pl> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Michal Frackowiak wrote: > about my scepticism - I 100% agree with your comment in the newspaper. In reality it's *our* comment, more or less including the comments from everyone of us who responded quickly enough for Łukasz's deadline... The bit which Łukasz printed was the bit that i contributed the least to :). Just compare all the texts (all online) if you don't believe me. > it is not enough for the theory to be consistent. > > my scepticism is more about the data, not the idea itself - it would be > great to verify it! but it is amazing how people (theoretists) react to > even small inconsistencies within the model/data.... and I suppose this > quadrupole level is a fake alert although it can wake up some brilient > theoretical ideas. The theoretical ideas (whether or not brilliant :) had *already* woken up since 10 years ago (in my case since 1994 - my paper published 1996 started from thinking in 1994). i would say it's amazing how people have *ignored* topology for so long, despite it's obvious fundamental importance. IMHO, the media fuss following Max Tegmark's NYT article many months ago and now the Luminet et al Nature article are simply bringing the balance of attention back to a fairer comparison of the different FLRW models (flat with trivial topology vs flat/spherical with non-trivial topology). i agree that the problem in the data is not highly significant, but it does happen to match a generic prediction that has been made by people working in cosmic topology. anyway, back to work... b > > regards - michal > > Boud Roukema wrote: > > >On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Michal Frackowiak wrote: > > > > > >>Marcin Gawronski wrote: > >> > >> > >>>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Boud Roukema wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>hi everyone, > >>>> i definitely think we should respond to this - but i would prefer > >>>>it to be a collective response - there's no reason why only my name > >>>>should be cited - e.g., we could at least have the official "team" > >>>> > >>>> > > ... > > > > > >>I am SURE the data is not convincing. but people get excited even if > >>there is only 1 sigma difference between theory and observations. > >>theoretists have very little to do since everything matches perfectly > >>and even 1 sigma is an event... in case of cmb and low multipoles - with > >>a slightly different analysis it does not give such exciting results ;-) > >> > >>regards - michal > >>forgive me but I am quite sceptic about this all. > >> > >> > > > >i didn't put the following in the text since it's too subtle for a > >general audience (requires explaining what spherical harmonics are > >etc), but Efstathiou's increased quadrupole value provides a better > >match to the Luminet et al quadrupole. :) Of course, the octupole > >increases above the Luminet et al value. :( > > > >In any case, (1) our journalist contact has already had the article > >printed > > > >pA11 Rzeczpospolita 15.10.2003 > >http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/gazeta/wydanie_031015/nauka/nauka_a_1.html > > > >and (2) he didn't include all our names and (3) he misspelt my first name. > > > >However, given that he works for a "controlled" newspaper, what he > >finally printed is probably not too bad in terms of - except that the > >credit for our collective opinion all goes to me - how's that for > >an example of intellectual capitalism... > > > >As for the real science, i've been in cosmology long enough to remember > >how many, many times cosmologists wrote similar words to "forgive me > >but I am quite sceptic about this all" about a non-zero cosmological > >constant. Until the years 1997-2000 when those people shrunk to a tiny > >minority (including at least one highly respected cosmologist). > > > >Only when the results are really solid will we know one way or the other > >whether cosmic topology is still a useful subject... > > > >boud > > > > > >### > >Baud Roukema z Centrum Astronomicznego Uniwersytetu Miko?aja Kopernika > > > >Hipoteza Jeffreya Weeksa i Jeana-Pierre'a Lumineta jest bardzo > >interesuj?ca. Przyjmuj? oni za model wszech?wiata przestrze? > >dodekahedraln? Poincarego. Niestety, nie mamy jeszcze do?? danych, by > >stwierdzi?, czy hipoteza jest prawdziwa. To, ?e jest sp?jna, to za > >ma?o. Mo?na poda? przyk?ad innej idei, przedstawionej np. w pracy > >George'a Efstathiou (http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310207), wed?ug > >kt?rej wszech?wiat jest du?o, du?o wi?kszy i niezakrzywiony. Ta > >hipoteza jest tak samo sp?jna jak przestrzeni dodekahedralnej > >Poincarego. > > > >W Centrum Astronomicznym Uniwersytetu Miko?aja Kopernika > >przeprowadzimy analiz? hipotezy, korzystaj?c z tych samych > >danych. Wykorzystamy te? katalogi galaktyk radiowych i > >kwazar?w. B?dziemy bardzo zadowoleni, je?li hipoteza oka?e si? > >prawdziwa. Na razie sprawa jest otwarta. NOT. ?.K. > >### > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >LISTNAME: cosmo-torun > >HELP: send an email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" > >WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ > >UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun" > > > > > > > > > > > From ajk w astro.uni.torun.pl Thu Oct 16 17:40:07 2003 From: ajk w astro.uni.torun.pl (Andrzej Kus) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:40:07 +0200 Subject: ksztalt Wszechswiata i media kontrolowane References: Message-ID: <005101c393fb$c6c41740$3e064b9e@LATITUDE2> Boud, Please ask someone from the group to correct polish in the > http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/OswiadczeniePrasoweDodekahedron Some parts, as it is for the press, are not clear, perhaps Andrzej Marecki can do the job. This is very interesting and important development ! Cheers Andrzej K. From jmobutu676 w eudoramail.com Mon Oct 20 10:32:35 2003 From: jmobutu676 w eudoramail.com (joseph mobutu) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:32:35 +0200 Subject: --- SPAM --- Confidential Message-ID: <200310200837.h9K8b86o010327@newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> Good day, You may be surprise to receive this email since you do not know me. I am the son of the late president of Democratic Republic Of Zaire, President Mobutu Sese Seko, ( now The Republic of Congo, under the leadership of the son of Mr. Laurent Kabila). I presume you are aware there is a financial dispute between my family ( THEMOBUTUS ) and the present civilian Government. This is based on what they believe as bad and corrupt governance on my late father's part. May his soul rest in perfect peace. As you might have heard how a lot of my father's bank account in Switzerland and North America have been frozen. Following the above named reasons, I am soliciting for your humble and confidential assistance to take custody of THIRTY Million United States Dollars ( US$30,000,000.00 ), also to front for me in the areas of business you desire profitable. These funds have secretly been deposited into a confidential Security Company, where it can easily be withdrawn or paid to a recommended beneficiary. The funds will be released to you by the Security Company, based on my recommendations, on that note, you will be presented as my partner who will be fronting for me and my family in any subsequent ventures. Myself and my mother have decided to give 20% to you if you are able to help us claim this consignment. We have also decided to give you any money spent on phone calls or traveling expenses in the course of this transaction at the end of the transaction. Please, I need your entire support and co-operation for the success of this transaction, your utmost confidentiality and secrecy is highly required, due to my family's present predicament. I sincerely will appreciate your willingness to assist us as soon as possible. I am presently in the refugee camp here in the Netherlands under the united nations refugee camp in Netherlands and I can be reached on phone number +31-645-238-205 or E-mail me at jmobutu w eudoramail.com for more information on how we can proceed in this transaction. Please indicate your interest by sending your telephone and fax number or call me up at anytime. I sincerely will appreciate your acknowledgement as soon as possible. Warmest regards, Joseph Mobutu Sese-Seko. -------------- nast?pna cz??? --------- B??dnie zakodowany tekst zosta? usuni?ty... Plik: SpamAssassinReport.txt Url: From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Oct 21 14:29:34 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:29:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: multipole vectors - another hint for topology? Message-ID: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310511 ...We find that the result from comparing the oriented area of planes defined by these vectors between multipole pairs 2 <= l1 != l2 <= 8 is inconsistent with the isotropic Gaussian hypothesis at the 98.8% level for the ILC map and at 99.6% level for the cleaned map of Tegmark et al. A particular correlation is suggested between the l=3 and l=8 multipoles, as well as several other pairs. This effect is entirely different from the now familiar planarity and alignment of the quadrupole and octupole: while the aforementioned is fairly unlikely, the multipole vectors indicate correlations not expected in Gaussian random skies that make them unusually likely. ... If it's not topology, it's something else weird (politically incorrect ;) that happened on near-horizon scales... pozd boud From szajtan w poczta.onet.pl Tue Oct 28 01:44:50 2003 From: szajtan w poczta.onet.pl (szajtan odwieczny) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:44:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: prosba o komentarz Message-ID: What I think we can say for sure is that, although we're not sure about the actual curvature of our obserwable universe, and thus we're not sure if the space go on and on to infinity, it seems that it's quite sure that our universe is accelerating (q<0), and from this point of view we can say that if we send out a probe into the space even at the velocity of light, it's likely that it will never return regardelss of the the curvature of the universe, because it just won't overpass the expantion rate of the universe unless there is some nontrivial topology involved. The Big Crunch never happens in area where q<0 on Omega_l, Omega_m plane. So from our point of view we can say the spacetime is infinite if we're thinking in a way of traveling in it. If we think just of a space as a slice in some moment of time the quiestion is still open, but what is use of thinking about space this way - it just cannot be separated from time right ? bart. From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Oct 28 09:26:11 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:26:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: prosba o komentarz In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, szajtan odwieczny wrote: > What I think we can say for sure is that, although we're not sure about > the actual curvature of our obserwable universe, and thus we're not sure > if the space go on and on to infinity, it seems that it's quite sure that > our universe is accelerating (q<0), and from this point of view we can say > that if we send out a probe into the space even at the velocity of light, > it's likely that it will never return regardelss of the the curvature > of the universe, because it just won't overpass the expantion rate of the > universe unless there is some nontrivial topology involved. The Big Crunch > never happens in area where q<0 on Omega_l, Omega_m plane. So from our > point of view we can say the spacetime is infinite if we're thinking in a We can't say "the spacetime is infinite". What you mean is "the http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon is less than 2 \pi times the radius of curvature even if comoving space is a hypersphere". This is true even when \Omega_\Lambda = 0 - the Big Crunch happens before we can see the back of our head. > way of traveling in it. If we think just of a space as a slice in some > moment of time the quiestion is still open, but what is use of thinking i think you mean here "in some spatial section at constant cosmological time". > about space this way - it just cannot be separated from time right ? It's the fundamental nature of the model, so we ought to think about it. If you can think of an alternative model which only models our past time cone, fine. But personally this reminds me of the Christian fundamentalist cosmology model where the Unvierse is only 6000 years old, as written in the Bible. It's a model which perfectly fits all cosmological observations, including those of WMAP. ;) The Universe in this model is the inside of a sphere of radius 6000 light-years, on which EM radiation of all sorts of wavelengths (and we could add other particles) was generated 6000 years ago on this surface, emitted in the direction of the Sun (and it continues to be generated) in such a way to reproduce a "naive" model that makes it (more or less) easy for human beings to interpret these in terms of simple laws of physics. The being "God/Bóg" which generates the emission wants human beings to have an easily interpretable Universe, he/she/it is extremely intelligent and able to generate such complex emission patterns of radiation. Just like he/she/it set up species of animals 6000 years ago in a way that makes biologists think there must have been lots of evolution... Personally i find the model ridiculous, but it perfectly fits all the observations and avoids "extrapolation" into times with which we have no written contact (prehistorical), and the Universe is only 6000 years old. pozd boud From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Thu Oct 9 13:12:16 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:12:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Dodecahedral space topology In-Reply-To: <200310090758.JAA09445@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> References: <200310090758.JAA09445@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Andrzej Marecki wrote: > ----- Forwarded message from NatureAlert ----- > > [...] > > Dodecahedral space topology as an explanation for weak wide-angle > temperature correlations in the cosmic microwave background > JEAN-PIERRE LUMINET, JEFFREY R. WEEKS, ALAIN RIAZUELO, ROLAND LEHOUCQ > & JEAN-PHILIPPE UZAN > http://info.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/eMJG0BfWLH0Ch0EeW0Ay > > [...] > > ----- End of forwarded message from NatureAlert ----- > > Nature's politics require embargo for articles before they are in the > current issue on Nature so the authors couldn't post it on astro-ph but hope > they'll do so. ;-) If you read the policy carefully you'll see that posting on astro-ph is OK under certain conditions - something like 24h before the embargo or 7 days before the embargo - but it's a long time since i last thought of trying a publicity stunt in Nature, so i don't remember exactly. The abstract is clear about the content - i don't think anyone should hold their breath - it looks like there's no discovery, this is just marketing/media/ propaganda stuff. Andrzej Woszczyk is honest enough to use the word "propaganda" when talking about Urania and publicity about astronomy, but i guess the politically correct words to use for Nature are "publication in the most prestigious scientific journal". Anyway, this should make it easier for us to publish a few topo articles and satisfy people of the article-counting mentality. Cosmic topology is no longer "politically incorrect". :) pozd boud From szajtan w poczta.onet.pl Wed Oct 29 13:21:43 2003 From: szajtan w poczta.onet.pl (szajtan odwieczny) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:21:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: prosba o komentarz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, szajtan odwieczny wrote: > > > What I think we can say for sure is that, although we're not sure about > > the actual curvature of our obserwable universe, and thus we're not sure > > if the space go on and on to infinity, it seems that it's quite sure that > > our universe is accelerating (q<0), and from this point of view we can say > > that if we send out a probe into the space even at the velocity of light, > > it's likely that it will never return regardelss of the the curvature > > of the universe, because it just won't overpass the expantion rate of the > > universe unless there is some nontrivial topology involved. The Big Crunch > > never happens in area where q<0 on Omega_l, Omega_m plane. So from our > > point of view we can say the spacetime is infinite if we're thinking in a > > We can't say "the spacetime is infinite". What you mean is why not ? event horizon accounts for all evolution of expantion according to assumed model. if it's less than the curent curvature radius then we won't see the probe, if it's bigger we mae but not must see it, for the curvature radius is changing in time. > "the http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon is less than > 2 \pi times the radius of curvature even if comoving space is a hypersphere". last time I checked the page expired so don't know what was there, but did anyone said something about the relation of the event horizon to the curvature ratius.? (this should be calculated) > > This is true even when \Omega_\Lambda = 0 - the Big Crunch happens > before we can see the back of our head. > even better - another reason for which we will never see the sent signal (probe), but with CDM=.3 and DE=.7 or anything close to it we have no big crunch at all. > > way of traveling in it. If we think just of a space as a slice in some > > moment of time the quiestion is still open, but what is use of thinking > > i think you mean here "in some spatial section at constant cosmological time". yes > > about space this way - it just cannot be separated from time right ? > > It's the fundamental nature of the model, so we ought to think about it. the fundamental nature of the model is that going in space we also move in time. eg. Imagine that that space is closed, and expands slow enough that a photon emited from your flashlight can round it, but as the time passes expansion rate mae grow up, event horizon falls, (say cosmological constant starts dominate) and the photon won't make it eventually. > > If you can think of an alternative model which only models our past > time cone, fine. btw. if the accurate model predict things in the past, I see no reason why it should not predict also things in the future. below this this point I don't follow ;) > But personally this reminds me of the Christian > fundamentalist cosmology model where the Unvierse is only 6000 years > old, as written in the Bible. > > It's a model which perfectly fits all cosmological observations, > including those of WMAP. ;) The Universe in this model is the inside gash, does it says about CMB fluctuations ? meaybe I should review the bible instead of Peebles, etc :) > of a sphere of radius 6000 light-years, on which EM radiation of all > sorts of wavelengths (and we could add other particles) was generated > 6000 years ago on this surface, emitted in the direction of the Sun > (and it continues to be generated) in such a way to reproduce a > "naive" model that makes it (more or less) easy for human beings to > interpret these in terms of simple laws of physics. The being "God/Bóg" > which generates the emission wants human beings to have an easily > interpretable Universe, he/she/it is extremely intelligent and able > to generate such complex emission patterns of radiation. Just like > he/she/it set up species of animals 6000 years ago in a way that > makes biologists think there must have been lots of evolution... > > Personally i find the model ridiculous, but it perfectly fits all the > observations and avoids "extrapolation" into times with which we have > no written contact (prehistorical), and the Universe is only 6000 > years old. pozdrawiam bartek. From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Wed Oct 29 14:10:04 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:10:04 +0100 (CET) Subject: prosba o komentarz In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, szajtan odwieczny wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, szajtan odwieczny wrote: > > > > > What I think we can say for sure is that, although we're not sure about > > > the actual curvature of our obserwable universe, and thus we're not sure > > > if the space go on and on to infinity, it seems that it's quite sure that > > > our universe is accelerating (q<0), and from this point of view we can say > > > that if we send out a probe into the space even at the velocity of light, > > > it's likely that it will never return regardelss of the the curvature > > > of the universe, because it just won't overpass the expantion rate of the > > > universe unless there is some nontrivial topology involved. The Big Crunch > > > never happens in area where q<0 on Omega_l, Omega_m plane. So from our > > > point of view we can say the spacetime is infinite if we're thinking in a > > > > We can't say "the spacetime is infinite". What you mean is > why not ? Because "x is infinite" means that "for every y \in {Real numbers}, x > y". If the Universe has positive curvature with curvature radius R_C (and is a perturbed FLRW model, as we think), then there exists a maximal length spatial geodesic X_s and a maximal length space-time geodesic X_st . Then, there exist y \in {Real numbers} greater than these values and there are no longer any x in the Universe greater than y. So it's not infinite. > event horizon accounts for all evolution of expantion according to assumed > model. if it's less than the curent curvature radius then we won't see the > probe, if it's bigger we mae but not must see it, for the curvature > radius is changing in time. i'll let you do the calculations here, but they are irrelevant for the question of infinity. > > > "the http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon is less than > > 2 \pi times the radius of curvature even if comoving space is a hypersphere". > > last time I checked the page expired so don't know what was there, but did So have a look again. > anyone said something about the relation of the event horizon to the > curvature ratius.? (this should be calculated) i'd be surprised if there's any simple relation, unless you restrict to special cases like \Omega_\Lambda=0 or at least some family of FLRW models. > > > > This is true even when \Omega_\Lambda = 0 - the Big Crunch happens > > before we can see the back of our head. > > > even better - another reason for which we will never see the sent signal > (probe), but with CDM=.3 and DE=.7 or anything close to it we have no big > crunch at all. OK > > > way of traveling in it. If we think just of a space as a slice in some > > > moment of time the quiestion is still open, but what is use of thinking > > > > i think you mean here "in some spatial section at constant cosmological time". > > yes :) > > > about space this way - it just cannot be separated from time right ? > > > > It's the fundamental nature of the model, so we ought to think about it. > > the fundamental nature of the model is that going in space we also move in > time. This is extremely confusing language. What do you mean by "going in space", "moving in time" and "we"? If you mean there's a second time variable representing the time variable of a thought experiment, then it makes sense. Or if you're talking about a physical particle, then two different time variables are the local (proper) time of the particle and the cosmological time. But it's perfectly possible to imagine comoving space without needing any time variable to "go" through it (though having a local psychological time variable is convenient). > eg. Imagine that that space is closed, and expands slow enough that > a photon emited from your flashlight can round it, but as the time passes > expansion rate mae grow up, event horizon falls, (say cosmological > constant starts dominate) and the photon won't make it eventually. IMHO this is a different theme to the universe being infinite or not > > If you can think of an alternative model which only models our past > > time cone, fine. > btw. > if the accurate model predict things in the past, I see no reason why > it should not predict also things in the future. You can't predict things in the past. Astronomers doing models often talk about "predicting" observations already made, but this is just astropolitics. The reality is that you can only postdict the past, and that if you make predictions they will usually be wrong. Moreover, you're more likely to get observing time/grants if you postdict the past (and say that you're predicting it) rather than if you make real predictions. As for accuracy, the model below is extremely accurate, by definition. > below this this point I don't follow ;) Another way of describing the model is that the Universe the inside of a 6k-light-year sphere and that initial (and continuing) boundary conditions on the sphere have been designed in such a way that people trying to understand them conclude with a series of simple (but wrong) physical laws. Initial conditions throughout the sphere were also set up with the same intention (e.g. fossils, distribution of continents, genetic mixes of people and other animals, isotopic ratios of uranium etc...) Maybe another way of describing it is that we live inside a planetarium of radius 6kly and that The Designer is pretty good at designing fun models with just enough clues that we remain interested and think we can understand the model represented in the planetarium. > > But personally this reminds me of the Christian > > fundamentalist cosmology model where the Unvierse is only 6000 years > > old, as written in the Bible. > > > > It's a model which perfectly fits all cosmological observations, > > including those of WMAP. ;) The Universe in this model is the inside > > gash, does it says about CMB fluctuations ? No: but since human beings have interpreted these in terms of a simple set of physical laws, the Christian fundamentalist model is satisfied - there are simply a new set of boundary conditions designed to make physicists interpret them this way. > meaybe I should review the bible instead of Peebles, etc :) > > > of a sphere of radius 6000 light-years, on which EM radiation of all > > sorts of wavelengths (and we could add other particles) was generated > > 6000 years ago on this surface, emitted in the direction of the Sun > > (and it continues to be generated) in such a way to reproduce a > > "naive" model that makes it (more or less) easy for human beings to > > interpret these in terms of simple laws of physics. The being "God/Bóg" > > which generates the emission wants human beings to have an easily > > interpretable Universe, he/she/it is extremely intelligent and able > > to generate such complex emission patterns of radiation. Just like > > he/she/it set up species of animals 6000 years ago in a way that > > makes biologists think there must have been lots of evolution... > > > > Personally i find the model ridiculous, but it perfectly fits all the > > observations and avoids "extrapolation" into times with which we have > > no written contact (prehistorical), and the Universe is only 6000 > > years old. > > pozdrawiam > bartek. pozd boud From amr w astro.uni.torun.pl Fri Oct 10 11:18:01 2003 From: amr w astro.uni.torun.pl (Andrzej Marecki) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:18:01 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: No topological signal detected in WMAP data Message-ID: <200310100918.LAA26115@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> Paper: astro-ph/0310233 From: Neil J. Cornish Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 20:27:22 GMT (16kb) Title: Constraining the Topology of the Universe Authors: Neil J. Cornish, David N. Spergel, Glenn D. Starkman and Eiichiro Komatsu Comments: Submitted to PRL \\ The first year data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe are used to place stringent constraints on the topology of the Universe. We search for pairs of circles on the sky with similar temperature patterns along each circle. We restrict the search to back-to-back circle pairs, and to nearly back-to-back circle pairs, as this covers the majority of the topologies that one might hope to detect in a nearly flat universe. We do not find any matched circles with radius greater than 25 degrees. For a wide class of models, the non-detection rules out the possibility that we live in a universe with topology scale smaller than 24 Gpc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Fri Oct 10 17:14:08 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:14:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Dodecahedral space topology In-Reply-To: References: <200310090758.JAA09445@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> Message-ID: here's the full article: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310253 On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Boud Roukema wrote: > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Andrzej Marecki wrote: > > > ----- Forwarded message from NatureAlert ----- > > > > [...] > > > > Dodecahedral space topology as an explanation for weak wide-angle > > temperature correlations in the cosmic microwave background > > JEAN-PIERRE LUMINET, JEFFREY R. WEEKS, ALAIN RIAZUELO, ROLAND LEHOUCQ > > & JEAN-PHILIPPE UZAN > > http://info.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/eMJG0BfWLH0Ch0EeW0Ay > From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Oct 14 13:27:54 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:27:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) Message-ID: hi everyone, i definitely think we should respond to this - but i would prefer it to be a collective response - there's no reason why only my name should be cited - e.g., we could at least have the official "team" who was on the grant (amr + motyl + magda + bartek + sebastian + me), but if someone else wants to participate (i guess we can call this an official "press release" (oświadczenie prasowe)) that would be good, especially someone from CAMK to show that we work together despite the bureaucratic difference between CA-UMK and CAMK. As i understand it, Łukasz is in a hurry - he'll ring back at 15.00 - so i'll try to get a draft to the list within the next half hour or so. pozd boud > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:07:10 +0200 > From: Lukasz Kaniewski > To: boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > Subject: prosba o komentarz > > Szanowny Panie doktorze! W zeszlym tygodniu w "Nature" ukazaly sie > wyniki badan dotyczacych ksztaltu i rozmiaru Wszechswiata. > > http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-10/ns-dtu100803.php > > Czy moglby Pan wyslac mi swaja opinie na temat tych wynikow? Prosze o > kilka lub kilkanascie zdan - mailem, bylbym wdzieczny za szybka > odpowiedz. > Sprobuje zadzwonic jeszcze do Pan okolo trzeciej. > Dziekuje - Lukasz Kaniewski, dziennik "Rzeczpospolita". > From amr w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Oct 14 13:52:17 2003 From: amr w astro.uni.torun.pl (Andrzej Marecki) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:52:17 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200310141152.NAA13205@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> > As i understand it, Łukasz is in a hurry - he'll ring back at 15.00 - > so i'll try to get a draft to the list within the next half hour or so. OK, but.... Easy, slow down! Don't let those always-in-a-hurry media people make such a pressure on us. They notoriously use to think we are lying idle waiting for their phone calls. And when such a call from media comes we're most happy to put off immediately what we are working on at the moment and rush to write a PR for them - they seem to think. No, that's not true. We're (at least) as busy as they are! My advice: when he rings back at 15.00 tell him: tomorrow, jutro, demain, man'ana, bokra.... (The choice of the language at your discretion. ;) Nie dajmy się zwariować! (Can't translate it to English, sorry. ;-) A. From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Oct 14 14:00:29 2003 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:00:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200310141152.NAA13205@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> References: <200310141152.NAA13205@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> Message-ID: hmmm - OK - it's true that editing our paper should be a higher priority for me... i'll tell him we're working on it and should have something ready tomorrow... b On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Andrzej Marecki wrote: > > As i understand it, Łukasz is in a hurry - he'll ring back at 15.00 - > > so i'll try to get a draft to the list within the next half hour or so. > > OK, but.... > > Easy, slow down! Don't let those always-in-a-hurry media people make such a > pressure on us. They notoriously use to think we are lying idle waiting for > their phone calls. And when such a call from media comes we're most happy to > put off immediately what we are working on at the moment and rush to write a > PR for them - they seem to think. No, that's not true. We're (at least) as > busy as they are! > > My advice: when he rings back at 15.00 tell him: tomorrow, jutro, demain, > man'ana, bokra.... (The choice of the language at your discretion. ;) > Nie dajmy się zwariować! (Can't translate it to English, sorry. ;-) > > A. > From motylek w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Oct 14 14:03:50 2003 From: motylek w astro.uni.torun.pl (Marcin Gawronski) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:03:50 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: prosba o komentarz (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Boud Roukema wrote: > hi everyone, > i definitely think we should respond to this - but i would prefer > it to be a collective response - there's no reason why only my name > should be cited - e.g., we could at least have the official "team" hello all I think Boud is the man in the position to say something about this stuff. From my point of view I'm not sure that the quality of data is sufficient to be convicted about validity of these results. It's all. cheers mpg