all those constraints

[szajtan]

Boud, I got your point about those constraints ;)

(Maeybe there arose a little confiusion because I treat everything from the
CMB point of view (CMB & rest of the world) as everything  else (other
methods) were just a kind of supplementary thing, some aid of narrowing our
choices in space of parameters.)

When we have a theory describing sth. with some free parameters, it doesnt
give any constraints on  unknown values until we know the values of those
parameters. In that moment measurments enter the scene as some kind of
calibration. Then we have a model and can derive whatever we want
quantitatively.
(e.g. LSS constraint - from assumption on model + "calibration"
 measurments )

But what if we had such a good theory that it doesnt need any additional
measurmenst (except some well known physical constants) (nb measurments that
introduce additional uncertanities) to predict  the thing we're looking for.
That would be a constraint of purely theoretical nature.
(e.g. BBN constraint - only from physics of high energy particles - which
happens to be more less consistent with constraints from observations of
Ly_\alpha forest)

Do you agree with this approach to the word "constraint" in astronomy ?

Bartek

ps. mentioned constraints include h uncertanity (which should be constrained
externaly (eg. by SNIa constraint :))
(hmm but in this case I treat SNIa constraint supplementary not equivalently
which at the beginning wasn't my intent)
Maeybe this is just a nomenclature problem. We cannot deal with all methods
of estimating parameters simultanously, so we pick one
to ESTIMATE (DERIVE) parameters and then as an additional help treat all
other estimations (comming from other methods) as CONSTRAINTS.

I think thats it !

***************r-e-k-l-a-m-a**************

Chcesz oszczedzic na kosztach obslugi bankowej ?
mBIZNES - konto dla firm
http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes