hi everyone, We have a media question :). i don't want to spam people, so anyone interested, please respond on cosmo-media@ ... rather than cosmo-torun. Below are my proposed "compact" answers. Any corrections before i respond "officially"? Remember the number one rule of the dependent media: "anything you say may and will be misquoted against you". Which is why having this on the cosmo-media archive will at least, in principle, provide some defence... i don't know what time frame the journalist has in mind - but presumably the sooner the better for any answers. IMHO probably a day or two should be OK. pozdr boud
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:38:49 +0100 From: t.rozek at fz-juelich.de To: boud at astro.uni.torun.pl Subject: the shape of the universe
Dear Sir,
I'm a physicist and scientific writer. Within the new project of Axel Springer publishing house (editor of Newsweek in Poland and Die Welt in Germany) in Poland I would like to invite you to the discussion about the shape of the universe.
As I know scientific group you are the leader, in 2004 went public with the information that in the microwave background radiation picture there are some indications, that our universe has a shape of dodecahedron.
Questions I'm asking you are the same like these I have sent to other expert in this field. I will not hide, that his opinion about the shape of the universe is different than your.
I will be pleased to get from you compact answers to questions which are listed below. Please keep in mind that new Axel Springer daily will be addressed to nonspecialists in physics or astronomy.
Let me thank you in advance for time you will spend to answer my questions. I'm looking forward to your respond.
With the best regards Tomasz Rozek
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions:
1. Analysis of the microwave background radiation are the only way - I guess - to collect information about the shape of the universe. Isn't it risky to draw conclusions resulting from only one experiment ?
Yes, it is risky to draw conclusions from only one experiment. We expect other scientists to read our paper carefully and make their own analyses of microwave background and other data. The most independent test of our work will be testing the prediction that the average, total density parameter of the Universe, including ordinary matter, dark matter and dark energy together, should be about 0.9% to 1.1% higher than the density which would make the Universe perfectly flat ("flat" means that Pythagoras' Theorem is true). This type of test is highly independent of our analysis method.
2. Why this is commonly believed, that data from WMAP probe, brought down the concept of flat and infinite universe ?
The flat and infinite universe model is still consistent with the WMAP data. It is not the best model, but it is still consistent with the data and most observational cosmologists still take it as the best approximation we have. Please remember, however, that no theoretical cosmologists take the flat and infinite model as a serious model of the entire Universe - it is only treated as a limiting case inside the observable sphere.
3. There are many ideas concerning the shape of the universe. Maybe it is like a sphere, cylinder, funnel, but it can also be like bell, horn or dodecahedron. Why do you claim that space is dodecahedron-like ?
We don't. The first misunderstanding is that "shape" means the shape of *space itself*, not the shape of *space inside of space*. Our intuition is developed to think of objects inside of three-dimensional, Euclidean, infinite space. In order to understand what is meant by the shape of the Universe, you first need to develop a method of thinking about the shape of space itself. A good place to start would be http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksztalt_Wszechswiata . One example of a shape of space itself is a space with the name "Poincare dodecahedral space" (PDS). One "ordinary" shape, inside of space, which helps to think about the PDS, is the dodecahedron. The second misunderstanding is that so far our group only claims to have a "hint" of that the shape of space is the PDS. Our analysis follows that by Jean-Pierre Luminet's group. Ralf Aurich's group and Jesper Gundermann have also found similar (though not exactly identical) results.
4. What are the errors or defects of the idea of horn-like space ?
None as far as I am aware of.
5. Could you in the very easy way explain the expression, that space has a shape ?
Imagine that space only has two dimensions, instead of three. Now we can use our existing intuition about three-dimensional space to imagine many different possible two-dimensional spaces inside of three-dimensional space. In this way, we use one dimension as a purely psychological dimension. It's used by our brain, but has no physical meaning for the two-dimensional space we're thinking about. Of course, real space has three dimensions (we can ignore the time dimension for discussion of "the shape of space"), so if you can now start thinking in four dimensions, then you can use the fourth dimension as a psychological dimension and think of differently shaped spaces, each having three dimensions.
6. Do efforts to establish a shape of the universe have any practical meaning or you are doing that just to know ?
Both. It is practical to know the shape of a footpath or a tree or a mountain or an atom or a molecule, so it is practical to know the shape of the Universe. But it is also good to knowing the shape of a work of Picasso or a beautiful woman or man, even if this has no practical use.
7. Did universe have a beginning, and ones will have the end ?
The standard hot big bang model is very well established, and this model has a limiting time we can call "time equals zero". If we start today and think backwards towards "time equals zero", then our model of the Universe becomes more and more speculative as we get towards "time equals zero". So it is more realistic to say that we have a standard model which goes *towards* having a beginning rather than saying the Universe actually "had" a beginning. However, theoretical cosmologists have some ideas of universe models extending earlier than "time equals zero". ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boud Roukema wrote:
We have a media question :).
But what kind of media? DEPENDENT, commercial, global media!
Remember the number one rule of the dependent media: "anything you say may and will be misquoted against you".
Right! So think *twice* before you start to talk to them. [...]
I'm a physicist and scientific writer. Within the new project of Axel Springer publishing house (editor of Newsweek in Poland and Die Welt in Germany)
Not only, not only. "Die Welt" and "Newsweek" - hmm, these sound good and this is true but this is only a smaller part of the truth. Go to: http://www.axelspringer.pl/ to see how they REALLY make (LOTS of) money. In particularly pay attention to http://efakt.pl/ the most disgusting tabloid in the market in this country. Also, you might be interested in http://dziewczyna.redakcja.pl/ and http://popcorn.redakcja.pl/ the latter being just a complete bull... and rubbish. So as you can see they are liars! They say Axel Springer publishes "Die Welt" and "Newsweek" but they keep quiet they are No.1 brain washers in this country. My advice: to keep your alter/anti-globalist's conscience clear you'd better... BOYCOTT Axel Springer and don't talk to them by the same token you don't dine at McDonald'$. ;-) -- Andrzej
hi Andrzej, all, On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Andrzej Marecki wrote:
Boud Roukema wrote:
We have a media question :).
But what kind of media? DEPENDENT, commercial, global media!
Sure.
Remember the number one rule of the dependent media: "anything you say may and will be misquoted against you".
Right! So think *twice* before you start to talk to them.
[...]
I'm a physicist and scientific writer. Within the new project of Axel Springer publishing house (editor of Newsweek in Poland and Die Welt in Germany)
Not only, not only. "Die Welt" and "Newsweek" - hmm, these sound good and this is true but this is only a smaller part of the truth. Go to: http://www.axelspringer.pl/ to see how they REALLY make (LOTS of) money. In particularly pay attention to http://efakt.pl/ the most disgusting tabloid in the market in this country. Also, you might be interested in http://dziewczyna.redakcja.pl/ and http://popcorn.redakcja.pl/ the latter being just a complete bull... and rubbish.
So as you can see they are liars! They say Axel Springer publishes "Die Welt" and "Newsweek" but they keep quiet they are No.1 brain washers in this country.
Well, i think there's plenty of evidence that Newsweek has been involved in major brainwashing justifying massive human rights violations - there's no need to look up its other publications.
My advice: to keep your alter/anti-globalist's conscience clear you'd better... BOYCOTT Axel Springer and don't talk to them by the same token you don't dine at McDonald'$. ;-)
Well, i think it's good that you raise the question for debate - a boycott could make sense if it's publicised and discussed and people understand why it's being done. A boycott by just one person is not a boycott. Our aim as a University is to research and disseminate knowledge about all aspects of the Universe - including cosmology, physics, free software, sociology, the arts, law and human rights violations. (We all specialise of course, and in principle, we should all be freely exchanging our specialist knowledge with other on arxiv.org, wiki pages, etc., though so far it's not happening very much in UMK...) Does refusing debate with organisations supporting human rights violations support or damage our goals? i'm not sure that i understand how refusing to answer will necessarily help - a lot of the information in the wikipedia is from the CIA factsbook (because they had the sense to make it available on a compatible licence, probably public domain AFAIR) - yet i contribute to the wikipedia and believe that this is a good idea. But this is only a partial analogy, because the CIA cannot control the wikipedia :). Anyway, i'm glad the question has been raised, let's see what others think.... pozdr boud
A boycott by just one person is not a boycott.
Yes, but denying boycott, even in that "useless" form, you support them! You help them fill their pages and... make money.
Does refusing debate with organisations supporting human rights violations support or damage our goals?
All I can say is that talking to them you give them credit. Then they can proudly say "Look, top scientists talk to us. So we are credible". But THEY ARE NOT!!! Look at that %$@##&% bull.... they print in "Fakt". What I'm really afraid of is that talking to Newsweek you give them copyright to reprint what you've said in "Fakt". -- Andrzej P.S. More than once I was asked to talk on Radio Maryja, one of the nastiest and extremely dependent medium in this country. And I declined each and every time! No-one knows (until now ;-) I did so. So that was not a true boycott according to your definition. But I did so because I didn't want to give them credit. -- a.
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Andrzej Marecki wrote:
A boycott by just one person is not a boycott.
Yes, but denying boycott, even in that "useless" form, you support them! You help them fill their pages and... make money.
True. News is a filler in order to attract readers/viewers who are sold to advertisers. As Patrick Le Lay, president of French TV station TF1 said, http://www.lexpansion.com/patrick_le_lay,_president_directeur_general_de_tf1... ... the job of TF1 is to help Coca-Cola, for example, to sell its product. [...] In order for an advertising message to be perceived, the brain of the television viewer must be available. Our broadcasts are aimed at making that brain available: i.e. by distracting it, by relaxing it and preparing it between two messages. What we sell to Coca-Cola is time with this available human brain."
Does refusing debate with organisations supporting human rights violations support or damage our goals?
All I can say is that talking to them you give them credit. Then they can proudly say "Look, top scientists talk to us. So we are credible". But THEY ARE NOT!!! Look at that %$@##&% bull.... they print in "Fakt". What I'm really afraid of is that talking to Newsweek you give them copyright to reprint what you've said in "Fakt".
-- Andrzej
P.S. More than once I was asked to talk on Radio Maryja, one of the nastiest and extremely dependent medium in this country. And I declined each and every time! No-one knows (until now ;-) I did so. So that was not a true boycott according to your definition. But I did so because I didn't want to give them credit.
Strong argument! BTW - if this is not a private question, did RM ask you to talk about *cosmology/AGNs* ??? or another, non-astro subject? pozdr boud
BTW - if this is not a private question, did RM ask you to talk about *cosmology/AGNs* ??? or another, non-astro subject?
They just wanted me to talk. (Perhaps they expected me to talk about the relationship between science and religion but who knows...) However, what they actually needed was my 'dr', then that I work at the university. So, they merely wanted me to give them credit. -- a.
hi cosmo-torun again :) On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Boud Roukema wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Andrzej Marecki wrote:
A boycott by just one person is not a boycott.
Yes, but denying boycott, even in that "useless" form, you support them! You help them fill their pages and... make money.
well, I have an idealistic point of view that if someone is interested in publishing some interesting stuff, which potentialy can result in making interested some reader latter on, then provided that it doesn't collide with self education or research, such informations should be easily given out to the public - i.e. a journalists with best intentions of creativity, thoughts sharing etc, regardless of matters who earns money from it or reveives some side profits. Everybody has to do his/hers job. If someone politely asks he should be politely heard and answered, otherwise he or she should rather be ignered. pozdr. bartek
True. News is a filler in order to attract readers/viewers who are sold to advertisers. As Patrick Le Lay, president of French TV station TF1 said,
http://www.lexpansion.com/patrick_le_lay,_president_directeur_general_de_tf1...
... the job of TF1 is to help Coca-Cola, for example, to sell its product. [...] In order for an advertising message to be perceived, the brain of the television viewer must be available. Our broadcasts are aimed at making that brain available: i.e. by distracting it, by relaxing it and preparing it between two messages. What we sell to Coca-Cola is time with this available human brain."
Does refusing debate with organisations supporting human rights violations support or damage our goals?
All I can say is that talking to them you give them credit. Then they can proudly say "Look, top scientists talk to us. So we are credible". But THEY ARE NOT!!! Look at that %$@##&% bull.... they print in "Fakt". What I'm really afraid of is that talking to Newsweek you give them copyright to reprint what you've said in "Fakt".
-- Andrzej
P.S. More than once I was asked to talk on Radio Maryja, one of the nastiest and extremely dependent medium in this country. And I declined each and every time! No-one knows (until now ;-) I did so. So that was not a true boycott according to your definition. But I did so because I didn't want to give them credit.
Strong argument!
BTW - if this is not a private question, did RM ask you to talk about *cosmology/AGNs* ??? or another, non-astro subject?
pozdr boud
hi again cosmo-torun :) On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Bartosz Lew wrote:
hi cosmo-torun again :)
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Boud Roukema wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Andrzej Marecki wrote:
A boycott by just one person is not a boycott.
Yes, but denying boycott, even in that "useless" form, you support them! You help them fill their pages and... make money.
well, I have an idealistic point of view that if someone is interested in publishing some interesting stuff, which potentialy can result in making interested some reader latter on, then provided that it doesn't collide with self education or research, such informations should be easily given out to the public - i.e. a journalists with best intentions of creativity, thoughts sharing etc, regardless of matters who earns money from it or reveives some side profits. Everybody has to do his/hers job. If someone politely asks he should be politely heard and answered, otherwise he or she should rather be ignered.
Well, it's true that a polite and clear request by email is different to a general request to speak on a radio station. The idea of having http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-media/ public archives is that even if Radio Marija asked for a cosmology comment, we could reply with a copy on-list, so that if later on they tried to use it in ways we felt were misleading, then people interested in checking the original text could see it on the archive. On the other hand, IIUC, Andrzej's point is about the information distribution system as a whole, and media organisations as organisations or "institutions". Most people who work in corporations are nice people - as individuals (well, except maybe Bill G.) - the only problem is how they function together as an organisation. And our role in providing cosmology info is to help the organisation do other non-cosmo stuff. Here's an attempt to summarise the ethics arguments/counterarguments for/against giving an answer: FOR 1 the individual reporter asking politely and clearly has good intentions 2 our social role is to provide information, we are morally obliged to do this 3 an individual boycott of an organisation is ineffective 3b cutting off communication with people/organisations you disagree with only helps if other people are aware of this and of the reasons why 4 (utilitarian argument) the "politically correct" side of axel springer (newsweek) is much more likely to be taken seriously and have an effect on CAUMK funding (e.g. grants) than RM would have (though this is not totally sure) AGAINST 1 our answer provides a "legitimate" cover for an organisation which as a whole plays many negative roles in information distribution 2 one of us has already carried out a boycott of such an organisation Is this a fair summary of the arguments? pozdr boud
Here's an attempt to summarise the ethics arguments/counterarguments for/against giving an answer:
4 (utilitarian argument) the "politically correct" side of axel springer (newsweek) is much more likely to be taken seriously and have an effect on CAUMK funding (e.g. grants) than RM would have (though this is not totally sure)
OK, but how can you make sure Axel Springer will NOT reprint your opinion in Fakt??? If you talk to them you then - AFAIK - _they_ own the copyright to distribute your opinions in the way *they* wish. Can you image the 1st page of Fakt with headlines "The Universe is a funnel" next to "This is the face of a rapist. She says she will never forget it" (or any other rubbish like that)? I can. So if you decide to reply to Mr. Rożek then before you actually reply to his questions ask him who are you talking to: Newsweek or Axel Springer? If the latter is the case then there *is* a danger your words may be misused. If the former is the case then ask whether you can get PROTECTED (in writing!) that your words will NOT appear in Fakt, Popcorn, Dziwczyna or any other pitiful, bull...tting crap owned by Axel Springer. Having a document stating that Axel Springer _limits_ their copyrights, you perhaps may start talking to them. Then if your words/photo appears in Fakt anyway, you could try to sue them.
1 our answer provides a "legitimate" cover for an organisation which as a whole plays many negative roles in information distribution
"Yes, yes, yes." (I put quotes because I'm quoting... Prime Minister Marcinkiewicz here. ;-)
Is this a fair summary of the arguments?
Yes. -- am
hi cosmo-torun, We've switched back to cosmo-media, since we have a proposal which seems to have consensus (so far): http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-media/2006-February/000055.html pozdr boud On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Andrzej Marecki wrote:
Here's an attempt to summarise the ethics arguments/counterarguments for/against giving an answer:
4 (utilitarian argument) the "politically correct" side of axel springer (newsweek) is much more likely to be taken seriously and have an effect on CAUMK funding (e.g. grants) than RM would have (though this is not totally sure)
OK, but how can you make sure Axel Springer will NOT reprint your opinion in Fakt??? If you talk to them you then - AFAIK - _they_ own the copyright to distribute your opinions in the way *they* wish. Can you image the 1st page
participants (3)
-
Andrzej Marecki -
Bartosz Lew -
Boud Roukema