Cosmo-torun

cosmo-torun@cosmo.torun.pl

328 discussions

RE: [Cosmo-torun] Re: MNRAS - ME1299
by Elizabeth Hoffman 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Dear Dr Roukema Thank you for your email regarding ME1299. However we cannot give the paper further consideration. Regards Dr Hoffman Monthly Notices > -----Original Message----- > From: Boud Roukema [mailto:boud@astro.uni.torun.pl] > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:28 AM > To: Elizabeth Hoffman > Cc: cosmo-torun(a)cosmo.torun.pl > Subject: Re: [Cosmo-torun] Re: MNRAS - ME1299 > > Dear Dr Hoffman, > Has MNRAS come to any decision following our request? > > http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-December/000314.html > > Best regards, > Boud > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Boud Roukema wrote: > > > Dear Dr Hoffman, > > > > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Elizabeth Hoffman wrote: > > > > > Dear Dr Roukema > > > > > > Regarding your paper ref. ME1299. We have recently > discovered that > > > a paper on the same subject, by K. Gorski et al., has > been submitted > > > to and accepted by the Astrophysical Journal. A preprint of this > > > paper was posted on astro-ph/0409513 on September 21, some time > > > before your paper was received by Monthly Notices on November 12, > > > but you did not cite this paper in your own. This prior > submission > > > must take precedence over > > > > The reason we did not cite that paper is that Gorski et > al's new paper > > (astro-ph/0409513) was consequent, not precedent, to our paper, and > > covered essentially the same material. We sent our paper to those > > authors on 8 September 2004 proposing co-authorship. > > > > 8 September 2004 is precedent to 21 September 2004. > > > > > yours, and I regret that we must therefore reject your paper for > > > publication in Monthly Notices. If you consider that your paper > > > contains significant new material beyond that presented > in the paper > > > by Gorski et al., then we may be able to consider a significantly > > > revised version, but such a paper would be treated as a > new submission. > > > > On 8 September, we invited Gorski et al. to be coauthors of > our paper. > > You can verify this either on the public archives of our > mailing list: > > > http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-September/000254.html > > or by asking any of the subscribers to the mailing list: > > > > [Note: replace " at " by "@" - this is anti-spam-robot protection > > throughout this email.] > > * amr at astro.uni.torun.pl > > * bartosz.lew at astri.uni.torun.pl > > * boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > > * jarekr at ncac.torun.pl > > * magda at astro.uni.torun.pl > > * mhanasz at astri.uni.torun.pl > > * michalf at ncac.torun.pl > > * motylek at astro.uni.torun.pl > > * ssober at phys.uni.torun.pl > > * tavi at astro.uni.torun.pl > > * tkato at kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp > > * xlenka at poczta.fm > > or the HEALPix authors: > > * Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, > > * Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, > > * Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, > > *"Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu> to check > their email > > archive from 8 September 2004. > > > > While not many of the people listed here are necessarily "neutral", > > the nature of the date and content of the email sent on 8 September > > 2004 consitute an easily falsifiable claim (in the sense of > Karl Popper). > > > > Below you will find the email including full header > information, but > > the most relevant part of the email is as follows: > > > > > Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > > > From: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > Reply-To: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > > > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, cosmo-torun at > > > astro.uni.torun.pl > > > To: Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, > > > Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, > > > Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, > > > "Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu>, > > > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > > > Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > > > cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl > > > Subject: proposed co-authorship > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > Please find attached the draft of a paper of which we > invite you > > > to be co-authors. It is felt that the most consensual way > to publish > > > this paper would be to include the members of the HEALPix > > > collaboration. We would be most happy to include your names as > > > co-authors, if that is what you wish. > > > > > > However, if we hear nothing from you by Wednesday 22 > September, then > > > we will assume that you do not wish to be co-authors. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Boud, Bartek > > > > > > Gorski et al. made the choice of not being co-authors with us, but > > their submission of an article, with a preprint on astro-ph on > > September 21, clearly shows that they submitted their > article in full > > knowledge of our work, and they submitted their version one > day before > > our deadline in order to "officially" be able to claim publication > > precedence. > > > > Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it> started a constructive > > discussion with us (which ended with his choosing not to be a > > co-author with us); he would probably be someone from > "Gorski's group" > > willing to confirm the chronology here. > > > > On 22 September, we submitted our own article to Astronomy & > > Astrophysics, but Astronomy & Astrophysics was unwilling to > consider > > the chronology we have mentioned and was unwilling to send > the article > > to a neutral referee for peer review, which is why we only > submitted > > to MNRAS several weeks later, hoping for a more objective > response to > > our article which was precedent to Gorski et al's article. > > > > In our humble opinion, the most constructive solution would be to > > consider this to be simultaneous submission by two groups, with one > > group (us) openly and publicly offering cooperation to the other, > > which failed to respond and instead deliberately published a day > > before our proposed deadline. Maybe you could discuss this with > > Astrophysical Journal editors to find a constructive solution. > > > > It would be appreciated if you could consider the fully chronology > > here. > > > > Best regards, > > Boud Roukema, Bartosz Lew > > > > > > Enclosed (text) (to avoid filling your mailbox, the MIME attachment > > has been removed, but we, or any of the recipients cited above who > > have kept the email in his/her mailbox, can forward the > full email to > > you including the MIME attachment if you wish): > > [Note: "@" is replaced by " at " - this is anti-spam-robot > protection > > throughout this email.] > > > > > > > > > From cosmo-torun-owner at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl Wed Sep 8 > > > 15:26:00 2004 > > > Return-Path: <cosmo-torun-owner at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > Delivered-To: boud at adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl > > > Received: from newton.astro.uni.torun.pl > (newton.astro.uni.torun.pl [158.75.6.7]) > > > by adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674A82FC92 > > > for <boud at adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl>; Wed, 8 Sep > 2004 15:26:00 > > > +0200 (CEST) > > > Received: from newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (sympa at > localhost [127.0.0.1]) > > > by newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP > id i88DGZsX026233; > > > Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:16:36 +0200 (MET DST) > > > Received: by newton.astro.uni.torun.pl > (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i88DGXCb026231; > > > Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:16:33 +0200 (MET DST) > > > X-Authentication-Warning: newton.astro.uni.torun.pl: sympa set > > > sender to cosmo-torun-owner at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl using -f > > > Received: from adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl > (adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl [158.75.6.40]) > > > by newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP > id i88DFOsX026212; > > > Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:15:24 +0200 (MET DST) > > > Received: by adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (Postfix, from userid 1000) > > > id BB9DD2FC93; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > > > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > > > by adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP > > > id A1A6A2FC92; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > > > Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > > > From: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > Reply-To: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > > > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, cosmo-torun at > > > astro.uni.torun.pl > > > To: Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, > > > Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, > > > Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, > > > "Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu>, > > > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > > > Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > > > cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl > > > Subject: proposed co-authorship > > > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0409081520170.855 at > > > adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; > BOUNDARY="1268656134-1928451780-1094649867=:855" > > > X-Loop: cosmo-torun at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl > > > X-Sequence: 274 > > > Precedence: list > > > X-no-archive: yes > > > List-Id: <cosmo-torun at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > List-Help: <mailto:sympa at > newton.astro.uni.torun.pl?subject=help> > > > List-Subscribe: <mailto:sympa at > > > newton.astro.uni.torun.pl?subject=subscribe%20cosmo-torun> > > > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sympa at > > > newton.astro.uni.torun.pl?subject=unsubscribe%20cosmo-torun> > > > List-Post: <mailto:cosmo-torun at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > List-Owner: <mailto:cosmo-torun-request at > > > newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > List-Archive: > <http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/arc/cosmo-torun> > > > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.7 required=5.0 > > > tests=MIME_NULL_BLOCK,CBYI,RCVD_IN_ORBS version=2.20 > > > X-Spam-Level: *** > > > Status: RO > > > X-Status: > > > X-Keywords: > > > X-UID: 68 > > > > > > This message is in MIME format. The first part should > be readable text, > > > while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without > MIME-aware tools. > > > Send mail to mime at docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. > > > > > > --1268656134-1928451780-1094649867=:855 > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > Please find attached the draft of a paper of which we > invite you > > > to be co-authors. It is felt that the most consensual way > to publish > > > this paper would be to include the members of the HEALPix > > > collaboration. We would be most happy to include your names as > > > co-authors, if that is what you wish. > > > > > > However, if we hear nothing from you by Wednesday 22 > September, then > > > we will assume that you do not wish to be co-authors. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Boud, Bartek > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Cosmo-torun mailing list > > Cosmo-torun(a)cosmo.torun.pl > > http://cosmo.torun.pl/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-torun > > >

1 0

Re: MNRAS - ME1299
by Boud Roukema 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Dear Dr Hoffman, On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Elizabeth Hoffman wrote: > Dear Dr Roukema > > Regarding your paper ref. ME1299. We have recently discovered that a > paper on the same subject, by K. Gorski et al., has been submitted to > and accepted by the Astrophysical Journal. A preprint of this paper was > posted on astro-ph/0409513 on September 21, some time before your paper > was received by Monthly Notices on November 12, but you did not cite > this paper in your own. This prior submission must take precedence over The reason we did not cite that paper is that Gorski et al's new paper (astro-ph/0409513) was consequent, not precedent, to our paper, and covered essentially the same material. We sent our paper to those authors on 8 September 2004 proposing co-authorship. 8 September 2004 is precedent to 21 September 2004. > yours, and I regret that we must therefore reject your paper for > publication in Monthly Notices. If you consider that your paper contains > significant new material beyond that presented in the paper by Gorski et > al., then we may be able to consider a significantly revised version, > but such a paper would be treated as a new submission. On 8 September, we invited Gorski et al. to be coauthors of our paper. You can verify this either on the public archives of our mailing list: http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-September/000254.html or by asking any of the subscribers to the mailing list: [Note: replace " at " by "@" - this is anti-spam-robot protection throughout this email.] * amr at astro.uni.torun.pl * bartosz.lew at astri.uni.torun.pl * boud at astro.uni.torun.pl * jarekr at ncac.torun.pl * magda at astro.uni.torun.pl * mhanasz at astri.uni.torun.pl * michalf at ncac.torun.pl * motylek at astro.uni.torun.pl * ssober at phys.uni.torun.pl * tavi at astro.uni.torun.pl * tkato at kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp * xlenka at poczta.fm or the HEALPix authors: * Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, * Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, * Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, *"Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu> to check their email archive from 8 September 2004. While not many of the people listed here are necessarily "neutral", the nature of the date and content of the email sent on 8 September 2004 consitute an easily falsifiable claim (in the sense of Karl Popper). Below you will find the email including full header information, but the most relevant part of the email is as follows: > Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > From: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl> > Reply-To: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl > To: Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, > Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, > Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, > "Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu>, > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl > Subject: proposed co-authorship > > Dear colleagues, > Please find attached the draft of a paper of which we invite you to > be co-authors. It is felt that the most consensual way to publish this > paper would be to include the members of the HEALPix collaboration. We > would be most happy to include your names as co-authors, if that is > what you wish. > > However, if we hear nothing from you by Wednesday 22 September, > then we will assume that you do not wish to be co-authors. > > Regards, > Boud, Bartek Gorski et al. made the choice of not being co-authors with us, but their submission of an article, with a preprint on astro-ph on September 21, clearly shows that they submitted their article in full knowledge of our work, and they submitted their version one day before our deadline in order to "officially" be able to claim publication precedence. Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it> started a constructive discussion with us (which ended with his choosing not to be a co-author with us); he would probably be someone from "Gorski's group" willing to confirm the chronology here. On 22 September, we submitted our own article to Astronomy & Astrophysics, but Astronomy & Astrophysics was unwilling to consider the chronology we have mentioned and was unwilling to send the article to a neutral referee for peer review, which is why we only submitted to MNRAS several weeks later, hoping for a more objective response to our article which was precedent to Gorski et al's article. In our humble opinion, the most constructive solution would be to consider this to be simultaneous submission by two groups, with one group (us) openly and publicly offering cooperation to the other, which failed to respond and instead deliberately published a day before our proposed deadline. Maybe you could discuss this with Astrophysical Journal editors to find a constructive solution. It would be appreciated if you could consider the fully chronology here. Best regards, Boud Roukema, Bartosz Lew Enclosed (text) (to avoid filling your mailbox, the MIME attachment has been removed, but we, or any of the recipients cited above who have kept the email in his/her mailbox, can forward the full email to you including the MIME attachment if you wish): [Note: "@" is replaced by " at " - this is anti-spam-robot protection throughout this email.] > From cosmo-torun-owner at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl Wed Sep 8 15:26:00 2004 > Return-Path: <cosmo-torun-owner at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > Delivered-To: boud at adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl > Received: from newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (newton.astro.uni.torun.pl [158.75.6.7]) > by adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674A82FC92 > for <boud at adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl>; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:26:00 +0200 (CEST) > Received: from newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (sympa at localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i88DGZsX026233; > Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:16:36 +0200 (MET DST) > Received: by newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i88DGXCb026231; > Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:16:33 +0200 (MET DST) > X-Authentication-Warning: newton.astro.uni.torun.pl: sympa set sender to cosmo-torun-owner at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl using -f > Received: from adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl [158.75.6.40]) > by newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i88DFOsX026212; > Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:15:24 +0200 (MET DST) > Received: by adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (Postfix, from userid 1000) > id BB9DD2FC93; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP > id A1A6A2FC92; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > From: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl> > Reply-To: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl > To: Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, > Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, > Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, > "Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu>, > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl > Subject: proposed co-authorship > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0409081520170.855 at adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1268656134-1928451780-1094649867=:855" > X-Loop: cosmo-torun at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl > X-Sequence: 274 > Precedence: list > X-no-archive: yes > List-Id: <cosmo-torun at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > List-Help: <mailto:sympa at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl?subject=help> > List-Subscribe: <mailto:sympa at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl?subject=subscribe%20cosmo-torun> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sympa at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl?subject=unsubscribe%20cosmo-torun> > List-Post: <mailto:cosmo-torun at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > List-Owner: <mailto:cosmo-torun-request at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > List-Archive: <http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/arc/cosmo-torun> > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.7 required=5.0 tests=MIME_NULL_BLOCK,CBYI,RCVD_IN_ORBS version=2.20 > X-Spam-Level: *** > Status: RO > X-Status: > X-Keywords: > X-UID: 68 > > This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, > while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. > Send mail to mime at docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. > > --1268656134-1928451780-1094649867=:855 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > Dear colleagues, > Please find attached the draft of a paper of which we invite you to > be co-authors. It is felt that the most consensual way to publish this > paper would be to include the members of the HEALPix collaboration. We > would be most happy to include your names as co-authors, if that is > what you wish. > > However, if we hear nothing from you by Wednesday 22 September, > then we will assume that you do not wish to be co-authors. > > Regards, > Boud, Bartek

1 1

grant KBN deadline UMK wtorek 25.01 ?
by Boud Roukema 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Witam, Circus time again! It seems to me that the KBN deadline is Tuesday 25.01 for sending to the rectorat. Do we try for a common grant proposal? Or separate ones once again? We have a cosmic topology result + other cosmic topology papers which make the case for cosmic topology fairly strong, IMHO, and this includes the topology-AGN connection. Time is getting short, so i'll assume by default we make separate proposals as we tried last year (unsuccessfully). Hmmm, in the last round, there were three cosmo applications that succeeeded: http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/~kst/konkursy.html Demianski 200.000 zl Juszkiewicz 411.000 zl Lokas 102.000 zl If we fail again, then IMHO it will be time to activate cosmo-pl@..., this is a community problem and will require a community solution if it remains unsolved... pozdr boud

2 2

WMAP gossip
by Boud Roukema 07 Dec '04

07 Dec '04

witam, There's some very interesting WMAP gossip - e.g. why the 2nd year data have not been released yet, here: http://www.geometrygames.org/ESoS/CosmologyNews.html i say "gossip" (,,plotki" ?) because there are no links to astro-ph articles, conference proceedings, etc. (but a relevant article is: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403353) pozdr boud

1 0

jasna definicja: universe domain vs multiverse GFR Ellis et al
by Boud Roukema 07 Dec '04

07 Dec '04

Witam, W odpowiedź do pytania o termina ,,cały wszechświat", przypominam jeden z bardzo rzadko artykuły (moim skromnym zdaniem), który jasnie mówi o różnica między dwomi pojęciami: (1) ,,wiele domen 'wszechświatowy' wewnątrz jednym przestrzeń ciągly" vs (2) ,,zbiór [ensemble] wiele wszechświatów, jak niezależnych przestrzeni" Chyba angielski będzie trudny dla wielych, ale lepiej czytać artykuł (en) który jest jasny (chociaż głęboki) zamiast artykuł z wielymi słowami dwuznacznymi. Jest Multiverses and physical cosmology Authors: G.F.R. Ellis, U. Kirchner, W.R. Stoeger http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305292 i już jest (od dawno) na strony CosmoNews: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/CosmoNews pozdr boud

1 0

cosmdist-0.2.0.tar.gz
by Boud Roukema 04 Dec '04

04 Dec '04

Witam, http://cosmo.torun.pl/GPLdownload/dodec/cosmdist-0.2.0.tar.gz Pakiet dla: comoving distance (radial) comoving distance (arc length 1 radian) = proper motion distance time as functions of z + their inverses + horizon, radius of curvature -> either command line (if you have glibc) otherwise both C library and (C wrapper which functions as) a fortran library are here Enjoy! :) (and modify, redistribute etc according to the GPL) pozdr boud

1 0

--- SPAM --- 2005 doctors directory plastic surgery, oncology, 40,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors.
by Clarence Montano 25 Nov '04

25 Nov '04

The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. Each record is indexed by such features as name, address, phone and fax. The database is available in Excel format on CD Rom. It is designed for mailing lists and merges. The data can be selected by state or other criteria such as type of practice. It can be used on an unlimited basis. For the past 14 years, MedCom has maintained the most comprehensive healthcare lists. Our directories are 100% telephone verified and updated every quarter. MedCom continues to hold the nation's most extensive and reliable databases of key decision-makers in the health care market. Available exclusively on CD-Rom (Excel), the data can be used on an unlimited basis. It is easily exportable to other programs for mailing or faxing purposes. For a limited time, this extensive database is offered at an introductory Price of $195 (reg. $745). To order, please print this e-mail, complete the information below and fax it to 416-765-0029 (tel: 416-765-0028). NAME: TITLE: ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: POSTAL: TEL: FAX: EMAIL: Spam detection software, running on the system "galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or block similar future email. If you have any questions, see postmaster for details. Content preview: The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. [...] Content analysis details: (5.4 points, 4.5 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% [score: 1.0000]

1 0

--- SPAM --- 2005 doctors directory plastic surgery, oncology, Direct mail, disease, surgery, obstetrics, physicians.
by Jerrold Alfaro 25 Nov '04

25 Nov '04

1 0

--- SPAM --- cd version doctor's american directory, 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors.
by Belinda Haskins 22 Nov '04

22 Nov '04

The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. Each record is indexed by such features as name, address, phone and fax. The database is available in Excel format on CD Rom. It is designed for mailing lists and merges. The data can be selected by state or other criteria such as type of practice. It can be used on an unlimited basis. For the past 14 years, MedCom has maintained the most comprehensive healthcare lists. Our directories are 100% telephone verified and updated every quarter. MedCom continues to hold the nation's most extensive and reliable databases of key decision-makers in the health care market. Available exclusively on CD-Rom (Excel), the data can be used on an unlimited basis. It is easily exportable to other programs for mailing or faxing purposes. For a limited time, this extensive database is offered at an introductory Price of $195 (reg. $745). To order, please print this e-mail, complete the information below and fax it to 416-765-0029 (tel: 416-765-0028). NAME: TITLE: ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: POSTAL: TEL: FAX: EMAIL: Spam detection software, running on the system "galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or block similar future email. If you have any questions, see postmaster for details. Content preview: The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. [...] Content analysis details: (6.1 points, 4.5 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% [score: 1.0000] 0.7 PRIORITY_NO_NAME Message has priority setting, but no X-Mailer

1 0

--- SPAM --- genralpractice, 40,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors
by Neil Christensen 21 Nov '04

21 Nov '04

The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. Each record is indexed by such features as name, address, phone and fax. The database is available in Excel format on CD Rom. It is designed for mailing lists and merges. The data can be selected by state or other criteria such as type of practice. It can be used on an unlimited basis. For the past 14 years, MedCom has maintained the most comprehensive healthcare lists. Our directories are 100% telephone verified and updated every quarter. MedCom continues to hold the nation's most extensive and reliable databases of key decision-makers in the health care market. Available exclusively on CD-Rom (Excel), the data can be used on an unlimited basis. It is easily exportable to other programs for mailing or faxing purposes. For a limited time, this extensive database is offered at an introductory Price of $195 (reg. $745). To order, please print this e-mail, complete the information below and fax it to 416-765-0029 (tel: 416-765-0028). NAME: TITLE: ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: POSTAL: TEL: FAX: EMAIL: Spam detection software, running on the system "galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or block similar future email. If you have any questions, see postmaster for details. Content preview: The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. [...] Content analysis details: (9.5 points, 4.5 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% [score: 1.0000] 4.1 FORGED_RCVD_NET_HELO Host HELO'd using the wrong IP network

1 0

copying algorithms: GNU Scientific Library vs Numerical Recipes
by Boud Roukema 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

Witam, What can be legally (and morally) copied from a program under a restrictive copyright is "the algorithms, the ideas" but not the particular way of expressing them. So the practical question is: where is the borderline? In the GSL (GNU Scientific Library), http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/, GNU provides, e.g. in Version 1.1.1, the version below of NR's ran0 routine. i'm sure most of us have access to a legal copy of the NR routine, or else a little googling shows e.g. http://cc.oulu.fi/~tf/tiedostot/pub/nrf/ran0.f Well, to me these look extremely similar to one another. Even the constants: static const long int m = 2147483647, a = 16807, q = 127773, r = 2836; static const unsigned long int mask = 123459876; are exactly identical to those in the NR routines, they even have the same names, except for the "i". Is this really a different "expression"? In any case, IMHO noone can deny that the authors of the GSL routines (there is also ran1, ran2, ran3) have very likely had access to the NR source code. Sure, they translated it to C and added some stuff, but it's the same algorithm, it's essentially the same sequence of steps. Anyway, GSL has lots of really cool stuff. :) Let's defend scientific software freedom! pozdr boud ---------------------------------------------------------------------- /* rng/ran0.c * * Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 James Theiler, Brian Gough * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at * your option) any later version. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU * General Public License for more details. * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software * Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. */ #include <config.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <gsl/gsl_errno.h> #include <gsl/gsl_rng.h> /* This is an implementation of the algorithm used in Numerical Recipe's ran0 generator. It is the same as MINSTD with an XOR mask of 123459876 on the seed. The period of this generator is 2^31. Note, if you choose a seed of 123459876 it would give a degenerate series 0,0,0,0, ... I've made that into an error. */ static inline unsigned long int ran0_get (void *vstate); static double ran0_get_double (void *vstate); static void ran0_set (void *state, unsigned long int s); static const long int m = 2147483647, a = 16807, q = 127773, r = 2836; static const unsigned long int mask = 123459876; typedef struct { unsigned long int x; } ran0_state_t; static inline unsigned long int ran0_get (void *vstate) { ran0_state_t *state = (ran0_state_t *) vstate; const unsigned long int x = state->x; const long int h = x / q; const long int t = a * (x - h * q) - h * r; if (t < 0) { state->x = t + m; } else { state->x = t; } return state->x; } static double ran0_get_double (void *vstate) { return ran0_get (vstate) / 2147483647.0 ; } static void ran0_set (void *vstate, unsigned long int s) { ran0_state_t *state = (ran0_state_t *) vstate; if (s == mask) { GSL_ERROR_VOID ("ran0 should not use seed == mask", GSL_EINVAL); } state->x = s ^ mask; return; } static const gsl_rng_type ran0_type = {"ran0", /* name */ 2147483646, /* RAND_MAX */ 1, /* RAND_MIN */ sizeof (ran0_state_t), &ran0_set, &ran0_get, &ran0_get_double}; const gsl_rng_type *gsl_rng_ran0 = &ran0_type; ----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 4

puzzled about healpix software and Numerical Recipes
by Boud Roukema 17 Nov '04

17 Nov '04

Witam, i am aware that at least one person felt that an earlier version of a package i released contained "expressions (particularly any arbitrary or stylistic choices)" identical to those in Numerical Recipes routines. My own judgment had been that the expression was different, only the "ideas, methodology and algorithm" were identical to the Numerical Recipes routines. In NR's own words, this is perfectly acceptable within the definition of copyright. And, of course, there were clear warnings that the code was inspired from NR. Nevertheless, i followed the concern, and stopped distribution. In order to avoid any ambiguity, i (and any other volunteers) will rework the code using routines from the GSL (GNU Scientific Library): http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/ComputerLanguages… which Michał Frąckowiak brought to our attention :)) and will reexpress any remaining algorithms, possibly changing the algorithms themselves, even though this is not necessary. However, you might want to note that there seems to be something curious about a certain non-free package called Healpix_1.20. i suggest to people with a copy of this package to have a look at two files, which, apparently, exist in this package: Healpix_1.20/src/f90/mod/num_rec.f90 and also at the copyright notice Healpix_1.20/READ_Copyrights_Licenses.txt and then to look at the Numerical Recipes guidelines for redistributing their routines, whether binary or as source code: http://www.numerical-recipes.com/com/info-permissions.html Apparently, the file Healpix_1.20/src/f90/mod/num_rec.f90 contains the source code for the routines: dsvbksb dpythag dsvdcmp isort A quick search on google on, e.g., "dsvbksb" shows that NR probably cannot control distribution of these files: http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&q=dsvbksb&btnG=Szukaj+z+Google&lr= Nevertheless, there *are*, apparently, NR routines provided as source code in the file Healpix_1.20/src/f90/mod/num_rec.f90 which is *claimed* to be NR code, including one-line copyright notices from NR. In principle, redistributing NR routines without permission from NR is a violation of copyright - stating the copyright notice is not enough to satisfy NR. Of course, it could, in principle, be the case that the Healpix collaboration have paid "a fixed fee" for this and have permission to redistribute. However, first note the cases in which NR provides permission: http://www.numerical-recipes.com/com/info-permissions.html > if you want to make available to your users a subset of Recipes in > object, or individually callable, form, but not including source > code. We consider such requests on a case-by-case basis, with > permission more likely when they are for fewer than 20 Recipes used in > this manner. > > * In most cases of specialized software, we charge only a nominal > flat fee per Recipe for each use (unlimited number of copies). > > * The copyright notice is required, as above, and we also request that > the printed manual contain words to the effect "the procedures [your > procedure identifiers] are based on routines in Numerical Recipes: The > Art of Scientific Computing, published by Cambridge University Press, > and are used by permission." Note: "not including source code". Also: the full copyright notice (not just one line, see "EXACT WORDING OF REQUIRED COPYRIGHT NOTICES" on http://www.numerical-recipes.com/com/info-permissions.html ) is required. However, for distributing *source code*: > Finally, there is the case where our source code, or source code > based in copyright on our code, is to be made available to users. We > consider these requests on a case-by-case basis, but the success > rate of these requests is not high. ... > # If permission is given, you will need to include a notice similar > to the sample below as a comment in each routine that is based on a > Numerical Recipes routine. So Healpix_1.20 could, in principle, redistribute NR source code (probably for a fixed fee). However, this is only considered "on a case-by-case basis" and "the success rate of these requests is not high". Moreover, there would need to be the full copyright notice, and, apparently, the file Healpix_1.20/READ_Copyrights_Licenses.txt does not contain any reference to Numerical Recipes. Also, the full copyright notice needs to be included "as a comment in each routine". (GNU recommends including a big copyright announcement at the top of each routine, not just one line.) There could be one way around this: since Healpix is non-free, and requires personal email between applicants and authors, the authors could restrict distribution to people who declare that they already have access to a legal copy of NR. i'm not sure if NR would be happy, but it might work. However, this is not our problem. But it does demonstrate why an open model of code development has advantages: people worried about copyright issues are more likely to speak up earlier in an open model compared to a non-free model. Now that Healpix is so widely used, the authors might have a problem negotiating with NR based on the large number of copies already distributed. It would seem to me that their options are either to negotiate with NR and pay whatever fee is required (i'm sure ESO could pay this), or else to rewrite the parts that need NR recipes. Of course, that is their problem, not ours. pozdr boud PS: It would also seem that Healpix has been using Mahatma Gandhi's "illegal civil disobedience" technique in protest against the patent on the LZW compression algorithm for making gif files. This file Healpix_1.20/src/f90/lib/gd.c apparently contains the ppmtogif.c code The code itself is freely redistributable. However, *usage* of the code was probably illegal, since the *algorithm* was patented. This is different from copyright, which only protects the expression of an algorithm and not the algorithm itself. See http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/ppmtogif.html > If you use ppmtogif without the -nolzw option, you are using a > patent on the LZW compression method which is owned by Unisys, and > in all probability you do not have a license from Unisys to do > so. Unisys typically asks $5000 for a license for trivial use of the > patent. Unisys has never enforced the patent against trivial > users. The patent expired in the US in 2003 and is due to expire in > other countries in 2004. So the patent has now expired (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3007862.stm ) but for many years, more "conservative" GNU/Linux groups like GNU, Debian recommended using PNG instead of GIF, or else used a pseudo-GIF format. More radical software groups and probably millions and millions of users (probably including you!) simply used the algorithm despite the patent. A big battle is continuing against software patents in Europe. Go to http://kwiki.ffii.org/SwpatplEn to see info on what Polish poseł in the European parliament are doing or http://kwiki.ffii.org/FfiiprojEn or http://www.gnu.org/server/takeaction.pl.html for more on what you can do concretely.

2 2

looking for hints on velocity distribution of electrons in relativistic jets
by Bartosz Lew 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

Hi everybody, I'm interested if anybody has some quick nice references or ideas regarding - as in the subject - what the velocities in relativistic jets can be - what this can depend on from theoretical considerations/modelling? The bottom line is, can we have some constrainst on these velocities from models, or models and ovservations (if so - what observables are needed) and what this can depend on ? Is it very bad to assume that these can span from say some arbitrary value to one in \beta space with flat statistical distribution ? Can we have some hints on this distribution ? Motyl, I could use your help here ? I don't have time for getting through tons of papers. Bartek

2 1

Fw: mobcap
by Walker Albert 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

I noticed this email in my inbox, is this what you meant? http://www.yourrealworkscenter.com/info.html You can download full CD's, dvd's and games. Ive downloaded 6 dvd's so far. Once you've seen it get ahold of me, I want to hear your reaction - you'll go batty I know it. They walk you through the entire process of burning them to CD. I know this, the movie section has movies in it that are still in theates - I dont know about you but thats seriously impressive. See you this weekend. Candy

1 0

isolat-0.1.10.tar.gz ready for testing and comments, feedback
by Boud Roukema 08 Nov '04

08 Nov '04

Witam, A GNU GPL (not GNU, just GNU GPL!) package which implements the algebra in A Solution to the Isolatitude, Equi-area, Hierarchical Pixel-Coordinate System http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409533 is now ready. I've put it here: http://cosmo.torun.pl/GPLdownload/dodec/isolat-0.1.10.tar.gz It would be nice to have some precise, constructive comments regarding this. (Sure, negative criticisms are also welcome, but are most useful when accompanied by constructive suggestions...) Today is Mon 8 November. If there are no objections within a week, i.e. before Mon 15 November, then i will make a more formal proposal (with deadline two weeks later) for a formal consensus decision about continued distribution of the isolat package under the GNU GPL. i realise that this open method of communication means that we give a chance to "competitors"; however, i think it is best to trust in an open community. Most of us want to do good, free (as in speech) astronomy research, so IMHO we should trust our peers. In the long term, there will be more benefits than problems IMHO. BTW, just a reminder once again: http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-October/000269.html Numerical Recipes: http://www.library.cornell.edu/nr/bookfpdf/f0-1.pdf ; Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the expression of those ; ideas in a particular form. In the case of a computer program, the ideas ; consist of the program's methodology and algorithm, including the ; necessary sequence of steps adopted by the programmer. The expression of ; those ideas is the program source code (particularly any arbitrary or ; stylistic choices embodied in it), its derived object code, and any ; other derivative works. ; ; If you analyze the ideas contained in a program, and then express those ; ideas in your own completely different implementation, then that new ; program implementation belongs to you. That is what we have done for those ; programs in this book that are not entirely of our own devising. Isolat is *not* based on analysing the ideas in a certain non-free code which will remain unnamed here, though it *is* based on the algebraic solution to an electronically published sphere-pixelisation system. However, even if it *were* based on analysing the ideas in a certain non-free code, there would be no copyright problem, since to the best of my knowledge, the code is a "completely different implementation" to that non-free code. Of course, it must be more or less equivalent in the basic "ideas", even though the methodology and algorithm is almost certainly different, given the way the algebra is written in the paper inspired from our paper: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409513 Nevertheless, if anybody is concerned about this, please *look at the code*, don't just rely on rumours of A said that B said that C said that ... . The code is here: http://cosmo.torun.pl/GPLdownload/dodec/isolat-0.1.10.tar.gz The library part of the code is the part which codes the actual pixel number <-> spherical coordinate calculations. There is lib/getang.f pixel -> angular coordinates and lib/getpix.f angular coordinates -> pixel and lib/fr2pol.f converts a fraction in the square to phi/pi, sin(th) or inversely The total number of lines in these three routines, apart from comments and blank lines can be found by typing: cat lib/getang.f lib/getpix.f lib/fr2pol.f |grep -v "^[cC]" |grep -v "^$" |wc It is: 409 lines, 1240 words. That's not much. If anyone finds anything in these 409 lines which is considered to be "an expression (particularly any arbitrary or stylistic choices)" similar to that in any non-free software package, please say so and we can correct this. Simply making vague comments is not going to be constructive. The code is there and corrections can of course be made: this is the whole idea of GNU GPL, the idea of coming up with perfect code right from the beginning is not the way the system works. pozdr boud

1 0

PROPOSED new list for skeptics discussion DEADLINE Thu 11 Nov 18:00
by Boud Roukema 04 Nov '04

04 Nov '04

Witam, Bartek is interested in opening a discussion list on adjani for something like a "sceptics' society". Sceptics' societies around the world are a mix of scientists and ordinary citizens curious about claims of events seen outside of the laboratory which seem to violate the known laws of physics, e.g. walking on hot coals and not having your feet burnt, UFOs, crop circles, etc. Have a look at http://www.skeptic.com and you'll see that even the aliens are convinced that the skeptics exist ;). The goal is to show to society that scientists are not just "dogmatic believers" who refuse to believe in events outside of our "narrow-minded" way of thinking, and to treat the claims seriously, and this way educate the public into the scientific method, maybe help develop better intuition of statistics and probability among ordinary people. There is a prize of Aus$100 000 (about 250 000 PLN) waiting since 1980 for someone able to prove they have psychic or paranormal powers: http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/challenge.htm There is also a US$1M prize (about 4 000 000 PLN): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi#The_.241_million_challenge Some astronomers (e.g. Jayant Narlikar in India) are strongly supportive of skeptics' societies. And, who knows, a skeptics society might just possibly discover a real effect showing the next step beyond the Standard Models of physics and cosmology. (OK, personally i'm rather sceptical, but my mind is open, in principle...) Since this *could* be controversial, and i'm trying to implement consensus-method decision-making, here is the proposal: ###################################################################### PROPOSAL: new list for skeptics discussion DEADLINE Thu 11 Nov 18:00 We'll open a mailing list on adjani with a name like sceptyk-l at cosmo.torun.pl and Bartek will be the list admin. Purpose of list: discussion group to see if people in Toruń, especially scientists, are willing to spend the time setting up properly controlled experiments, writing them up properly, doing the proper statistical analyses, communicating them in public meetings etc., and communicating with other skeptics' groups around the world - especially if someone wants to try for the 250.000 PLN Australian prize money or the 4 000 000 PLN James Randi Foundation prize money. ###################################################################### Like any discussion group, IMHO it is most likely to be efficient if it is self-organising, and it will only work if there are enough people willing to spend enough time on it. But it can't hurt trying. pozdr boud

1 0

wrapped space
by Bartosz Lew 28 Oct '04

28 Oct '04

interesting... http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/10/21/warped.spaceII/index.html BL

2 1

propozycji tematy licencjat/magister
by Boud Roukema 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

Witam, Propozycji dla licencjat/magister są tu: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/LicMag Dzięki do Bartka dla komentarza :) Andrzej Strobel: Żeby możesz klejić do dokumenta tekstowy, treści jest tu, na dolę. pozdr boud ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Supervisor: B. Roukema (boud at astro.uni.torun.pl) Number of students: up to 3-4 students is possible Observational Cosmology Masters/Licencjat Project - General Outline Description: There are many possible projects which could be done as a master's thesis project, in using publicly available archival data from observational surveys to constrain one or more of the local or global cosmological parameters, either those related to shape (curvature, topology) or maybe also those unrelated to shape ("dark energy" or "dark matter"). The precise projects would be chosen in discussion with the masters students during Nov-Dec 2004. Please see http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/CosmoProjects for projects Boud is working on and http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/CosmoNews for ideas on the hottest topics in cosmology research - any of these would be appropriate if the student is sufficiently interested. Examples (1) Topology of the Universe Detection * In http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402608, it seems that we may have measured the shape of the Universe, since certain parts of the cosmic microwave background seen by the WMAP satellite appear to be seen twice in different directions on the sky, due to topological lensing. The purpose of the masters/licencjat project is: * Aim: Propose and apply a further test using WMAP data which further tests the hypothesis. This requires: o Reading/writing/managing the WAMP data file with free software computer programs o Statistical analysis o Independently checking that the computer code does the algebraic and statistical analyses correctly (2) Dark Matter Detection * In http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0405282 the 7 year results of the DAMA/NaI dark matter direct detection experiment show a signal significant at 6.3? according to the authors. An explanation for why a signal from mirror-baryonic matter should be expected in this experiment but not in others with similar cross-section detection parameters is presented in http://de.arxiv.org/abs/0403043. * Aim: Check the experimental and theoretical claims and propose further tests o Try to find an alternative explanation for the DAMA/NaI results without going beyond the Standard Model of particle physics o Check whether the Foot et al. calculations of mirror matter properties are consistent with all the experimental data as the authors claim o Extend the Foot et al. calculations to find, e.g. a non-gravitational effect of mirror matter in stellar physics, e.g. symbiotic stars (gravitational effects of dark matter are already well studied) * More info: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/NonBaryonicDarkMa… (3) Cosmic String Detection * In http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410073 Kibble discusses the http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/302547 possible detection of a cosmic string which seems to gravitationally lens a background galaxy (Sazhin et al.) In http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406516 the extra pairs of lensed galaxies predicted by the hypothesis are discussed. * Aim: Understand the basics about (1) cosmic strings, (2) gravitational lensing versus cosmic string lensing, and test the hypothesis o Calculate the probability of seeing the original pair by chance o Check whether the statistics of expected numbers of lensed images are correct o Propose an independent test of the hypothesis, e.g. using radio observations and prepare an observing proposal General Requirements: * basic knowledge in astronomy, physics, mathematics, computing skills * desire to measure something about the shape of the Universe and/or dark matter or dark energy and/or cosmic strings * willingness both to learn from and to teach others interested in observational cosmology at TCfA * willingness to learn the following practical skills: touch-typing, emacs, \LaTeX, usage of wikis and/or mailing lists for communication, GPL compatible programming * participation in the "Shape of the Universe" monograph course and/or Bronek Rudak's semester 9 "Kosmologia" course: o http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/MonographCosmo o http://www.ncac.torun.pl/~bronek/KOS.html * Nie ma problemu jeśli student magistera lub licjencacki (jeszcze) nie dobrze mówi po angielsku, ale potrzeba znać czytać i rozumieć po angielski naukowcy ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

projects for licencjat/magister students
by Boud Roukema 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

witam, Apparently i should give this to Andrzej Strobel "before the end of the week" - i guess this means tomorrow (Friday) afternoon is OK. http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/LicMag i've including internal twiki links with the full URL so that Andrzej Strobel will (hopefully) include this in the text he distributes. Any comments (you could edit the twiki directly if you wish...)? pozdr boud

1 0

cosmic string detection from close pairs of galaxies ?
by Boud Roukema 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

Witam, We have an interesting candidate for Dark Matter. It seems there is also an interesting candidate for cosmic string detection: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/CosmoNews#cosmic_… (i've shifted CosmoNews to the twiki, so that it's easier to edit etc.) pozdr boud

1 0

Re: Journal Club
by Boud Roukema 19 Oct '04

19 Oct '04

Witam, Agnieszka: i think what Bartek and i answered to your question about OGLE/MACHO/EROS was wrong - if MACHOs are mirror matter, then there is no problem with violating nucleosynthesis. As far as nucleosynthesis constraints are concerned, Omega_MACHO *could* be as big as 0.20, provided that it is *not* baryonic. So it seems to me, anyway. So the possible argument against MACHOs being mirror matter and providing Omega_MACHO=0.20 (Omega_m - Omega_baryon = 0.25 - 0.05 =0.20) depends on which observational/Galaxy-structure analysis of OGLE/MACHO/EROS you believe. E.g. http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0303100 Afonso et al 2003 say expected "optical depths" towards the Galactic Bulge are something like 4e-7 for "ordinary" stars and 8e-7 if there is a population of brown dwarfs, probably just citing these from Paczynski 1991 and Griest 1991. What they find is about 9e-7, while the first OGLE results (1994) found 33e-7 which is about 4 times higher, and Afonso et al say they can't calculate an optical depth for OGLE II because the experimental parameters (detection efficiency) are not published. Even if Afonso et al are right, there's still the possibility that the Om_b/Om_b' \approx 0.5 is right (instead of 0.2) and that there are at least two different non-baryonic types of dark matter in significant quantities (the Universe often turns up out complicated than we expect, at least in terms of new particles...), in which case Omega_mirror \approx 0.1 instead of 0.05 and it could be the MACHO population. So probably the challenge is to see if there is some experimental way of distinguishing a baryonic MACHO from a mirror-baryonic MACHO... pozdr boud On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Agnieszka Slowikowska wrote: > Witam, > > zapraszam na kolejny Journal Club, ktory odbedzie sie w najblizszy piatek > o godzinie 10.15 w sali seminaryjnej kamieniczki CAMK. > > Boud Roukema opowie nam o "Mirror matter and the 7 yr DAMA NaI results: > has DM already been detected?". > > > Pozdrawiam, > aga > >

2 2

The universe may be revealing its shape, new findings suggest
by Andrzej Marecki 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

Have you seen this?? http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/041005_univshape.htm am

1 0

content of journal club talk
by Boud Roukema 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

hi, i think Agnieszka forgot to send the abstract of my talk (this seems to be the habit here - only title, no abstracts...) pozdr boud > Witam, > > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Agnieszka Slowikowska wrote: > > > Witam, > > > > bardzo prosze wszystkich spikerow Journal Clubu o przesylanie tytulow > > Proponuję spikować (jak spikerem, muszę spikować) o: > > "Mirror matter and the 7 yr DAMA NaI results: has DM already been detected?" > > http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl:9673/zwicky/CosmoNews > http://de.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0405282 > http://de.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211067 > http://de.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403043 > http://de.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0402267 > > Chyba będę przygotować coś w pdf przez pdflatex. > > pozdr > boud > > > wystapien. Program mozna znalezc na stronie: > > > > http://www.ncac.torun.pl/~aga/Journal-Club.html > > > > Przypominam, ze wystapienie nie powinno byc dluzsze niz 20 minut i powinno > > dotyczyc ciekawych osiagniec astronomicznych lub astrofizycznych > > opublikowanych ostatnio w profesjonalnych magazynach astronomicznych. > > > > Journal Club odbywa sie w CAMKu o 10.15 w piatki. > > 1 pazdziernika nie ma JC, poniewaz jest inauguracja roku akademickiego > > 2004 / 2005. > > > > Pozdrawiam, > > aga >

1 0

AA/2004/2055 (fwd)
by Boud Roukema 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

Witam, Well, A&A has come up with a new excuse: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:03:30 +0200 > From: aanda.paris at obspm.fr > To: boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > Subject: AA/2004/2055 > > 13/10/2004 > > Dr Boudewijn F. Roukema > boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > > Our Ref. : AA/2004/2055 > > Dear Boud, > We were not aware of this paper in astro-ph by the Healpix team. > Now that this is published, we do not think it possible for A&A to > consider publishing a similar paper, even if you derived it > independently, with different details. > The motivation you had to publish it, is now gone. So you can > understand that we can not unfortunately consider further your paper > for A&A, > > with best wishes, > The Editors > The motivation you had to publish it, is now gone. So you can Hmmm... In this case, it seems to me that the A&A Editors are stating that they consider electronic publication as important as refereed journal publication and that peer review of scientific papers is unnecessary! It is clear that some time we are going to have to reorganise the methods by which A&A editors make decisions. After all, it's we the astronomers who are supposed to run A&A, not the other way around. When the Editors start saying that peer-reviewed publications is unnecessary, we have a problem... However, that's something for the long term. pozdr boud

1 0

Re: AA/2004/2055
by Boud Roukema 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

Dear Editors, On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 aanda.paris at obspm.fr wrote: > 29/09/2004 > > Dr Boudewijn F. Roukema > boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > > Our Ref. : AA/2004/2055 > > > Dear Boud, > > We are sorry that we cannot consider your paper for publication in > A&A, since it is based on the HealPix software, that has been The second half of the above statement is false. Our paper contains algebra regarding a system of pixelising the sphere which is independent of any software implementation. It is not based on the HealPix software. It is based on the cited paper: Gorski et al. (1999a/b), which presents the outline of a pixelisation system but not its full solution. The solution requires a small, but original and highly necessary (given its non-availability to astronomers) amount of algebra and elementary calculus. Nevertheless, it is understandable that you are worried that the derivation in our paper might be just an extract of the non-free-software (see below) HEALPix software package. In principle, some part of the solution in our paper probably is, in some indirect sense, implicitly present in the HEALPix package. However, in the context in which free software is receiving increasing support, even from governments in Western Europe, it is unreasonable to expect astronomers to search through non-free code in order to find the necessary algebra. Surely it is more useful for them to see the algebraic derivation directly as a solution to the only partially solved problem in Gorski et al. (1999a/b), so that they neither have to rederive it algebraically, nor search through non-free computer code. A similar situation occurs when, say, an article A is submitted to A&A which has content which solves an unsolved problem in an article B cited in the bibliography, but it is well-known that the authors of the cited article B are aware of the full solution to their problem; and it is also known that many astronomers C communicate directly with B, in private, but other astronomers D need to independently rederive the solution if they do not wish to enter into a direct working relationship with authors B. Wouldn't it in this case be reasonable to send the article to an independent referee, independent of all astronomers known to be close colleagues of any of the authors A or B, while asking the referee to judge whether or not the content is independent of the non-freely distributed work of authors B? Please note: > developped by Gorski et al, and is still actively developped and > improved, and is widely distributed on the web (now on the ESO web > site), and is widely used. It is distributed freely, with all the The Gorski et al software is *not* distributed under a free software licence (see http://www.gnu.org). It is formally correct that it is distributed at zero cost, but it is *not* "free software"; it may not be redistributed without the permission of its authors. This violates software freedoms 2 and 3: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (en) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.fr.html (fr) All four software freedoms (0, 1, 2, 3) are part of the fundamental basis of the GNU/Linux free software system. > could have done this paper, and if they have not judged it worth > while, you have just to convince them to do so, or at least > collaborate with them to do so. A paper like this, with them as > co-authors, would not have this problem. But apparently they judge > that the publication on the web as it is now is sufficient, Surely the authors of a non-free software package related to a cited paper are not in a neutral position regarding algebra derived from that cited paper; they may (either correctly or wrongly) believe that any related work is necessarily unoriginal. If a paper is submitted, which, for example, is stated to be based on Bloggs et al. (1995n) and it is suspected that the submitted paper contains similar content to Bloggs et al. (1996d), then is it reasonable to insist that the submitting authors collaborate with Bloggs et al. (1996d), even if Bloggs et al. "could have done" the submitted paper and "have not judged it worth while"? Or would it not be more reasonable to send it to a referee independent of both the submitting authors and Bloggs et al. ? Finally, you might also want to note that Gorski et al. themselves have implicitly *approved* the scientific value of publication of our paper. On 8 Sep 2004, we proposed co-authorship to the HEALPix software authors (Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, "Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu>) http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-September/000523.html (first message in http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-September/ ) and we pointed out that if we did not hear any response by 22 Sep, we would presume that they were uninterested. We had a constructive discussion with Frode, and he chose not to be a co-author, at least pending possible future discussion. The others did not reply directly, but they replied one day before the 22 Sep deadline, by publishing a paper similar to the one we had already sent them: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409513 In this paper, BTW, in formulae (13) and (14), there is an inspiration from our own notation in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of our paper, but without citation. Their derivation is clearly independent work from ours (while they were clearly motivated and inspired by our work, they were clearly capable of doing it independently); our work is clearly independent from theirs. However, the fact of their publishing (electronically, at least) in response to receiving our paper suggests that they consider the content valuable to the scientific community and *not* present in their non-free software package. Their paper 0409513 is presented in ApJ referee format; would it be reasonable that one independent derivation is published in ApJ but a second independent derivation is *not* published in A&A? Best regards Boud %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF PROPOSED REPLY TO A&A %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DEADLINE mon 11 oct 2004 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1 1

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
14
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Cosmo-torun