Cosmo-torun

cosmo-torun@cosmo.torun.pl

328 discussions

Meudon Workshop on Cosmic Topology
by Jean-Pierre Luminet 07 Oct '04

07 Oct '04

Dear colleagues, I am organizing a mini-workshop (2-3 days, a dozen of participants) about the recent developments in cosmic topology, and I would like very much to invite one of you (Andrzej Marecki, Bartosz Lew, Magdalena Cechowska) to this workshop for giving a talk. (I have already invited Boud Roukema, who has accepted.) The place will be Meudon, the date will be 8-10 march 2005. Your travel expenses as well as your hotel would be taken in charge. Other speakers/participants will be Jeff Weeks, Marcelo Reboucas (from Brazil), Jesper Gunderman (a Danish mathematician working on eigenmodes), and of course the French group : Marc Lachieze-Rey, Alain Riazuelo, Roland Lehoucq, etc. See the enclosed preliminary program. It would be really a great opportunity to meet altogether and resume the state-of-the-art of this fascinating field of cosmology together with future perspectives and collaborations. I really hope that one of you will be able to accept - please decide amongst yourselves who is most interested in participating, and confirm before 1 november. Yours, Jean-Pierre -- Jean-Pierre Luminet Directeur de recherches au C.N.R.S. Laboratoire Univers et Théories (LUTH) Observatoire de Paris-Meudon, 92195 Meudon cedex, France --- tel:(33) 01 45 07 74 23, fax:(33) 01 45 07 79 71 --- http://www.luth.obspm.fr/luminet.html

1 0

Re: AA/2004/2055
by Boud Roukema 05 Oct '04

05 Oct '04

Witam, IMHO the A&A editors are rather confused - here's their letter in response to our algebra paper http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409533. Why did they write such a confused letter? IMHO that sort of speculation is probably better not discussed publicly. The fact is that they sent me a confused letter, and IMHO there should be a reply. Note that our paper does not contain any reference to software at all. > From aanda.paris at obspm.fr Fri Oct 1 17:28:03 2004 > Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:50:39 +0200 > From: aanda.paris at obspm.fr > To: boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > Subject: AA/2004/2055 > > 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 > 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 > code sources (in fortran 90 or in C, etc..), and therefore your > publication could be considered as a plagiat. The authors themselves > 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, > > with best wishes, > > The Editors For the moment this is only a *proposal* of a reply to A&A. However, it is a public discussion with the aim of finding consensus using the formal consensus method. Having a secret discussion is pointless when we are doing public science and education. Anyway, here's the proposal. Comments, suggestions, welcome. Deadline: Fri 8 October 2004 (of course, if anyone needs a longer deadline, please say so). pozdr boud %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% PROPOSED REPLY TO A&A %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DEADLINE fri 8 oct 2004 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 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 pixelisation system which is independent of any software implementation. It is not based on the HealPix software. > 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 This status of the Gorski et al software package is irrelevant regarding the scientific value of the algebra - "ideas, principles, algorithms" - behind the pixelisation system. This is independent of any software implementation. Nevertheless, since you refer to that software, you might like to note that 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". The Gorski et al software licence may not be redistributed without the permission of the authors. This violates software freedoms 2 and 3: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html You are certainly aware that Astronomy & Astrophysics is a European journal, and many European governments are now committed to using free software. One of the most powerful elements of free software is the GNU General Public Licence, issued by the Free Software Foundation. I think it is relevant in this case to quote the GNU Manifesto, which you may not have read: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html ; "Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?" ; ; If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity ; can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to ; use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating ; innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if ; they restrict the use of these programs. (in French: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.fr.html ) Gorski et al restrict the use of their programs. Again, however, this is unrelated to our paper, which has nothing to do with software: it only regards algebra. > code sources (in fortran 90 or in C, etc..), and therefore your > publication could be considered as a plagiat. The authors themselves Our paper contains no reference to software, so it is difficult to understand your reference to "plagiat". Please consider the COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (91/250/EEC) of THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, http://www.scaramanga.co.uk/archives/directive-91-250-EEC.html : Whereas, for the avoidance of doubt, it has to be made clear that only : the expression of a computer program is protected and that ideas and : principles which underlie any element of a program, including those : which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under : this Directive; : : Whereas, in accordance with this principle of copyright, to the extent : that logic, algorithms and programming languages comprise ideas and : principles, those ideas and principles are not protected under this : Directive; : : : 2. Protection in accordance with this Directive shall apply to the : expression in any form of a computer program. Ideas and principles : which underlie any element of a computer program, including those : which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under : this Directive. There is no computer program *expressed* in the submitted paper, though there are clearly ideas in the paper which *can* be expressed in a computer program. If our paper is correct, and this can only be independently decided by an independent referee, then the ideas in our paper must correspond to the non-free software package distributed at ESO. However, this is the task of the referee to decide, not the Editors. You might also like to note the point of view of 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. Note that here, Numerical Recipes state that they have used the ideas and algorithms of computer programs devised by others - "not entirely of our own devising" - but have implemented them in their own style. Yet let us return to our article: it does not concern software - it only concerns the solution to a system of coordinates, which the authors chose to publish in 1999 without including the full algebra of the system. Calculating the algebra requires a bit of work - that is what is presented in the paper so that other cosmologists can profit from this without having to rederive it from scratch. > 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, We did propose co-authorship to the authors of the software on 8 Sep 2004: http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-September/000522.html and we pointed out that if we did not hear any response by 22 Sep, we would presume that they were uninterested. On 21 Sep, some of those authors chose to publish 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 a clear inspiration from our own notation in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of our paper, but without citation. However, back to the subject. Our paper is based on solving the unsolved definitions in Gorski et al 1999a, 1999b. It is completely independent of any software. Moreover, the effect is to make it possible for cosmologists to implement software solutions for a pixel-coordinate system which monopolises cosmological observational data and presently is not implemented in free software. The algebraic solution to this pixel-coordinate system has not been published in any astronomical journal. It is difficult to understand how Astronomy & Astrophysics can refuse to publish original work which is useful and practical for cosmologists wishing to avoid the use of non-free software. The opinions of the authors of non-free software are irrelevant for Astronomy & Astrophysics. Any article published in Astronomy & Astrophysics must contain a bibliography. What is the meaning of this bibliography? In many cases when an article is cited, it means that the authors of the article have used some of the ideas and algorithms in the cited articles, and it is considered normal scientific practice to give credit to those authors of the cited articles, while nevertheless showing how those ideas can be improved and/or corrected, and possibly arguing that the ideas in the cited article are fundamentally wrong. What does A&A normally do when an article is accompanied by a bibliography (i.e. nearly every article, IMHO), especially in the case where the authors of the submitted article and those of the cited article may have different points of view on the correctness or usefulness of those ideas or how to implement them in scientific research? IMHO, it sends the article to an independent referee. It does not tell the authors of the submitted article that use of ideas which are, in principle, implicitly present in another article could be considered "plagiat" and that consent of the authors of the cited article is necessary for publication of the submitted article. At least, that is my understanding of how A&A works. Software has no extra copyright protection to text. But again, it should be made clear: if you read our submitted paper, you will see that it is independent of any software. Please read it. Best regards Boud %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF PROPOSED REPLY TO A&A %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DEADLINE fri 8 oct 2004 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2 8

shift from sympa@astro to mailman at adjani
by Boud Roukema 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

Witam, To make less work for Andrzej M in managing sympa on newton, and also as he and i discussed initially (a looong time ago), i've started shifting the mailing lists to adjani. So for the moment please use: cosmo-torun at adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl or use the alias cosmo-torun at cosmo.torun.pl The cosmo.torun.pl alias should also work for the adjani www pages - the general domain names we use here really are quite ridiculously long IMHO. i thought that cosmo.pl would be a bit too pretentious - but hopefully we have enough cooperation between CAMK and CA-UMK that we can together use cosmo.torun.pl. :) i've automatically described people who were on cosmo-torun at astro to cosmo-torun at adjani - but i haven't (yet) shifted the other lists. IMHO it is also worth thinking of what the best way of having lists is - the aim is to that we have good communication and are motivated by what each other is doing, and that on useful subjects it is easy to find info, but at the same time to avoid spamming. So far, i haven't really used any lists for much real work on a project, even though that was my idea. i realise that these were dictatorial decisions - but my feeling is that people are probably more concerned about decisions on scientific content, or for the undergrad students, decisions on course organisation and exams. Any thoughts, please comment. (Nothing about bramki on these lists, though. ;) pozdr boud

2 2

cosmo-torun test
by Andrzej Marecki 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

If this gets posted on cosmo-torun list then cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl still works as before although is is now an alias to cosmo-torun at cosmo.torun.pl am

1 0

test to cosmo-torun at cosmo.torun.pl
by Boud Roukema 30 Sep '04

30 Sep '04

1 0

test to cosmo-torun at cosmo.torun.pl
by Boud Roukema 30 Sep '04

30 Sep '04

1 0

the WMAP pixelisation algebra is free now :)
by Boud Roukema 23 Sep '04

23 Sep '04

Witam, Just one day before our deadline of 22 Sep, in response to our paper, the HEALPix people submitted a paper inspired by our work: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409513 So here's our version: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409547 The algebra is free (as in speech) now :). pozdr boud LISTNAME: cosmo-torun HELP: send an email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"

1 1

Re: proposed co-authorship
by Boud Roukema 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

Hi Frode, Bartek, On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Frode K. Hansen wrote: > > Dear Boud and Bartek > > > Please find attached the draft of a paper of which we invite you to > >be co-authors. > > > > Thank you for the invitation. I would be happy to participate as > co-author (who else is participating?) I'm not sure what the scope of > the paper is, if it is only the part which you have attached or if you > intend to include more stuff. As Kris already knows, I have a lot of > material for a paper which we started on some years ago but never > finished. This includes testing of the numerical precision of the > Healpix algorithms. If you intend to include this, I would be happy to > provide you with it (I still need to check that I have all of it after > all these years....). Great! For me it would be fine to have the paper in two parts: (1) the algebra of the pixelisation system (2) testing of numerical precision of the HEALPix software but let's hear what Bartek thinks. i should make it clear, to avoid any misunderstandings, that Kris and i have different points of view on different levels of freedom in software licencing issues (GNU GPL versus what Debian terms "non-free" licences), but IMHO there is no reason for this to be a problem with having both (1) and (2) in our paper. (1) The algebra is independent of any software at all, and (2) while personally i prefer GNU GPL, there are a huge number of cosmologists using the software under its present licence and it is clearly in their interests to be aware of numerical precision tests that have been done. Since you've done the work, and it's useful, it should be published. And there's no need to unnecessarily multiply the number of articles published (even if that helps with job committees, but i have a job now :). In that case we'll need a new title. How about something like this? "An algebraic derivation of the healpix pixelisation scheme and numerical precision of the HEALPix software" This way it clearly says that one bit is algebra, independent of any software, and the other bit is hands-on software stuff, useful to users of the software. Any better suggestions? We haven't heard back from any of the other people who seem to be "official" HEALPix collaborators (i didn't contact Tony Banday directly, because he requested not to receive emails from me - if you wish to contact him, please feel free to do so). Bartek: do you have any comments on including Frode's work in our paper? Cheers boud LISTNAME: cosmo-torun HELP: send an email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"

1 0

proposed co-authorship
by Boud Roukema 08 Sep '04

08 Sep '04

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 LISTNAME: cosmo-torun HELP: send an email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"

1 0

superluminal motions & H_0 - comments from Ajk - Bartek's IAP talk
by Boud Roukema 30 Aug '04

30 Aug '04

Witam wszyscy, Andrzej Kus is sceptical about using superluminal motions for estimating (local) cosmological parameters. Good :). Andrzej K - please correct me if i'm wrong, but what i understand of your arguments are something like: -> jets are bent, not systematically, nobody knows why, sometimes helical, very complex -> superluminal expansion speed is highly variable -> depends on which blobs are in which place, some blobs are fast, some are slow --> especially in mm data -> on month scale changes very rapidly - some blobs just stop for some time, and then start up again. My initial reaction is that in a statistical sample these should average out, provided that the errors are random and symmetrically distributed. Alternatively: can we try to statistically correct for this? Given that blobs stop and then start again, or change direction, but are only *detected* when they are moving superluminally, then it would seem to me that the true average speed is slower than estimated from the doppler factor. Most practical cosmology is about statistical corrections - it requires careful modelling and correct statistical analysis, but it can be done. Is it reasonable to use the observational data which *shows* the erratic behaviour of these objects to statistically model this? If yes, then we would have the necessary correction factor. Anyway, here's a link to Bartek's IAP talk: http://www2.iap.fr/Conferences/Colloque/col2004/Docs/20040629_Lew.pdf Andrzej K suggested that Bartek give a presentation on this (a Monday talk?) - seems a fine idea to me, and doesn't require much preparation from Bartek's side (except to take account of Andrzej's comments). pozdr boud LISTNAME: cosmo-torun HELP: send an email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"

2 4

IAP CMB meeting talks online
by Boud Roukema 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

Witam, The IAP talks are available online: http://www2.iap.fr/Conferences/Colloque/col2004/program.html pozdr boud LISTNAME: cosmo-torun HELP: send an email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"

1 0

Ciemna materia - seminarium (fwd)
by Boud Roukema 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

hi i'm sure there's an error in the date - it's probably Tue 29 June (not April) See http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl:9673/zwicky/CosmoNews for recent articles on dark matter. DAMA/NaI results interpreted as "Mirror matter" looks good to me: DM candidate: mirror matter http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211067 - evidence for mirror matter from Eros??? - Foot, R. Mitra * http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403043 - claim that mirror matter H' or He' halo with some O' better fits DAMA/NaI? energy spectrum than WIMPs? - Foot * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0402267 - b to m from mirror matter implies ~1eV scale suggests relation to neutrino oscillations - Foot, Volkas poydr boud : ---------- Forwarded message ---------- : Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:55:56 +0200 : From: jiwanisz at phys.uni.torun.pl : To: staff at astri.uni.torun.pl, schmidt at ncac.torun.pl, : at phys.uni.torun.pl, Jacek Karwowski <jka at phys.uni.torun.pl> : Subject: Ciemna materia - seminarium Szanowni Panstwo, W najblizszy wtorek goscic bedziemy w Instytucie Fizyki prof. Leszka Roszkowskiego z Sheffield w Anglii. Jest on wybitnym specjalista pracujacym na pograniczu fizyki czastek elementarnych i astrofizyki (astroparticles). Zajmuje sie takze problemami dotyczacymi wysokich energii we Wszechswiecie oraz kosmologii. W trakcie swej wizyty, w ramach specjalnego Kolokwium Fizycznego, prof. Roszkowski wyglosi referat dotyczacy badan ciemnej materii. Poniewaz temat moze byc interesujacy dla Panstwa, dlatego przesylam o nim informacje i w imieniu kierownika Zakladu Mechaniki Kwantowej IF prof. Jacka Karwowskiego serdecznie na nie zapraszam. Lacze pozdrowienia, Jan Iwaniszewski %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SPECJALNE KOLOKWIUM FIZYCZNE (Seminarium Zakładu Mechaniki Kwantowej) w dniu 29.04.2004 r. (wtorek) o godz. 12.15 w sali 20 Prof. Leszek ROSZKOWSKI (Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Anglia) wygłosi referat pt.: PO CIEMNEJ STRONIE WSZECHŚWIATA %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LISTNAME: cosmo-torun HELP: send an email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"

1 0

gemoview
by Boud Roukema 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

witam, geomview has been installed on adjani. It's in principle good for interactively viewing 3D shapes in flat, spherical or hyperbolic space. There are example files but you probably need to understand the stuff about cameras, lighting etc in order to do something really useful. See file:///usr/share/doc/geomview/html/index.html for documentation. pozdr boud

1 0

paper formally accepted
by Boud Roukema 31 May '04

31 May '04

Hi, our topology paper has now been formally accepted by A&A. :) Hopefully there'll be some new stuff ready in a week or so to start thinking about the followup paper. pozdr boud

2 1

Whipple + CANGAROO-II - Re: DM from INTEGRAL satellite? - Rencontres Cosmologie-Astroparticule-Gravitation: Integral voit-il la matičre noire ? (fwd)
by Boud Roukema 26 May '04

26 May '04

Witam, Annihilating dark matter from TeV photons from Whipple + CANGAROO-II ? Or is it just from 3EG J1746-2851 (EGRET source)? This is from a much smaller length scale around the GC - a few tens of parsecs, *not* 1 kpc - compared to what seem to be the INTEGRAL results. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404205 Have Atmospheric Cerenkov Telescopes Observed Dark Matter? Authors: Dan Hooper, Ignacio de la Calle Perez, Joseph Silk, Francesc Ferrer, Subir Sarkar pozdr boud On Mon, 10 May 2004, boud wrote: > Discovery of dark matter by INTEGRAL? > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:10:55 +0200 (MET DST) > > From: Luc Blanchet <blanchet at iap.fr> > > To: users_all at iap.fr > > Subject: [X-UNKNOWN] Rencontres Cosmologie-Astroparticule-Gravitation: > > Int[X-UNKNOWN] egral voit-il la matičre noire ? > > > > > > Nous vous annonçons la seconde édition des rencontres d'Ile de France : > > Cosmologie-Astroparticule-Gravitation: > > http://cdfinfo.in2p3.fr/~bouquet/CAG.html > > > > ======================================== > > le 18 mai 2004 de 14h ŕ 18h > > Amphithéâtre de l'Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris > > 98bis, Bd Arago - 75014 Paris > > ========================================= > > > > > > ============================ > > INTEGRAL voit-il la matičre noire ? > > ============================ > > Does INTEGRAL see dark matter? > > > > > Résumé: > > ------------ > > Les récentes observations menées par le satellite INTEGRAL dans le > > domaine des rayons gamma confirment l'émission d'un rayonnement > > d'annihilation de paires électrons-positrons extręmement intense dans > > les régions centrales de la Galaxie. La résolution angulaire et > > Recent INTEGRAL observations in gamma show very intense > electron-positron pair annihilation radiation in central regions of the > Galaxy. > > > spectrale sans précédent de ce satellite ont permis de caractériser le > > milieu dans lequel ont lieu ces annihilations et l'étendue spatiale des > > INTEGRAL has better angular resolution and spectral resolution than > earlier instruments/telescopes. > > > sources. Outre la trčs grande difficulté d'alimenter le centre > > galactique en positrons au taux requis par les observations, les > > modčles astrophysiques traditionnels se heurtent au problčme important > > de la distribution spatiale des sources de rayonnement, dont INTEGRAL a > > démontré qu'elles s'étendaient sur au moins 1 kpc autour du centre > > The sources are distributed up to at least 1 kpc from the G Centre - > which is difficult to explain from traditional astrophysical models. > > > galactique. Comment produire autant de positrons (10^43 s'annihilent > > chaque seconde !) et comment les disperser sur un aussi vaste volume ? > > How can so many (10^43) positrons annihilate per second? > How can they be distributed over such a large volume. > > > Un scénario faisant intervenir une composante légčre de matičre noire > > pourrait apporter une réponse simple et fascinante ŕ ces questions. > > One scenario is with a "light [non-heavy] component" of dark matter. > > > Alors, INTEGRAL voit-il la matičre noire du centre galactique? > > > > La demi-journée se déroulera comme suit : > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > 14h00-14h40 : P. Jean (CESR-Toulouse) > > Observations de l'émission d'annihilation > > e+/e- galactique > > 14h45-15h25 : M. Cassé (IAP-Paris, CEA/Sap-Saclay) > > L'énigme des positrons du bulbe galactique : > > Hypernovae ou matičre noire légčre? > > 15h30-16h10 : C. Boehm (Oxford) > > Comment tester le scénario de matičre noire légčre ? > > 16h35-17h15 : D. Hooper (Oxford) > > Evidence for particle dark matter ? > > 17h20-18h00 : P. Fayet (ENS/LPT-Paris) > > Physique des particules et matičre noire légčre: > > une nouvelle interaction ? > > > > > > > > En espérant vous voir le 18 mai, > > > > Le comité d'organisation : L. Blanchet, A. Bouquet , Y. Giraud-Héraud, > > B. Guiderdoni, J.-Ch. Hamilton, E. Parizot

1 0

AA/2004/0337 - referee report (fwd)
by Boud Roukema 24 May '04

24 May '04

Witam :)) i think we should have no problem with these minor corrections. :)) The only question is whether or not to make changes based on the further tests made since we submitted the paper. Regarding the further tests which i started making, remember that in our paper we have: > However, the plots are striking and it seems prudent to release > them to the scientific community while a companion paper is prepared > with formal statistical analyses. So IMHO it is clear that we intend to publish a companion paper which goes into more detail in statistical tests, and there's no need to make things difficult for ourselves (and slow down publication) by adding more significant material now. How about a cafeplus this Friday to talk more on this + also about Bartek's jet idea? (not electronically public ;) Plus also whatever else cosmo/extragalactic related. # 21.05.2004 09.00g # Place: Radio building http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/CafePlus pozdr boud > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:12:50 +0200 > From: aanda.paris at obspm.fr > To: boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > Subject: AA/2004/0337 - referee report > > 17/05/2004 > > Dr Boudewijn Roukema > Torun Centre for Astronomy, UMK > ul. Gagarina, 11 > PL-87-100 Torun > POLAND > > boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > Our Ref. : AA/2004/0337 > > Dear Dr Roukema, > > The manuscript entitled : > > "A hint of Poincaré dodecahedral topology in the WMAP first year sky map" > > was submitted to a competent referee who recommended publication following minor revision (see enclosed report). > > Please make the requested improvements and send us the revised version (please set line spacing to double spacing referee's format for language editing) at your earliest convenience. Instructions for resubmitting can be found at address https://mms-aanda.obspm.fr/is/aa. > > > > In your cover letter, please indicate precisely all the changes made in the revised version (p^df or ps.gz file), and mark them clearly (e.g., using boldface) in your manuscript. > > Please make sure that your manuscript is prepared according to the rules given in the Instructions to Authors (see the first Main Journal issue of the year), otherwise the publication of your paper will be delayed. > > Further instructions will be given to you once the paper is accepted. > > With best regards, > > Anthony Jones > A&A Editor > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Referee report > --------------- > > This paper contains new and important results and should be > published. There are however some minor points which should be > clarified before the paper could be published. Second sentence of > Section 3.2 "Errors would occur only if, for example, converting > the angular radius of a circle, alpha into a comoving distance in > megaparsecs, or using the inverse cosine of the ratio of the > in-radius, r_, to the distance to the surface of last scattering, > r_{SLS}, to infer the angular radius of a matched circle, i.e. > alpha \\sim cos^{-1}(r_/r_{SLS}) ", this sentence seems to be > missing something. > > There is a full stop after eq.(6), while it should be a comma. > > Second sentence after eq.(6) is "Moreover, the unknown physics of > the cosmological constant (or quintessence) makes it hard to em a > priori exclude any fluctuations in \\Omega_{\\Lambda}, especially > with an amplitude so close to that of matter fluctuations. " - > need to be corrected. > > Full stop after eq.(10) should be replaced by a comma. > > To make the list of References more balanced it should include at > least reference to J. Weeks book The Shape of Space (where there > is a nice discussion of the Poincare dodecahedral space).

6 12

astro-ph/0310233 (apparently) accepted to PRL
by Andrzej Marecki 13 May '04

13 May '04

Nb. this is astro-ph/0310233. However it looks now as if it has been accepted by PRL. am ----- Forwarded message from physnews(a)aip.org ----- Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:50:16 -0400 From: physnews(a)aip.org PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 685 May 12, 2004 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein OUR UNIVERSE HAS A TOPOLOGY SCALE OF AT LEAST 24 Gpc, or about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). What does this mean? Well, because of conceivable hall-of-mirrors effects of spacetime, the universe might be finite in size but give us mortals the illusion that it is infinite. For example, the cosmos might be tiled with some repeating shape, around which light rays might wrap themselves over and over ("wrap" in the sense that, as in video games, something might disappear off the left side of the screen and reappear on the right side). A new study by scientists from Princeton, Montana State, and Case Western looks for signs of such "wrapped " light in the form of pairs of circles, in opposite directions in the sky, with similar patterns in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background. If the universe were finite and actually smaller than the distance to the "surface of last scattering" (a distance that essentially constitutes the edge of the "visible universe," and the place in deep space whence comes the cosmic microwaves), then multiple imaging should show up in the microwave background. But no such correspondences appeared in the analysis. The researchers are able to turn the lack of recurring patterns into the form of a lower limit on the scale of cosmic topology, equal to 24 billion parsecs, a factor of 10 larger than previous observational bounds. (Cornish, Spergel, Starkman, Komatsu, Physical Review Letters, upcoming article; contact Neil Cornish, 406-994-7986, cornish(a)physics.montana.edu) [...] ----- End forwarded message -----

2 1

DM from INTEGRAL satellite? - Rencontres Cosmologie-Astroparticule-Gravitation: Integral voit-il la matičre noire ? (fwd)
by boud 10 May '04

10 May '04

Discovery of dark matter by INTEGRAL? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:10:55 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Luc Blanchet <blanchet at iap.fr> > To: users_all at iap.fr > Subject: [X-UNKNOWN] Rencontres Cosmologie-Astroparticule-Gravitation: > Int[X-UNKNOWN] egral voit-il la matičre noire ? > > > Nous vous annonçons la seconde édition des rencontres d'Ile de France : > Cosmologie-Astroparticule-Gravitation: > http://cdfinfo.in2p3.fr/~bouquet/CAG.html > > ======================================== > le 18 mai 2004 de 14h ŕ 18h > Amphithéâtre de l'Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris > 98bis, Bd Arago - 75014 Paris > ========================================= > > > ============================ > INTEGRAL voit-il la matičre noire ? > ============================ Does INTEGRAL see dark matter? > > Résumé: > ------------ > Les récentes observations menées par le satellite INTEGRAL dans le > domaine des rayons gamma confirment l'émission d'un rayonnement > d'annihilation de paires électrons-positrons extręmement intense dans > les régions centrales de la Galaxie. La résolution angulaire et Recent INTEGRAL observations in gamma show very intense electron-positron pair annihilation radiation in central regions of the Galaxy. > spectrale sans précédent de ce satellite ont permis de caractériser le > milieu dans lequel ont lieu ces annihilations et l'étendue spatiale des INTEGRAL has better angular resolution and spectral resolution than earlier instruments/telescopes. > sources. Outre la trčs grande difficulté d'alimenter le centre > galactique en positrons au taux requis par les observations, les > modčles astrophysiques traditionnels se heurtent au problčme important > de la distribution spatiale des sources de rayonnement, dont INTEGRAL a > démontré qu'elles s'étendaient sur au moins 1 kpc autour du centre The sources are distributed up to at least 1 kpc from the G Centre - which is difficult to explain from traditional astrophysical models. > galactique. Comment produire autant de positrons (10^43 s'annihilent > chaque seconde !) et comment les disperser sur un aussi vaste volume ? How can so many (10^43) positrons annihilate per second? How can they be distributed over such a large volume. > Un scénario faisant intervenir une composante légčre de matičre noire > pourrait apporter une réponse simple et fascinante ŕ ces questions. One scenario is with a "light [non-heavy] component" of dark matter. > Alors, INTEGRAL voit-il la matičre noire du centre galactique? > > La demi-journée se déroulera comme suit : > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 14h00-14h40 : P. Jean (CESR-Toulouse) > Observations de l'émission d'annihilation > e+/e- galactique > 14h45-15h25 : M. Cassé (IAP-Paris, CEA/Sap-Saclay) > L'énigme des positrons du bulbe galactique : > Hypernovae ou matičre noire légčre? > 15h30-16h10 : C. Boehm (Oxford) > Comment tester le scénario de matičre noire légčre ? > 16h35-17h15 : D. Hooper (Oxford) > Evidence for particle dark matter ? > 17h20-18h00 : P. Fayet (ENS/LPT-Paris) > Physique des particules et matičre noire légčre: > une nouvelle interaction ? > > > > En espérant vous voir le 18 mai, > > Le comité d'organisation : L. Blanchet, A. Bouquet , Y. Giraud-Héraud, > B. Guiderdoni, J.-Ch. Hamilton, E. Parizot

1 0

constructive ideas on cosmo/relativistic political problems?
by Boud Roukema 09 Apr '04

09 Apr '04

Dear Martin, Alvaro, Reva, All three of you have made a great effort - and risked being labelled as "troublemakers not interested in science" - by publishing your experiences in present-day astronomy, especially cosmology/relativistic astronomy. You may already know me, or if not, a quick search on astro-ph for "Roukema" will tell you more about my cosmo stuff. Just like you, i also would prefer just to do pure science and not have to worry about all this meta-stuff of how we organise and communicate, and now that i have a faculty position here at the Toruń Centre for Astronomy (TCfA), Nicolas Copernicus University, Poland (observationally we're working on the OCRA project which will hopefully soon be able to do a Sunyaev-Zeldovich survey), i no longer have a Damocles sword hanging over me regarding having to find my next job. :) (But trying to get the younger students up to speed is taking quite a bit of time...) IMHO people like us, who are willing to speak out openly and honestly in the interests of our common sense of scientific ethics, should find ways of coordinating our thoughts and maybe generating suggestions for making things better. At the moment i'm spamming (sorry) our general cosmo-torun mailing list because i don't think this sort of discussion should be secret, but i think that further discussion should go off to a discussion forum which will not bother people on the main list. IMHO, a wiki is one of the best ways of communicating on this sort of stuff - it's more structured than a mailing list - anyone can reorganise the pages and make them clearer - but it's much less formal than posting articles on arxiv.org. Anyway, i've put links to all three of your articles here: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/AstroPolitics and it would be great if you could add your comments on the page, reorganise it, (or even rename it if you don't think "AstroPolitics" is the best name for the page), or put in a link to an electronic place where you think these sorts of questions can best be discussed. Hoping to hear from you (maybe on the twiki?), and keep doing good science :) boud

1 0

(1) censorship only for extreme cases; (2) censorship itself uncensorable
by Boud Roukema 08 Apr '04

08 Apr '04

Hi Andrzej Kus, Grzegorz, Bartek, everyone, The purpose of a university is the collection and analysis of empirical information, its analysis and integration into theory, the development of theory, and the learning/teaching process between researchers and students. (1) IMHO, censorship is something that should not be taken lightly, and IMHO the minimum that is reasonable in the internet era is that (2) the ***process of censorship*** itself is public. This is why i would be most comfortable in discussing this on cosmo-torun rather than by private, secret emails. ***Please send any responses to cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl *** i have violated netiquette in forwarding this private email to the list, but i think this is acceptable since censorship is only something that should done, IMHO, in very extreme circumstances. Censorship was (AFAIK, i didn't live in Poland at the time) very common during the PRL period, and IMHO a university should be one of the places where academic freedom is most vigorously defended. If information on a web page is uninteresting or irrelevant, that is a very poor reason for censoring it. However, a polite request to someone who has published uninteresting or irrelevant information is surely sufficient if someone feels that the information needs to be hidden. Let us respect each other as intelligent adults! On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Grzegorz Hrynek wrote: > Jako administrator serwisu internetowego Katedry Radioastronomii i z > upowaznienia Kierownika Radioastronomii prof. A. Kusa informuje, ze > odwolanie z glownej witryny serwisu KRa do strony internetowej o adresie > > http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/~blew/ > > zostalo zablokowane. > > Strona o powyzszym adresie zostala stworzona przez Bartosza Lwa. > > Powodem zablokowania strony jest umieszczenie informacji i zasobow > prywatnych nie majacych zadnego zwiazku z dzialalnoscia wykonywana w KRa. KRA is part of UMK. UMK is a university. Knowledge can only very artificially be split between subjects. How can one study astronomy without knowing physics? How can one study physics without understanding mathematics? How can one use efficient learning methods without being aware of the research being done in psychology and pedagogy at the university? We have a research/teaching department in Pedagogy which investigates the efficiency of using the internet for teaching, for creativity in learning - http://www.ped.uni.torun.pl/kognityw/ Would there be a problem in publishing useful pedagogical information on KRA web pages? In any case, there is talk of extending UMK by uniting with an institute in Bydgoszcz - it would be rather inconsistent to claim that we want a bigger university when at the same time we try to discourage "cross-talk" and interdisciplinary discussion. As for the expression "informacji i zasobow prywatnych", those pages (which Bartek has chosen voluntarily to hide) concerned anecdotal documentation of ethnological information. Since he chose to publish them, they are no longer private information - the term "private information" refers to things like someone's private address, telephone number, bank account number, etc. In the case of publication of that sort of private information, a request to censor the information would be much more reasonable. We have a department of Ethnology: http://www.his.uni.torun.pl/wydzial/program/etnologia/progetno.shtml The fact that Bartek is a doctoral student in KRA rather than ethnology is, IMHO, not a good reason to ask him to hide the pages. A more valid point would be that the pages are only anecdotal rather than systematic. They do not claim (AFAIR) to constitute a systematic study of any given social group, and so are probably not terribly useful for quality ethnological research. However, whether this justifies requesting Bartek to hide the pages is not obvious to me. A more constructive suggestion would have been to propose to Bartek that he contact the Ethnology department (URL above) and find out if his documentation can be useful to them. The argument of wasted resources is a different argument: the amount of disk space and bandwidth used for the (now hidden) pages would IMHO be negligible compared to what we do which is directly cosmo related. On the contrary, sharing resources with resource-poor departments like Ethnology makes sense - we're here to work together, not compete with one another. (OK, OK, i know that among us we have divergent points of view on the validity of competition in an E=mc^2 society living on a planet with a climate system going into a non-linear warming phase.) > Zobowiazuje Bartosza Lwa do jak najszybszego usuniecia informacji prywatnych > z komputera adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl Well, they are not private information, IMHO, but in any case, Bartek seems to have chosen to hide them. > Informuje ponadto, ze do prezentacji wlasnych prywatnych materialow i > przekonan sluza serwisy platne swiadczace tego typu uslugi. There is no need to use commercial web servers, i don't think we should be encouraging people to commercialise information. We are a university, not a hypermarket. There are zero-cost servers like: http://geocities.yahoo.com/ http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/learn2/HowItWorks4_Free.html and probably on http://www.wp.pl, http://www.onet.pl etc it is possible to host quite a few images at no cost (apart from having to accept advertising). > Ponadto zwracam sie z prosba do administratora komputera > adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl - Bouda Roukema - o nadzor nad ta sprawa i jak > najszybsze wyjasnienie zaistnialego problem z uzytkownikiem Bartoszem Lwem. Well, i don't understand the urgency - in any case Bartek is a good cosmologist and an intelligent adult and as i understand it, he decided that fighting censorship in this case is probably not worth it. That's his decision. The important thing is that rumours do not start going around of students' web pages being arbitrarily censored. Hopefully in this case it is clear that a polite request has been made, and that any such requests can be publicly discussed and we can trust each other to make reasonable decisions based on constructive discussion - even if having highly diverging viewpoints. Please remember that creativity is an important part of the learning process. Creativity is not just poetry: it is something that can be measured (to some extent, e.g. see the recent PhD thesis (March 2004) by D. Siemieniecka-Gogolin consisting of empirical measurements of "creative attitudes" and "creative abilities" among Polish school teachers regarding the use of computers and the internet in teaching, in the Pedagogy Department of the University of Nicolas Copernicus (URL above, no direct link to thesis, sorry)). If a bunch of web pages showing a few photographs of personal travels stimulates the creativity of a doctoral student doing excellent work in trying to make a step forward in the problem of dark matter, i really do not understand the problem. The bubble chamber for detecting high energy particles is said to have been inspired by physicists driking beer and looking at the bubbles. Killing off creativity is appropriate for an army, not for a university. Creativity is certainly *not sufficient* for good science, but most scientists would agree that it is *necessary* for good science. KRA is part of a university, just as that same university exists as part of euro-asian-african-american-australasian civilisation, which exists on the planet Earth over a time interval of a few kyears and into an unknown, possibly very short time interval in the future (relative to our local space-time position), which formed about 4.6 Myears ago around the Sun which formed in a molecular cloud according to a process of star formation which is still poorly understood, in a galaxy which formed inside of a dark matter halo which virialised from a primordial density perturbation in a perturbed Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker Universe. Let's not forget the context. We are a university, not an army. pozdr boud

1 0

Re: (1) pgplot licence vs other; (2) NR (fwd)
by Boud Roukema 31 Mar '04

31 Mar '04

witam, Michał wrote: > Boud Roukema wrote: > > >>what is the purpose of GPL? creating better, community driven software. > >>imho it is more than a license, it is a philosophy. your "software" just > > > > > > It is not philosophy. It is politics, because it relates to the power that > > some people have over other people, and the power that people do *not* > > have over other people. > > > > The intention is to minimise the power that people have over others to > > the minimum necessary - in the context of computer code. > > > > It depends what you mean by "politics" and "philosophy" I believe. in > fact it is both. but developers seem to prefer the term "philosophy" > since it is more positive in meaning. i guess this may be an anglophone/francophone difference. Personally i prefer precision rather than political correctness. > >> do not fit GPL. it is a set of mathematical operations. > >>how the hell do you want people to use it/trace bugs/improve when you > >>only provide hardly readable code?????? > >> > >>we could argue about the quality of the code but I do not think will do > >>any good. > > > > > > The point is not to argue about the quality of the code. > > > > The whole point of the GNU GPL is that concrete discussion of the > > code can happen according to rules which encourage improvement of the code. > > > > Without distribution under GNU GPL, it is difficult to get the *feedback* > > that someone has the opinion that the code is "hardly readable". > > > > I agree. :) > but without providing high-quality code and docs it is hard to > get useful feedback. It's sufficient to improve by the same fraction. Consider a code of low initial quality p(0) = 0.3 with low docs quality q(0)=0.3, versus code with high initial quality p'(0)= 1.0 and high initial docs quality q'(0) = 1.0. In the first case there is on average one iteration of feedback each week which yields moderate improvement in the combined quality x = pq of 10% (alpha = 1.1), in the second case the initial version is only distributed after one year, and then gets feedback yielding improvements of 10%. p(0)=q(0)=0.3 p'(0)=q'(0)=1.0 x(t) = p(0)q(0) alpha^n (n= weeks) x'(t) = p'(0)q'(0) alpha^(max(0,n-52)) which gives for t \ge 52: x(t)= 12.8 alpha^(n-52) x'(t)= 1.0 alpha^(n-52) Conclusion: many iterations through a positive feedback loop starting from an imperfect beginning can give a better result than waiting a long time for a "perfect" beginning to be ready. > > On the other hand, if there is a delay of between several days and > > a few weeks for having the right to use the code, and then a further > > delay of unknown length to redistribute modified versions, the cooperation > > between X, Z, W and U is unlikely to happen, especially given that Y > > feels unhappy with the code and may influence the delays. > > > I can bet that Kriss would be more that happy to accept any help with > porting his software to other languages. Have you tried to chat with him > about licence issues? If you wished to be a neutral, third party moderator to discuss with a certain person regarding certain software, for a publicly archived discussion (like this one) regarding porting of cosmologically useful software to a version distributed under the GNU GPL or a compatible licence, and if you convinced that person and other people interested that you would be a good moderator (meaning that you clarify the discussion, stop different people from flaming or threatening each other, ask them to apologise or find other ways of getting people to cool off if they start flaming, etc.), i would be happily accept this. My prediction is that this would be not be accepted by some of the people, but i would be glad to be wrong. > As I still am quite sure about there is no licence that suits scientific > software and gpl is not the best. that is why some people refuse > gpl-ing. I myself would be very happy having a nicer licence for sci soft. Personally i'm not convinced of the need. I'm aware that if you spend a lot of time on software and don't write many publications, you need to get credit for the software. The GNU GPL already guarantees that the original author's name remains, and IMHO the cosmo community is small enough that people writing, or more importantly, maintaining good software do get credit. Just because it's not formally part of these strange formulas attempting to measure scientific productivity in PL, does not mean the credit is not there. However, you want a modified licence, so please have a look at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL What do think of a licence which is identical to the GNU GPL, but we remove the preamble (unless FSF agrees that we may include it in our modified version after discussion), we modify the end-wording, and we add a term/condition like: SSL-13.0 - proposal for Scientific Software Licence-term/condition 13.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Any publication in a recognised scientific journal which makes use of this software must contain the acknowledgment: "Use has been made of PROGRAM-NAME which can be obtained at PROGRAM-URI", where PROGRAM-NAME is the name of the Program and PROGRAM-URI is a Universal Resource Identity showing where the full machine-readable source code of the Program can be downloaded from." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- and then write to licensing at gnu.org to ask for advice. My guess is they would only complain about the compatibility question: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible In which case i would suggest in addition: SSL-2.1 - proposal for Scientific Software Licence-term/condition 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- identical with GNU GPL v2 term/condition 2. except for the following: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "But when ... wrote it. " %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% becomes %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of either this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it, or 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) whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. If you apply the GNU General Public License rather than this License to the whole, then you are requested (but not required) to include a file called README.acknowledgments in the machine-readable source code which includes the text of term/condition 13. below, with the phrase "Any publication ... acknowledgment:" replaced by "It is kindly requested (but not legally required) that any publication in a recognised scientific journal which makes use of this software should contain the acknowledgment:" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In short, this means that if an SSL protected package is combined with a non-GNU GPL package, then: - if the other package is also under SSL, the new one can also be SSL - if the other package is GNU GPL, then the new one *must* be GNU GPL (condition 2 of GNU GPL), but the user is *requested* to add a file converting term/condition 13 into a README.acknowledgments file which *requests* the user to write an acknowledgment - if the other package is under some other licence, it may or may not be possible to distribute the combined package, it depends on that other licence. IMHO, this is as strong as we could get while retaining GNU GPL compatibility. If we try to make the request into a requirement, then my worry is it would be GPL incompatible. In fact, compatibility is one of the big issues of the GNU GPL. It enables modules to be combined together in ways far beyond what the original authors ever could do alone. Remember: there are 6 billion of us. That's a lot. Anway, you wanted a licence: what do you think of this one? If we go through a few iterations, with a bit of feedback :), then i'd be happy to write to licensing at gnu.org, point them to our discussion, and see what they think. A simpler alternative to SSL-13.0 + SSL-2.1 would be: SSL-13.1 - proposal for Scientific Software Licence-term/condition 13.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. It is kindly requested (but not legally required) that any publication in a recognised scientific journal which makes use of this software should contain the acknowledgment: "Use has been made of PROGRAM-NAME which can be obtained at PROGRAM-URI", where PROGRAM-NAME is the name of the Program and PROGRAM-URI is a Universal Resource Identity showing where the full machine-readable source code of the Program can be downloaded from." If you distribute this Program as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, and you apply the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) to that whole, then you are kindly requested to copy this term/condition 13. to a file called README.acknowledgments (if it is not already present) and include it in the machine-readable source code. Since further distribution of the whole would occur under the GNU GPL, there would be no further obligation to include the file, only a kind request. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- pozdr boud

1 0

2 topo articles on astro-ph in 1 day!
by Boud Roukema 30 Mar '04

30 Mar '04

Hyperbolic Universes with a Horned Topology and the CMB Anisotropy Authors: Ralf Aurich, Sven Lustig, Frank Steiner, Holger Then http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403597 A Note on the Robustness of Pair Separations Methods in Cosmic Topology Authors: A. Bernui, G.I. Gomero, B. Mota, M.J. Reboucas http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403586 The Foot et al papers on mirror matter as a dark matter candidate are also starting to sound convincing (at least from the abstracts). Now it sounds like they get a good match for explaining the relative values of Omega_b and Omega_m which implies a 1ev energy scale and hints at a connection with neutrino oscillations: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402267 Any comments, Bartek? pozd boud

1 1

atto-cosmology: NOAA terrestrian warming goes non-linear?
by Boud Roukema 30 Mar '04

30 Mar '04

atto-cosmology (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix for "atto") NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA): http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=505798 > Global warming spirals upwards > By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor > > 28 March 2004 > > Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have jumped abruptly, > raising fears that global warming may be accelerating out of control. > > Measurements by US government scientists show that concentrations of > the gas, the main cause of the climate exchange, rose by a record > amount over the past 12 months. It is the third successive year in > which they have increased sharply, marking an unprecedented triennial > surge. > > Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken > place, but fear that it could show the first signs that global warming > is feeding on itself, with rising temperatures causing increases in > carbon dioxide, which then go on to drive the thermometer even > higher. That would be a deeply alarming development, suggesting that > this self-reinforcing heating could spiral upwards beyond the reach of > any attempts to combat it. In other words, we may have reached d(\Delta T)/dt \propto (\Delta T) in which case \Delta T \propto \exp(t) . Of course, negative feedbacks will have to happen sooner or later, but the stable point in N-parameter space could be quite different from the stable point where we have been during the previous 2000 years... ... > The carbon dioxide measurements have been taken from the 11,400ft > summit of Hawaii's Mauna Loa, whose enormous dome makes it the most > substantial mountain on earth, by scientists working for the US > government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ... > The latest measurements, taken a week ago, showed that carbon dioxide > had reached about 379 parts per million (ppm), up from about 376ppm > the year before, from 373ppm in 2002 and about 371ppm in 2001. These > represent three of the four biggest increases on record (the other was > in 1998), creating an unprecedented sequence. They add up to a 64 per > cent rise over the average rate of growth over the past decade, of > 1.8ppm a year. > > The US scientists have yet to analyse the figures and stress that they > could be just a remarkable blip. Professor Ralph Keeling - whose > father Charles Keeling first set up the measurements from Mauna Loa - > said:"We are moving into a warmer world". i highly recommend the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming For people sceptical about the sources of the data (as we all should be), at the bottom of the page there are external web links classified by the biases of the different organisations: "Scientific" (NASA + NOAA) "United Nations" "Environmentalist" "Conservative-affiliated" "Industry-sponsored" "Independent (or receives too little support to constitute "sponsorship")" "Other" Environmental scientists don't seem to publish on http://arxiv.org or the equivalent, unfortunately. pozdr boud

1 0

astro-ph/0403111
by Andrzej Marecki 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

astro-ph/0403111 Date (v1): Thu, 4 Mar 2004 03:41:19 GMT (12kb) Date (revised v2): Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:15:48 GMT (12kb) Date (revised v3): Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:04:28 GMT (12kb) Date (revised v4): Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:03:35 GMT (0kb,I) Problems with studying topology of the universe via circles from cosmic microwave background data. Authors: Evelise Gausmann, Reuven Opher Comments: This paper has been withdrawn -- Andrzej

2 1

fealpix vs healpix - it stinks for me
by Michal Frackowiak 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

hi there! I have just downloaded the version of fealpix. here are my thoughts after a few minutes of browsing the sources and an attempt to compile things: - Boud: you claim the software to be GPL and attach the license. but the software itself is not in the spirit of GNU at all!!! the idea of gnu software is not: look at me, I can handle dozens of lines of code and several equations without a single line of comment! and that is the software you have created - extremelly unclearly coded, uderstanding hardly possible. with such attitude you simply discourage others to use/learn/modify the code. and that is not gnu. you should not release the code in that form and imho it is against gnu philosophy. - the code is not even comparable to HEALpix in both functionality and documentation - chosing "fealpix" as a name is not fortunate. it seems as a "negative campaign". - no docs, no examples, no comments - could you start using gnu autoconf? - I find "astropolitics" stuff inlcuded somehow improper. you permanently call HEALpix non-free and claim its authors to blindly follow rules of feudal reality. - I am very not sure about NR stuff you use and claim that simple rewrite of routines code makes it free. I have compared just one of the files with what can be found in NumericalRecipies and it is IDENTICAL (apart from changing the variables' names and some minor rearragement). you not simply use provided algorithms, you use provided code which is distributed under somehow more restricted license. that is not the way it should be. if all the gnu community acted like that the gnu software would be a patchwork from stolen code. fortunately others are more creative and write original software. you should not distribute those routines in the present form - the code is not yours. I see all this felapix was intended as a battle for "free software". but the way you fight turns against gnu in fact - by offending people, being extreme radicalist, mixing code and politics, writing unreadable code, stealing code and claiming yours. you should change the way you fight for "free software" because it does not do any good. do the Octave people constantly cry about Matlab beeing non-free???????? or Kaffe and Java?????????? or gcc and icc???? gjc and Java again???????? GNU is about creating BETTER software, not accusing proprietary software of being non-free. that is my oppinion. at this very moment I feel disappointed with what you do with GNU and GPL philosophy. regards - michal BTW: for NR, this is the license you are obliged to follow: If you are the individual owner of a copy of this book and you type one or more of its routines into your computer, we authorize you to use them on that computer for your own personal and noncommercial purposes. You are not authorized to transfer or distribute machine-readable copies to any other person, or to use the routines on more than one machine, or to distribute executable programs containing our routines. This is the only free license.

2 7

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
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