[vsnet-campaign-nova 957] Re: V2540 Oph - detection of period/s

[Alon Retter <retter@Physics.usyd.edu.au>]

Dear Taichi,

I do not understand what I've done to deserve such a long high tune attack
especially after our past collaboration. I suspect that there may be
something personnel about it. Maybe it is because I suggested that the
maximum of the nova might have been missed - in contrast to your claim at
a recent IBVS, or maybe it is something else. If I did something wrong
that hurt you I do deeply apologize. I respect your science and I do 
expect you to do the same. I'm certainly not Einstein, and I do make
mistakes (although I still think that I am probably right in this debate),
but I believe that my humble contribution to Astronomy in leading
astrophysical journals speaks by itself. 

I'll be happy to further discuss this issue and your questions once we
meet, but I will not use again this forum for this purpose. It is time
consuming and irrelevant to most readers. 

Regards,
Alon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Dr. Alon Retter          Tel. (work)     +61-2-9351-4058
   School of Physics        Fax  (work)     +61-2-9351-7726
   University of Sydney     -------------------------------------------
   Sydney, 2006             'As a scientist I don't believe myself, so
   Australia                why should I believe you?' (A.R. 1965-2085)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Taichi Kato wrote:

> Re: V2540 Oph - detection of period/s
> 
> Dear Alon,
> 
> > I really can't understand your hostility.
> 
>    Not hostility, but a consequence of scientific conjecture.
> 
> > 1. There is still an argument on the nature of the transition phase,
> > although we are very close to the solution.
> 
>    Didn't you write in the proceedings of the Goettingen conferecence that
> your "theory" has already gave "a solution to a 100-yr problem?"
> In your words, the argument sounds to have been settled.
> 
> > 5.. Since then observations of 3 or 4 novae are consistent with this idea.
> > The prediction is then highly (97-99%) significant.
> 
>    If the significance is truly that high, you probably don't need to
> make further observations ;-)  Your theory is observationally established
> (what a happy thing :-), and even infinite observation can add only 1-3 %
> of significance.  What a small addition they could be...
> 
> > 6. It is possible that the physical mechanism may be connected with Nir
> > Shaviv's ideas.
> 
>    How it is connected??
> 
> > Let the other observers decide whether they are waisting their time
> > observing Nova V2540 Oph 2002.
> 
>    What photosheric radius do you expect in the present state of V2540 Oph?
> 
>    I wonder whether you understand the importance of giving such a basic
> parameter to observers to enable them to judge the consistency of your
> plan and expected outcome.
> 
> Regards,
> Taichi Kato
> 
>

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp