[vsnet-campaign-nova 960] Re: V2540 Oph - detection of period/s

[Taichi Kato <tkato@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>]

Re: V2540 Oph - detection of period/s

Alon,

    Please don't send a big attachment to this list.  When you need to
post a preprint, use vsnet-preprint (body in text and a URL reference to
full image files is recommended).  Or you might place your preprint
in some place and give a URL reference.

> My view of science and Astronomy
> seems to be different than yours. Sometimes observations are way behind
> theory (as is the case in stellar oscillations) and sometimes they are
> ahead of theory.

    This does not make any excuse.  You haven't answered anything on my
questions regarding your "model".  I presume that your severe lack of
scientific justification is already evident to anyone's eyes.
Before going to trivial matters, please make a logical explanation
(an explanation does not necessarily mean that there is a theory nor
a claimed theory is correct, as you know) to my past queries.  If you
can't, I can hardly believe you.

> An example to the latter is the Stolz and Schoembs
> relation for positive superhump excess found in 1981 and first explained
> only in 1985 by Osaki.

    Don't too much underestimate the importance of the discussions and
observations made before 1981.  The discovery by Stolz and Schoembs was
a natural consequence of the timely interest.

> The relation between the ratio of negative
> superhump deficit to positive superhump excess I've recently found (Retter
> et al. 2002)

    You claim you are the first person who discovered such a relation?

> My discussion with you lead me to think that I may
> be able to combine my ideas with Shaviv's model.

    We have seen many instances that a combination of a good model and
a bad model resulted in a bad model.  Be careful you won't follow the
same ;-)

> If we observe the binary the photosphere is probably at about the size of the
> white dwarf.

    Have you checked the result of e.g. Kato and Hachisu calculation?

> More on the philosophy of science. Nir Shaviv model is a good model since
> it describes well some observational features and explains some unsolved
> problems, however, it doesn't mean that it is the correct model. And, it
> hasn't been attacked so far by further observations. It is certainly
> possible that someone comes tomorrow with a different model that explains
> better the observations. It is not the bible, and it may be completely
> wrong.

    Even this would be the case, Shaviv's model is far better than yours
in that Shaviv's model is far more logical.  The basic assumption of the
fluid structure may be hypothetical, but would be easily corrected in a
logical manner if more evidence becomes available.

> RR Pic is also a recurrent nova not a classical nova, so it is different.

    How many times (and when) did it erupt?  What do you think is the
difference between classical novae and recurrent novae?

> In addition, there are intermediate polars in which the
> spin period is seen only in the optical; in others - only in the X-ray and
> in a specific (still controversial) case (V533 Her) only in circular
> polarization.  Finally, CVs are variable stars, so maybe in the future 
> someone finds the spin period of RR Pic in the optical/X-ray in a better
> run.

    Then your claimed fraction of intermediate polars looks foundationless.
In your words, your explanation sounds like "any CV may be an intermediate
polar".  This means 100% of CVs "may be" intermediate polars.  This clearly
contradicts with your "model".

Regards,
Taichi Kato

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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