[vsnet-campaign-nova 961] Re: V2540 Oph - detection of period/s

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

Dear Taichi,

I'm sorry, but it looks to me that there is indeed something personal
here. Thus, I won't reply to your emails anymore, and this one is
promised to be the last. There is a decent way to express yourself in a
scientific argument, and in my opinion you have crossed the border several
times despite my attempts to tune down the debate.

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

Yes, the relation I found is new and I was the first person who discovered
it (Retter et al., 2002, MNRAS, 330, L37). It shows that Patterson's
relation (from 1999) is only a first approximation. As it deals with
superhumps I'm quite surprised that you haven't found the time to read it. 
I'm sure, however, that you can twist this result and `show' the vsnet
readers that I am wrong.

I've had enough of this argument (and I'm sure that most / all vsnet
readers as well)! 

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 Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Taichi Kato wrote:

> 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