Return to Home Page
Re: [vsnet-chat 6853] (fwd) Re: (fwd) Re: [vsnet-campaign-nova 1424] Re: (fwd) nova list update Dear Vello, > Although you may argue that I didn't discover *Nova* Oph 2003 (and I would > agree), I would respectfully submit that I did discover the *variable* star > V2573 Oph. As they are the one and the same, it is a matter of semantics > and I leave it to the philosophers amongst you to debate what to call such > an unusual situation. You reported your discovery to the public after the announcement of a nova (or a variable star) discovery was made. This is not usually regarded as an independent discovery. Such a situation sometimes occurred in the past (there was even a reported "prediscovery visual observation" of V4741 Sgr by Verdenet, but is not usually considered as an independent discovery). Discovery announcements become meaningful only if they are reported. Your report was as a consequence of the discovery announement, which qualifies your report as a "dependent discovery report". > At any rate, IAUC 8166 called it an independent discovery. If IAUC 8166 conveys any sense of an "independent discovery of a nova", it is misleading. The truth is what you have written already. By the way, > - I was the first person to see this object (in fact 4 weeks before Takao > reported it), and Was the object you observed 4 weeks prior to Takao the genuine prediscovery image of the nova? I asked you on this in a different place, but have not received a firm answer. This is particularly important because a recent work by Kimeswenger and Lechner (astro-ph/0309370) greatly relied on these "premaximum observations" in their discussion of the nature. If the nova was not convincingly bright for a long time before the maximum, this paper would have to be withdrawn. Regards, Taichi Kato
Return to the Powerful Daisaku
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
