hi everyone,
i've tried to come up with a proposal compatible with the summary here: http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2006-February/000353.html
and Andrzej's suggestion here: http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2006-February/000354.html
The proposed text is between ######### - i'm not sure if Bartek or Andrzej want to sign, or even if this is compatible with Andrzej's arguments, though i think it should be, because all the material is protected (well, open) under GFDL copyright, but it's not especially linked to any of our names - there are typically anywhere between 5 and 100 authors on the wikipedia page articles.
The LambdaCDM article presently says nothing about "bringing down the concept of flat and infinite universe" - which IMHO is rather premature anyway - IMHO that wikipedia page would be a good place to discuss that - in the wikipedia context - *if* anyone really wants to have a "public, pedagogical" debate.
The response to 4. also gives a response to Bartek's worry about the earlier Levin paper (lacking high resolution).
What do people think of this proposed response (v0.2)?
pozdr boud
PROPOSAL version 0.2 ###################################################################### Dear Tomasz,
Answers to your questions are publicly available in research papers and in pedagogical (encyclopedia level) material as below.
Boud Roukema, Bartosz Lew
- Analysis of the microwave background radiation are the only way
- I guess - to collect information about the shape of the
universe. Isn't it risky to draw conclusions resulting from only one experiment ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Evaluations_and_iterations
- Why this is commonly believed, that data from WMAP probe, brought
down the concept of flat and infinite universe ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
- There are many ideas concerning the shape of the universe. Maybe
it is like a sphere, cylinder, funnel, but it can also be like bell, horn or dodecahedron. Why do you claim that space is dodecahedron-like ?
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksztalt_Wszechswiata
- What are the errors or defects of the idea of horn-like space ?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403597
- Could you in the very easy way explain the expression, that space
has a shape ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe
- Do efforts to establish a shape of the universe have any
practical meaning or you are doing that just to know ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_science
- Did universe have a beginning, and ones will have the end ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe
######################################################################
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Boud Roukema wrote:
The proposed text is between ######### - i'm not sure if Bartek or Andrzej want to sign, or even if this is compatible with Andrzej's arguments,
It's a clever "workaround". :) Go ahead!
a.m.
P.S. There is no need for me to sign it.
a.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Andrzej Marecki wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Boud Roukema wrote:
The proposed text is between ######### - i'm not sure if Bartek or Andrzej want to sign, or even if this is compatible with Andrzej's arguments,
It's a clever "workaround". :) Go ahead!
Good :)
Bartek?
P.S. There is no need for me to sign it.
OK.
hi all.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Boud Roukema wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Andrzej Marecki wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Boud Roukema wrote:
The proposed text is between ######### - i'm not sure if Bartek or Andrzej want to sign, or even if this is compatible with Andrzej's arguments,
It's a clever "workaround". :) Go ahead!
It sure is. It sure is. :) It's like saying "go and find out yourself, the info is all around you, and to make it easier I drop you some links which are more less consistent with what I would have answered if you came to me for an interview (followed by a small bank money transfer ;p)." :)
I like this solution, since as I said before, more soriously this would sound if someone came to Boud personally (or phoned him) to ask for his oppinion on sciantific problems. This didn't happen, so to me it is just seeking for some answers, rather then collecting experts opinions on topology. The latter would naturally be followed by a quotations in a newspaper like ".....- says BR. from CAUMK", while the earlier results just in a pedagogical explanations in the related field. So the official answer is fine with me. Also I think there is no need for me to sign. I responded to cosmo-media and cosmo-torun to join the discussion, but the question was sent directly to Boud - he made it public - but natural way is that any reply goes from Boud. BTW. Neither I see no need to sign by Boud, according to what I've just wrote few lines above. That's my point of view.
pozdr, Bartek
ok
good
pozdr boud
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Bartosz Lew wrote:
hi all.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Boud Roukema wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Andrzej Marecki wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Boud Roukema wrote:
The proposed text is between ######### - i'm not sure if Bartek or Andrzej want to sign, or even if this is compatible with Andrzej's arguments,
It's a clever "workaround". :) Go ahead!
It sure is. It sure is. :) It's like saying "go and find out yourself, the info is all around you, and to make it easier I drop you some links which are more less consistent with what I would have answered if you came to me for an interview (followed by a small bank money transfer ;p)." :)
I like this solution, since as I said before, more soriously this would sound if someone came to Boud personally (or phoned him) to ask for his oppinion on sciantific problems. This didn't happen, so to me it is just seeking for some answers, rather then collecting experts opinions on topology. The latter would naturally be followed by a quotations in a newspaper like ".....- says BR. from CAUMK", while the earlier results just in a pedagogical explanations in the related field. So the official answer is fine with me. Also I think there is no need for me to sign. I responded to cosmo-media and cosmo-torun to join the discussion, but the question was sent directly to Boud - he made it public - but natural way is that any reply goes from Boud. BTW. Neither I see no need to sign by Boud, according to what I've just wrote few lines above. That's my point of view.
pozdr, Bartek
Cosmo-media mailing list Cosmo-media@cosmo.torun.pl http://cosmo.torun.pl/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-media
-
Andrzej Marecki -
Bartosz Lew -
Boud Roukema