Astronomy and Coffee

I'm organizing the final version of my tables, with all the important information. That is done for the photometry, now I have to search for spectroscopic redshift in order to get photometric redshift for the whole sample ... that will keep going for a while.

It's been a while that I don't comment about a paper. Just read a paper from Dimitri Gadotti (MPA) that is nice and worth commenting (not because he's my personal friend). He analyses SDSS galaxies with multicomponent modeling (disk, bulge and bar). Nice results about classical bulges and pseudo bulges. That the first ones are quiescent and likely formed by violent processes such as small mergers, while the second ones are forming stars and formed by non-violent processes such as disk instabilities (like bars). On the other hand, despite being quiescent and occupying the red sequence, classical bulges are not ellipticals with a disk. One thing that called my attention is the semi-automated way of modeling the galaxies, about the same kind we are doing in the hi-z morphology project.

Another paper, I'm still reading it, is "Doing Science, Writing Science" from Jutta Schickore (Department of History and Philosophy of Science - Indiana University). The paper is about the mismatch on what scientists do and what they state they did in a paper. We don't really tell in a paper all we did. I'm still in the beginning of it, is a large paper,  but the main discussion seems to be that we write things in a way it can be judge in our favor and not with the insights and the way we constructed this knowledge. The discussion is old, there's a long work from 1936 about it. Let's see how it goes.