Welcome!
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place |
This is Drbogdan's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
Daily pageviews of User:Drbogdan
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
ART:
Renoir's "
Luncheon of the Boating Party” (1881) – Since 1923, At The *
Phillips Gallery* In
Washington, DC – Near My Apartment During My *
GW University* Days.
(NOTE: My Clickable Image of
Renoir's "
Luncheon of the Boating Party" is Copied Below - Stay Safe and Healthy !!)
References
|
---|
References
|
I have nominated Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I found your name on WikiProject:Pharmacology. Since you are involved in various pharmaceutical and medical-related content, would you mind looking at my latest edit request for WuXi AppTec? Thank you very much! AM WuXi ( talk) 07:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
redirect tests |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8
(NOTE: Related discusssions) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for fixing the Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine page on JWST. |
SmileyShogun ( talk) 22:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Have you seen Mirage yet? As you know, I like high-minded, but low budget science fiction films. This surely fits the bill. Netflix advertises it as a cross between Doctor Who and The Butterfly Effect, which got my attention! Well, the film was as bad as you might think, but the story and script are fascinating. I'm also curious what could have been done by the writer/director/editor to improve it. Interestingly, Anurag Kashyap remade and adapted it for Indian audiences as Dobaaraa, but I haven't had time to see that yet. Anyway, super interesting film when you consciously ignore all the things that don't make any sense! In other words, popcorn chewing, B movie madness... Viriditas ( talk) 23:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Viriditas: (and others) - Thanks for suggesting the " Mirage (SP,2018-7.4/10)" film - yes - interesting (and thoughtful) view of course - for some reason - reminded of several older films, including " Open Your Eyes (SP,1997-7.7)", " Timecrimes (SP,2007-7.1)", " Coherence (US,2013-7.2)" and " Primer (US,2004-6.7)" - Thanks again for the suggestion - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 03:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Viriditas: (and others) - A review by scientist Denis Noble of a new book entitled " How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology" (2023) by Philip Ball (editor of the journal Nature) may be worth considering? [1] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 12:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Please see my related discussions at the following: " Talk:Abiogenesis#Book "How Life Works" (2023) worth considering?", " Talk:Abiogenesis#Life Began in a Shallow Lake?" and " Talk:Abiogenesis#Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere?" - iac - Stay Safe and healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 15:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Discusssion - "
Talk:Abiogenesis#Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere?" - February 2024
|
---|
(Copied from " Talk:Abiogenesis#Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere?" - 20240327) Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere? New studies (2/18/2024) [1] [2] seem to provide support for the notion that panspermia may have been a way that life began on Earth? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC) References
@ Chiswick Chap: (and others) - Thank You *very much* for your comments re this and all related discussions above - they're *all* greatly appreciated - and very worthwhile imo - Yes - *entirely* agree - you may be *completely* right about all this of course - but to rule out such notions fully may not be the better road - viable materials hidden away deep within such cosmic dust particles (or even some particles somewhat larger - or even a lot larger) may continue to be a possible way of distributing such ( LUCA-related?) materials throughout the cosmos I would think - there may be other ways (maybe not yet thought about for one reason or another) as well - I would think a miniscule amount of such material (maybe even a single reproducible molecule?) may be sufficient to start the entire process going if settled in a life-friendly location within the universe - with an estimated 1024 stars and Earthlike planets in the observable universe, [1] [2] [3] there may be an astronomical amount of life-friendly locations available - to and fro so-to-speak - in any case - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 21:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
First we should determine with some certainty that Mars, Venus, or perhaps the Moon were habitable and had life in the past. Then we may discuss panspermia, if life migrated from one of those celestial bodies to Earth, or the other way. Otherwise, talking about it is like discussing the sex of angels. Panspermia can not work from one planetary system to the next, simply because of the distances and times involved. Let's assume that there was a planet with life in the Alpha Centauri planetary system, the one closest to us, and a meteorite is ejected from it, with some of its local life on it. And let's assume that it's not just any life, but one of those extremophiles who can survive in really harsh conditions. And let's assume that they survive the planetary ejection. And let's assume that they have enough protection to survive the conditions of outer space. Yes, I know, too many assumptions (and that means, too many factors that may not go as desired). Well, even if by some miracle that meteorite heads in the direction towards us, it would take it tens of thousands of years to arrive... and what kind of life could survive that long? Cambalachero ( talk) 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
References
|
Hi Drbogdan. I wonder if you could take a look at my recent edit request posted at Talk:Viatris#Update_History_section. You must scroll down a bit because I inadvertently left out a new heading for the new request. Thanks again, PittGuy123ABC ( talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@
Viriditas: (and others) - Seems recent news (2/9/2024)
[1] presents the latest goings-on with the upcoming showings of the two
"Three-Body Problem" TV miniseries --
in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk) 07:29, 10 February 2024
@ Viriditas: (and others) - Several recently reported technical articles [2] [3] about the three-body problem seem to be on the road to a possible solution? - iac- Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 01:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@
Viriditas: (and others) - NOTE: Added the following text/ref to the "
3 Body Problem (TV series)#Future" article => "Although a second season has yet to be renewed as of March 22, 2024, as many as four seasons (or more seasons?) may be possible."
[5]
[6]
- Additionaly - USA version = 489 mins (8x60) (33% LESS time than CH version) IMDb rated 7.6/10 / CH version = 1350 mins (30x45) - IMDb rated 7.6/10 - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk) 11:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Viriditas: (and others) - If interested - seems several (down-to-Earth?) interpretations of the novels and related film adaptations of " The Three-Body Problem" were recently presented by " The New York Times". [8]
References
Hi there @ Drbogdan. I'm afraid I've just undone one of your edits over at Three-body problem. I'm assumed it was a plug for a recent piece of work so was bold. However, afterwards I spotted it was you, and figure you've got a good reason for adding it. Anyway, I've put a note on the talkpage to explain my actions. If you want to re-add it, could you make sure it's clear what it's about and why it's notable? While I'm sure it's valuable work, it feels incremental and a tad recent to me, but I'm no mathematician. In any case, I wanted to give you a heads-up for my rash deletion. :-) Cheers, PLUMBAGO 10:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Thank you for your edits at the beginning of 2023 on the GPs. I am wondering if you could expand these references for the journals, especially Nature which I can't access, to include a few lines in the section 2023 (address below). I've started this section to include the Rhoads et al. study from January 1, but would like to include some text from your 2 references. (These might be better put in that section rather than at the top). The article needs generally updating, but any JWST data should take precedent. In your own time of course. /info/en/?search=Pea_galaxy#2023 Cheers Richard Nowell ( talk) 11:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
References
(Note: Copied from => "
User talk:Warrenmck#When did human language begin?")
Thank you for your
recent rv of
my edit re an approximate starting age for the beginning of human language
[1] - this is somewhat relevant to my own "
{{Human timeline}}" template - the best current determination seems to be between 1.5 to 2.0 million years ago - based on the recent news report
[1] - however - you seem to be more knowledgeable than I about all this - just curious - what would be your own current estimate re the beginning starting age of human language (based on the
responsible scientific literature if possible)? - Thanking you in advance for your reply - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk) 16:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
References
I am filled with admiration for your "thank" message after I reverted your additions to the articles on Holst and The Planets. Very, very few editors would be so magnanimous. My greetings! Tim riley talk 15:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
References
I have finished enough of " Consciousness of guilt (legal)" to go public with it. Further development and improvement will be appreciated. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@
Chiswick Chap,
PJTraill,
Viriditas, and
Warrenmck: (and others) - AI Results - "Life Starts" and "Earliest Life" - Wiki Useful or Not? (ref => MsCopilotAI/20240406)
QUESTION - Are such AI Results of any use in any way on Wikipedia in your opinion? - probably not but perhaps worth asking the question nonetheless - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk) 20:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
---
Contents:
01 - How did Life Start? - 20240406 - MsCoPilotAI ("
Abiogenesis")
02 - What are the Earliest Known Life Forms? - 20240406 - MsCoPilotAI ("
Earliest known life forms")
--- Simple Organic Molecules Formation: Simple organic molecules, akin to the nucleotides that form the building blocks of life, likely played a crucial role in life’s origin. Experiments suggest that these organic molecules could have formed in the early Earth’s atmosphere and then rained down into the oceans. RNA and DNA, the genetic material for all life, consist of long chains of these simple nucleotides. Replicating Molecules and Natural Selection: Replicating molecules evolved, allowing them to copy themselves and pass on genetic information to offspring. The ability to self-replicate likely emerged through an RNA self-replicator, where RNA molecules could copy themselves. This led to an “RNA world,” where RNA performed multiple functions: storing genetic information, self-replicating, and basic metabolic tasks. Natural selection favored variants of self-replicators that were more efficient at copying themselves, gradually leading to a stable replicating system. Cell Membrane Formation: Enclosing replicating molecules within a cell membrane provided significant advantages. Membranes kept genetic material close and allowed for different internal and external environments. These encased replicators out-competed “naked” replicators, leading to organisms resembling modern bacteria. Evolution of Modern Metabolic Processes: Initially, life relied heavily on RNA for various functions. A pivotal shift occurred when cells evolved to use different molecules for distinct roles: DNA (more stable than RNA) became the genetic material. Proteins (efficient promoters of chemical reactions) handled basic metabolic processes. RNA transitioned to a messenger role. This marked a significant step toward more complex life forms. Primordial Soup and Progressive Chemical Reactions: Life likely emerged from a primordial soup of chemicals. Stanley Miller’s famous 1952 experiment explored this idea, demonstrating that life could form through progressive chemical reactions. In summary, life’s origin involved a gradual process, with each step building upon the complexity that evolved previously. While we still don’t have all the answers, the journey from simple organic molecules to complex organisms remains a captivating scientific quest! 🌱🔬🌏12345 --- You - What are the Earliest Known Life Forms? Biologically Fractionated Graphite (Jack Hills, Australia): Evidence suggests that life may have existed as early as 4.1 billion years ago. This conclusion is based on the discovery of biologically fractionated graphite within a single zircon grain found in the Jack Hills range in Australia 1. These ancient graphite grains provide a glimpse into the distant past, hinting at the presence of life during Earth’s early years. 3.7 Billion-Year-Old Microorganisms: The oldest undisputed evidence of life comes from microscopic organisms (microbes) that left their mark in rocks approximately 3.7 billion years old. These microbial signals consist of a type of carbon molecule produced by living organisms 2. Stromatolites (Pilbara Craton, Western Australia): Stromatolites, layered structures formed by microbial communities, provide evidence of ancient life. The earliest direct known life on land may be stromatolites found in 3.480-billion-year-old geyserite from the Dresser Formation in the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia 1. Microfossils: Various microfossils of microorganisms have been discovered in rocks dating back to around 3.4 billion years. Notably, Apex chert rocks from the same Australian craton region and hydrothermal vent precipitates from Barberton, South Africa, contain evidence of ancient life 1. Preserved Molecular Compounds: Around 1.73 billion years ago, preserved molecular compounds of biologic origin indicate the presence of aerobic life. Therefore, the origin of life on Earth likely occurred at least 3.5 billion years ago, possibly even as early as 4.1 billion years ago—shortly after the formation of our planet and its oceans 1. Extensive Biosphere: Life on Earth exists in diverse environments, including soil, hydrothermal vents, rock, and even deep-sea environments. Microorganisms have been found in extreme conditions, such as the Atacama Desert (one of the driest places on Earth) and deep-sea hydrothermal vents with temperatures exceeding 400°C 1. In summary, life has persisted and adapted across geological time, leaving behind intriguing clues about its ancient origins. 🌏🔬🌱 --- |
Comments/Replies:
Thanks for the really, really *Excellent* replies - and *Excellent* wording (made me chuckle) - think I've got the message - not a good idea - not at all unexpected of course - in any case - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 21:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
---
If interested, my own related AI publications include the following:
(Note: My original text only; not at all AI-generated)
References
Hello! You recently added a new theoretical physics paper to Dark energy, Dark matter, Universe, and a few other pages. I (and another editor, it seems) have reverted those additions since it's just one person's theoretical math paper without wide reception in the scientific community and is a type of paper more typically considered a thought experiment (though a valuable one) in astrophysics (hence it's use of Tired light). Since it would completely and totally upend our understanding of astrophysics, it's most certainly an extraordinary claim and we should wait for more mainstream sources before editing into Wikipedia. Considering it's based on ideas which themselves aren't accepted in astrophysics, I wouldn't hold my breath too tightly on this one. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
(Note: Copied from "
Talk:Dark energy#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?")
Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed"
[3] - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all
[1]
[2] - if interested,
my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant
[4] - in any case - Worth adding to the main "
Dark Energy" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk) 14:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
(Note: Copied from "
Talk:Universe#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?")
Thank You for your comments - they're appreciated - you referred to my stance - my stance these days is to help close the gap between non-expert and expert thinking re these issues with worthy responsible presentations acceptible to all if possible - hopefully, this may make such science topics and issues more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "
Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (
BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level)
[5] - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk) 22:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the second time in a month you've seriously looked at mass-adding content relating to discrediting the best understanding of physics on the basis of a single paper in a popular source. I'm not trying to discount the huge amount of time or effort you're putting into this, but I genuinely think you may want to consider a temporary self-imposed WP:TBAN on articles relating to Dark matter, Dark energy, and alternative models of astrophysics more broadly. At least until you've spent a bit of time with WP:ECREE and WP:RS. For example, I'm not 100% sure what your New York Times comments have to do with wikipedia? But between that and the AI post above you may want to spend a bit more time with some of the basic content guidelines of Wikipedia. It's a bit tricky keeping up with your posts to multiple talk pages2 all over the place1 asking the same thing3 and issues with you mass editing articles with fringe-y positions which create some quality control issues (though I can't really object to your decision to take these discussions to talk pages first!).
One thing that jumps out to me is you may want to get involved with the physics Wikiproject where you could post a centralized discussion thread on new findings rather than splitting it across all possibly relevent talk pages and having disparate discussions to keep track of? Note I'm not an admin and I'm not suggesting any kind of sanctions or anything similar are warranted for you, I am just asking you to consider a step back on this since the way you're currently engaging with these topics creates a lot of extra work for other editors that really doesn't need to exist. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Warrenmck: - Thanks for your recent comments - and clarifying the issue - it's *greatly* appreciated - seems the best place, generally, to present such " WP:RS" News is the " physics Wikiproject" website (" although there may be, apparently, at least one other editor who may find copying to multiple relevant pages as somewhat "ok" at the moment") - nonetheless - *entirely* agree with your clarifications - seems to make a lot of good sense after all - as before, no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your clarifications - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 20:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed" [3] - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all [1] [2] - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant [4] - in any case - Worth adding to the main " Dark Energy" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
FWIW - Added the following NOTE (see copy below) to all relevant talk-pages including:
NOTE: A related discussion has been centralized on " physics Wikiproject", and can be found at the following link => " Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 00:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The responisble scientific literature seems the best source for such subjects of course - nonetheless - Thank You for your opinion re NYT (and related news sources) - yes - somewhat agree - seems a lot of the news reported in the public square these days may be overly influenced by the bottom line - a loss of common integrity - as well as, in the name of good journalism, a false equivalency - hope I'm wrong about these concerns of course - OTOH - the NYT has won numerous awards for journalism ( see => List of awards won by The New York Times ) - more than any other news source in the world afaik - other worthy news sources include The Washington Post (WaPo), Associated Press (AP), Los Angeles Times (LAT) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) - ( please see related awards => https://www.statista.com/statistics/945236/most-awarded-media-usa/ ) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
References
Welcome!
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place |
This is Drbogdan's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
Daily pageviews of User:Drbogdan
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
ART:
Renoir's "
Luncheon of the Boating Party” (1881) – Since 1923, At The *
Phillips Gallery* In
Washington, DC – Near My Apartment During My *
GW University* Days.
(NOTE: My Clickable Image of
Renoir's "
Luncheon of the Boating Party" is Copied Below - Stay Safe and Healthy !!)
References
|
---|
References
|
I have nominated Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I found your name on WikiProject:Pharmacology. Since you are involved in various pharmaceutical and medical-related content, would you mind looking at my latest edit request for WuXi AppTec? Thank you very much! AM WuXi ( talk) 07:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
redirect tests |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8
(NOTE: Related discusssions) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for fixing the Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine page on JWST. |
SmileyShogun ( talk) 22:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Have you seen Mirage yet? As you know, I like high-minded, but low budget science fiction films. This surely fits the bill. Netflix advertises it as a cross between Doctor Who and The Butterfly Effect, which got my attention! Well, the film was as bad as you might think, but the story and script are fascinating. I'm also curious what could have been done by the writer/director/editor to improve it. Interestingly, Anurag Kashyap remade and adapted it for Indian audiences as Dobaaraa, but I haven't had time to see that yet. Anyway, super interesting film when you consciously ignore all the things that don't make any sense! In other words, popcorn chewing, B movie madness... Viriditas ( talk) 23:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Viriditas: (and others) - Thanks for suggesting the " Mirage (SP,2018-7.4/10)" film - yes - interesting (and thoughtful) view of course - for some reason - reminded of several older films, including " Open Your Eyes (SP,1997-7.7)", " Timecrimes (SP,2007-7.1)", " Coherence (US,2013-7.2)" and " Primer (US,2004-6.7)" - Thanks again for the suggestion - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 03:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Viriditas: (and others) - A review by scientist Denis Noble of a new book entitled " How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology" (2023) by Philip Ball (editor of the journal Nature) may be worth considering? [1] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 12:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Please see my related discussions at the following: " Talk:Abiogenesis#Book "How Life Works" (2023) worth considering?", " Talk:Abiogenesis#Life Began in a Shallow Lake?" and " Talk:Abiogenesis#Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere?" - iac - Stay Safe and healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 15:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Discusssion - "
Talk:Abiogenesis#Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere?" - February 2024
|
---|
(Copied from " Talk:Abiogenesis#Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere?" - 20240327) Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere? New studies (2/18/2024) [1] [2] seem to provide support for the notion that panspermia may have been a way that life began on Earth? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC) References
@ Chiswick Chap: (and others) - Thank You *very much* for your comments re this and all related discussions above - they're *all* greatly appreciated - and very worthwhile imo - Yes - *entirely* agree - you may be *completely* right about all this of course - but to rule out such notions fully may not be the better road - viable materials hidden away deep within such cosmic dust particles (or even some particles somewhat larger - or even a lot larger) may continue to be a possible way of distributing such ( LUCA-related?) materials throughout the cosmos I would think - there may be other ways (maybe not yet thought about for one reason or another) as well - I would think a miniscule amount of such material (maybe even a single reproducible molecule?) may be sufficient to start the entire process going if settled in a life-friendly location within the universe - with an estimated 1024 stars and Earthlike planets in the observable universe, [1] [2] [3] there may be an astronomical amount of life-friendly locations available - to and fro so-to-speak - in any case - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 21:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
First we should determine with some certainty that Mars, Venus, or perhaps the Moon were habitable and had life in the past. Then we may discuss panspermia, if life migrated from one of those celestial bodies to Earth, or the other way. Otherwise, talking about it is like discussing the sex of angels. Panspermia can not work from one planetary system to the next, simply because of the distances and times involved. Let's assume that there was a planet with life in the Alpha Centauri planetary system, the one closest to us, and a meteorite is ejected from it, with some of its local life on it. And let's assume that it's not just any life, but one of those extremophiles who can survive in really harsh conditions. And let's assume that they survive the planetary ejection. And let's assume that they have enough protection to survive the conditions of outer space. Yes, I know, too many assumptions (and that means, too many factors that may not go as desired). Well, even if by some miracle that meteorite heads in the direction towards us, it would take it tens of thousands of years to arrive... and what kind of life could survive that long? Cambalachero ( talk) 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
References
|
Hi Drbogdan. I wonder if you could take a look at my recent edit request posted at Talk:Viatris#Update_History_section. You must scroll down a bit because I inadvertently left out a new heading for the new request. Thanks again, PittGuy123ABC ( talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@
Viriditas: (and others) - Seems recent news (2/9/2024)
[1] presents the latest goings-on with the upcoming showings of the two
"Three-Body Problem" TV miniseries --
in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk) 07:29, 10 February 2024
@ Viriditas: (and others) - Several recently reported technical articles [2] [3] about the three-body problem seem to be on the road to a possible solution? - iac- Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 01:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@
Viriditas: (and others) - NOTE: Added the following text/ref to the "
3 Body Problem (TV series)#Future" article => "Although a second season has yet to be renewed as of March 22, 2024, as many as four seasons (or more seasons?) may be possible."
[5]
[6]
- Additionaly - USA version = 489 mins (8x60) (33% LESS time than CH version) IMDb rated 7.6/10 / CH version = 1350 mins (30x45) - IMDb rated 7.6/10 - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk) 11:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Viriditas: (and others) - If interested - seems several (down-to-Earth?) interpretations of the novels and related film adaptations of " The Three-Body Problem" were recently presented by " The New York Times". [8]
References
Hi there @ Drbogdan. I'm afraid I've just undone one of your edits over at Three-body problem. I'm assumed it was a plug for a recent piece of work so was bold. However, afterwards I spotted it was you, and figure you've got a good reason for adding it. Anyway, I've put a note on the talkpage to explain my actions. If you want to re-add it, could you make sure it's clear what it's about and why it's notable? While I'm sure it's valuable work, it feels incremental and a tad recent to me, but I'm no mathematician. In any case, I wanted to give you a heads-up for my rash deletion. :-) Cheers, PLUMBAGO 10:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Thank you for your edits at the beginning of 2023 on the GPs. I am wondering if you could expand these references for the journals, especially Nature which I can't access, to include a few lines in the section 2023 (address below). I've started this section to include the Rhoads et al. study from January 1, but would like to include some text from your 2 references. (These might be better put in that section rather than at the top). The article needs generally updating, but any JWST data should take precedent. In your own time of course. /info/en/?search=Pea_galaxy#2023 Cheers Richard Nowell ( talk) 11:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
References
(Note: Copied from => "
User talk:Warrenmck#When did human language begin?")
Thank you for your
recent rv of
my edit re an approximate starting age for the beginning of human language
[1] - this is somewhat relevant to my own "
{{Human timeline}}" template - the best current determination seems to be between 1.5 to 2.0 million years ago - based on the recent news report
[1] - however - you seem to be more knowledgeable than I about all this - just curious - what would be your own current estimate re the beginning starting age of human language (based on the
responsible scientific literature if possible)? - Thanking you in advance for your reply - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk) 16:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
References
I am filled with admiration for your "thank" message after I reverted your additions to the articles on Holst and The Planets. Very, very few editors would be so magnanimous. My greetings! Tim riley talk 15:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
References
I have finished enough of " Consciousness of guilt (legal)" to go public with it. Further development and improvement will be appreciated. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@
Chiswick Chap,
PJTraill,
Viriditas, and
Warrenmck: (and others) - AI Results - "Life Starts" and "Earliest Life" - Wiki Useful or Not? (ref => MsCopilotAI/20240406)
QUESTION - Are such AI Results of any use in any way on Wikipedia in your opinion? - probably not but perhaps worth asking the question nonetheless - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk) 20:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
---
Contents:
01 - How did Life Start? - 20240406 - MsCoPilotAI ("
Abiogenesis")
02 - What are the Earliest Known Life Forms? - 20240406 - MsCoPilotAI ("
Earliest known life forms")
--- Simple Organic Molecules Formation: Simple organic molecules, akin to the nucleotides that form the building blocks of life, likely played a crucial role in life’s origin. Experiments suggest that these organic molecules could have formed in the early Earth’s atmosphere and then rained down into the oceans. RNA and DNA, the genetic material for all life, consist of long chains of these simple nucleotides. Replicating Molecules and Natural Selection: Replicating molecules evolved, allowing them to copy themselves and pass on genetic information to offspring. The ability to self-replicate likely emerged through an RNA self-replicator, where RNA molecules could copy themselves. This led to an “RNA world,” where RNA performed multiple functions: storing genetic information, self-replicating, and basic metabolic tasks. Natural selection favored variants of self-replicators that were more efficient at copying themselves, gradually leading to a stable replicating system. Cell Membrane Formation: Enclosing replicating molecules within a cell membrane provided significant advantages. Membranes kept genetic material close and allowed for different internal and external environments. These encased replicators out-competed “naked” replicators, leading to organisms resembling modern bacteria. Evolution of Modern Metabolic Processes: Initially, life relied heavily on RNA for various functions. A pivotal shift occurred when cells evolved to use different molecules for distinct roles: DNA (more stable than RNA) became the genetic material. Proteins (efficient promoters of chemical reactions) handled basic metabolic processes. RNA transitioned to a messenger role. This marked a significant step toward more complex life forms. Primordial Soup and Progressive Chemical Reactions: Life likely emerged from a primordial soup of chemicals. Stanley Miller’s famous 1952 experiment explored this idea, demonstrating that life could form through progressive chemical reactions. In summary, life’s origin involved a gradual process, with each step building upon the complexity that evolved previously. While we still don’t have all the answers, the journey from simple organic molecules to complex organisms remains a captivating scientific quest! 🌱🔬🌏12345 --- You - What are the Earliest Known Life Forms? Biologically Fractionated Graphite (Jack Hills, Australia): Evidence suggests that life may have existed as early as 4.1 billion years ago. This conclusion is based on the discovery of biologically fractionated graphite within a single zircon grain found in the Jack Hills range in Australia 1. These ancient graphite grains provide a glimpse into the distant past, hinting at the presence of life during Earth’s early years. 3.7 Billion-Year-Old Microorganisms: The oldest undisputed evidence of life comes from microscopic organisms (microbes) that left their mark in rocks approximately 3.7 billion years old. These microbial signals consist of a type of carbon molecule produced by living organisms 2. Stromatolites (Pilbara Craton, Western Australia): Stromatolites, layered structures formed by microbial communities, provide evidence of ancient life. The earliest direct known life on land may be stromatolites found in 3.480-billion-year-old geyserite from the Dresser Formation in the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia 1. Microfossils: Various microfossils of microorganisms have been discovered in rocks dating back to around 3.4 billion years. Notably, Apex chert rocks from the same Australian craton region and hydrothermal vent precipitates from Barberton, South Africa, contain evidence of ancient life 1. Preserved Molecular Compounds: Around 1.73 billion years ago, preserved molecular compounds of biologic origin indicate the presence of aerobic life. Therefore, the origin of life on Earth likely occurred at least 3.5 billion years ago, possibly even as early as 4.1 billion years ago—shortly after the formation of our planet and its oceans 1. Extensive Biosphere: Life on Earth exists in diverse environments, including soil, hydrothermal vents, rock, and even deep-sea environments. Microorganisms have been found in extreme conditions, such as the Atacama Desert (one of the driest places on Earth) and deep-sea hydrothermal vents with temperatures exceeding 400°C 1. In summary, life has persisted and adapted across geological time, leaving behind intriguing clues about its ancient origins. 🌏🔬🌱 --- |
Comments/Replies:
Thanks for the really, really *Excellent* replies - and *Excellent* wording (made me chuckle) - think I've got the message - not a good idea - not at all unexpected of course - in any case - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 21:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
---
If interested, my own related AI publications include the following:
(Note: My original text only; not at all AI-generated)
References
Hello! You recently added a new theoretical physics paper to Dark energy, Dark matter, Universe, and a few other pages. I (and another editor, it seems) have reverted those additions since it's just one person's theoretical math paper without wide reception in the scientific community and is a type of paper more typically considered a thought experiment (though a valuable one) in astrophysics (hence it's use of Tired light). Since it would completely and totally upend our understanding of astrophysics, it's most certainly an extraordinary claim and we should wait for more mainstream sources before editing into Wikipedia. Considering it's based on ideas which themselves aren't accepted in astrophysics, I wouldn't hold my breath too tightly on this one. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
(Note: Copied from "
Talk:Dark energy#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?")
Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed"
[3] - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all
[1]
[2] - if interested,
my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant
[4] - in any case - Worth adding to the main "
Dark Energy" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk) 14:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
(Note: Copied from "
Talk:Universe#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?")
Thank You for your comments - they're appreciated - you referred to my stance - my stance these days is to help close the gap between non-expert and expert thinking re these issues with worthy responsible presentations acceptible to all if possible - hopefully, this may make such science topics and issues more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "
Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (
BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level)
[5] - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk) 22:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the second time in a month you've seriously looked at mass-adding content relating to discrediting the best understanding of physics on the basis of a single paper in a popular source. I'm not trying to discount the huge amount of time or effort you're putting into this, but I genuinely think you may want to consider a temporary self-imposed WP:TBAN on articles relating to Dark matter, Dark energy, and alternative models of astrophysics more broadly. At least until you've spent a bit of time with WP:ECREE and WP:RS. For example, I'm not 100% sure what your New York Times comments have to do with wikipedia? But between that and the AI post above you may want to spend a bit more time with some of the basic content guidelines of Wikipedia. It's a bit tricky keeping up with your posts to multiple talk pages2 all over the place1 asking the same thing3 and issues with you mass editing articles with fringe-y positions which create some quality control issues (though I can't really object to your decision to take these discussions to talk pages first!).
One thing that jumps out to me is you may want to get involved with the physics Wikiproject where you could post a centralized discussion thread on new findings rather than splitting it across all possibly relevent talk pages and having disparate discussions to keep track of? Note I'm not an admin and I'm not suggesting any kind of sanctions or anything similar are warranted for you, I am just asking you to consider a step back on this since the way you're currently engaging with these topics creates a lot of extra work for other editors that really doesn't need to exist. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Warrenmck: - Thanks for your recent comments - and clarifying the issue - it's *greatly* appreciated - seems the best place, generally, to present such " WP:RS" News is the " physics Wikiproject" website (" although there may be, apparently, at least one other editor who may find copying to multiple relevant pages as somewhat "ok" at the moment") - nonetheless - *entirely* agree with your clarifications - seems to make a lot of good sense after all - as before, no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your clarifications - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 20:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed" [3] - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all [1] [2] - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant [4] - in any case - Worth adding to the main " Dark Energy" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
FWIW - Added the following NOTE (see copy below) to all relevant talk-pages including:
NOTE: A related discussion has been centralized on " physics Wikiproject", and can be found at the following link => " Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 00:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The responisble scientific literature seems the best source for such subjects of course - nonetheless - Thank You for your opinion re NYT (and related news sources) - yes - somewhat agree - seems a lot of the news reported in the public square these days may be overly influenced by the bottom line - a loss of common integrity - as well as, in the name of good journalism, a false equivalency - hope I'm wrong about these concerns of course - OTOH - the NYT has won numerous awards for journalism ( see => List of awards won by The New York Times ) - more than any other news source in the world afaik - other worthy news sources include The Washington Post (WaPo), Associated Press (AP), Los Angeles Times (LAT) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) - ( please see related awards => https://www.statista.com/statistics/945236/most-awarded-media-usa/ ) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
References