User talk:Drbogdan/Archive 12

Welcome To Dr. Dennis Bogdan's ("Grandmaster Editor") Talk-Pages

Click for: "My Wiki-BIO", "My PhD Diploma" and "My PhD Dissertation (SUNYAB/1973)"

Click Here for *My 100+ Publications*.

US – Not Too Long Ago
WikiEditor Joanne & WikiEditor Dennis

Welcome! Hello, Drbogdan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   The Basics of Wikicode   Manual of Style   Editing tutorial - 9 videos (26:35)   How to edit a page - video (03:03)   How to write a great article - video (03:38)   Do assume good faith   Do be bold   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Help contribute to articles   Help pages 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA:REFERENCE DESK

Dr. Dennis Bogdan: Fremont Peak (Wind River Range; Rocky Mountains; Wyoming, United States)

Near the top

During a backpacking trip

Enjoying the view from near the top at about 14,000 feet

LIFE, EARTH and the UNIVERSE

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 Related Clickable "Luncheon of the Boating Party" Image Effort on Wikipedia is Copied Below - Stay Safe and Healthy !!)

Clickable image of the Luncheon of the Boating Party (1881) by Pierre-Auguste Renoir (The Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C.). Place your mouse cursor over a person in the painting to see their name; click to link to an article about them.

(view • discuss)

Life on Earth – Earliest known appearances (Mya = Millions of years ago)

0.2 Mya
Humans

180 Mya
Flowers

200 Mya
Mammals

240 Mya
Dinosaurs

3500 Mya
Oxygen

4280 Mya
Microorganisms

4410 Mya
Water

4540 Mya
Earth

Location of the Earth in the Universe

Earth

Solar System

Gould Belt

Orion Arm

Milky Way

Local Group

Virgo SCl

Laniakea SCl

Our Universe

"ESSAY On NATURE: Includes My Wikipedia Timelines !!"

References
References

"Happy New Year, Drbogdan!"

Happy New Year!

Drbogdan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops: Thank You *very much* for your Happy New Year Greeting - it's *greatly* appreciated - Wish you and yours a Happy New Year as well - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

:)    Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"Hemoglycin" =

@Viriditas: (and others) - of possible interest - just created a new article, "Hemoglycin" (related to one of my older articles, "Hemolithin") - while WikiSearching for a WikiLink for the "low-density lattice" phrase in my new "Hemoglycin" artice, I stumbled upon one of your own old Wikipedia efforts, "User:Viriditas/Computing megastructure" - but no W=ikiLink for the "low-density lattice" phrase - I decided that "Sphere packing" may be the best available WikiLink for the "low-density lattice" phrase - in any case - Comments Welcome - Drbogdan (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What’s up, Doc? Just FYI, the reason I have this in my user space is because of mad-as-hatter deletionistas who went on a rampage back in 2009. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jupiter brain and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrioshka brain. The good news, at least, is that the latter was salvaged in main space and the former was redirected. I still think both should be located at computing megastructure instead, but I don’t think the community shares my opinion. In any event, I went ahead and added your link to the subspace page. Have you also considered adding a link to Bubble (physics)? Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

"Life before Earth?"

Regression of genome complexity increase.

Have you been following the latest research papers? Two recent papers from last year:[1][2]. Press releases explaining the papers:[3][4]. Takeaway: "Mars may have had the conditions for life before Earth". Ignore this if you’ve already cited this work. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thank You for sharing the interesting studies (and related video) about the possibility of life on Mars in the ancient Martian past - yes - somewhat aware of this - not surprised - my current thinking is that there is a lot of life in the universe today - and in the past - and not only on Earth - or on ancient Mars - seems that discovery of fossilized lifeforms on Mars (esp in view of all the water present on the ancient Mars, and related possible habitable conditions, suggested by current studies) might help make a strong case for ancient life on Mars I would think - current life underground on Mars may also be a possibility of course - in any case - Thanks again for sharing - and - Stay Safe and Healthy - Drbogdan (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - BRIEF Followup (and if interested) - as for "Life Before Earth" - see my earlier posts - here (2022) => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7#Life before Earth - or not?" - and (2014) => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 5#First sentence..." - and (2013) => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 4#Life from "Inanimate_Matter" or "Simple Organic Compounds"?" - and (2022) => "Talk:Extraterrestrial life#Better "short description" of "ET life"?" (esp => "Talk:Extraterrestrial life#ET-Life" - see copy below) - and, of course, the "Life Before Earth" studies (2006) & (2013) & (2018) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Copied from "Talk:Extraterrestrial life#Better "short description" of "ET life"?": (October 15, 2022)

This user believes that LIFE is "a chemical that can reproduce itself"..
- Dr. Dennis Bogdan (NYT 2012;1,2)

Comment - As OA of this discussion re a "better" short description of "ET life", Thanks to all those who contrtibuted - it's appreciated - seems the original short description of "ET life" (ie,Life that did not originate on Earth) may be preferred at this time - this is *entirely* ok with me - no problem whatsoever - however - the discussion may be a bit more interesting if one were to consider a definition of "Life" itself - not easy - there are "many, many different attempts" to define "Life", but an easy worthy definition may be "somewhat challenging" (over 123 different definitions?) - a short description of "ET life" may be related - incidentally, "my current preferred definition" of "Life" is a "chemical that is able to reproduce itself" - and seems supported by some - [NOTE - the aforementioned definition is broad - a Virus may be considered Life since a virus would be a chemical that can reproduce itself - in spite of the fact that the needed reproducing function (mechanism) is provided by (hijacked from) some host entity and that is not contained within itself] - "NASA" currently prefers "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution" - [NOTE - this definition is less broad - a Virus may NOT be considered Life since essential parts may be missing, and require a needed host entity to provide any missing parts - especially those parts needed in reproducing itself] - nonetheless - exactly how "viruses", "viroids", "virusoids", "prions", "biochemcal precursors to life", etc, enter into the definition(s) of life is unclear afaik at the moment - perhaps how such life/non-life(?) substances enter into a short description of "ET life" may be even less clear I would think - in any case - these concerns informed my attempt to find a better short description of "ET life" on this talk-page - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever read that "Life before Earth" article. I will give it a gander and a look-see and get back to you. Thanks for the helpful and educational link. While I’m taking a break to read this article, I’m curious, do we have anything on Wikipedia that covers this speculative topic? Given what we know about the evolution of the Solar System, I always assumed there was a possibility that if life did not evolve on Earth, it could have moved from the outer to the inner, given how the CHZ changed over time. Or am I misremembering this wrong? Did the CHZ move in the opposite direction, from the inner to the outer planets? Help a brother out…pinging User:ජපස in the wild chance he’s heard of such a thing and can wield the clue bat. Just don’t aim for my head. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas and ජපස: (and others) - Thank You for your recent reply - added, due to your recent interest about the notion of "Life Before Earth", another related reference - and a "Graph" re "the regression of genome complexity over the years") - ALSO - related to all this is the 2014 work of "Avi Loeb", former head (2011-2020) of the Astronomy Department at "Harvard University" - posted in 2014 on my Facebook as => "SCIENCE: *LIFE* BEGAN SHORTLY AFTER *BIG BANG*? - NYT News (2014) ["Avi Loeb ponders the early universe, nature and life: Much-Discussed Views That Go Way Back"] => https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/science/avi-loeb-ponders-the-early-universe-nature-and-life.html - TECHNICAL (2014) ["The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe"] => https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0613.pdf - WIKIPEDIA ["'Origin of Life' (Abiogenesis)"] => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Life - Enjoy! 🙂" - in any case - Thanks again for your own recent reply - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Life Before Earth would have to be something like panspermia which, as a hypothesis has suffered from very problematic fringe speculation from Hoyle and Wickramasinghe back in the day (say 20-40 years ago). Today, the idea enjoys some slight rehabilitation, but it is still pretty rough as there is essentially no evidence for it (and the evidence against it is basically how much you like Ockham's Razor). Speculations that life evolved on Mars first comes mostly from climate comparisons of the two planets post late heavy bombardment, but absent any fossil life discovered on the Red Planet, I think this cannot be considered anything but speculation at this point. Incidentally, a post on WP:FTN last month alerted me to this fairly decent review of panspermia. Enjoy! jps (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
PS: Avi Loeb hasn't been exactly well-received by the wider astronomy community in these subject areas. I have thoughts about this, but unless you are really interested, I'll just leave it as a little birdie whispering in your ear for now. jps (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස and Viriditas: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and the link to the interesting "Panspermia" article - my own somewhat recently related "Panspermia" discussion (January 2022) is at => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7#Panspermia in the lead" - several of my related archive discussions are at => "Link-1" (even more related discussions are at => "Link-2") - re "Avi Loeb" - may already be aware of some of his thinking - and how he may be currently regarded by colleagues - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - they're all appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas, ජපස, and Chiswick Chap: (and others) - Of possible interest in the search for life on Mars may be the following => On 21 February 2023, scientists reported the findings of a "dark microbiome" of unfamiliar microorganisms in the Atacama Desert in Chile, a Mars-like region of planet Earth. - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. FYI, those multiple pings didn’t work. Not sure why, but you may want to stick with linking to their user name. I only saw this discussion because I have your talk page on my watchlist. But to the topic at hand! How depressing and frustrating is it that after almost 50 years since Viking, we probably don’t have the capability to detect alien life! That WaPo article is very sad. I’m surprised in five decades we haven’t found a way to work around this problem. Then again, how do you detect something that is unknown? Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - Seems there's a somewhat related article from the journal "Nature" re "protoribosomes" (and the "Origin of Life") of possible interest - re the "David Kipping" "Astronomy PodCast (227:09)" - we're half-way through this *Excellent* interview - (got sidetracked with my newly created "Shakespearean actor" "Richard McMillan" article) - but we hope to complete the Kipping podcast at the first oppotunity - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - Seems related => On 16 October 2023, scientists proposed a new law of evolution, extendng the established Darwinian ones, and described as the "law of increasing functional information".

I think it's a sound idea. I've been following your edits on this so thanks for keeping me informed. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - Somewhat related => Science (Nature Journal) News (10/16/2023) re "Detecting Life on Earth from Afar" => https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03230-z ( archive no-ads version => https://archive.ph/nVVIZ ) - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

If MAGA is any indication, Earth hosts primitive life that has yet to achieve much beyond self-destruction. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"Life Before Earth"

@Viriditas: (and interested others) - *Entirely* ok with me to comment about the "Life Before Earth" "Redirect", either for or against, on the discussion page at => "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26 § Life Before Earth" [original post => "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17 § Life Before Earth"] - my own related comments are as follows:

Keep - As OA of the "Life Before Earth" "Redirect", seems there is sufficient (and ample) discussion of the "Life Before Earth" topic in the "Abiogenesis"- related discussions ( see => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7#Life before Earth - or not?" - and => Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 5#First sentence..." - and => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 4#Life from "Inanimate Matter" or "Simple Organic Compounds"?" ) - to justify the "Redirect" to the "Abiogenesis" article.

in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

My dear friend, I think it’s best to pick your battles, and redirects for discussion is a battleground I purposefully ignore. Whenever a redirect of my own gets nominated there, I ignore it. I recommend you do the same. I know it’s hard to let go, but this is a good place to practice it. Wishing you only the best! Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Life Before Earth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17 § Life Before Earth until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Exoplanets" and "JWST"

@Viriditas: (and others) - of possible interest - seems a recent "Scientific American" article about "exoplanets" and the "James Webb Space Telescope" (JWST) may provide a bit of a preview of upcoming studies of "exoplanets" and their composition, environmental conditions and potential for life. - seems to be a worthwhile read imo. - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me informed. I will read the article in a few hours. I’m starting to think that one possible solution to the Fermi Paradox (and this has been discussed more and more in recent years, albeit on a very fringe and science fiction-y level of discourse) is that the older, intelligent civilizations have transcended into what is commonly known as the "Sublime"—which can mean many different things depending on who is discussing it—but ultimately means that they are not detectable or contact-able through normal, everyday means of detection. For example, from the post-human philosophical perspective, they may have uploaded their minds into non-biological substrates; they may have left our dimension for others; they may have found a way to traverse parallel universes; they may have departed our galaxy for quite another. While these ideas are just about as out there as you can get, they are no stranger to science fiction; authors have been writing about it for at least a century. I’m starting to worry that our human-centric paradigm—life arises and develops on rocky planets around Sun-like stars—might not just be wrong, but laughingly wrong, to the point where we are almost wasting our time looking for it in that narrow, limited scope. Not the reply you wanted, of course, but it’s something I’ve been thinking of a lot, as it seems like we are incredibly limited by our mammalian minds when it comes to thinking about these things. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank You for your reply - and comments - your comments are very interesting - and seem consistent with some of my own thinking about this as well - yes - I *entirely* agree that our current search for "ET" is somewhat narrow and limiting - and based on our own very limited anthropocentric way of viewing the issue - in fact, I referred to our currently limited ET search in my published NYT comment in 2008 - incidentally, NASA announced, somewhat recently (1/16/2023), preliminary considerations of several future space telescope programs, including the Great Observatory Technology Maturation Program (GOMAP), Habitable Worlds Observatory and New Great Observatories. - also - here's a listing of space telescopes, including future ones - iac - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The Fermi Paradox Revisited: Technosignatures and the Contact Era (2022) Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for sharing the link about the "Fermi Paradox" - seems to be an interesting way of viewing the issue - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Of possible interest => In April 2023, astronomers reported studies which concluded that, "... planets in the habitable zones of stars with low metallicity are the best targets to search for complex life on land." - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !!- Drbogdan (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to see an open access Nature article. I realize that they are trying to narrow the parameters in such a search, but there's so many different variables at work that ruling out metal-rich stars at this point seems premature. I did enjoy reading about how aliens might not think there's any life in our Solar System because the irradiation levels from UV-C and UV-B are "well above the maximum tolerable level for terrestrial life". Good times. You and I have both been following this topic for some time, so we notice trends in this field. I can't help notice two trends that I have seen pop-up again and again over the last decade: 1) an increasing (and I would say, unusual amount of) skepticism of intelligent life in the galaxy. I've heard this recently from both Max Tegmark (in an interview with Lex Fridman), and strangely, Seth Shostak in one of his more recent podcasts (although he may have been playing devil's advocate, it's hard to tell); 2) There's been increasing chatter about the idea that Earth might be the first intelligent civilization in the galaxy. There's even a highly complex and thought out argument that runs around 45 minutes describing this rationale. It's odd to see these ideas become more popular over time, when the opposite was the case just two decades ago (in other words, the idea that intelligent civilizations could be everywhere and that human intelligence is a latecomer to the party). Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) -Thanks for your recent comments re intelligent life in the universe - may be best to remain open-minded about this - and continue searching for ET - although seems unlikely, in my current thinking, that any found aliens will be ET-beneficient - more likely otherwise I would think atm - there may be a myraid of viewpoints with a lot of worthy supporting rationale - to me atm, finding a truly alien microbe fossil anywhere (including on Earth - meteorite innards?) would further support the notion that intelligent life exists somewhere else (other than Earth) in the universe - at least finding such a fossil would be a foot in the door (so-to-speak) with this notion - as before - my current (factually supported) thinking about Life in the Universe => "The Universe contains life – on planet Earth – at least – and – we are not alone – life abounds – wherever we are – with microorganisms – at the very minimum." - iac - Thanks again for your recent comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Your comments remind me of an article I’ve been wanting to put together, but forgot about. I think some of the information already exists in other articles, but with your help I might be able to get a better idea of how to proceed. Basically, I want to write about how the concept of extraterrestrial life has changed over time. For example, I am very curious about your own personal recollection about this idea from the time you were a child to when you entered university, until you began your career. Do you recall how these ideas about aliens changed over time, and if so, how would you characterize the differences over the many decades? Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - My Viewpoints RE: "Aliens" => ChildView - as fantasy figures in the popular culture, including comic books and 1950s SciFi films - not at all serious thinking at the time - UniversityView - not much different - too busy with one thing or another - CurrentView - some serious thinking - pretty much described above, and published - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"'Theory Of Everything' (and more)"

@Viriditas: (and others) - Of possible interest - my "latest NYT comments (1/25/2023) were published at => "https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/science/physics-cosmology-astronomy.html#permid=122777656" (also, "FaceBook") and are copied below (in case of a NYT paywall):
[START - NYT COMMENT/upd]
Wow - very interesting interview/discussion about the ongoing search for a "Theory of Everything" - a worthy overview about advanced physics to date - well done imo - perhaps related - a quote by physicists "Stephen Hawking" and "Leonard Mlodinow" (from their 2011 book "The Grand Design") may apply here as well:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
One may wonder, of course, where did "a law such as gravity" come from - seems there may have been something rather than nothing after all? - in any case - if interested, "Wikipedia" has more details about the "Theory of Everything" at => "Theory of everything" - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
Dr. Dennis Bogdan "User:Drbogdan"
Supporting Reference: "The Grand Design (book)" - "The Grand Design" (2011) by Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow
[END]
Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"The Three-Body Problem"

File:Threebody.jpg By Jove, I hope you have already read the Three-Body trilogy, and if you haven’t, please do so post haste! I read it many years ago, and have been relishing with great anticipation the new Chinese adaptation which I am currently making my way through on YouTube with the kind of satisfaction and delight I haven’t experienced in years. Of course, if you can’t bear to deal with English subtitles, then you should surely wait for the Americanized Netflix adaptation (scheduled for release 2023-2024?), but I believe there is great merit to struggling through the Chinese adaptation first. However, if you haven’t already read the novels, don’t do it. Read them first, then approach it. Having talked with you about your film preferences before, I know for certain this is something you would love.
Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)"

@Viriditas: Thank You for your comments about "The Three-Body Problem" - Trilogy (aka "Remembrance of Earth's Past") — "novels (1, 2, 3)", "film", "tv-series" => "Three-Body" Trailer (3:13; en-subs)" — by multiple award-winning Chinese science-fiction author "Liu Cixin" - seems based in some way on the classic physics "Three-body problem" issue - the novels and related are new to me - and seem very interesting - subtitles no problem (we've watched a lot of foreign-language films over the years) - American version may also be of interest of course - iac - may take a closer look at the next opportunity - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Great, I hope that you do get a chance to read and see the adaption(s). I’m convinced this is one of those rare works that you have to read to appreciate. If I hadn’t read the trilogy, I would have absolutely no idea what was going on, and I’m certain the Chinese adaptation assumes the viewer has read it first. And while the Chinese adaptation suffers from being too derivative and slightly conventional without breaking any new ground, its true strength lies with its actors, who do an incredible job bringing an emotional depth to a literary work of science fiction, which is neither easy nor simple to do. I’m also impressed by the multi-layered dialogue, which although I can only appreciate through translation, is richly presented with cultural layers devoid of cliches and stereotypes. I can’t imagine how the Netflix version will present the story, but it will be vastly different, so in many ways this is a unique version worth checking out. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - If interested, seems the new "Three Body Problem" USA Version TRAILER (1:47) has just now (6/17/2023) been released => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lj99Uz1d50 - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. How odd to hear Carl Sagan’s voice as the narrator for the trailer! It sounds AI generated. Viriditas (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking into this further, it’s apparently his real voice. I wonder why it sounds artificial to me? "The voiceover is that of science educator Carl Sagan, reading from his 1994 book Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space." Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I only just saw this. It happened two years ago. Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Sorry to hear about the passing of the producer of the "Three Body Problem" USA TV series of course - possibly a result of the doings of a colleague? - seems like a turf go-round of some sort? - but perhaps otherwise - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - UPDATE: Possible Real-World Concerns Regarding the "Three-Body Problem" ? - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Three-Body: Afterthoughts"

I just finished watching all 30 episodes. What a ride. I’m planning on buying the Blu-Ray on eBay, as they are the only site that offers it for sale. It would be great to find a dubbed version, as I find the subtitles distract me from the visuals. At the end of the day, the CGI is poor and there’s virtually no action of any kind except for maybe three or four episodes, so it’s a tour de force of acting and story, which is my dream (not a fan of superhero films, if you can’t already tell). I’m starting to think this might be the most accurate film adaptation of a science fiction book ever made. I’m somewhat sad that there are virtually no English-language films of this type and style made anymore. Everything now is about action and filmmakers spend almost no time chewing on ideas and concepts. This was 30 straight episodes focused intently on a single idea. Chinese filmmaking like this has no equal. Again, I highly recommend this show. You’re going to love it. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your recent comments - and review of the MiniSeries - seems very, very interesting and we may get around to viewing the Series at some opportunity ("entire subtitled series seems to be on YouTube") - yes - we're also into films that are more thoughtful (and less superhero-types - which seem to be playing to late teenage boys who may be making up much of today's paying theater audiences) - films like "Solaris (RU; 1972 film)" and "World on a Wire (DE; 1973 film)" seem better science fiction types for us these days - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I had very serious doubts that they were going to be able to tie the entire thing together with a denouement worthy of 30 episodes. They ended the show in quite literally the best way possible. One of my biggest complaints about modern filmmaking is the horrible practice of constructing an ending. Except for Nolan and a few other directors, most of them get it wrong. The ending of this series did the book justice, it was respectful to the characters (even the antagonists), and most of all, it gave the series a harmonious sense of balance from start to finish, giving the impression of putting the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle into place and standing back and looking at your work. Again, if I hadn’t read all three books first, I wouldn’t really have understood it, so if you get a chance, please read the books. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - FWIW - started watching the "Three-Body" 30-episodes MiniSeries - about one-third done - besides suggestions of some sort of a "Quantum world", the Series, at first glance, seems to be a combination (so far) of "Waiting For Godot", "HHGTTG", "The Holy Mountain" and, possibly, "Kin-dza-dza!" (milder animated version: "Ku! Kin-dza-dza") (ie, " "Mad Max" meets "Monty Python" by way of "Tarkovsky" "?) - we'll try to watch more at the next opportunity - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s an interesting take, my friend. However, without ruining it for you, the series only covers the first book, which is basically an introduction to the larger, extended argument regarding the Fermi paradox and its implications for intelligent life. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: keep an eye on Shi Qiang (played by Yu Hewei). He does a tremendous job with his character, and serves to bridge the gap between all of the mysteries in the narrative. There’s also a lot of cultural baggage to his character that can easily be missed. Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Finally - finished all 30 episodes of "Three-Body" - took awhile due to some real-world circumstances - nonetheless - we thought the series was Excellent - and agree - a very good ride - the Music was Excellent as well [ if interested, Music/youtube (Volume-1; 85:44) + (Volume-2; 84:32) ] - in any case - Thanks again for suggesting the series - it's *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it. I don’t know if you noticed, but some of the music was stolen from other shows like Westworld and Blade Runner; of course, not all of the music. One thing I liked about the show was all the little details that they didn’t have time to explain and expected the viewer to either recognize or become aware of in the course of the show. One thing that sticks out is the callback to the Four Pests campaign, and the allusion to the sparrows midway through on the mountain, and the final reference to the locusts at the end. Lots to think about. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"Three-body problem: Revisited"

@Viriditas: (and others) - In September 2023, several possible solutions (12,409?) to the "Three-body problem" were reported. - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The only reason I saw this is because I have your talk page watchlisted, otherwise I wouldn’t have known as the ping didn’t go through. I wonder if that’s because it knows you already pinged me in the main section? Very odd. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Award - ITN recognition for C/2022 E3 (ZTF)"

On 1 February 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article C/2022 E3 (ZTF), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thank You *very much* for the "ITN Recognition" - it's *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"Search For Technosignatures"

I wasn’t sure if you were following this. I recommend listening to an interview with the authors. They found eight candidate alien signals but were unable to repeat the observation. I know you will enjoy the podcast! Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others): Thank You for sharing the study re an in-depth "Search For Technosignatures" of 820 nearby stars. - the study and "interview (45:12)" seem very interesting - maybe a worthy start of sorts for these types of searches - added "relevant text (and ref)" to the "Technosignature" article - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"David Kipping"

I’m not sure if you remember British exomoonologist David Kipping from Hunt for Exomoons with Kepler, but Lex Fridman has a new mind blowing podcast interview with Kipping that you must listen to or watch. It’s episode #355. Prepare for amazement. I hope you have a comfy chair or couch, headphones, a warm fire, and four hours of free time. Enjoy, my friend! This is a trip you will not soon forget. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - Thank You for sharing the "PodCast link (227:09)" re "David Kipping" - Yes - the Kipping PodCast is *very* interesting - some of Kipping's first comments reminded me of one of my own 2012 NYT Comments - esp the following: 08. "There May Be Many Technically Clever Life-Forms In The Universe - Many Such Life-Forms May Be Present In The Universe At The Moment - Or - In Times Past - But Since Space Is So Wide-spread And Time Is So Wide-ranging - Such Technically Clever Life-Forms May Not Ever Know Of Each Other." - in any case - Thanks again for the link and all - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Book: Meteorite"

Book: Meterorite

I only just found out about this book, but I think you might really like it. They also have an audiobook if you are into it: Meteorite: The Stones From Outer Space That Made Our World (2020) by Tim Gregory. Here is his website. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for suggesting the book - seems interesting - and seems a lot of readers found the book worthwhile, according to reviews on Amazon - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

"Award - Most Competent Wikipedian"

Most Competent Wikipedian in the History of the Multiverse Award

"Illegitimi non carborundum" – Just having fun with your haters on the redirect discussion board. Haters gonna hate. Don’t you pay them no mind. You’re the most competent human being I know. Those people won’t be happy until everyone is the same and there’s no perceptible differences between individuals. It’s not the world I want to live in. Anyway, don’t give them any more oxygen and just ignore them from here on out. Take a moment to touch grass; have some tea in the garden. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank You *very much* for your concern - and award - no problem whatsoever - not taking it personal, and some of the later posted comments, although interpretable, seem to refer mostly to someone else in the discussion group instead - nonetheless - either way - not at all a concern - already progressed to a different level (got a lot of other things on my To-Do list these days, including a new "Three-Body episode") - Thanks again for your concern and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s good to hear, because your fans are nominating your redirects for deletion. Please, whatever you do, do not get involved. They are trying to bait you. Just ignore it and do something else. Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: it’s also a good idea to take a break from creating redirects and refresh yourself with the redirect guideline for creation. They do tend to change over time, and as the community ages, they become more narrow and strict in their interpretation, one could say almost conservative in their approach. It wouldn’t hurt to stop creating redirects until you’ve reread those guidelines and naming conventions. I’m saying this as a friend. Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"WP:Redirect solutions"

@Viriditas and Tamzin: (and others) Yes - *entirely* agree - creating less "WP:Redirects" may now be in order of course - seemed that not too long ago, creating Redirects were being *encouraged* among WikiEditors - to help make it easier to find WikiArticles by searchers and the public - since then, there seems to have been some change in the related WikiThinking? - additionally, some Redirects were created to work better in Facebook (and related websites) since related posts to WikiArticle titles containing an ending ")" and/or ending "?" were not being detected for some reason - as a result, users would end up on a WikiError page instead of the WikiArticle as intended - I posted this problem in the "Village Pump" some years ago ( see "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 162#Workaround for dropped ")" in titles?" ) but did not obtain a better resolution to the concern at the time - a possible workaround seemed to be to create Redirects for such problematic WikiTitles - in any case - no problem whatsoever with this of course - just needed to know the latest WikiThinking about this these days - Thanks again for your comments - they are all *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense as an explanation, and Facebook wasn’t the only site that had this url bug, Reddit famously had it as well, and it was only fixed in 2022. However, the problem is that you’re expecting Wikipedia editors to understand all this, and I’m afraid they are incapable of doing so. You are dealing with narrow minded, black and white thinkers, who cannot possibly conceive that you were trying to address a longstanding problem with the limitations of the software while trying to improve access to these links offsite. You are asking far too much of people whose minds cannot grasp what you are trying to say. Viriditas (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and concerns - nonetheless - posted, with explanation, that whatever is finally decided re the RDs under consideration is *entirely* ok with me - no problem whatsoever - if interested, my posting comments and details are at: "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18#2022 protests rollback of women's rights in the United States" - And => "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18#Three-Body - TV series" - Thanks again for your own recent comments and all - they're *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE (3/20/2023): Description of related problem is at => Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 204#Problem: External postings of article title links continue to drop endings of titles? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

My dude. Look at the bug reports cited in that thread by developers. Those reports go back to 2011, which was 12 years ago! They didn’t care then, and they don’t care now. They aren’t going to fix the encoding problem. This is what I mean by narrow minded. They won’t fix the encoding bug, and at the same time, they won’t permit you to create redirects as a workaround. Hopefully you are getting it now. This is what we are dealing with here. Welcome to Wikipedia!! Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - SOLUTION (possible): Although not the ideal Solution - BUT - simply adding an UNDERSCORE to the end of such "problematic" WikiArticle Titles may help Workaround the Problem - at least for current FaceBook and my current EMail (Pop Peeper) (and, possibly, NYT) posts as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readin'_and_Writin' directs to a WikiError Page - BUT - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readin'_and_Writin'_ (with an added underscore) directs to the correct WikiArticle Title Page instead - and Not to a WikiError page - and Not with the use of an additional temporary WP:Redirect Page (see Dancin example described at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 204#Problem: External postings of article title links continue to drop endings of titles?) - although not tested, this Solution should work in other social media postings (and newspaper postings) regarding such "problematic" WikiArticle Titles - this Solution, in part, was inspired by a suggested Workaround — Hamlet A.D.D..) — in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T28556 - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Your tenacity in the face of such adversity is quite admirable. You are now generating a groundswell of support on the pump and I’m gobsmacked. What’s next? Will you run for President? Don’t forget the little people who supported you in the beginning after you set foot in the White House. Hail to the Chief. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - my proposed "underscore trick" Workaround Solution to the related WikiProblem (bug?), re dropped url WikiTitle endings, seems to work in some situations - but we're not there yet - a better Solution might require some additional WikiCoding somewhere I would think - re WH (only a block or so away during my GW University days): seems a nice place to have visited, but not really my interest these days - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"Three-Body - TV series"

The redirect Three-Body - TV series has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26 § Three-Body - TV series" [original post => "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18 § Three-Body - TV series"] until a consensus is reached. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I've also added another nine redirects of the same form to the nomination under the original. Please see WP:RDAB. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"2022 protests rollback of women's rights in the United States"

The redirect 2022 protests suppressing reproductive rights in the United States has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at [original post => "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18 § 2022 protests rollback of women's rights in the United States"] until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Vertex Pharmaceuticals"

Hello there. I see from your membership in WikiProject:Medicine that you might be interested in helping me with an edit request I posted in February here:Talk:Vertex Pharmaceuticals#Triple combination treatments. My request was a response to a sentence that was added that I believe is an inaccurate interpretation of a New York Times article. Someone has already dismissed my request with little explanation, so I am seeking a second opinion from you, a more experienced editor. I would be thankful for any kind of help you could offer, even if it is just advice on how I can best have implemented a more neutral discussion of the subject. (I couldn't help but notice from the above discussion on your talk page that you are considering reading the Three Body Problem. I am in agreement with the above editor that it is an amazing trilogy, and if you have a chance to, you should indeed read it-before you watch the series.) Thanks so much, JohnDatVertex (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@JohnDatVertex and Quetstar: - Thank You for your comments - and request ( see => User talk:Drbogdan#Vertex Pharmaceuticals ) - after reviewing the Vertex Pharmaceuticals WikiArticle - and the article history, including the WikiEditors who have been involved - seems the text and supporting references have been presented very well - actually, better than many other such WikiArticles in my experiences over the years - at the moment, I'm inclined to agree with the WikiEditor ( ie, User:Quetstar ) on the related talk-page ( see => Talk:Vertex Pharmaceuticals#Triple combination treatments ) in denying your talk-page request - nonetheless - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"President’s Daily Brief"

Sir, have you finished watching Three-Body? I am about to start Matter, the eighth book in the Culture series. It is unusual to me that no television adaptation has been made from these books. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thank You for your comments - and questions - re Three-Body, we're up to Eps 18 - seems very good so far - re Matter (by science-fiction author Iain Banks) - seems an excellent novel (as well as his related Culture series) - Thanks for the suggestions - re President's Daily Brief - seems like the former guy may have some real-world challenges to deal with these days - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"Proteinoid"

Hi Drbogdan! I hope you’re having a great Easter weekend. I’d like to expand the article Proteinoid, but have some problem with wording etc. In 1994, Pappelis and Fox proposed a taxonomic category for all proteinoid microspheres—Domain, or Kingdom Protolife. In addition, it includes a certain kind of proteinoid microsphere protocells, capable of synthesizing ATP, polynucleotides and polipeptides—"metaprotocells". The source: http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199907/0062.html Could you add this information to the article, please? It has been requested by someone on its talk page as well. I believe two or three sentences would be enough, simply to let readers know about that. In another paper, they suggested "progenote" (second to last universal ancestor) and "cenancestor" were metaprotocells https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-5056-9_26 Thank you! TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@TaurenMoon: Thank You for your comments - and request re adding edits to the Proteinoid article - seems best to present your suggested edits (and references) to the related Talk-Page (at Talk:Proteinoid) for review (and agreement per WP:CONSENSUS) by editors more familiar with the Proteinoid article than I am at the moment - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"Chimpanzee"

Hello, the Human timeline is not relevant to chimpanzees and is too big and takes up room. A poster of chimps in a movie is also more relevant to a subsection on cultural depictions. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: - Thank You for your comments re the {{Human timeline}} - yes - *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Bonobo"

Somewhat related: Tried to include an appropriate note (ie, "Bonobo split") on the {{Human timeline}} at 2 mya re bonobos based on the following: "According to studies published in 2017 by researchers at The George Washington University, bonobos, along with common chimpanzees, split from the human line about 8 million years ago; moreover, bonobos split from the common chimpanzee line about 2 million years ago. - also tried "Chimpanzee➔Bonobo" on the {{Human timeline}} - and tried => "Bonobo-Chimp split" - more details at Template talk:Human timeline#Bonobo - iac - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - ````

References
References

"Rosalind Franklin"

Hi Drbogdan. I noticed your addition today to the Franklin article and I agree that doi:10.1038/d41586-023-01313-5 is an important new contribution. However, you have placed your mention of it straight into the WP:LEAD, without simultaneously putting it into the body of the article, where I think it needs to be placed into context. At present the bald statement that "Franklin was not a victim of the..." seems overly sensational, as the rest of the lead does not suggest she was! Perhaps you would consider refining the wording. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: - Thank You for your comments - and suggestions - updated the text to the following: "In April 2023, scientists, based on new evidence, concluded that Rosalind Franklin was a contributor and "equal player" in the discovery process of DNA, rather than otherwise, as may have been presented subsequently after the time of the discovery." - should now be a bit better - *entirely* ok with me if you would like to make any further adjustments - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Stephen Webb"

Have you had a chance yet to read the second edition of If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens...WHERE IS EVERYBODY?: Seventy-Five Solutions to the Fermi Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life by Stephen Webb?[5] I think you would really enjoy it. I'm making my way through it now, and I love how it goes into depth into the topic. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for your comments - and suggestion re Stephen Webb - new to me atm - may look into this at the next opportunity - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I hope you get a chance to read it. Lots of copies available online, including at Internet Archive (for checkout). Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks again for the suggestion - yes - seems the book is available at the Internet Archive (at least) - perhaps at some opportunity (a lot of real-world circumstances at the moment) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - Just now created the Stephen Webb (scientist) article - surprised that there wasn't such a WikiArticle already - ok with me to contribute to the newly created article of course - interesting that Webb presented a very worthy (imo) TED talk in 2018 at the following =>

• Stephen Webb (video; 13:09): Where Are All The Aliens? (TED talk – 2018) (transcript)
• Stephen Webb (video; 13:18): Where Are All The Aliens? on YouTube (TED Talk – 2018)

hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy - Drbogdan (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Durham Report (2023 USA)"

John Durham’s Investigation Has Disclosed Corruption: His Own. The Barr-appointed special counsel was supposed to reveal “the crime of the century.” All he revealed was his incompetence—and worse.

It would be good for the Durham special counsel investigation and Russia investigation origins counter-narrative articles. Somewhere there is a source that early on called Durham's efforts an attempt to "cover-up" (or "coverup") Trump's misdeeds. We need to find that source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: Thank You for your comments re the recent Durham Report - not sure, but perhaps the following refs may help? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Robin Hanson - ETI interview"

Normally, I don’t tend to recommend that much by Robin Hanson, but this new video is something else. It’s almost 2.5 hours long, but it’s one of the best new discussions regarding ETI that I’ve ever seen or heard. Give it about 15 minutes for them to get the discussion going and set up the framework for the topic, and then it’s smooth sailing for the next two hours. The assumption behind this discussion is that life which may have seeded solar siblings in the stellar nursery could partly go towards explaining how an intelligent advanced alien civilization could potentially visit us and what it might mean. I hope you get a chance to watch this. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Finally had a chance to listen to some of Robin Hanson's interview - we gave up about half-way through - smooth sailing for us to some extent, but afterwards more like bluewater sailing without a compass (esp on a cloudy night?) - we may have been lost at sea with some of his notions - at least at the time - a bit more mooring might have helped - nonetheless - we may try again later - Thanks in any regards for the suggested interview - it's appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Totally understandable. Hanson’s pedantic style of communicating takes some getting used to (and why is he smiling and laughing after every response?). I think what I did to get over it, is I intentionally ignored his behavior and focused intently only on what he was saying. When I did that, his argument about panspermia and the evolution of intelligent life became much more intelligible and comprehensible. It’s also interesting how much of what he was saying crosses over into the zoo hypothesis. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"Ethan Siegel - Relativity Theory"

Hi Drbodgan, I have undone your recent Ethan Siegel additions to various relativity related articles. Clearly the source is a private project of Ethan Siegel. We really can't count this as a reliable source. cheers. - DVdm (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@DVdm: Thank you for your comments - yes - no problem whatsoever - seemed Big Think was an ok WP:RS, especially since there's a Big Think article on Wikipedia - but perhaps not after all - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

RELATED EDIT => "According to Albert Einstein, much of the groundwork and discovery of his relativity theory was presented in the law of induction by Michael Faraday in 1834."

Likewise! And thanks :-) - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@DVdm: BRiEF Followup - restored earlier edits - with newly found WP:RS from Forbes - should now be much, much better - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy - Drbogdan (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

But but but... um... a "business magazine" as a source for such rather spectacular claims in phycics related articles? Couldn't we find any proper textbook sources? I think that in such cases we really should have some secondary sources from renowned physics historians. - DVdm (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@DVdm: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and concern - seems Forbes is as much a WP:RS (or moreso in some instances?) as other WP:RS, such as NYT, WaPo, AP, LAT and WSJ, I would think - nonetheless - any help to better support (or refute) the claim(s) with WP:RS welcome of course - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Akane Yamaguchi"

Hello. Help copy edit. Thanks you. 2402:800:6344:2A73:8DE5:C07C:DACA:63E6 (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank You for your comments - and request - not famiiar with this person (and/or article) but your edits, at first glance, seem ok afaik atm - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

"ET gadget found?"

@Viriditas: (and others): Seems Avi Loeb, Harvard astronomer, and his team, claim to have found ET material in the bottom of the ocean - many scientists are doubtful - my Comments were published recently (7/24/2023) in The New York Times. ( archive version => https://ghostarchive.org/archive/PKN0r ) Drbogdan (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn’t able to read the article just yet, but I’m hoping to in the next few hours. I may comment more at that point. I honestly don’t know what to make of Loeb. I will ping @ජපස: who I believe is a working astronomer and may have some further insight. In other news, have you had a chance to see Oppenheimer yet? I would like to see it, but I’m at a point in my life where I can’t sit down for three hours at a time, so I will have to wait. I generally watch things for 30 minutes max, take a break, and come back to it. I can’t imagine how people can sit for three hours at a time. It’s beyond my capability at my age. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: I finished reading the article. Even if Loeb is wrong (and it sounds like that is likely), I don't understand why Steve Desch (astrophysicist at Arizona State University) is so upset about what Loeb is doing. I'm hoping jps can explain that to me. Even if Loeb is over the edge, it sounds quite harmless to me. Desch thinks Loeb is denigrating science as a whole, but I don't really see that. That's also the same claim Carl Sagan's peers made against him when he started working more as a public communicator of science. While Loeb might be making silly claims, my take is that he's doing so to get people interested in science, not to scare them away. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Avi has been out on a limb for a while now. The biggest problems with his advocacy is that he essentially has taken the "only I can do it" approach to his claims which resulted in some extreme egg-on-his-face vis-a-vis 'Oumuamua.[6] This is just more of the same from him: out-on-a-limb arguments and too early declarations that are coming from a dangerous place of confirmation bias. Loeb, apparently, has become so convinced of his own arguments that he has stopped paying attention to his peers. What I think is especially damaging is that he is on a press junket that has had the effect of taking attention away from the actual experts in these matters. This is not "science communication", this is nearly science bullying. (You might also look into the political issues surrounding his expedition to the waters of Papua New Guinea. I think they may have done some things afoul of the law, for example.) jps (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

jps, thank you for sharing that article. It neatly rebuts Loeb's claims and presents their own hypothesis (in addition to others) and summarizes the objections to Loeb's hypothesis. I notice they end the essay with the following observation about Loeb: "There is therefore an important role to be played by those who advance unpopular and outré theories, even against what seems to be overwhelming evidence." That's what I was getting at in terms of the harmlessness of what Loeb is doing. I realize you see it as much worse. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay with Loeb if he just tried to lift up some of the researchers who have been working on these things without much fanfare prior to his bursting on the scene. This is the most problematic thing about what he does. Having weird ideas is fine. It's the exclusion of the work of others that makes me irked. Imagine you were a junior researcher on interstellar comets having to scrounge for funding and working diligently to be careful in your approaches only to have an absolute giant in astrophysics (but, crucially, not interstellar comets) make declarations and suck up all the oxygen in the conversation. Suddenly you now have to deal with the indelicacies in that rhetoric and, at the same time, there is no acknowledgement of your careful work whatsoever. This is what I mean by "bullying". He probably doesn't see it that way, but I think this belies a lack of perspective on his part. He necessarily punches above his weight due to his position and his success in other subfields.

Avi has always had a penchant for publishing cute and speculative papers on the arxiv. This goes back decades. In the past, we would read them and find interesting tidbits, but it seemed clear that he knew that a lot of this stuff was a bit too speculative to be worth pushing hard. "Interesting ideas" were coming out of him and we would read these papers and sometimes smile, laugh, or nod our heads. Then, about five years ago, he decides that this isn't good enough and starts taking his case to the public with rather more forceful declarations about how he is right. That's when things started to go south.

jps (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas and ජපස: (and others) - Thanks for your comments - re "Oppenheimer" (2023 film) - no, not seen yet, but would like to at some opportunity - director "Christopher Nolan" is a current favorite, seems somewhat like a "David Lean", but no "Fellini", "Kurosawa" or "Tarkovsky" of course imo - my WikiArticle, "The Bomb", about a two-hour 2015 PBS documentary film ("highly recommended" if possible) — WATCH FILM (complete; 115:05) => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrze43Uchm8 — concerns a more authentic (using recently declassified film footage) presentation of Oppenheimer and the times - re "Avi Loeb" - yes, *entirely* agree - seems some of his claims may help popularize science to many to some extent, but no "Sagan", or "Hawking" for that matter - nonetheless - claims made by Loeb may be more good than otherwise overall I would think - Thanks again for your comments - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up. A pretty good profile of Avi Loeb in The New York Times Magazine just dropped. Gifted to get around the paywall. The author is about as sympathetic to Loeb as I think is deserved and makes some keen insights into the mismatch between some of what he says and what he does, IMNSHO. jps (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස and Viriditas: (and others) - Thank You for your comments about Avi Loeb - yes - *entirely* agree - the NYT article (8/24/2023) seems to be presented well - if interested, several of my own related comments were published in the same NYT article at => https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/24/magazine/avi-loeb-alien-hunter.html#permid=12723784 - and (in case of a paywall) are copied below: (incidently, CopyPasting link to a new Browser tab usually removes the paywall to my comments - as well as - clicking on the Archive Copy at => https://ghostarchive.org/archive/W9uBX )

[START - MY NYT COMMENTS (8/24/2023)]
NYT Source at => https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/24/magazine/avi-loeb-alien-hunter.html#permid=12723784 (Archive Copy at => https://ghostarchive.org/archive/W9uBX )

Thank You for an *Excellent* article about Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb - and his search for signs of ET: My earlier NYT (2022) comments ( https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/magazine/extraterrestrials-technosignatures.html#permid=120460314 ) may also apply here: ... seems astronomers estimate that there are as many as "One Septillion" (1×10^24 or, 1 with 24 zeros) Stars in the observable Universe – more Stars (and Earth-like planets) than all the grains of beach sand on our planet Earth - in addition - there may be many technically clever Lifeforms in the Universe - many such Lifeforms may be present in the Universe at the moment - or - in times past - but since Space is so wide-spread and Time is so wide-ranging - such technically clever Lifeforms may not ever know of each other - nonetheless - we know the Universe contains Life – on planet Earth at least – and – we know we are not alone – life abounds wherever we are – with microorganisms at the very minimum - these facts are included in my "Top Ten Science Facts" ( a "clickable" listing with references from the responsible scientific literature ) about the Universe on Wikipedia ( if interested, see => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drbogdan/ScienceFacts - as well as - my NYT (2012) comments at => https://nytimes.com/2012/12/02/magazine/can-a-jellyfish-unlock-the-secret-of-immortality.html#permid=7750849 ) ...

BRIEF Followup - somewhat related: According to Nobel Prize-Winning physicist Didier Queloz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Queloz ): "I can't believe we are the only living entity in the universe. There are just way [too] many planets, way too many stars, and the chemistry is universal. The chemistry that led to life has to happen elsewhere. So I am a strong believer that there must be life elsewhere." If interested, even more related details are on Wikipedia at => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Loeb - and => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life In any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !!

[END]

In any case - decided to create the new Interstellar book (AviLoeb; 2023) WikiArticle that was mentioned in the NYT (8/24/2023) article - please feel free to contribute if you like - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The only way I think I can agree to this as a "science fact": The Universe contains life – on planet Earth – at least – and – we are not alone – life abounds – wherever we are – with microorganisms – at the very minimum. is if we are talking about the only known biosphere. Otherwise, I fear we know far too little about (a) what everyone will ultimately agree "life" is if it is ever discovered beyond the Earth and, given, (b) what precise circumstances are required to allow for life to develop in any given location. jps (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස and Viriditas: (and others) - Thanks for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree with you - nonetheless - tried to present facts of what is known as facts with the statement - and not at all to eliminate the possibility of lifeforms with other (completely different) chemistries - if interested, see my related posted WikiComments at => Talk:Extraterrestrial life#Better "short description" of "ET life"? ( and possibly also => http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/health/human-microbiome-project-decodes-our-100-trillion-good-bacteria.html ) - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !!- Drbogdan (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine"

Did you get a chance to see the Netflix original film Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine (2023)? It's not bad, but they kept it really simple, and I wanted them to go into more detail about the engineering challenges. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: - Thanks for your recent comments re the "Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine" (2023) film documetary - seems the film is about the development of the James Webb Space Telescope, and is now *redirected* to this article (at least for now) - the film seems interesting of course - IMDb has a Summary and related Trailer at => https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27837488/ - I posted a link on the James Webb Space Telescope ("External links" section) article (ie, * "Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine (Netflix; 2023) – film documentary about the development and deployment of the James Webb Space Telescope.) - might view the film at some opportunity - Thanks again for your comments - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

"Deniliquin impact structure"

Although there have been recent edits to the article on the town, we still don’t have an article on the Deniliquin impact structure (or whatever you would call it). "New evidence suggests the world’s largest known asteroid impact structure is buried near the New South Wales town of Deniliquin."[7] Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - Thanks for the suggestion re the Deniliquin impact structure - and related reference - (other related refs) - decided (for now at least) to make a WP:RDR - may revisit this further at some opportunity - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: article was created at Deniliquin multiple-ring feature. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Anna's Archive"

Noticed you're active at this article in question, and an experienced contributor. Soliciting feedback on if the Morrigan, Gary, and IPv6 "contributors" active there during August of 2023 are sock/meat puppets? M and G are identical, and IPv6 is in the same linguistic and ideological ballpark. Would like your opinion on the matter (and opinion of watchers to your page – they might be good ones! 😋). Thanks for your time. -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dsprc: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - yes - contributed to the Anna's Archive article - but no - somewhat limited re your current concern(s) about WP:SOCK - little or no experience with this over the years - seems WP:SPI may be helpful if interested - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Uncertain if warranting SPI at this time. Just gauging opinion before deciding to travel that path. Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 13:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"Screenshot"

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ScreenCapture-AnnasArchive-20221220.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"(101955) Bennu"

Hello again. Wow, it's been almost exactly four years and a month since our last contact. What a four years. And what a four years for Small Body science- see 101955 Bennu, per our prior contact.

discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it's been amply demonstrated that Rowan Forest is a dupe- he thinks he's informed and qualified, but he exceeds his (existent? non?) qualification by editing in excess. In this particular case, he exceeds his ability to comment- and edit- on solar system astronomy, cosmochemistry, the origin of Earth's water, high-energy physics in Solar wind and GCR exposure, etc. and actually starts getting in the way: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect The way is clear, and has been for a while now. If you'll bear with me: 1. Astrochemical water has been understood for some time now. Because solar wind particles are quasi- and superthermal, and because solar system impacts are largely hypervelocity impacts, the distinction between bound (mineralogical) water, hydroxyl, hydrogenating agents acting on oxides, etc. and "civilian" (layman) water is not a real distinction at all to us. It _is_ a distinction to the civilians, and that's civilian thinking for you. We don't expect Rowan Forest or other pedestrians to get it, so we don't ask. Snodgrass, C. Agarwal, J. Combi, M. Fitzsimmons, A. Guilbert-Lepoutre, A. Hsieh, H. H. Hui, M-T. Jehin, E. Kelley, M. S. P. Knight, M. M. Opitom, C. Orosei, R. de Val-Borro, M. Yang, B. 2017 The Main Belt Comets and ice in the Solar System, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. vol. 25 5 Alexander, C. M. O'D. McKeegan, K. Altwegg, K. Feb 2018 Water Reservoirs in Small Planetary Bodies: Meteorites, Asteroids, and Comets, Space Sci. Rev. vol. 214, iss. 1 Marty, B. Yokochi, R. 2006 Water in the Early Earth, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry vol. 62 pp. 421 Notice these are review articles, in review journals. It's time to stop playing. 1b. In any case, astrochemical water _does_ include both ice and liquid in asteroids... Again, this is beyond the civilians: Campins, H. Hargrove, K. Pinilla-Alonso, N. Howell, E. S. Kelley, M. S. Licandro, J. Mothe-Diniz, T. Fernandez, Y. Ziffer, J. 2010 Water ice and organics on the surface of asteroid 24 Themis, Nature vol. 464, pp. 1320 Rivkin, A. S. Emery, J. P. April 2010 Nature, vol. 464, pp. 1322 Schorghofer, N. Hsieh, H. H. Novakovic B. Walsh, K. J. Sep 2020 Preservation of polar ice on near-Earth asteroids originating in the outer main belt: A model study with dynamical trajectories, Icarus vol. 348 article 113865 Turner, S. McGee, L. Humayun M. Creech, J. Zanda, B. 2021 Carbonaceous Chondrite meteorites experienced fluid flow within the past million years, Science 08 Jan 2021 vol. 371, iss. 6525, pp. 164 (doi.org/10.1126/science.abc8116 - yes, it's open access) …because the notion of "comet" and "asteroid" as rigid categories with a hard boundary has been destroyed, and has been for a while now. Some relevant references are already in the Bennu article, assuming Rowan Forest didn't mangle them. 2. In this context (along with the while-in-progress study of water in Itokawa samples, from Hayabusa post-examination- Jin, Z. Bose, M. Peeters, 2018 49th Lun. Plan. Sci. Conf. #2083), both Hayabusa2 and OSIRIS-REx teams had confidence their science investigations would have something to report: Stolte, D. Jan, 9, 2014 7 Questions for Dante Lauretta, Leader of UA's Biggest Space Mission ( http://news.arizona.edu/story/7-questions-for-dante-lauretta-leader-of… ) You'll note one of Lauretta's answers: water. 3. The (in-flight) results were surprising: in December 2018- before OSIRIS-REx even entered orbit around Bennu- Lauretta could announce early results at a press conference. The water spectra were so obvious, they were spotted while the spacecraft was still technically in cruise. Being a press conference, there are multiple records (a YouTube repost) of it: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12658 "OSIRIS-REx Arrives at Bennu -- 2018 AGU Press Conference" https://mediastream.ndc.nasa.gov/Public3/webvid/SCI/2019/GSFC-2019-SCI-0925/ Again, note Lauretta's exact words, with bullet cards for visual emphasis. You may even be able to turn captions on, if you're still not 100% sure he said it. Other scientists, including from other organizations, confirmed this conclusion independently: Nuth, J. A. III Abreu, N. Ferguson, F. Glavin, D. Hergenrother, C. Hill, H. Johnson, N. Pajola, M. Walsh, K. Dec 2020 Volatile-rich Asteroids in the Inner Solar System, Planetary Science Journal vol. 1 pp. 82 (open access, I believe) Kaplan, H. H. Hamilton, V. E. Howell, E. S. Anderson, S. F. Barrucci, M. A. Brucato, J. Burbine, T. H. Clark, B. E. Cloutis, E. A. Connolly, H. C. Jr. Dotto, E. Emery, J. P. Fornasier, S. Lantz, C. Lim, L. F. Merlin, F. Praet, A. Reuter, D. C. Sandford, S. A. Simon, A. A. Takir, D. Lauretta, D. S. 2020 Visible-near-infrared spectral indices for mapping mineralogy and chemistry with OSIRIS-REx, Meteor. Plan. Science vol. 55, iss. 4, pp. 744 Potin, S. Beck, P. Usui, F. Bonal, L. Vernazza, P. Schmitt, B. 2020 Style and intensity of hydration among C-complex asteroids: a comparison to desiccated carbonaceous chondrites Per practice in our field, Lauretta is listed as the last coauthor on the Kaplan et al. 2020 paper. He is not actually a coauthor, in the English sense. The research group, as a courtesy to the facility "owner" who gave them the data they needed, list him out of politeness, and to increase his CV. Otherwise, note the serious names from our field who are validating the Bennu spectra. That is, if one is able to recognize the serious names from our field. 3b. In parallel, Hayabusa2 was in progress. Haya2 samples have now been recovered and studied, and they contain water. Both liquid: Zolensky, M. Dolocan, A. Bodnar, R. Gearba, I. Martinez, J. Han, J. Nakamura, T. Tsuchiyama, A. Matsuno, J. Sun, M. Matsumoto, M. Fujioka, Y. Enokido, Y. Uesugi, K. Takeuchi, A. Yasutake, M. Miyake, A. Okumura S. Mitsukawa, I. Takigawa, A. Mikouchi, T. Enju, S. Morita, T. Kikuiri, M. Amano, K. Yurimoto, H. Noguchi, T. Okazaki, R. Yabuta, H. Naraoka, H. Sakamoto, K. Tachibana, S. Watanabe, S. Tsuda, Y 2022 Direct Measurement of the Composition of Aqueous Fluids from the Parent Body of Asteroid 162173 Ryugu, 53rd Lun. Plan. Sci. Conf #1451 Nakamura, T Matsumoto, M. Amano, K. …and I won't list all 70-plus coauthors 2022, Early History of Ryugu's Parent Asteroid: Evidence from Return Sample, 53rd Lun. Plan. Sci. Conf #1753 …and cosmochemical water: Nittler, L. R. 2022 Can SIMS measurements constrain the D/H ratio of water on Ryugu? 2022 Hayabusa Symposium, #S21-02 Nittler, L. R. Barosch J. Wang, J. ALexander, C. M. O'D. 2023 Water in Asteroid Ryugu is Deuterium-Rich Compared to Earth and CI Chondrites, 54th LPSC # Verchovsky, A. B. Abernethy, F. A. J. Anand, M. Franchi, I. A. Grady, M. M. Greenwood, R. C. Suttle, M. Ito, M. Tomioka, N. Uesugi, M. Yamaguchi, A. Kimura, M. Imae, N. Shirai, N. Ohigashi, T. Liu, M-C. Yada, T. Abe, M. Usui, T. 2023 Ryugu's volatiles investigated using stepped combustion and EGA methods, 54th LPSC #2471 Yesiltas, M. Glotch, T. D. Kebukawa, Y. Northrup, P. Sava, B. 2023 Nano-Scale Infrared and Raman Spectroscopy of Ryugu Particles, 86th Meteoritical Society Meeting #6161 Note, too, some of the serious names involved here- if you can. If you can't, then what basis do you have to judge who is and isn't serious? 4. Again, one good collaborator/competitor in the field improves the breed. In light of the in situ (direct) Ryugu sample results, as well as the remote sensing (indirect) OSIRIS-REx data, the relevant teams are even more confident their lines of investigation would run through to interesting samples. Very interesting samples: Kurokawa, H. Shibuya, T. Sekine, Y. Ehlmann, B. L. Usui, F. Kikuchi, S. Yoda, M. Jan 2022 Distant Formation and Differentiation of Outer Main Belt Asteroids and Carbonaceous Chondrite Parent Bodies, AGU Advances Montoya, M. Plummer, J. Martinez, S. III Snead, C. J. Lunning, N. Righter, K. Allums, K. Rodriguez, M. Funk, R. C. Connelly, W. Gonzalez, C. Calva, C. Ferrodous, J. Lugo, G. Hernandez Gomez, N. Connolly, H. C. Jr. 2023 Materials-Compliant Containers in Preparation for OSIRIS-REx Sample Return, 86th Meteoritical Society Meeting #6050 …direct quote: " This carbonaceous material is predicted to be rich in water and organic compounds" Prince, B. S. Zega, T. J. Connolly, H. C. Jr. Lauretta, D. S. 2023 Developing Fluid Inclusion Analysis Techniques in Anticipation of OSIRIS-REx Sample Return, 86th MetSoc #6155 …direct quote: " We anticipate fluid inclusions to…" Bonato, E. Helbert, J. Schwinger, S. Maturilli, A. Greshake, A. Hecht, L. 2023 The Sample Analysis Laboratory At DLR And Its Extension To Curation Facility for MMX, 86th MetSoc #6035 …direct quote: "and presence of water", including on Ryugu, Bennu, lunar and Phobos samples The MetSoc meeting has abstracts posted publicly- just search the meeting site, or do a web search. (I will caution, though: the OSIRIS-REx sample return capsule was not given the extensive sealing that the Hayabusa2 capsule got. There is a chance that the OREx spacecraft held the capsule in the Sun too much, and baked off too much water. This is reviewed in Nuth et al. 2019.) So, who is this telling us our water is not "real" water? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Who is this telling us that our results- openly published, including peer-reviewed journals- is not "real"? Civilians, that's who. Untrained, inexperienced people attempt to correct us, in the process demonstrating that they _can't_correct_us_ . Who is this attempting to correct Conel Alexander on geochemistry? Who is this attempting to correct Mike Zolensky on sample handling? Who is this attempting to deny that Dante Lauretta- the Principal Investigator of OSIRIS-REx- did not, in fact, state publicly and clearly the results of OSIRIS-REx? And then make another public appearance, and state it AGAIN? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect "people who are at the amateur level, they really haven't seen the master level. So they've seen maybe hints of it, and maybe they've seen that, occasional things where another person's a little bit better than they are, but that's all they've ever seen… not knowing what the best looks like, we can presume that we're very close to that top, and the reason we think we're close to the top is we really haven't seen that top." "incompetent people are going to, it's going to be more difficult for them to learn just how, um, low their skill level is, and this isn't about denial this isn't about self-deception, they're just not in a position to know…" -Dr. David Dunning Interview As for the notion- a terrestrial notion- that hydroxyl, specifically, is not "real water", we in the field never had such narrow vision. Hydroxyl, being highly reactive, interconverts readily. Some refs, confirming prior refs: Zhu, C. Gobi, S. Abplanalp, M. Frigge, R. Gillis-Davis, J. Dominguez, G. Miljkovic, K. Kaiser, R. Jan 2020 Regenerative water sources on surfaces of airless bodies, Nature Astronomy Nakauchi, Y, Abe, M. Ohtake, M, Matsumoto, T, Tsuchiyama, S. Kitazao, K. Yasuda, Suzuki, K. Nakata, Y. Feb 2021 The formation of H2O and Si-OH by H2 irradiation in major minerals of carbonaceous chondrites, Icarus vol. 355 article 114140 …because the hydrogen held in organics is, too, considered water, as it becomes free to react in certain cases: Rahmdohr, P.1973 The Opaque Minerals in Stony Meteorites, Elsevier Publ. Co. Amsterdam pp. 15 "the paraffinoid hydrocarbons act to reduce the FeO, …whereby H2O and CO2 are expelled as reaction products." Nakano, H. Hirakawa, N. Matsubara, Y. Yamashita, S. Okuchi, T. Asahina, K. Tanaka, R. Suzuki, N. Naraoka, H. et al. May 2020 Precometary organic matter: A hidden reservoir of water inside the snow line, Scientific Reports vol. 10 pp. 7755 That's cosmochemistry for you- it's cosmic, not pedestrian. I'll also point out that deleting cited and relevant material is a violation of WP policy. Therefore deleting Nuth et al, Lauretta 2018, 2019, etc. among others is to be reverted immediately. We won't ask. We don't let unqualified laymen tell us what to say, how to work, what we can print, etc. when such laymen don't go to LPSC, MetSoc, SBAG, Goldschmidt, or even know what a Goldschmidt is. And they actually think they're helping. Now that you know the issue at hand, quite clearly, and the practices of Rowan Forest, Prosfilaes, etc., what is our resolution?

107.19.9.250 (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank You for your comments - no longer interested in the (101955) Bennu WikiArticle - I've moved on some years ago, and currently have a full plate of other interests - both on Wikipedia and in the real-world - but Thanks again for your comments - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Life timeline"

"Template:Life timeline/sandbox2/doc" has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: (and others) - As OA of the page - *entirely* ok with me to do whatever is decided - no problem whatsoever - Thanks - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"PeriodicTable-ImageMap"

Template:PeriodicTable-ImageMap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: (and others): As OA of the template (mostly for testng at the time) - *entirely* ok with me to do whatever is finally decided - no problem whatsoever - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

"K2-2016-BLG-0005Lb"

Hello, Drbogdan. Thank you for your work on K2-2016-BLG-0005Lb. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello! I trust you're enjoying a wonderful day. I wanted to express my gratitude for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia through your article. I'm pleased to let you know that your article fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I've officially marked it as reviewed. Wishing you and your loved ones a fantastic day ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@SunDawn: (and others) - Thank You *very much* for your comments - and recent review of the K2-2016-BLG-0005Lb article I started 4 April 2022 - it's *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"Life - article/GA efforts"

@Viriditas: - Thanks for your recent comments above re the "Deniliquin multiple-ring feature" - they're appreciated. If interested, recently posted several brief comments re an effort to improve the "Life" article - and are copied below - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Copied from "Talk:Life/GA3#Drbogdan comments" --

FWIW - current version/20Sep2023 (here) seems a considerable improvement over earlier versions, culminating most recently/16Aug2023 (here) - Thank You for all your recent efforts with this very, very difficult challenge of course - nonetheless - for me at the moment, a more simple overall description of life continues to be preferred - life is a chemical (or matter) that can reproduce itself - this description seems to better cover all currently known life forms - as well as all those related chemicals not usually considered life forms for one reason or another - including "viruses", "viroids", "virusoids", "prions", "biochemcal precursors to life", etc, - the one single process common to all life forms seems to be reproduction - whether internally within itself, or externally outside itself with the help of a host (and/or catalyst?) of some sort - even after starting, life matter seems to continue reproducing at all life form levels witnin all life forms (cells reproduce, tissues reproduce, organs reproduce, etc) and reproduction, by itself as a process, seems to best distinquish life matter from non-life matter overall - in any case - my current thinking about all this at the moment - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for all your help with this - it's greatly, greatly appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !!

References
References

Drbogdan (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

"Alien life might not be carbon-based"

• Alien life may not be carbon-based, new study suggests (Space.com)
• Assessment of Stoichiometric Autocatalysis across Element Groups (JACS)

This has your name written all over it. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - Thank You for your recent comments - and recently suggested references - I posted related comments (and references) to the "Talk:Life/GA3#Drbogdan comments" page - and are also copied below - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Copied from "Talk:Life/GA3#Drbogdan comments" --

Brief Followup - by coincidence, and seemingly consistent to some extent with my own published NYT comments re a simpler, and broader, description of life, very recent studies may be a related way of describing life matter in the universe that may not be carbon-based, or even Earth-based, but possibly viable nonetheless - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see you enjoying your Sunday funday! Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"What Is Life?"

@Viriditas: (and others) - Seems the following recent Essay (The Atlantic; 5 December 2023), entitled "What Is Life? - The answer matters in space exploration. But we still don’t really know.", of interest - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"TRAPPIST-1b"

Updated References:

• James Webb Space Telescope's first spectrum of a TRAPPIST-1 planet (Phys.org)
• Atmospheric Reconnaissance of TRAPPIST-1 b with JWST/NIRISS: Evidence for Strong Stellar Contamination in the Transmission Spectra (The Astrophysical Journal Letters)

Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your comments - and references - added the following to the "TRAPPIST-1b#Atmosphere" article => Nonethelesss, further studies of the exoplanet, reported in September 2023, also found no signs of an atmosphere, and commented that the "planet could be a bare rock, have clouds high in the atmosphere or have a very heavy molecule like carbon dioxide that makes the atmosphere too small to detect," - should be ok - comment if otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Education in Florida"

Please see the Education in Florida article and this Talk:Education in Florida#Shakespeare and Dr. Bogdan note I added to the talk page. Novellasyes (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Novellasyes: (and others) (Note: Copied in part from the original edit at Talk:Education in Florida#Shakespeare and Dr. Bogdan) - Thank You *very much* for your comments - and concern - the cited NYT reference and related published comments are from us (WikiEditors: User:Drbogdan (mostly) and User:Joannebogdan) - and seem relevant to the cited NYT article - not at all clear at the moment how WP:COI (*entirely* unintended) may apply to us as general readers that have no official attachments whatsover to the NYT or related - nevertheless - no problem whatsoever with any adjusted edit(s) (ie, rv/rm/mv/ce/etc) to the cited NYT reference finally decided of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks again for your comments - decided to rm the NYT references of concern from the main article - should now be *entirely* ok - please reply further if otherwise of course - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [est]

Brief followup - above references have been adjusted to be *entirely* ok for further addition to articles if interested - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Decided to add the newly adj (and *entirely* ok) refs - both seem relevant to the article - should now be ok - please comment if otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Earliest known life forms"

Hi Drbogdan, I hope you’re doing well. If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask a question regarding the article Earliest known life forms you created. On its talk page, someone requested more details about the microfossils taxonomy. Would it be reasonable to add such information to the article? The microorganisms from around 3.42 Ga were archaea (archaeal methanogens and/or methanotrophs), and those from 3,465 Ma were bacteria and archaea (extant phototrophic bacteria, methane-producing archaea, and methane-consuming γ-proteobacteria); see refs 1 and 8-9, respectively. I’m not an experienced Wikipedia user, however, and don’t know where exactly it should be placed there. Since you’re the author of this great and interesting article, could you edit it, please? The information I mentioned seems relevant, I believe. Thank you in advance, and greetings from Poland, TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@TaurenMoonlighting: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and suggested edit(s) - copied your comments above to "Talk:Earliest known life forms#Microfossils taxonomy - add?" - seems a better place for further discussion of your request - in any case - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems"

I'm so glad you created this article in 2020 after our little discussion about the trending topic. Once in a while, our talks pan out! Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: it was previously recommended in the AfD that you get yourself a copy of The Earth as a Distant Planet and expand the article with that material. Any interest in doing so? Maybe take a look at the book when you have some free time and see what you think? Viriditas (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: (and others) - Thank You for your recent comments - may get around to your suggestion later - at the moment, if interested, posted some FB/NYT comments as follows => "SCIENCE: Modern Concerns of *Artificial Intelligence* (AI) and *Nuclear Apocalypse* Both Explained by *Prometheus*, Diety of Ancient Greek Mythology? - MY NYT COMMENTS (10/21/2023) => https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/21/books/review/robert-oppenheimer-john-von-neumann-prometheus.html#permid=128625038 ( archive no-ads version => https://ghostarchive.org/archive/UKkSe ) - WIKIPEDIA => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus" - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

References
References

"Election denial movement - AfD"

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Election denial movement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Election denial movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. rootsmusic (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice - posted the following comment: * Keep. Yes - *entirely* agree with those above that consider the current article worthy (for a variety of reasons) - and relevant - noneteless - further improvements are ok of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -Drbogdan (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

"{{User email b}}"

Hi, I recently noticed you introduced large changes to {{user email b}}, which I undid and moved to {{user email c}} -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 20:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@LemonSlushie: Thank You *very much* for your comments - and leting me know - no problem whatrsoever - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Dynamic soaring"

Aloha, Regarding your contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dynamic_soaring&diff=1125917309&oldid=1103429778 if you look at the McRae reference there is no mention that dynamic soaring is used for interstellar travel. It is a summary of the reference that I added https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dynamic_soaring&diff=1164350142&oldid=1151176482 This reference describes use of Greason’s reaction drive for interstellar travel. I changed Wikipedia Dynamic Soaring to ensure that this summary is verifiable from the original citations per Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please discuss here if you disagree. Dmcdysan (talk) Dmcdysan (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dmcdysan: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and efforts - yes - *entirely* agree with you - no problem whatsoever - whatever is finaaly decided about this is completely ok with me atm - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)