User talk:Drbogdan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is an American.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses HotCat to work with categories.
This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses STiki to fight vandalism.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.
This user has a Global Account.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least fifteen years.
This user is a "Grandmaster Editor" on Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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 !!)

Renoir - Boating PartyAdrien Maggiolo (Italian journalist)Affenpinscher dogAline Charigot (seamstress and Renoir's future wife)Alphonse Fournaise, Jr. (owner's son)Angèle Legault (actress)Charles Ephrussi (art historian)Ellen Andrée (actress)Eugène Pierre Lestringez (bureaucrat)Gustave Caillebotte (artist)Jeanne Samary (actress)Jules Laforgue (poet and critic)LandscapeLandscapeLouise-Alphonsine Fournaise (owner's daughter)Paul Lhote (artist)Baron Raoul Barbier (former mayor of colonial Saigon)SailboatsStill lifeunknown person
The image above contains clickable linksClickable 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.

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
References

References

  1. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (August 1, 2016). "DrBogdan Timelines - What is 'Nature' in Nature Photography? - Ganesh H. Shankar". NatureLyrics.com. Archived from the original on August 18, 2018. Retrieved March 25, 2023. – Archives: Wayback => https://web.archive.org/web/20180810123152/http://www.naturelyrics.com/pages/articles/nature_photography/nature_in_nature_photography.html / WebCitation => http://www.webcitation.org/71ZFXHQ6y / Perma.cc => https://perma.cc/58SR-BZKL

"Galaxy" - Featured Article Review[edit]

I have nominated Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"WuXi AppTec" - updates[edit]

Hi, I found your name on WikiProject:Pharmacology. Since you are involved in various pharmaceutical and medical-related content, would you mind looking at my latest edit request for WuXi AppTec? Thank you very much! AM WuXi (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AM WuXi: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and requests - at first glance, your suggested edts seem ok - others may like to comment as well of course - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:Redirects - for discussion"[edit]

redirect tests
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8

(NOTE: Related discusssions)

"Award - Original Barnstar"[edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for fixing the Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine page on JWST.

SmileyShogun (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmileyShogun: Thank You *very much* for the Barnstar Award re the Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine article - it's *Greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mirage (2018 film)"[edit]

Have you seen Mirage yet? As you know, I like high-minded, but low budget science fiction films. This surely fits the bill. Netflix advertises it as a cross between Doctor Who and The Butterfly Effect, which got my attention! Well, the film was as bad as you might think, but the story and script are fascinating. I'm also curious what could have been done by the writer/director/editor to improve it. Interestingly, Anurag Kashyap remade and adapted it for Indian audiences as Dobaaraa, but I haven't had time to see that yet. Anyway, super interesting film when you consciously ignore all the things that don't make any sense! In other words, popcorn chewing, B movie madness... Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: - Thanks for suggesting the Mirage film - IMDb rates the film as 7.4/10 - seems interesting - yes - we enjoy thoughtful sci-fi of course - may take a look at the next opportunity - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep in mind you will figure out the entire film plot within the first five minutes. I know I did. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: (and others) - Thanks for suggesting the "Mirage (SP,2018-7.4/10)" film - yes - interesting (and thoughtful) view of course - for some reason - reminded of several older films, including "Open Your Eyes (SP,1997-7.7)", "Timecrimes (SP,2007-7.1)", "Coherence (US,2013-7.2)" and "Primer (US,2004-6.7)" - Thanks again for the suggestion - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye, doc. You never cease to impress me with your penetrating insight. I'm picturing an all-seeing-eye coming out of your forehead. It only occurred to me the next day that the director was trying to share his love of cinema with the audience with homages throughout the film, scenes I didn't really pickup on until I had time to think about. I think the latter part of the climax, with the jumping off of the building, was supposed to be reminiscent of Open Your Eyes. You're way ahead of me, doc. At least give me time to catch up... Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - Thanks for your comments - yes - noticed the jumping-off similarities at the time of viewing - both films are Spanish sci-fi, a notion which may have been somewhat at play I would think - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book "How Life Works" (2023) worth considering?[edit]

@Viriditas: (and others) - A review by scientist Denis Noble of a new book entitled "How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology" (2023) by Philip Ball (editor of the journal Nature) may be worth considering?[1] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Noble, Denis (5 February 2024). "Book Review of "How Life Works: A User's Guide to the New Biology" by Philip Ball, Pan Macmillan (2023) - It's time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life - The view of biology often presented to the public is oversimplified and out of date. Scientists must set the record straight, argues a new book". Nature. 626: 254–255. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00327-x. Archived from the original on 5 February 2024. Retrieved 5 February 2024.

Drbogdan (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having already added the book at Philip Ball, I came across this, and have also added this reference. But I also saw that you had created How Life Works as a redirect to Life. Do you still feel that is a good idea? Incidentally, my edition (Piccador) gives the date of the US and UK editions as 2023. PJTraill (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PJTraill: - Thank You for your comments - and question re the redirect - it's *entirely* ok with me to retarget the redirect from Life to some other WikiPage if you like - no problem whartsoever - improving the ref and related is also *entirely* ok with me - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PJTraill: Retargetted the "How Life Works" "WP:RDR" from "Life" to "Philip Ball#Books" - maybe better - ok with me to rv/adj/ce or otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my related discussions at the following: "Talk:Abiogenesis#Book "How Life Works" (2023) worth considering?", "Talk:Abiogenesis#Life Began in a Shallow Lake?" and "Talk:Abiogenesis#Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere?" - iac - Stay Safe and healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Related discussion - "Life before Earth"[edit]

(Copied from "Talk:Abiogenesis#Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere?" - 20240327)

Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere? New studies (2/18/2024)[1][2] seem to provide support for the notion that panspermia may have been a way that life began on Earth? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gough, Evan (18 February 2024). "Life Spreads Across Space on Tiny Invisible Particles, Study Suggests". ScienceAlert. Archived from the original on 18 February 2024. Retrieved 18 February 2024.
  2. ^ Osmanov, Z.N. (7 February 2024). "The possibility of panspermia in the deep cosmos by means of the planetary dust grains". arxiv. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.04990. Archived from the original on 18 February 2024. Retrieved 18 February 2024.
Drbogdan (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people had a heavy night's drinking and some loose chat at a cosmology conference? Seriously, there's nothing new here. There's no suggestion cells could survive on dust impacting Earth's atmosphere – the results are predictably fiery. Could chemicals arrive? Sure, they do that all the time, as the article already accepts; but a wide range of organic molecules were certainly synthesized by processes on the early Earth, as the article also discusses, so the panspermo-dustio-chemo-theory brings precisely nothing to the table. Sorry but we can do better than this, and it's a waste of time on the talk page, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: (and others) - Thank You *very much* for your comments re this and all related discussions above - they're *all* greatly appreciated - and very worthwhile imo - Yes - *entirely* agree - you may be *completely* right about all this of course - but to rule out such notions fully may not be the better road - viable materials hidden away deep within such cosmic dust particles (or even some particles somewhat larger - or even a lot larger) may continue to be a possible way of distributing such (LUCA-related?) materials throughout the cosmos I would think - there may be other ways (maybe not yet thought about for one reason or another) as well - I would think a miniscule amount of such material (maybe even a single reproducible molecule?) may be sufficient to start the entire process going if settled in a life-friendly location within the universe - with an estimated 1024 stars and Earthlike planets in the observable universe,[1][2][3] there may be an astronomical amount of life-friendly locations available - to and fro so-to-speak - in any case - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, panspermia simply means "abiogenesis upon another planet". tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - life either began de novo on Earth - or started elsewhere - and was transported to Earth by panspermia - that's ultimately the concern of many these days I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither I nor (more importantly) the article "rule it out completely". My point was and is that the article covers the subject already; further, it's more than adequately treated in the subsidiary articles on panspermia and pseudo-panspermia. Already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: - re: "rule it out completely" - sorry - my phrase was intended to be academic, and not at all otherwise - seems my wording could have been better - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First we should determine with some certainty that Mars, Venus, or perhaps the Moon were habitable and had life in the past. Then we may discuss panspermia, if life migrated from one of those celestial bodies to Earth, or the other way. Otherwise, talking about it is like discussing the sex of angels. Panspermia can not work from one planetary system to the next, simply because of the distances and times involved. Let's assume that there was a planet with life in the Alpha Centauri planetary system, the one closest to us, and a meteorite is ejected from it, with some of its local life on it. And let's assume that it's not just any life, but one of those extremophiles who can survive in really harsh conditions. And let's assume that they survive the planetary ejection. And let's assume that they have enough protection to survive the conditions of outer space. Yes, I know, too many assumptions (and that means, too many factors that may not go as desired). Well, even if by some miracle that meteorite heads in the direction towards us, it would take it tens of thousands of years to arrive... and what kind of life could survive that long? Cambalachero (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero: (and others) - Thank You for your *excellent* comments - panspermia seems unlikely based on your comments of course - but panspermia - in the form of forward contamination from Earth - may have already occurred in fact - after all - one example (there may be others - maybe many others?) is that Tersicoccus phoenicis, a bacterium which resists sterilization, was not cleaned from devices sent into space - and may currently be on planet Mars (and elsewhere?) - further - seems humans are really, really filled with microorganisms[4] which suggests that where humans (or their devices) end up in space, so too do other life forms - panspermia may be easier than some may think - and life, like water, may find a way, so-to-speak - and may have found such a way much earlier in the history of Earth as well - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may happen, yes, but again, wait until we find life on Mars before discussing if it's native life, natural or artificial panspermia. Otherwise, there's no point to it. Besides, this is the talk page of the article about abiogenesis, and that scenario would have nothing to do with it. Cambalachero (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Staff (2020). "How many stars are there in the Universe?". European Space Agency. Archived from the original on 17 January 2020. Retrieved 18 February 2024.
  2. ^ Mackie, Glen (1 February 2002). "To see the Universe in a Grain of Taranaki Sand". Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing. Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 28 January 2017.
  3. ^ Mack, Eric (19 March 2015). "There may be more Earth-like planets than grains of sand on all our beaches - New research contends that the Milky Way alone is flush with billions of potentially habitable planets -- and that's just one sliver of the universe". CNET. Archived from the original on 1 December 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2024.
  4. ^ Kolata, Gina. "In Good Health? Thank Your 100 Trillion Bacteria". Archived from the original on 4 December 2023. Retrieved 22 February 2024.

"Viatris"[edit]

Hi Drbogdan. I wonder if you could take a look at my recent edit request posted at Talk:Viatris#Update_History_section. You must scroll down a bit because I inadvertently left out a new heading for the new request. Thanks again, PittGuy123ABC (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PittGuy123ABC: - very busy atm with other interests (including real-world ones) - nonetheless - would prefer comments from other editors about all this - to better understand the current WP:CONSENSUS - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Three-Body Problem - update"[edit]

@Viriditas: (and others) - Seems recent news (2/9/2024)[1] presents the latest goings-on with the upcoming showings of the two "Three-Body Problem" TV miniseries --
in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2024

  • Thank you, doc. I don't know how they will improve on the Chinese-language version; I really liked it. My only complaint is that the CGI was pretty bad, and given the artistry and talent of the cast and crew, and the resources available to the production, it seems unusual to me that they go this route. I'm wondering if I might have misinterpreted this. For example, because the majority of the CGI takes place within the game world, perhaps they wanted the audience to be reminded that it was a game, and this makes a lot of sense once I think about it, but the graphics bothered me to the point where I found it annoying. Not sure if this is just my personal hangup or what. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: - *Entirely* agree - the CGI graphics could have been much, much better in the original CH version - and still suggest game-world-play I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I just watched Sam Esmail's Leave the World Behind. Very, very disappointing. First of all, I'm a huge fan of Esmail, so I don't really know what happened here. And the cast is superb. The only thing I can figure is that maybe Sam shouldn't have adapted it from the novel, I don't know. I've seen this kind of thing happen before. The art of adapting a novel to the screen is very difficult. I was surprised that the original writer, Rumaan Alam, wasn't involved. IMO, the script was terrible. Surely Sam is smart enough to know that this kind of story had been done a thousand times before. I'm curious what type of person this film appeals to; maybe someone who has never seen a science fiction film before? I don't get it. The whole thing was a waste of my time, I'm sorry to say. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: (and others) - Several recently reported technical articles[2][3] about the three-body problem seem to be on the road to a possible solution? - iac- Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: (and others) - Another related reference[4] - suggests the Netflex 8-part miniseries (season 1) to be broadcast on 21 March 2024 - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've got the reminder set on my Netflix. Not sure how they are going to beat the Chinese language version. Viriditas (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm three episodes in and dreading watching the rest. The original Chinese production is leaps and bounds above this dreck. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: (and others) - NOTE: Added the following text/ref to the "3 Body Problem (TV series)#Future" article => "Although a second season has yet to be renewed as of March 22, 2024, as many as four seasons (or more seasons?) may be possible."[5][6] - Additionaly - USA version = 489 mins (8x60) (33% LESS time than CH version) IMDb rated 7.6/10 / CH version = 1350 mins (30x45) - IMDb rated 7.6/10 - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: (and others) - We're now finished with all 30 eps of the CH version of the Three-Body Problem TV adaptation, and we're currently done with all 8 eps [now updated] of the USA version - we think both versions are good (not excellent), but involve different styles of the original source material - an overview of the entire USA version (including possible future seasons 3 & 4 ?) may be well presented in a recent Esquire review article[7] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made it to episode four last night. It's just incredibly boring compared to the Chinese version. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the first eight episodes yesterday. I liked seeing old members of GoT (Game of Thrones) again, but many of the scenes were long and drawn out without the thematic narrative of GoT and the wonderful soliloquies and deep thoughts of that show, which is incredibly strange, since the original novels and the Chinese-language production have all of that. What gives? The last episode wasted most of the narrative going into Saul Durand's refusal of being the Wallfacer, which could have been easily reduced to several minutes instead. I felt like episode eight had a lack of editorial oversight and failed to give us enough of the foreshadowing to come. One bright spot I did enjoy, particularly with episodes six and seven, was Alex Sharp's acting as the character Will Downing, one of the few genuine, human touches in the entire show. Liam Cunningham was also great (as usual) as Thomas Wade, but the writing held him back in such a huge way that it felt like another missed opportunity. I'm sad to say that none of the genius of GoT can be found anywhere here, except for a few scenes with Alex Sharp and Rosalind Chao, who everyone loves no matter what she does (Star Trek fans unite!). Jess Hong as Jin Cheng is clearly the attraction for the entire series so far, and she's wonderful to watch, but the writing doesn't do her any favors. Overall, if this does amount to a first season (we will see), I give it five out of ten stars. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: (and others) - Thank You for your *Excellent* review of the "3 Body Problem (TV series)" adaptation - seems similar to our own views as well - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: (and others) - If interested - seems several (down-to-Earth?) interpretations of the novels and related film adaptations of "The Three-Body Problem" were recently presented by "The New York Times".[8]

References

  1. ^ Hibberd, James (9 February 2024). "Peacock to Stream Adaptation of 'Three-Body Problem' Ahead of Rival Netflix Version - The other 'Three-Body Problem' adaptation is coming to Peacock before Netflix's big-budget version from the 'Game of Thrones' creators". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 9 February 2024. Retrieved 10 February 2024.
  2. ^ Hebrew University (13 February 2024). "Breakthrough in predicting chaotic outcomes in three-body systems". Phys.org. Archived from the original on 13 February 2024. Retrieved 13 February 2024.
  3. ^ Manwadkar, Viraj; et al. (2 February 2024). "Measurement of three-body chaotic absorptivity predicts chaotic outcome distribution". Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy. 136 (4). doi:10.1007/s10569-023-10174-z. Archived from the original on 13 February 2024. Retrieved 13 February 2024.
  4. ^ Bui, Hoai-Tran (9 March 2024). "Netflix's 3 Body Problem Flattens a Singular Sci-Fi Saga - Liu Cixin's acclaimed sci-fi epic gets the event TV treatment, for better and for worse". Inverse. Archived from the original on 19 March 2024. Retrieved 19 March 2024.
  5. ^ Mercuri, Monica (22 March 2024). "Will There Be A '3 Body Problem' Season 2 On Netflix? Here's What To Know". Forbes. Archived from the original on 23 March 2024. Retrieved 23 March 2024.
  6. ^ Tassi, Paul (23 March 2024). "Netflix Is In A Bind With '3 Body Problem' Season 2". Forbes. Archived from the original on 23 March 2024. Retrieved 24 March 2024.
  7. ^ Britt, Ryan (21 March 2024). "3 Body Problem Season 2: Everything We Know So Far - What does the future hold for the human race? And what about the San-Ti?". Esquire. Archived from the original on 25 March 2024. Retrieved 25 March 2024.
  8. ^ Douthat, Ross (12 April 2024). "Three Interpretations of 'The Three-Body Problem'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 12 April 2024. Retrieved 13 April 2024.

"Three-body problem"[edit]

Hi there @Drbogdan. I'm afraid I've just undone one of your edits over at Three-body problem. I'm assumed it was a plug for a recent piece of work so was bold. However, afterwards I spotted it was you, and figure you've got a good reason for adding it. Anyway, I've put a note on the talkpage to explain my actions. If you want to re-add it, could you make sure it's clear what it's about and why it's notable? While I'm sure it's valuable work, it feels incremental and a tad recent to me, but I'm no mathematician. In any case, I wanted to give you a heads-up for my rash deletion. :-) Cheers, PLUMBAGO 10:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: added following reply to => "Talk:Three-body problem#"Solution"?"
@Plumbago: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and concerns about my somewhat recent edit - and the related undoing/revert of the edit - the related references[1][2] seemed relevant and worth adding to the main "Three-body problem" article but, for one reason or another, may not be in fact - others more knowledgeble about this than I are welcome to comment of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hebrew University (13 February 2024). "Breakthrough in predicting chaotic outcomes in three-body systems". Phys.org. Archived from the original on 14 February 2024. Retrieved 13 February 2024.
  2. ^ Manwadkar, Viraj; et al. (2 February 2024). "Measurement of three-body chaotic absorptivity predicts chaotic outcome distribution". Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy. 136 (4). arXiv:2302.08312. doi:10.1007/s10569-023-10174-z. Archived from the original on 14 February 2024. Retrieved 13 February 2024.

"Pea galaxies"[edit]

Thank you for your edits at the beginning of 2023 on the GPs. I am wondering if you could expand these references for the journals, especially Nature which I can't access, to include a few lines in the section 2023 (address below). I've started this section to include the Rhoads et al. study from January 1, but would like to include some text from your 2 references. (These might be better put in that section rather than at the top). The article needs generally updating, but any JWST data should take precedent. In your own time of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea_galaxy#2023 Cheers Richard Nowell (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nowell: - Thank You for your comments - and suggestion(s) re the noted refs[1][2] - I'm also unable to track down the full "Nature" article (seems it may have been available earlier) - nonetheless - may have to defer to those more knowledgeable than I am about expanding (and/or updating) the text in the Pea galaxy article - others may do a much better job with this than I would at the moment - iac - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drbogdan: - I contacted the author of the Nature article Shannon Hall who gave me a .pdf copy she had, so I can proceed to write a couple of paragraphs. Cheers, Richard Nowell (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hall, Shannon (13 January 2023). "These 'green pea' galaxies might have helped to end the Universe's dark age - JWST has spotted three tiny, distant galaxies that could solve a long-standing cosmic mystery". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00064-7. Archived from the original on 26 February 2024. Retrieved 26 February 2024.
  2. ^ Skibba, Ramin (10 January 2023). "Astronomers May Have Just Spotted the Universe's First Galaxies - NASA's new JWST space telescope has revealed some cosmic surprises, including galaxies that might have assembled earlier than previously thought". Wired. Archived from the original on 11 January 2023. Retrieved 26 February 2024.

"Human language - origin"[edit]

(Note: Copied from => "User talk:Warrenmck#When did human language begin?")
Thank you for your recent rv of my edit re an approximate starting age for the beginning of human language[1] - this is somewhat relevant to my own "{{Human timeline}}" template - the best current determination seems to be between 1.5 to 2.0 million years ago - based on the recent news report[1] - however - you seem to be more knowledgeable than I about all this - just curious - what would be your own current estimate re the beginning starting age of human language (based on the responsible scientific literature if possible)? - Thanking you in advance for your reply - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry for the late reply on this, I’ve been travelling and had spotty internet access. I reverted that edit of yours to 2024 in science, and like with the edits on dark energy you were bold, which clearly from your time on Wikipedia we are all benefitting from. That said, I think it may be worth considering engaging with either Wikiprojects or talk pages before editing in new research to do mass edits to relevant articles, especially on topics you’re unfamiliar with. please note that I left your recent additions of this in the other two articles you added it to, since that seems like a very relevant place to discuss those recent discoveries in an article, though personally (and I’m not the arbiter of this!) I’d have considered some more hedged statements until the academic communities involved have a chance to weigh in more.
I do appreciate your effort here, but a couple of times you’ve created situations where a large chain of edits on an article need to be undone or substantially modified to restore the quality of an article, and there’ve been a couple of instances now of the articles you’re citing being misrepresented either in weight within a given field, or the strength of the statements that the article you’re citing claims (such as that revert, where your statement was “researchers report the origin of human language…” and the article in question was a proposal from a synthesis of different data sources. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: - Thank You for your comments - and suggestions - they're all *greatly* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - incidentally - I chose "researchers" since the researcher British archaeologist Steven Mithen was presenting a "synthesis" of other studies by other researchers - and not studies by himself alone - nonetheless - "researcher" could perhaps have been better wording after all - iac - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Keys, David (25 March 2024). "The 1.6 million-year-old discovery that changes what we know about human evolution - New research suggests language is eight times older than previously thought". The Independent. Archived from the original on 25 March 2024. Retrieved 26 March 2024.

"The Planets" - Thank you[edit]

I am filled with admiration for your "thank" message after I reverted your additions to the articles on Holst and The Planets. Very, very few editors would be so magnanimous. My greetings! Tim riley talk 15:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: - Thank You Tim for your comments - and complement re "my recent edit" of the "NYT" review (3/29/2024)[1] in "The Planets" Wiki-article - they're *greatly* appreciated - if interested, my own related NYT Comments were published at the following:[2] => https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/29/arts/music/holst-the-planets.html#permid=132200765 - Thanks again for your comments and all - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - and - Enjoy !! :) - Drbogdan (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Morris, Hugh (March 29, 2024). "The Team Effort Behind One of Classical Music's Greatest Hits - Gustav Holst composed "The Planets" with crucial help from others. Firsthand accounts and the score reflect how collaborative its creation was". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 29, 2024.
  2. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (March 29, 2024). "Comment - The Team Effort Behind One of Classical Music's Greatest Hits - Gustav Holst composed "The Planets" with crucial help from others. First hand accounts and the score reflect how collaborative its creation was. - Hugh Morris". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 30, 2024. Retrieved March 30, 2024.

"New legal article"[edit]

I have finished enough of "Consciousness of guilt (legal)" to go public with it. Further development and improvement will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: - Thank You for your comments - and suggetions - re your new "Consciousness of guilt (legal)" article - seems worthy (and timely) of course - Thanks again for all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"AI Results - "Life Starts" and "Earliest Life""[edit]

@Chiswick Chap, PJTraill, Viriditas, and Warrenmck: (and others) - AI Results - "Life Starts" and "Earliest Life" - Wiki Useful or Not? (ref => MsCopilotAI/20240406)

QUESTION - Are such AI Results of any use in any way on Wikipedia in your opinion? - probably not but perhaps worth asking the question nonetheless - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---
Contents:
01 - How did Life Start? - 20240406 - MsCoPilotAI ("Abiogenesis")
02 - What are the Earliest Known Life Forms? - 20240406 - MsCoPilotAI ("Earliest known life forms")

---
You - How did Life Start?
Copilot - Life’s origins remain a captivating mystery, and scientists have proposed several hypotheses. Let’s explore some of the fascinating ideas:

Simple Organic Molecules Formation: Simple organic molecules, akin to the nucleotides that form the building blocks of life, likely played a crucial role in life’s origin.

Experiments suggest that these organic molecules could have formed in the early Earth’s atmosphere and then rained down into the oceans.

RNA and DNA, the genetic material for all life, consist of long chains of these simple nucleotides.

Replicating Molecules and Natural Selection: Replicating molecules evolved, allowing them to copy themselves and pass on genetic information to offspring.

The ability to self-replicate likely emerged through an RNA self-replicator, where RNA molecules could copy themselves.

This led to an “RNA world,” where RNA performed multiple functions: storing genetic information, self-replicating, and basic metabolic tasks.

Natural selection favored variants of self-replicators that were more efficient at copying themselves, gradually leading to a stable replicating system.

Cell Membrane Formation: Enclosing replicating molecules within a cell membrane provided significant advantages.

Membranes kept genetic material close and allowed for different internal and external environments.

These encased replicators out-competed “naked” replicators, leading to organisms resembling modern bacteria.

Evolution of Modern Metabolic Processes: Initially, life relied heavily on RNA for various functions.

A pivotal shift occurred when cells evolved to use different molecules for distinct roles: DNA (more stable than RNA) became the genetic material. Proteins (efficient promoters of chemical reactions) handled basic metabolic processes. RNA transitioned to a messenger role.

This marked a significant step toward more complex life forms.

Primordial Soup and Progressive Chemical Reactions: Life likely emerged from a primordial soup of chemicals.

Stanley Miller’s famous 1952 experiment explored this idea, demonstrating that life could form through progressive chemical reactions.

In summary, life’s origin involved a gradual process, with each step building upon the complexity that evolved previously. While we still don’t have all the answers, the journey from simple organic molecules to complex organisms remains a captivating scientific quest! 🌱🔬🌏12345

---
References -- Learn more 1 evolution.berkeley.edu 2 britannica.com 3 khanacademy.org 4 askabiologist.asu.edu 5 news.uchicago.edu
===

You - What are the Earliest Known Life Forms?
Copilot - The earliest known life forms on Earth date back billions of years. Let’s delve into the fascinating history:

Biologically Fractionated Graphite (Jack Hills, Australia):

Evidence suggests that life may have existed as early as 4.1 billion years ago. This conclusion is based on the discovery of biologically fractionated graphite within a single zircon grain found in the Jack Hills range in Australia 1.

These ancient graphite grains provide a glimpse into the distant past, hinting at the presence of life during Earth’s early years. 3.7 Billion-Year-Old Microorganisms:

The oldest undisputed evidence of life comes from microscopic organisms (microbes) that left their mark in rocks approximately 3.7 billion years old.

These microbial signals consist of a type of carbon molecule produced by living organisms 2. Stromatolites (Pilbara Craton, Western Australia):

Stromatolites, layered structures formed by microbial communities, provide evidence of ancient life.

The earliest direct known life on land may be stromatolites found in 3.480-billion-year-old geyserite from the Dresser Formation in the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia 1.

Microfossils: Various microfossils of microorganisms have been discovered in rocks dating back to around 3.4 billion years.

Notably, Apex chert rocks from the same Australian craton region and hydrothermal vent precipitates from Barberton, South Africa, contain evidence of ancient life 1.

Preserved Molecular Compounds: Around 1.73 billion years ago, preserved molecular compounds of biologic origin indicate the presence of aerobic life.

Therefore, the origin of life on Earth likely occurred at least 3.5 billion years ago, possibly even as early as 4.1 billion years ago—shortly after the formation of our planet and its oceans 1.

Extensive Biosphere: Life on Earth exists in diverse environments, including soil, hydrothermal vents, rock, and even deep-sea environments. Microorganisms have been found in extreme conditions, such as the Atacama Desert (one of the driest places on Earth) and deep-sea hydrothermal vents with temperatures exceeding 400°C 1.

In summary, life has persisted and adapted across geological time, leaving behind intriguing clues about its ancient origins. 🌏🔬🌱

---
References -- Learn more 1 en.wikipedia.org 2 naturalhistory.si.edu 3 en.wikipedia.org
===
Drbogdan (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
===

Comments/Replies:

No, we aren't supposed to use them. See WP:LLM. Lots of issues. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#ChatGPT. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, the rules are clear; that way madness lies. Consider: its answers are cobbled together from social media, chat, guesswork, Wikipedia articles sourced or not, vague inference, assumptions, opinionated dinner-party talk, the pub bore, the worst of the tabloid newspapers, and any other dross and floor-sweepings from the litter-tray of the world. Not too good? No, it couldn't be worse if we tried. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason people tend to warm up to the LLMs is because their conversational style is so charming and magnetic. This is also why they are so dangerous. They are potential psychopaths in training. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump supporters try to nominate a LLM for president at this rate. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the really, really *Excellent* replies - and *Excellent* wording (made me chuckle) - think I've got the message - not a good idea - not at all unexpected of course - in any case - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

My Related AI Publications[edit]

If interested, my own related AI publications include the following:
(Note: My original text only; not at all AI-generated)

My NYT Comments:[edit]
My FaceBook Posts:[edit]

References

  1. ^ a b Bogdan, Dennis (July 9, 2014). "Comment - Silicon Valley Sharknado - Maureen Dowd". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 6, 2023. Retrieved February 6, 2023.
  2. ^ a b Bogdan, Dennis (February 2, 2023). "Comment - In the Age of A.I., Major in Being Human - David Brooks". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 3, 2023. Retrieved February 3, 2023.
  3. ^ a b Bogdan, Dennis (March 21, 2023). "Comment - Our New Promethean Moment - Thomas L. Friedman". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 23, 2023. Retrieved March 23, 2023.
  4. ^ a b Bogdan, Dennis (May 3, 2023). "Comment - We Are Opening the Lids on Two Giant Pandora's Boxes - Thomas L. Friedman". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 3, 2023. Retrieved May 3, 2023.
  5. ^ a b Bogdan, Dennis (July 18, 2023). "Comment - Wikipedia's Moment of Truth - Can the online encyclopedia help teach A.I. chatbots to get their facts right — without destroying itself in the process? - Jon Gertner". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 18, 2023. Retrieved July 18, 2023.
  6. ^ a b Bogdan, Dennis (October 21, 2023). "Comment - Are Fears of A.I. and Nuclear Apocalypse Keeping You Up? Blame Prometheus. - How an ancient Greek myth explains our terrifying modern reality. - A.O. Scott". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 27, 2024. Retrieved March 27, 2024.
  7. ^ a b Bogdan, Dennis (December 8, 2023). "Comment - E.U. Agrees on Landmark Artificial Intelligence Rules - The agreement over the A.I. Act solidifies one of the world's first comprehensive attempts to limit the use of artificial intelligence. - Adam Satariano". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 9, 2023. Retrieved December 9, 2023.

"Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?"[edit]

"Dark energy"[edit]

Hello! You recently added a new theoretical physics paper to Dark energy, Dark matter, Universe, and a few other pages. I (and another editor, it seems) have reverted those additions since it's just one person's theoretical math paper without wide reception in the scientific community and is a type of paper more typically considered a thought experiment (though a valuable one) in astrophysics (hence it's use of Tired light). Since it would completely and totally upend our understanding of astrophysics, it's most certainly an extraordinary claim and we should wait for more mainstream sources before editing into Wikipedia. Considering it's based on ideas which themselves aren't accepted in astrophysics, I wouldn't hold my breath too tightly on this one. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Warrenmck: (and others) - Thank You for your comments re my edit[1][2] - and re your reverts - yes - *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)== Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent? ==[reply]

My Related Wiki-Posts[edit]

(Note: Copied from "Talk:Dark energy#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?")
Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed"[3] - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all[1][2] - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant[4] - in any case - Worth adding to the main "Dark Energy" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Copied from "Talk:Universe#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?")
Thank You for your comments - they're appreciated - you referred to my stance - my stance these days is to help close the gap between non-expert and expert thinking re these issues with worthy responsible presentations acceptible to all if possible - hopefully, this may make such science topics and issues more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level)[5] - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?"[edit]

This is the second time in a month you've seriously looked at mass-adding content relating to discrediting the best understanding of physics on the basis of a single paper in a popular source. I'm not trying to discount the huge amount of time or effort you're putting into this, but I genuinely think you may want to consider a temporary self-imposed WP:TBAN on articles relating to Dark matter, Dark energy, and alternative models of astrophysics more broadly. At least until you've spent a bit of time with WP:ECREE and WP:RS. For example, I'm not 100% sure what your New York Times comments have to do with wikipedia? But between that and the AI post above you may want to spend a bit more time with some of the basic content guidelines of Wikipedia. It's a bit tricky keeping up with your posts to multiple talk pages2 all over the place1 asking the same thing3 and issues with you mass editing articles with fringe-y positions which create some quality control issues (though I can't really object to your decision to take these discussions to talk pages first!).

One thing that jumps out to me is you may want to get involved with the physics Wikiproject where you could post a centralized discussion thread on new findings rather than splitting it across all possibly relevent talk pages and having disparate discussions to keep track of? Note I'm not an admin and I'm not suggesting any kind of sanctions or anything similar are warranted for you, I am just asking you to consider a step back on this since the way you're currently engaging with these topics creates a lot of extra work for other editors that really doesn't need to exist. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Warrenmck: - Thank You for your comments - and suggestions - they're appreciated - no problem whatsoever - simply trying to post recent related news publications ("WP:RS" of course) (one of my recent NYT examples[4] - which includes "ECREE") in a very, very limited number of possibly relevant talk-pages, in order to determine if the noted news items are worthy of adding to the related Wikipedia articles - seeking a second-opinion of sorts from others - your own related opinions are understood (and appreciated) of course - seems to have been an *entirely* acceptible way of considering such new content over the years - as far as my "NYT" (and other "WP:RS") "Comments" re Wikipedia: among other reasons - my comments are intended to help promote Wikipedia articles to the public; to help support my background to edit Wikipedia in the first place; to help develop my abilities to better edit Wikipedia; to help maintain an active awareness of the latest "WP:RS" news on behalf of Wikipedia where relevant and possible; and more - nonetheless - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: (and others) - BRIEF Followup: As suggested, added the concern to the "physics Wikiproject" and "Non-standard cosmology " talk-pages - both are new to me - and - both seem the better talk-pages after all - Thanks again for the suggestions - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, my suggestion was you only add it to the Wikiproject Physics talk page; adding it to even more article talk pages isn’t helpful, since the only way to keep track of the discussion is searching through your edit history to find where the conversation is talking place. There’s a guideline relating to the behaviour you’re engaging in at WP:TALKFORK, and the general guideline is to not split discussions of the same thing across multiple talk pages. Again, I think you’re contributing some great content to Wikipedia but you seem to be editing at a pace that outpaces your understanding of the guidelines and procedures on Wikipedia and that ends up creating a lot of extra work for editors. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Warrenmck: - Thanks for your recent comments - and clarifying the issue - it's *greatly* appreciated - seems the best place, generally, to present such "WP:RS" News is the "physics Wikiproject" website ("although there may be, apparently, at least one other editor who may find copying to multiple relevant pages as somewhat "ok" at the moment") - nonetheless - *entirely* agree with your clarifications - seems to make a lot of good sense after all - as before, no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your clarifications - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That poster pointed out the difference between advertising a centralized discussion and decentralizing that discussion, though. They're talking about creating a link that says "There is a discussion taking place at LINK" rather than having it split across a large number of places. Thanks for taking the feedback in good spirit :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Related Wiki-Posts[edit]

Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed"[3] - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all[1][2] - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant[4] - in any case - Worth adding to the main "Dark Energy" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -

FWIW - Added the following NOTE (see copy below) to all relevant talk-pages including:

NOTE: A related discussion has been centralized on "physics Wikiproject", and can be found at the following link => "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Comment re NYT[edit]

The responisble scientific literature seems the best source for such subjects of course - nonetheless - Thank You for your opinion re NYT (and related news sources) - yes - somewhat agree - seems a lot of the news reported in the public square these days may be overly influenced by the bottom line - a loss of common integrity - as well as, in the name of good journalism, a false equivalency - hope I'm wrong about these concerns of course - OTOH - the NYT has won numerous awards for journalism ( see => List of awards won by The New York Times ) - more than any other news source in the world afaik - other worthy news sources include The Washington Post (WaPo), Associated Press (AP), Los Angeles Times (LAT) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) - ( please see related awards => https://www.statista.com/statistics/945236/most-awarded-media-usa/ ) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c McRae, Mike (18 March 2024). "Physicist Claims Universe Has No Dark Matter And Is 27 Billion Years Old". ScienceAlert. Archived from the original on 18 March 2024. Retrieved 18 March 2024. Cite error: The named reference "SA-20240318" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Gupta, Rajendia P. (15 March 2024). "Testing CCC+TL Cosmology with Observed Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Features". The Astrophysical Journal. 964 (55): 55. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6.
  3. ^ a b Overbye, Dennis (4 April 2024). "A Tantalizing 'Hint' That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong - Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the universe". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 4 April 2024. Retrieved 5 April 2024.
  4. ^ a b c Bogdan, Dennis (4 April 2024). "Comment - A Tantalizing 'Hint' That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong - Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the universe". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 6 April 2024. Retrieved 6 April 2024. Cite error: The named reference "NYT-20240404" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ Lucassen, Teun; Dijkstra, Roald; Schraagen, Jan Maarten (3 September 2012). "Readability of Wikipedia". First Monday (journal). 17 (9). Archived from the original on 13 April 2014. Retrieved 5 April 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drbogdan&oldid=1220031196"