Talk:Red rain in Kerala/Archive 1

message: What a shame there's no way to get a mention of the Peter Gabriel song in this article (But I'll link from that one back to here). Daniel Case 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ==Red rain in popular culture==  ...?  (I'm joking, of course!) Worldtraveller 22:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PG Tips

message: If the "Did you know" teaser is going to invoke a scientific explanation, then would someone please cite a peer-reviewed scientific article of the findings? Lindenb 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have done - in the references, you'll find a paper by Louis & Kumar which is accepted for publication in Astrophysics and Space Science.  Worldtraveller 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science? 

message: Surely you mean staining or darkening or something, not fire. — Omegatron 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also chemical burns. Gamahucheur 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ???  Never heard that.  If the rain caused chemical burns, that sentence needs a reference. — Omegatron 05:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep. Gamahucheur 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Burning" leaves? 

message: ↑ Ramakrishnan, Venkitesh (2001). Coloured rain falls on Kerala. BBC. URL accessed on Mars 6, 2006.
Although 'Mars 6' is an actual page, should it not read 'March 6,2006'?
:Yes - changed it.  Thanks!  Worldtraveller 21:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: This is a great article. What would really improve it is if someone could get a picture of the red rain, or stained clothes!
Ernestleonard 01:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Working on that at the moment.  Hope to be able to put some images up in the next few days!  Worldtraveller 01:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've got some collected already.  I can upload them if they count as fair use. — Omegatron 05:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I put them through fair use review and everyone thinks they're fine. — Omegatron 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that's good.  I'm still a bit concerned that Dr Louis might yet read my request for permission to use the images, look at the article and find they're already in use... could look a bit bad... Worldtraveller 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics plz 

message: Sorry, a sonic boom WOULD NOT OCCUR FROM A COMET, they only happen when entering the speed of sound- like an airplane does.  Sonic booms do not happen when slowing down from above the speed of sound, and then falling below it.  This is extrememly suspect, and flawed.  If these red particles were alien life (made up from proteins), they would be completely destroyed by the heat caused when the comet enters the Earth's atmosphere. Chickenofbristol 19:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually anything which causes shockwaves in the atmosphere can cause a sonic boom, and temperatures deep inside impacting objects doesn't necessarily rise very high.  Worldtraveller 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry but you're wrong - things moving at supersonic speeds in the atmosphere generate shock waves which are audible as sonic booms.  This is not the place to discuss what may or may not have happened to any particles which may or may not have been in a hypothetical impacting body.  The article doesn't express a POV, I don't believe, it just reports what is claimed by various parties about the dust.  Worldtraveller 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A sonic boom was reported in Western Australia recently when a comet exploded in mid-air, it was captured on home video and is probably available online somewhere.... SeanMack 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible cometary origin

message: I think this article could use more material taken from this paper by the Indian researchers:
* New biology of red rain extremophiles prove cometary panspermia
Basically, these researchers make a really good case that these new extremophiles are the common demoniator underlying the three domains of life.  These cells also have a distinct reproductive life cycle.  This material needs to be independently assessed but unless these researchers are looking to destroy their career, I expect it will be confirmed.  It is likely that these organisms fill the universe like bacteria filled out world.  --64.230.127.189 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be best not to make any more than a tangential reference to the contents of that paper as it hasn't been peer reviewed.  I will be very interested to hear what comes out of Sheffield University who are currently carrying out tests.  Worldtraveller 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'd be very interested in understanding is the table of elemental composition in the article. It seems (to my untrained eye) to suggest that these particles contain no hydrogen. If this is true, they would certainly be unlike anything that we have called "life" in the past, and the suggestion that they are some sort of universal anscestor of life on Earth would be rather questionable at best. -Harmil 22:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More explanations here

message: Just to point out, the shapes of RBC are an optimization for maximizing surface area(diffusion of oxygen and carbon dioxide). The same could be true here(assuming they are not RBC of course). Can anyone validate/back up my statements? Dude 05:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're looking for validation on, but certainly a sphere which has been deformed into a concave shape will have a higher surface area-to-volume ratio than a perfect sphere. That much is a rather basic element of geometry which can be easily proven by the fact that a sphere can contain the deformed sphere with additional space left. For further reading, see red blood cell#Mammalian erythrocytes. -Harmil 22:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shape 

message: To quote from the article: "The researchers theorise that the dust is in fact composed of organic matter of extraterrestrial origin. If this were to be proven, it would be the first direct evidence in favour of the theory of exogenesis, which posits that life on Earth arrived here from outer space."  That isn't really true.  It simply says that life can get to earth from space.  Might it not be more accurate to say, "If this were to be proven, it would be a major boost to the credibility of the theory of exogenesis," or something similar?  I admit that isn't very good language, but something along those lines might be more accurate. 129.44.216.105 00:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I see the difference between the two. The statement as it stands says "If this were to be proven, it would be the first direct evidence in favour of the theory of exogenesis." Which is really only arguable on the basis that it's not really the first. I think you're reading "direct evidence in favor" as "proof". Those are very, very different things. For example, human body hair is direct evidence in favor of common descent, but it's hardly "proof" of common descent. -Harmil 01:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see.  That makes a lot of sense.  Thanks.  129.44.216.105 02:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof of exogenesis? 

message: Can someone who understands the science involved please either make a notation as to why hydrogen isn't included in the composition breakdown or make a note here to the effect that we're really saying that this thing wasn't composed of hydrocarbons? It's kind of wigging me out that a) people are suggesting that this is a life form b) there is no hydrogen in it and c) there hasn't been a huge uproar over a) and b)
Thanks. -Harmil 01:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine the machine doesn't test for it.  They did find it with another machine, as it says in the paper:
The elemental composition of the red cells was further checked using a CHN analyzer
(Model Elementar Vario EL III). The presence of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen can
be analyzed using this analyzer. About 30 ml of red rainwater when dried gave a
solid residue of about 3mg. This under CHN analysis showed 43.03% carbon, 4.43%
hydrogen and 1.84% nitrogen. — Omegatron 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you -Harmil 02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogen 

message: In the articles intro there is the following sentence: "The event became much more notable when scientists at the Mahatma Gandhi University in Kottayam proposed a far more outlandish theory". How is using the word 'outlandish' NPOV? That word comes across as negative or pejorative. Something more neutral should be used, like 'non-conventional' or something. FistOfFury 06:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Outlandish'