All Activity

No, it would not, and this is not detailed enough to even be considered as such a device.

I would add it to my temporal lobes to increase my memory abilities. "They are most commonly associated with processing auditory information and with the encoding of memory. The temporal lobes are also believed to play an important role in processing affect/emotions, language, and certain aspects of visual perception."

This is interesting, I would like a more detailed write up on it from you with all the fine details described.

Very nice theory

Nice!

This is an informational piece about how MIT is redefining quantum computing with new entanglement controls, read more at How MIT Is Redefining Quantum Computing With New Entanglement Control (scitechdaily.com) How do you think these new entanglement control systems will change quantum computers, and do you think they will be an improvement?

It seems an experimental gene therapy seems to alleviate skeletal defects tied to rare inherited disease according to a study, read more at Experimental gene therapy seems to alleviate symptoms tied to rare disease (statnews.com) Do you think if you had this rare skeletal defect, you would get this gene therapy if you could afford it?

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-advance-gravitational-collisions-neutron-stars.html APRIL 26, 2024 Editors' notes "Researchers advance detection of gravitational waves to study collisions of neutron stars and black holes" article at link. the paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2316474121 Abstract "Multimessenger searches for binary neutron star (BNS) and neutron star-black hole (NSBH) mergers are currently one of the most exciting areas of astronomy. The search for joint electromagnetic and neutrino counterparts to gravitational wave (GW)s has resumed with ALIGO’s, AdVirgo’s and KAGRA’s fourth observing run (O4). To support this effort, public semiautomated data products are sent in near real-time and include localization and source properties to guide complementary observations. In preparation for O4, we have conducted a study using a simulated population of compact binaries and a mock data challenge (MDC) in the form of a real-time replay to optimize and profile the software infrastructure and scientific deliverables. End-toend performance was tested, including data ingestion, running online search pipelines, performing annotations, and issuing alerts to the astrophysics community. We present an overview of the low-latency infrastructure and the performance of the data products that are now being released during O4 based on the MDC. We report the expected median latency for the preliminary alert of full bandwidth searches (29.5 s) and show consistency and accuracy of released data products using the MDC. We report the expected median latency for triggers from early warning searches (−3.1 s), which are new in O4 and target neutron star mergers during inspiral phase. This paper provides a performance overview for LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) low-latency alert infrastructure and data products using theMDCand serves as a useful reference for the interpretation of O4 detections." fGet full access to th

The JWST doing its job again. Evidence for a Neutron star at the core of Supernova 1987A. Supernova 1987A was, as the name suggests, seen in 1987, and the first supernova ever seen at least in modern times. The following article describes that event and discovery... https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/finally-we-have-the-evidence-james-webb-telescope-spots-neutron-star-hiding-in-wreckage-of-famous-1987-supernova "'Finally, we have the evidence': James Webb telescope spots neutron star hiding in wreckage of famous 1987 supernova A neutron star spotted by the James Webb Space Telescope stayed hidden for 37 years while lurking in the wreckage of a stellar explosion, Supernova 1987A. The NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope has observed the best evidence yet for emission from a neutron star at the site of a well-known and recently-observed supernova. The supernova, known as SN 1987A, occurred 160,000 light-years from Earth in the Large Magellanic Cloud. (Image credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, and C. Fransson (Stockholm University), M. Matsuura (Cardiff University), M. J. Barlow (University College London), P. J. Kavanagh (Maynooth University), J. Larsson (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)) "Using the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), astronomers have ended a nearly decade-long game of celestial hide-and-seek after they discovered a neutron star in the wreckage of a stellar explosion. Supernova 1987A represents the remains of an exploded star that once had a mass around 8 to 10 times that of the sun. It is located around 170,000 light-years away in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy neighbor of the Milky Way. Supernova 1987A was first spotted by astronomers 37 years ago in 1987, hence the numerical aspect of its name. As it exploded, Supernova 1987A first showered Earth with ghostly particles called neutrinos and then became visible in bright light. This made it the nearest and brightest supernova seen in the night sky over Earth for around 400 years." extract: "Neutron stars are supported against complete collapse, however, by quantum effects occurring between neutrons in their interiors. These effects prevent the neutrons from cramming together. This so-called "neutron degeneracy pressure" can be overcome if a stellar core has enough mass — or if a neutron star, after its creation, piles on more mass. This would result in the birth of a black hole (if the mass minimum isn't reached, though, it won't happen.)" Showing its worth again, the JWST continues to refine time lines of the universe, along with incredible revelations such as described in the above article. Full article at link.

What method? You have not described a method. Moving this to silly claims.

Penrose diagrams contains dots which are then said to occur after an infinity of time. Drawing these dots at finite distance is misleading since it suggests we can actually reach infinite time - we can't.

If Aliens could manipulate the permittivity and permeability of space for communication purposes, would such communication be instantaneous over any distance?

And I have confirmed, and of course it is common sense, that we have not seen, nor are positively aware of what the core of Neutron stars consist of. What we can be confident of of course, is that the greater bulk of the star, are Neutrons, as the name suggests. End of story. No, that is another incorrect assumption. I have rightly said that Neutron stars (as well as black holes of course) are at astronomical distances. And I have suggested, that they generally (although there are some exceptions) don't give out visible light.(irrespective of distances, although again, all are at astronomical distances measured in many hundreds and thousands of light years) https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-neutron-star-29341 No, not at all. I suggest you read all the links without any incorrect assumptions. Suffice to say, that the mainstream model of Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars, are supported by the maths and thus correct as of the 6th May 2024. And of course the great bulk of their makeup are Neutrons. They are the only questions I am considering in this debate, despite your red herrings. https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-neutron-star-29341 "Neutron stars give off little visible light, making them practically impossible to detect in blind searches. Most of the few-thousand known examples have been discovered instead via their radio pulsations." No, I have given links, you need to do your own research without making false and incorrect assumptions that I have pointed out, over many posts now, and then failing to even acknowledge those errors. That in my estimation, is approaching avoidance of the matter at hand and admitting your errors. The confusion is yours. Gravitational waves and gravitational lensing are two of the methods that can be employed to discover Neutron stars. I will ask you in return, why do you want to ignore such valid scientific methods for discovering Neutron stars, along with ignoring the associated maths? That is against the scientific method I suggest. All Neutron stars, should be able to be detected by one of the many methods I have listed, some by visible light, others, by other means. Again, my debate with you is with regards to the mainstream model of Neutron stars, supported by the maths, which you want to insist on ignoring and of course that they consist of Neutrons in the main. . Again, ignoring the maths is is contravening the scientific method. Please be aware of that and stop avoiding that point. No.Mathematics has been an indispensable adjunct to the physical sciences and technology and has assumed a similar role in the life sciences. You have my answer many times. You also have my answer regarding my inability to supply the maths involved as I am not a scientist. I support the current model of Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars as are supported by the equations of gravity and NDP. Plus I have given many reputable links and a scientific paper, rather then as you have done, giving unsupported ideas with many baseless assumptions, while ignoring the most essential part...the maths involved... the maths that predicted these things even before they were detected. You actually havn't a leg to stand on in choosing to ignore the maths. And since we are going round in circles, and you insist on failing to recognise the facts of the indispensable nature of the maths involved, I will leave you to your confusion and will not be partaking anymore. You also have again avoided my suggestion, based on your misplaced confidence, to write up a scientific paper for peer review. Obviously, like myself and others partaking in this thread, we all know what the outcome of that will be. Best of luck.

I have asked you to confirm that we have not observed / see the star in the core of the Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars. In this reply you confirmation that Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars don't give out light (based on distance?). With regards to distance- we clearly see the light from the gas around the star (at radius of 18 - 20Km). Therefore, the distance is not a limitation to see the star (at 10Km) if it was visible. Hence, by definition when we see the gas but we don't see the star then at least for this example we should agree that there is no limitation for distance to see the star. If there are exceptions as you claim then your statement that Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars don't give out light is just incorrect. So please would you kindly show just one exception (just one example for a nearby observable star)? Could it be that we have never ever observed the light from Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars (even if it is very close - 1KLY) as those stars just don't give out light due to their size and not due to their location / distance? Hence, would you reconsider your reply? Why do you insist to confuse yourself with the gravitational effects and claim that my understanding that we can't observe / see the star is incorrect, while in your above reply there is a confirm that some stars don't give out light (due to distance) and therefore they should be invisible? Therefore - my claim for invisible stars is correct. Again, if there is exception - please show it. Don't you agree that any math is based on some assumptions. If we assume that in the core of the Pulsars/Magnetars there is a star which is made by neutrons, then we can easily calculate its expected size. If we assume that in the core of the Pulsars/Magnetars there is a star which is made by quarks, then we can find that its size should be smaller than a neutron star. However, the Math by itself can't prove if it is made by neutrons, quarks, black hole or any other combination. If you think differently, then would you kindly introduce the math which can prove that the star in the core of Pulsars/Magnetars is made by neutrons? Please don't talk about the math - introduce the equations & math with all the calculations and assumptions. Please also introduce the math why the gas around the star (at 18 - 20Km) is visible, while the star at a size of 10 kilometers is invisible.

This is another informational piece on thorium power and how the next generation of nuclear reactors could be powered by thorium, read more at Could Thorium Power the Next Generation of Nuclear Reactors? | HowStuffWorks Do you think that thorium should be used to power reactors as well as uranium?

This is an informational piece on thorium reactors and how they remove nuclear waste, read more at ‘It’s an efficient machine to destroy nuclear waste’: nuclear future powered by thorium beckons | News | Chemistry World Do you agree with the conclusion of this article, if not then why?

This is just an example of your incorrect assumptions you are inclined to make, presumably to give your hypothesis, (whatever that is) some sort of legitimacy. No where does it say this is the only means of detection. Obviously, they are also detected by their gravitational effects on spacetime and objects in their vicinity. This again obviously raises the equations of gravity and as such size and position can be confidently calculated. Because Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars, along with black holes, are at astronomical distances, and generally don't give out light. Although there are exceptions. So we need other means other then optical telescopes to detect them. electromagnetic radiation in other frequencies, along with the gravitational effects on spacetime and objects in their vicinity. A third method is gravitational lensing of more distant objects. Again the appropriate mathematics are required, which you seem intent on ignoring. Because it is not just a simple matter of agreeing with a yes or a no. You should know that. We observe the end product of stars by the means already mentioned, and as determined by the tried and tested and verified appropriate mathematics, EDP, NDP and as a consequence either white dwarfs, Neutron/Pulsar/Magnetars, or black holes. I don't believe you are in a position to demand yes or no answers, particularly when you have been shown to have made false assumptions. https://sciencing.com/characteristics-redgiant-whitedwarf-stars-8395763.html https://www.space.com/22180-neutron-stars.html Finally, to try to convince you of the power of mathematics, you must know that astronomers first hypothesized the existence of neutron stars in the 1930s, shortly after the discovery of the neutron itself. However, it wasn't until the 1960s that the first evidence for their existence was realized. The same hypotheticals apply of course to black holes, which were first hypotheized in 1789 by a bloke named John Michell, using simply Newtonian mechanics. And again, the relatively new science, (and confirmation of gravitational waves) also can decipher through the mathematical templates whether they are from Colliding Neutron stars, Neutron star and black hole or black hole and black hole merger. Why are you so intent on ignoring the equations of state and maths, and the successful validated physics that have emerged from that maths?

I have read carefully your attached article. It is stated: "Neutron stars are detected from their electromagnetic radiation. Neutron stars are usually observed to pulse radio waves and other electromagnetic radiation, and neutron stars observed with pulses are called pulsars." Hence, Neutron stars are detected from their electromagnetic radiation. In other words, we can't see / observe the star at the center of the Pulsar. Why can't we agree on what we see before we try to understand how "the equations and mathematics that is needed for gravitational collapse" can explain the observation? Why do you refuse to answer my simple legitimate question? What do we really observe? Hence, do you confirm the observations which I have highlighted? Please, Yes or no?

There is in reality only one question that needs answering, and the onus is on you to answer it. Do you have any legitimate reason for wanting to ignore the equations and mathematics that is needed for gravitational collapse. If you have, then you need to follow the point I have raised at least twice now, and you have ignored...write up a scientific paper for peer review. You never know, we may see you in Stockholm in November!!! NB:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star" "The "atmosphere" of a neutron star is hypothesized to be at most several micrometers thick, and its dynamics are fully controlled by the neutron star's magnetic field. Below the atmosphere one encounters a solid "crust". This crust is extremely hard and very smooth (with maximum surface irregularities on the order of millimeters or less), due to the extreme gravitational field" If you read that fairly comprehensive article, you may understand the error of some of the assumptions you have made.

Dear Vmedvil & Oldpaddoboy Thanks for your great support and I fully appreciate your high efforts. Unfortunately, it seems to me that you have missed some key points in my message. Therefore, before we continue the discussion, would you kindly advise if we agree on the following Magnetar / Pulsar observation: A. Ultra-strong Electromagnetic radiation - We observe / detect Ultra strong electromagnetic radiation B. Gas Disk - We observe a Gas disc / ring full with Hydrogen and Helium orbiting around the star at 0.4 c. The scientists have measured the radius of the inwards ring and it is: 20 Km. C. No observed star at the center - We have never ever observed the star that should be located at the center of the magnetar / pulsar D. Presence of (strong) sources of heat - Puzzled scientists have observed evidence for the presence of (strong) sources of heat in the outer layers of the crust: Please, at this phase do not try to explain why we don't see the star. Just tell if you confirm those observations. If you don't agree with those observations and you think that we have different observation (for example - if we really see the star in the center of the pulsar / magnetar), then please offer the article to confirm any contradicted observation.