All Activity

In this video an octopus appears to lead a woman to a small cashe' of human artifacts including a photo of a human. Is it a reasonable conclusion that the octopus realized the possible value of a picture of a human or somehow thought a human would be interested in a picture of a human or even that the octopus connected the artifacts with the human due to the picture? If this is accurate it raises some real questions about just how intelligent an octopus really is. The video is 01:34 long, in my experience I've seen octopus do some unbelievable things but I never was able to decide if it was my own perspective that decided the octopus was acting as an intelligent agent or if the octopuses actions were actually intelligent independent of my own perception of its actions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9Vl8vWyZNE

Scientific theories while always based on the best current observational and experimental evidence available, still remain scientific theories, that are open due to the possiblllty of new evidence that may re-enforce the theory, add to it, modify it, change it somewhat, or even have it completely scrapped. Scientific theories are never set in stone. When I was a child in the fifties, we had three competing theories for the evolution of the universe, the big bang, steady state, and oscillating models. With the discovery of the CMBR and other evidence, the big bang arose to prominence, while the others fell by the wayside. Others like the Electric/Plasma universe models were totally debunked. In other words, any doubts you have with regards to the accepted mainstream model/theory, needs to be supported and the proper procedure and scientific method followed. Hope that helps.

Just as I have advised you about in the other thread discussing Neutron stars, the results and conclusions reached, are a result of the evidence available. The "nearby" Supernova SN 1987A was visible to the naked eye and its progress and evolution has been under constant observation and research over more then three decades now. In line with the mathematics involved, scientific theory predicted either a Neutron star or a black hole. There is absolutely no reason for mainstream science to doubt this. The final and irrefutable evidence available, and as detailed in the original paper and article, now confirms a neutron star. If however you have any other as yet unknown and unobserved evidence, suggesting anything else, then please follow the scientific methodology, write up a paper with that evidence, and submit it for peer review. Mainstream science would be over joyed at any new information you have. In the meantime, assumptions just don't cut it. In the meantime and in support of the status quo and original estatic A article..... https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adj5796 Editor’s summary "The nearby supernova SN 1987A was visible to the naked eye, and its evolution has been observed over the ensuing decades. The explosion is thought to have produced a neutron star or black hole, but none has been directly detected. Fransson et al. observed a remnant of SN 1987A using near- and mid-infrared integral field spectroscopy. They identified emission lines of ionized argon that appear only near the center of the remnant. Photoionization models show that the line ratios and velocities can be explained by ionizing radiation from a neutron star illuminating gas from the inner parts of the exploded star. —Keith T. Smith" Abstract "The nearby Supernova 1987A was accompanied by a burst of neutrino emission, which indicates that a compact object (a neutron star or black hole) was formed in the explosion. There has been no direct observation of this compact object. In this work, we observe the supernova remnant with JWST spectroscopy, finding narrow infrared emission lines of argon and sulfur. The line emission is spatially unresolved and blueshifted in velocity relative to the supernova rest frame. We interpret the lines as gas illuminated by a source of ionizing photons located close to the center of the expanding ejecta. Photoionization models show that the line ratios are consistent with ionization by a cooling neutron star or a pulsar wind nebula. The velocity shift could be evidence for a neutron star natal kick." More at link............................

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. Your pet assumptions remain as assumptions. End of story.

Thanks for this information. However, why are we so sure that the Neutron star that we see is a direct outcome from the observed supernova in 1987? This neutron star is located at the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy neighbor of the Milky Way. There are billion of neutron stars in the Milky way: https://www.space.com/22180-neutron-stars.html NASA estimates that there are as many as a billion neutron stars in our Milky Way Therefore, technically, there could be millions of neutron stars at this dwarf galaxy. We have detected a neutron star at a distance of about 1000 Ly away from us. In the same token, there is a possibility that the detected neutron star was already there at a distance of 1,000 Ly from this supernova. So, how do we know for sure that the neutron star that we see from a distance of 170,000 Ly is the direct outcome from that specific supernova which took place in 1987 and not a nearby neutron star that was there long before that date?

But it's not a theology discussion, its a truth claim...