281–290 of 329 posts
For those wondering if we could get sharper images with JWST, here’s the previously imaged black hole (same angular size as our own) compared to a single pixel from Hubble’s wide field camera 3: https://twitter.com/alex_parker/status/1116070667068170240?s... JWST will have smaller “pixels” but is in the same ballpark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Criticism must bring substance as well. Sure, anyone can sit back and say “I don’t believe this, prove it better.” But without specific claims, such criticism can’t ever be answered and the conversation is not constructive or particularly scientific. One constructive approach to criticism here would be to take the documented imaging process and apply it to other data. If it produces results that don’t match existing…
I don’t know, the criticism in OP seems pretty substantive to me. I don’t know much about this subject so I can’t really weigh in on how much the post makes sense but regardless appeal to authority is essentially the opposite of modern science. That’s why nullius in verba has been a motto of science for 300+ years. On that point, scientists don’t need you to chastise people for questioning their authority online. I t…
That's because it's a straw man argument. As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, the OP's concerns are addressed in the actual papers, which the OP conveniently ignores.
> appeal to authority is essentially the opposite of modern science.
Well, it's a good thing they're not doing that then. An appeal to authority is when you rely on an expert's prominence in one field to justify their opinions in an unrelated domain, e.g. putting credence in a software developer's pontifications on imaging black holes just because they're good at software. "Appeal to authority" doesn't apply to actual authorities in their domain – otherwise you would never be able to call expert witness at a trial, for example.
For those wondering if we could get sharper images with JWST, here’s the previously imaged black hole (same angular size as our own) compared to a single pixel from Hubble’s wide field camera 3: https://twitter.com/alex_parker/status/1116070667068170240?s... JWST will have smaller “pixels” but is in the same ballpark.
That's incredible science and engineering. The Reddit ask science thread said it would be akin to taking a photo of a donut on the moon. So impressive even if off by a lot.
For those wondering if we could get sharper images with JWST, here’s the previously imaged black hole (same angular size as our own) compared to a single pixel from Hubble’s wide field camera 3: https://twitter.com/alex_parker/status/1116070667068170240?s... JWST will have smaller “pixels” but is in the same ballpark.
That's incredible science and engineering. The Reddit ask science thread said it would be akin to taking a photo of a donut on the moon. So impressive even if off by a lot.
> EHT team members talk about a sharpness of vision akin to being able to see a bagel on the surface of the Moon. This is truly amazing!
Scientists discover a bagel on the surface of the Moon! Search for black hole ends with a bagel hole?! [Become a paid subscriber to read the full story.]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for your reply! I also think it's scientifically interesting and appreciate the work. But it should be called a model or illustration, because a human could never see this with bare eyes.
A picture is not reserved for something we can see with bare eyes - an infrared camera produces a photo, we don't call that an illustration - such cameras are used in military, geology, earth mapping and agriculture, etc. Most images in industry and astronomy could never be seen with bare eyes, because our eyes can see only 1% of what our instruments can. Ofcourse each wavelength of light works a bit differently, lik…
I'm maybe grumpy because this relatively featureless image of relatively massaged data is presented by mainstream news as "FANTASTIC new photo of a Black Hole! WOW! It looks just like in Interstellar!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot get over how many authors that article has.
How is that even possible? Anyone involved in the research in anyway is an author even without contributing to writing the paper with words? Perhaps that’s why.
Rather than attempt to disentangle, large physics collaborations normally have a “You are on all papers we publish while here and X years after you leave”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know, the criticism in OP seems pretty substantive to me. I don’t know much about this subject so I can’t really weigh in on how much the post makes sense but regardless appeal to authority is essentially the opposite of modern science. That’s why nullius in verba has been a motto of science for 300+ years. On that point, scientists don’t need you to chastise people for questioning their authority online. I t…
> I don’t know, the criticism in OP seems pretty substantive to me. That's because it's a straw man argument. As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, the OP's concerns are addressed in the actual papers, which the OP conveniently ignores. > appeal to authority is essentially the opposite of modern science. Well, it's a good thing they're not doing that then. An appeal to authority is when you rely on an expert's…
Not OP but I disagree, an appeal to authority can be any authority, even those that are experts in the field. Even the most knowledgeable experts make mistakes, so appealing only to authority is not enough, granted I haven't read the paper nor have any stake in this issue, so it's possible that when the op appealed to authority they were actually trying to appeal to the arguments presented in the paper by proxy, which is fine. But a bald appeal to authority is always flawed, and expert witnesses are just a concession the law has to make to get anywhere. In the words of Richard Feynman; "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot get over how many authors that article has.
How is that even possible? Anyone involved in the research in anyway is an author even without contributing to writing the paper with words? Perhaps that’s why.