Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, interesting! Wouldn't it be easier to photograph our own? :-)
During the press conference, they said photographing the M87 black hole was like shooting a hibernating bear, and photographing the Sag A* black hole of our galaxy like photographing a quickly moving toddler. Something about the speed making it much harder. It is also much smaller, but that's less of a problem because it's much closer. All in all apparently making it about the same angular size. But it sounds like th…
Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
461–470 of 525 posts
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#462Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are wrong, this is definitely a photo, shot by multiple telescopes global-wise.
Multiple radio telescopes right? Then the data was compiled and rendered into an image, you really think it's that bright? How about orange? I wonder why it's not symmetrical? I suppose you can take multiple images combine them into one, run it through a bunch of filters and call it a photo but I still think it's more of a rendering than a photo.
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a letdown. Although I wasn't expecting Jupiter level detail this pic doesn't blow me away because it's just a blurry ring. Jupiter level detail will blow me away.
Consider yourself lucky that a black hole isn't Jupiter level distance from us.
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a letdown. Although I wasn't expecting Jupiter level detail this pic doesn't blow me away because it's just a blurry ring. Jupiter level detail will blow me away.
Jupiter level quality would mean that we are so close that we would be instantly torn apart.
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok I mean, now what you're writing, that's not even wrong. The black part of the image being larger than the actual radius of the blackhole is a discussion about the relative size of the black area you see in the image, to the actual black hole itself. I think that should make sense to you? It's not an argument about why he predicts it will look like a "fuzzy coffee stain," as opposed to other simulated images. Are y…
I think what you're hoping for is a more exhaustive survey of what black holes are theorized to look like, with different possibilities. Is that right? The problem here is your expectation does not match the product. It's like you went to a car dealer and are upset they didn't sell you an airplane. It isn't surprising to me that Derek focuses on one form, since Veritassium is providing content for the armchair consum…
>why can you expect it to look like this? well because it's just going to look like this.
Now, I'm not trying to say his prediction was unwise. I just think it's first of all bad form to say something like "the reason is just trust me," in scientific discussions (even if you are correct)... but second I actually do want to know at least some explanation to that question. Granted, I'm not saying the video does not explain anything about the image. I wanted to know: why can we be sure it will look like this, and not other simulated images?
That's all.
You can see on the EHT's own website a gallery of other simulated models of what could be expected from a radio image.
And the second part of my criticism, was that by the end of the video, he was using images inspired by other models, and particularly of one where the accretion disk dominated the image.
I dont care how many downvotes I get, I know the difference between right and wrong and this is a perfectly reasonable criticism.
Anyways, since my posts lost 60 karma in 1 hour somehow (almost uniformly coming from posts in other threads, wtf?) some other opportunistic types see it as a chance for bullying. Even writing stuff like 'you've obviously got your jimmies rustled mate!' or other extremely bad faith assumptions like 'if you cant understand why it's fuzzy, it's far away!' The best is the troll bait comment, 'do you really think one person is downvoting you?' Groupthink, bullying, and authority define right and wrong for some people--they can't even write something that even addresses an actual comment or argument. People are crazy. Eventually they just start addressing the negativity itself, abandoning any substantive argument, and focusing on the negativity itself. The next step is using the negativity as its own justification (you deserve negativity because otherwise you wouldnt be receiving negativity kind of assumptions implicig in the above troll bait comment).
But still all that I dont think explains why comments in unrelated posts (even ones that were being complimented) got the same time-unform mass-downvotes?? I think I haven't experienced anything like this before on this site until recently. I lost 60 karma in the a few hours.
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#466Earlier quoted context omitted.
What bothered me more about the video is that of you watch the whole thing, he ends up talking about some theory which leads to another type of image prediction. He never actually explains why he chose to go with the former prediction rather than the latter.
The whole video was him explaining why the image would look the way it ended up looking. darkpuma was overly patient when explaining this to you.
There is nothing complex about my original statement there. The EHT website itself has a gallery of simulated images and I'd like to know why he chose that one specifically.
In the video he says "just trust me."
This is a perfectly reasonable criticism, I don't care how many downvotes or personal attacks I get.
It has nothing to do with anyone "being patient." That thread was 90% bullying, which you are taking part of.
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
the original tiff is 7416x4320 it's still too many pixel, it can be a fifth of that while conveying the same amount of information. I'm puzzled by this, if each of those pixel is actually captured by the lenses, why is it all this much uniform? was it smoothed or does this suggest that it's actually a gigantic uniform cloud of gas? haven't seen the whole video of the release, I'll have to catch up later in the evenin…
There is no lens. This was done using eight radio telescopes (or arrays) around the globe to create a "virtual" radio telescope which is effectively the size of the earth. After that the data of the individual telescopes was processed to produce an image. There is some more info in the wikipedia article for the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope#/media...
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
May be we can see higher resolution if we build an additional telescope.
More distant (longer baseline), not merely additional sensors. Resolving power is proportional to the (virtual) aperture size, not the total sensor area (that gives more signal strength).