🧵 Black holes aren’t real
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:06:25 UTC No. 16207885
Why do popsci fans and fantasy nerds keep insisting that these digital images are real and shove them down my throat? No black holes don’t exist and even if they did what fucking point or use does that information have for humanity?
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:08:15 UTC No. 16207888
>>16207885
The existence of black holes is one of the best and most successful tests of general relativity. They definitely exist.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:13:54 UTC No. 16207894
>>16207888
Prove it nerd
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:03:29 UTC No. 16208102
>>16207888
>The existence of black holes is one of the best and most successful tests of general relativity
Pretty on the nose, considering general relativity is just a pilpul "explanation" of a null result.
>They definitely exist.
Your example is another proof they don't, not that you should be expected to prove what never had a basis in reality in the first place,
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:08:10 UTC No. 16208108
>>16207885
Im trans btw, and GR filters me
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:08:23 UTC No. 16208110
>>16207885
>Why do popsci fans and fantasy nerds keep insisting that these digital images are real
Look at this fake digital image I took of a fake digital lizard in a fake digital zoo in a fake digital universe
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:12:20 UTC No. 16208119
>No black holes don’t exist
And I'm sure you have a model that can fit all this orbital data without a black hole (or something stranger).
Please link the analysis.
>even if they did what fucking point or use does that information have for humanity?
If it's so irrelevant then why make this thread at all? All you've done is make a statement about your own prejudice, which you dogmatically proclaimed as absolute truth.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:13:37 UTC No. 16208122
>>16208119
There a giant black hole at the center of the solar system too
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:21:16 UTC No. 16208138
>>16208122
Nope. We've been over this. As I proved to you if you make the same assumptions in the Solar system there is no compact mass peak.
By Kepler's laws the closest planets should orbit fastest. The Sun is closest, but orbits slower than Mercury. The Sun would have to orbit 34,000 times after if it followed the same Keplerian law. It doesn't. This is not the case in the Galactic Center, the closest stars are moving the fastest.
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16169
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:22:21 UTC No. 16208140
>>16208119
>Oh look, "nothing"
>"B-B-BUT THAT MEANS THERE IS SOMETHING!"
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:23:10 UTC No. 16208141
>Why do popsci fans and fantasy nerds keep insisting that these digital images are real and shove them down my throat?
Ah, I'm sure you prefer to look at the data as visibility amplitudes. Even then one can see the data is consistent with a ring, and that something is resolved. This is without any imaging, machine learning or interpolation.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:24:38 UTC No. 16208145
>>16208140
There is something there, it flares from time to time across the EM spectrum.
And stars don't orbit nothing like this.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:24:57 UTC No. 16208147
>>16207885
Meds.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:30:43 UTC No. 16208159
>>16208145
>stars don't orbit nothing
so you're saying theres a black hole between every binary star pair?
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:31:30 UTC No. 16208160
>>16208145
>It's a magnetic fart
>And stars don't orbit nothing like this.
It's like saying the shit in your toilet bowl "orbits" the drain.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:31:44 UTC No. 16208162
>>16208159
JWST orbits a Lagrange point, there must be a black hole there otherwise JWST couldn't be orbiting there
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:31:51 UTC No. 16208163
>>16208159
Now do the same for 20 stars, you'll find that this orbit does not hold
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:33:14 UTC No. 16208165
>>16208162
>JWST orbits a Lagrange point
Yes and tell us what is at this "null point" these mutual masses "orbit"?
Barkon at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:41:15 UTC No. 16208182
*dog fart*
>Perfect for your pseudo-intellectual discussion
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:47:03 UTC No. 16208276
>>16208159
Not the same. Apply Kepler's laws and see them fail, because it's not in the regime where there is one big central mass.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:51:47 UTC No. 16208284
>>16208162
L2 orbits the Sun.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:03:34 UTC No. 16208299
>>16208163
if yall even take a rudimentary astrophysics course on mechanics you wont be making these retarded comments on the internet lmfao
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:13:16 UTC No. 16208310
>>16208141
Ok let’s entertain your argument. Say yes I can measure different waves on the electromagnetic spectrum from the distant universe.
And say for example we know we can measure density of formations with the Doppler effect.
That still doesn’t explain what the hell your looking at if you can’t actually travel to what your trying to observe.
Your just making assumptions and guessing on the data your acquiring and stating it as an absolute fact. When it’s just a guess.
Astrophysicist are delusional ego maniacs
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:22:24 UTC No. 16208324
>>16208276
>Not the same
weak cope, it is the same. everything orbits the center of mass. just because an object is orbiting a point does not mean there is a mass at that point.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:24:47 UTC No. 16208326
>>16208119
if there was really a large mass at the center of that pic then the pic would have massive evidence of gravitational lensing, but it shows none, which proves that those objects are just orbiting the galaxy's barycenter
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:32:36 UTC No. 16208334
>>16208326
Bahahahahahahahaha gravitational lensing hahahahahaha how do you know this effect isn’t caused by the optical telescopes themselves? Bro you do know these images they are looking at are very blurry. Also outside the solar systems celestial mechanics, it’s just pure speculation from these so called scientists.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:32:40 UTC No. 16208335
>>16208324
Strawman argument. You're trying to pretend all that is known is that a star orbits a point. In reality the whole orbit is known over years for many stars, and so one can easily fit the orbits for different mass distributions.
If you can quantitatively fit those data without any central mass, please show it.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:51:44 UTC No. 16208360
>>16208326
No it wouldn't. Normal lensing happens when the lensing mass is between the source and the observer. The closer the mass is to the source or the observer the less the deflection. It is best when it's half way. In this case the stars are all pretty much at the same distance as the mass. Lensing can be estimated by the thin lens approximation, where the deflection happens in the plane of the mass. If we apply that approximation in this case there is zero apparent lensing, because it just moves the rays around. It doesn't change the apparent position of any of the sources. To first order there is no lensing.
You can work out the Einstein radius. Which is the angle a perfect lensing ring would be. Also the limit of how close a star would have to be to be lensed. It comes out as 0.5 miliarcseconds. Much smaller than a pixel. None of the stars are this close in projection, and they would have to be right behind the black hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einst
People have calculated the effect of lensing in the Galactic Center. It's currently too small to be detected.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:12:29 UTC No. 16208385
>>16208335
you didn't do that fit and you couldn't reproduce it, you have zero education in physics if you think a fit around a barycenter would be any different from a fit around a central mass.
>>16208360
>wikipedia
its like admitting you have no idea what you're talking about
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:45:33 UTC No. 16208438
>>16208385
>you didn't do that fit and you couldn't reproduce it, you have zero education in physics if you think a fit around a barycenter would be any different from a fit around a central mass.
I already proved it is. The periods do not follow Kepler's law if the mass is resolved. You haven't been paying attention.
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16169
Funny when I posted that you didn't bother replying. And you ignored it again here today. You are afraid of talking actual physics.
Also from the different stars one can work out the enclosed mass. For the very farthest stars the enclosed mass decades with distance from the black hole, because this mass is dominated by the stars. Then it flattens out, the enclosed mass is constant because it's a compact object. The stars are negligible.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:51:43 UTC No. 16208703
>>16208326
This, the lack of any lensing proves that there really is nothing there
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:55:23 UTC No. 16208710
>>16208703
Why don't you calculate how much the lensing deflection is?
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 04:52:57 UTC No. 16209191
>>16208710
There isn't any lensing because there isn't anything there to do the lensing
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:08:51 UTC No. 16209442
>>16207885
>>16207894
>>16208102
>>16208110
There are far too many complex phenomena observed to get into detailed conversations regarding each of them in a single thread, but here is a list to get you started on your reading.
If you have specific questions about any of these phenomena, you should start a separate thread regarding it.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 20:16:11 UTC No. 16210348
>>16209442
neutrons aren't a fundamental particle moron, pushing neutrons past their degeneracy pressure limit will never produce your sci-fi black hole meme no matter how much you want it to.
>angular momentum? whats that? never heard of it before because I've never studied physics
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 20:24:25 UTC No. 16210358
>Sagittarius A** hole
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 20:35:07 UTC No. 16210374
>>16210348
What?
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 20:43:03 UTC No. 16210389
>>16209442
Look moron we already know particle physics is incomplete. And we can’t unify classical and particle physics.
Bayron-asymmetry tells us that big bang is incorrect because astrophysicists can’t even figure it out in their own calculations.
So why do I have to trust black holes too?
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:01:21 UTC No. 16210434
>>16207885
>>16207888
>>16207894
>>16208093
>>16208102
>>16208108
>>16208110
>>16208110
>>16208119
>>16208122
>>16208138
>>16208140
>>16208141
>>16208145
>>16208147
>>16208159
>>16208160
>>16208162
>>16208163
>>16208165
>>16208182
>>16208276
>>16208284
>>16208299
>>16208310
>>16208324
>>16208326
>>16208334
>>16208335
>>16208360
>>16208385
>>16208438
>>16208703
>>16208710
>>16209191
>>16209442
>>16210348
>>16210358
>>16210374
>>16210389
People looooooove to praise science.
Science is just religion.
There's no reason to think black holes exist. The universe as you see it does not even exist. It is quite literally not real. Everything is just a dream in the mind of God.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:31:32 UTC No. 16210499
>>16207885
>Why do popsci fans and fantasy nerds keep insisting that these digital images are real and shove them down my throat?
Only thing shoved down your throat is a dick, m8.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:36:12 UTC No. 16210509
>>16210434
>GOD
>>>/his/
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 05:06:00 UTC No. 16211091
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 08:12:56 UTC No. 16211199
>>16210348
>moron
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:09:16 UTC No. 16211384
>>16209442
Gaya telescope failed to detect any
Barkon. at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:14:12 UTC No. 16211388
>>16211384
I will move onto that if this doesn't work and I know what you mean I have discovered it.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 22:19:32 UTC No. 16212569
>THERE'S BLACK HOLES ALL AROUND US
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY'RE NOT REAL?
>JUST BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE OR MEASURE THEM IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT REAL YOU FUCKING ANTISEMITIC CHUD!!!
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU BELIEVE IN GOD YOU 5TH CENTURY PISSCEL?
>GOD ISN'T REAL BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE OR MEASURE HIM IN ANY WAY!!!!
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 22:55:53 UTC No. 16212623
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 23:06:22 UTC No. 16212633
>>16207888
are these "black holes" in the thread with us now?
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 23:12:07 UTC No. 16212642
>>16212633
yep.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 13:31:52 UTC No. 16214878
>>16212569
Go outside freak
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 13:37:05 UTC No. 16214981
>>16207894
lol we all you have to do is look at Schwartzchilds work
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 14:16:04 UTC No. 16216026
>>16207888
black holes solely can't proof general relativity. you can find the required mass and radius for escape speed c in pure Newtonian physics.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 17:46:33 UTC No. 16217257
>>16207885
Because you are addicted to BBC
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 17:53:53 UTC No. 16217267
>>16208138
2-body problems dont follow kepler's laws
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:47:06 UTC No. 16217537
>>16207885
Sure is lucky the black hole is facing directly toward us or it would be a lot harder to convince the public that's actually a picture of a black hole!
That might endanger future funding.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:49:09 UTC No. 16217546
>>16217537
(For anyone wondering, I made that picture myself, but NASA would never, ever do that.)
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:27:55 UTC No. 16217703
>>16217537
There was no luck involved. We already knew the orientation of the accretion disc, that is part of the reason that particular blackhole was chosen.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 04:00:39 UTC No. 16218801
>>16210374
you don't have even a tiny grasp of physics, you've never studied at even an undergrad level, thats why you're confused and its also the only reason why you think black holes could possibly exist.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 04:10:03 UTC No. 16218807
>>16207888
But relativity is fake. Circular logic is retarded.
>black roles are real because relativity says so
>relativity is real because black holes say so
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 23:35:48 UTC No. 16220893
people who spend their lives daydreaming about space are people who are avoiding thinking about their failure and inability to provide a satisfactory life for themselves here on earth with the rest of the humans. its a massive escapist cope for cringey losers with personality disorders that they're unwilling to correct.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 23:39:16 UTC No. 16220898
>>16220893
I think about space a lot. I also have a 7" dick and a sexy wife and a lot of money.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 00:13:55 UTC No. 16220943
>>16220898
Says the anonymous guy on the internet
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 02:03:36 UTC No. 16221068
horrible board
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 04:52:56 UTC No. 16221302
>>16217703
>that is part of the reason that particular blackhole was chosen
Well if it weren't, we would have had to choose one of the other black holes at the center of our galaxy. It sure is convenient!
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 07:52:04 UTC No. 16221522
>>16217537
The effect of orientation isn't as much as you would think. Pic related, you can still see the shadow.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 12:22:01 UTC No. 16221771
>>16221068
I'm sorry we popped your gay sci fi bubbel
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 13:33:42 UTC No. 16221854
>>16217257
>Nigger brings his intellectual contribution to the thread.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 13:39:21 UTC No. 16221860
>>16221522
You think those photoshops prove anything?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 13:43:54 UTC No. 16221866
>>16221860
Read the text that is on the image, dumbfuck.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 13:59:11 UTC No. 16221888
>>16221860
As opposed to a literal cartoon? Yes.
>For anyone wondering, I made that picture myself
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:08:11 UTC No. 16221908
>>16221302
>if that were not a good one, we would have looked for another one
Brilliant anon, you're progressing.
well done.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 22:05:19 UTC No. 16222970
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 09:29:48 UTC No. 16224092
>>16207885
>NPR
thats how you know its fake
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 09:54:42 UTC No. 16224122
>>16221522
so the "edge on" case just did not happen for pure coincidence!?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 12:14:47 UTC No. 16224268
>>16224122
No, it didn't happen because we specifically chose to image a black hole we know is pointing at us, because we can see the direction its relativistic jets are pointing.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:03:19 UTC No. 16225230
>>16224268
But we can't see it. This was chosen cause it is in centre of our galaxy
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:20:19 UTC No. 16225256
>>16224122
Well they've only looked at 2 objects so far.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:59:28 UTC No. 16225353
>>16221771
you didnt pop shit, drooling monkey
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:12:49 UTC No. 16226288
>>16207885
They're too dumb to tell the difference between AI generated slop and actual images, they don't understand optics or diffraction limits so they can't tell when they're being lied to so they'll believe anything
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:12:02 UTC No. 16226403
>>16226288
say you don't know what the EHT is without saying it. The telescope was effectively 2 AU in diameter.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:50:07 UTC No. 16226446
>>16226403
Ok. build a effectively 2 meter telescope with two of these
It should be trivial for someone with your level of knowledge in optics
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:18:16 UTC No. 16226481
>>16226403
No, it just gathered some data in that range. The rest is computer generated fact+fiction. The question is how much is fiction.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:00:40 UTC No. 16227132
>Dunning-Kruger anons thinking they're the only ones who know the truth
Many such cases.
>"It's photoshopped, because it doesn't make sense."
>"They're too dumb to know the REAL truth."
>"The odds are so low, it has to be fake."
>"Can't see it, so it doesn't exist."
>"I think the experts are faking it to trick people. Not me though, I'm a genius."
>"If [theory] isn't in line with [belief] it's a jewish plot."
>"Big bang theory is fake because I think physicists are stupid and arrogant."
You niggas don't understand object permanence, much less conditional hypotheticals. Endless entertainment. None of the people here actually matter either, since this board is fucking trash.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:26:11 UTC No. 16227704
>>16220893
>thing above ground, think about it mean want escape ground ! ! !
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:20:46 UTC No. 16228776
>>16227704
you're only upset because you've been accurately characterized
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:26:42 UTC No. 16229796
>>16212569
lol
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:38:16 UTC No. 16229803
>>16220893
Monumental retardation
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:44:04 UTC No. 16229811
>>16208110
He cute
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 19:08:39 UTC No. 16230799
>>16229803
you're only upset because you've been accurately characterized
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 05:43:17 UTC No. 16231871
>>16208138
Kepler didn't understand Newtonian gravity because he died before Newton was born. Thats why his laws don't really tend to work all that well
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 06:59:52 UTC No. 16231974
>>16231871
Nope, they work just fine in the classical limit. They were empirically derived, and can be derived from Newtonian gravity.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:19:17 UTC No. 16231991
>>16231871
Nope, they work just fine in the one-body limit. They were empirically derived, and can be derived from Newtonian gravity.
🗑️ Barkon. at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:21:14 UTC No. 16231994
Barkon does love you
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 01:05:05 UTC No. 16233644
>>16231991
>I understand how the universe works
>thats why I need to I rely on 1500s science
how much longer until you graduate from high school
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 01:19:26 UTC No. 16233660
>>16207885
It is literally impossible to take a photograph of any supposed black holes from Earth. The entire image is computer generated and people are retarded for acting like it's a real photo.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 17:54:46 UTC No. 16234832
>>16233660
Its just an AI pic, the astromorons are so deluded and low IQ that they think its a real pic LOL
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 17:55:52 UTC No. 16234835
>>16233660
Pictures you take with your phone are computer generated too but that doesn't change the fact that they're useful renderings of real-life stuff.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 18:19:09 UTC No. 16234860
>>16234835
This photo is not real idiot. This is a generated image. God idiots like you believe in the tooth fairy and Santa clause
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 18:26:53 UTC No. 16234879
>>16234860
It's not a GENERATED image. It's a COMPUTED image, computed from raw sensor data …just like the pictures you take with your iphone.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:07:02 UTC No. 16234934
>>16233660
>It is literally impossible to take a photograph of any supposed black holes from Earth.
And how is that so?
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:08:33 UTC No. 16234938
>>16233644
Not my point. The fact that the approximation breaks down in one case and not the other demonstrated they are not the same.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:12:22 UTC No. 16234948
>>16234832
Nope. The image is a combination of 3 methods, only one of them using learning methods. Pic related is an independent reanalysis of the same data with standard VLBI techniques (no AI, no training). And yet they get a ring.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 20:01:47 UTC No. 16235038
>>16234948
it is A PRIORI ASSUMPTION it is ring/disk like
it does not need to be REALLY TOWARDS US the data is just frequencies
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 20:14:16 UTC No. 16235067
>>16235038
>A PRIORI
midwit detected, shutting down
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 20:24:19 UTC No. 16235092
>>16235038
And where is that implemented in the anaysis?
>it does not need to be REALLY TOWARDS US the data is just frequencies
What does that even mean? No, there is more information than just the frequency. Interferometry has spatial information, not just spectral.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:14:56 UTC No. 16235195
>>16208310
Lemme guess, quantum mechanics is wrong too according to you
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:15:58 UTC No. 16235197
>>16212569
Jews didn't believe in black holes until the Aryan followers of Christ dragged the evidence in front of their faces.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:20:08 UTC No. 16235203
>>16221302
That picture is of a black hole in the center of another galaxy, not ours.
If it were facing sideways, we'd have chosen another one.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:25:54 UTC No. 16235210
>>16234860
Your eye generates images for your brain. This is no more, or less real than what you see everyday.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 22:57:21 UTC No. 16235330
>>16235067
>>16235092
Spatial, but no axis orientation data. So you orient the axes how you like it most. A disk towards you.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 06:04:33 UTC No. 16235795
>>16234948
>We explore the impact on the final image of different starting models, including the following: a point source, a disk, an annulus, a Gaussian, and an asymmetric double Gaussian.
And then they pick the one that gives a ring and assume that's correct because there should obviously be a ring there because basedence said so
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 08:11:01 UTC No. 16235920
>>16235330
That's also wrong. The axis of an pair of antennas (a baseline) defines the axis of that particular visibility.
>>16235795
Keep reading. The annulus provides the lowest residuals, and even when using a point source model they still get a ring.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 08:57:29 UTC No. 16235973
>>16235920
And it just happened to be exactly towards us. Kek u stooopid.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 09:29:42 UTC No. 16235996
>>16235973
Nope. The first black hole that was imaged (in M87) has an inclination angle of 17 degrees. For the Milky Way's black hole it's only constrained to be less than 50 degrees inclined. The accretion disk always forms a ring around the edge due to lensing, from any angle. Stop making shit up.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:40:53 UTC No. 16236073
>>16235996
so now you say there can be even 50 deg incline
why can't scientist be consistent what they claim?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 12:24:49 UTC No. 16236202
>>16236073
That's what they always said. Read the papers. You're the only one claiming the inclination is zero.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:20:31 UTC No. 16237475
belief in the black hole meme image turns on ignorance of optics. if you're too ignorant optics to know how to calculate diffraction limits then you're ignorant enough to think the meme picture is a legitimate image.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 09:02:08 UTC No. 16237545
>>16237475
So the wavelength is 1.3 millimeters.
The finest resolution is set by the longest baseline, the longest separation between telescopes. In the case of EHT for the Sagittarius A* run this was from the IRAM telescope in France to the South Pole Telescope. 11384 km.
This gives an inteferometeric diffraction limit (lambda/B) of 23.5 microarcseconds (1.15x10^-10 rad). This is about the same size as the circle in the image, as you can see this resolution is sufficient to resolve the source and match the claims in the paper.
Maybe next time you should check first instead of embarrassing yourself.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 09:03:52 UTC No. 16237547
>>16237545
Image
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:06:22 UTC No. 16238348
>>16237545
>This gives an inteferometeric diffraction limit
no it doesn't, not with that diffraction pattern. try again simpleton
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:28:43 UTC No. 16238500
>>16238348
>not with that diffraction pattern.
You do know how aperture synthesis works right? It's not a snapshot.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 03:28:37 UTC No. 16238919
>>16209442
>A long list of all this actual shit with actual properties that we measured that aren't a black hole
Shadow chasing technology. Dare I say "nigga technology". Dumb niggas talking to other dumb niggas about dumb nigga shit.
>>16238500
>They account for the issue with their lenses and equipment, but there's no possible way space is acting like a polarized medium and effectively acting like a polarized lense itself, creating the illusion of a "black hole".
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 03:35:10 UTC No. 16238929
>>16237547
fake and gay
everything about that project was a hoax, they even tried to credit all the work to some dumb jewish bitch who's only contribution was picking out fonts for the software they used to make that fake image.
the only people who think that was real are the same idiots who were gullible enough to believe that a picture of sausage was a jwst pic.
you low IQ popsoi IFLS faggots are the cancer that is killing sciecne.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:37:27 UTC No. 16239165
>>16238919
What issue? Who are you quoting.
I'm still waiting for your evidence that this is impossible due to "diffraction limits". Please enclose your calculation.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:56:28 UTC No. 16239314
>>16208119
What an awesome gif.
Why did they stop making measurements in 2011?
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:02:28 UTC No. 16239552
>>16238929
And what are your contributions to science besides sperging out on /sci/ for the past decade or so?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 06:06:27 UTC No. 16240602
>>16239552
>And what are your contributions to science besides sperging out on /sci/ for the past decade or so?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 07:09:30 UTC No. 16240666
>>16239314
They didn't. You will find newer ones if you search.
https://www.eso.org/public/australi
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:48:48 UTC No. 16240939
>>16240602
https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search
Sad!
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 05:43:38 UTC No. 16242239
>>16240939
>being this triggered by 'jaks
Verification not required.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 03:51:02 UTC No. 16243583
>>16207885
That's just a blurred pic of the Firefox logo
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 19:28:27 UTC No. 16244443
>>16243583
its twum
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:41:04 UTC No. 16245861
>>16216026
NO YOU CANT JUST HECKIN NOT USE THE SUPER JEW SCIENCE GOY
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:53:30 UTC No. 16245884
>>16245848
I like how the guy behind her is in total despair basically.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:14:18 UTC No. 16246020
>>16208093
Brain so massive it forms a black hole
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:43:20 UTC No. 16246054
>>16207885
Imagine asserting that space-time it self moves with any level of fluid dynamics, while asserting that concepts such as Aether are wrong.
>It just adheres to fluid dynamics models by coincidence.
Sure bro.
Sure.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 00:16:05 UTC No. 16246502
It was predicted by relativity.
We've seen relativity work on objects like distant stars being bent around the sun, which we then look at later once we're around the other side of the sun.
We used satellites to look at places where stars orbit strangely, and we see that based off the orbits there should be a massive object in a certain area
Not long ago, we were able to take a snapshot of a distant black hole, not using visible light but we've had x-rays for long enough that you should understand that non-visible light being shown visually isn't "CGI."
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:05:42 UTC No. 16247706
>>16246502
>We
you've never seen any of that
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:01:22 UTC No. 16247950
>>16247706
You can look up all the data online yourself, for free.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 08:06:03 UTC No. 16248939
>>16247950
>i know its true cause i saw it on the internet
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 14:28:34 UTC No. 16249200
>>16207894
The first real image of a black hole was captured and released after the movie Interstellar was made:
> Interstellar was released in 2014
> The first ever image of a real black hole was captured by the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) project and released to the public on April 10, 2019
Interestingly, the black hole depicted in Interstellar, named Gargantua, turned out to be remarkably similar in some ways to the real black hole image
The accuracy of Interstellar's black hole was due to the involvement of physicist Kip Thorne as a scientific consultant. Thorne worked with the visual effects team to create scientifically accurate simulations of what a black hole might look like, based on Einstein's equations
In other words, dishonest minority elements within the scientific community use Kip Thorne's models to fake a black hole image.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 14:37:33 UTC No. 16249208
>>16249200
I cannot look at a female face without perceiving some level of dishonesty.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:16:16 UTC No. 16249339
>>16249200
>ricardo liking that hoe
Impossible.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 17:13:31 UTC No. 16249462
>>16207888
Meds
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 18:51:54 UTC No. 16249653
the sky is a hologram projected onto the dome by the "black sun"
It was created by the Anunnaki to distract us from their secret underground base
Did you know that the sun diety was the last to be added to the Egyptian pantheon?
because it was a later addition to the projection
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 21:40:47 UTC No. 16249929
>>16239165
>I'm still waiting for your evidence that this is impossible
Why? I'm still waiting for you evidence of a black hole.
>"diffraction limits".
Who are YOU quoting?
>Please enclose your calculation.
Of what?
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 21:54:04 UTC No. 16249945
>>16249929
>Who are YOU quoting?
I dunno. Maybe look at the post being quoted?
>>16237475
>>if you're too ignorant optics to know how to calculate diffraction limits
Also
>>16226288
>>they don't understand optics or diffraction limits
>>Please enclose your calculation.
>Of what?
The diffraction limit.
>Why?
Because you claimed it was impossible. But never provided any evidence. I have already proven it false by the calculation postsd. You provided no counter argument or evidence of your claim.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 09:39:36 UTC No. 16250573
>>16248939
TRUST THE SOIYENCE!!!!!
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 12:28:44 UTC No. 16250740
>>16239552
ngl this is pretty cringe of you to post, especially with all the useless diversity bitches clogging up the fields these days.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 12:52:14 UTC No. 16250768
>another "/pol/schizo too stupid to understand something so they construct a conspiracy theory" thread
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 04:26:43 UTC No. 16252153
>>16250768
projection, you're the one inventing paranoid conspiracies to explain away seeing your memorized academic dogma contradicted
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:14:54 UTC No. 16253391
>>16252153
Thats what dogmatists do when they see their religion contradicted, thats what the jesuits did to Galileo
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:03:22 UTC No. 16255255
>>16217682
>the sausage meme
NASA spent $88 billion to develop that meme and it was worth every penny
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:24:18 UTC No. 16256849
>>16234948
>harvard.edu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Z
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 05:08:44 UTC No. 16257702
>>16242239
>Verification not required.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 05:17:15 UTC No. 16257711
>>16207885
This whole thing sure was a mindfuck for me.
>First ever photo of a black hole? Aren't there like a million of those already?
>Oh shit those are all just drawings
>So why didn't they just point the Hubble telescope at one?
>Oh...
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 05:49:58 UTC No. 16257748
>>16208110
fake digital cuteness
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 06:45:55 UTC No. 16257787
Black holes provide an option to make a ridiculous amount of energy in the future when we are interstellar.
They also represent interesting choices for weapons.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 00:32:38 UTC No. 16259041
>>16257787
>hay guise!! muh soience fiction fantasist life I got implanted in my brain by hollywood!!!
>laser swords and time travel and sheeeeiiiiitttt!!
>beam me up scotty!!!
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:43:42 UTC No. 16259485
>>16259041
You don't think that the most extreme objects in the universe are interesting or useful for high-energy applications?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 09:24:59 UTC No. 16259508
>>16235197
Thats because they were jelaous a non jew came up with such a good psyop
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 09:26:19 UTC No. 16259510
>>16249200
>real image
Its not a real image though
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 15:36:08 UTC No. 16259918
>>16259041
Smartphones used to be science fiction.
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 04:44:40 UTC No. 16260675
>>16249200
heres a picture of kip thorne on epstein island
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 04:48:29 UTC No. 16260676
>>16207888
this reminds me of the discussion about Karl Popper philosophy: in order to be able to falsify a hypothesis, you must first prove all other hypothesis are that used in the experiment to be unshakably true, a feast that Karl Popper framework cannot do at all.
think for a bit and you'll realize that it's bullshit all the way down.
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 04:49:37 UTC No. 16260678
>>16260027
hi newfag, bashing astronomy is the tradition of this board since like whatever how many years ago. lurk moar.
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 05:07:38 UTC No. 16260699
>>16235203
>I can't read the OP image.
Have someone read it to you.
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 05:09:38 UTC No. 16260702
>>16239552
>OH YEAH? WELL I'LL REPLY WITH AN AD HOMINEM! TAKE THAT!
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 21:16:31 UTC No. 16263313
>>16262049
NEAT-O!!!
OMG I LOVE SCIENCE SO MUCH!!!
ITS SO COOL!!!
SUGOI!!!!
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 17:05:31 UTC No. 16264523
>>16263313
>LASER SWORDS!!!
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 17:10:36 UTC No. 16264533
>>16207885
to asd hai for a coffe what did you think?
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 05:37:24 UTC No. 16265513
>>16260702
irrational people who have no argument always to reply somehow, their emotions control them and they too upset to wonder about why they have no argument, thats the nature of irrational beasts, emotion is their primary motivator.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:33:25 UTC No. 16266083
>>16265513
in an universe wiht very little intelligent live froms they can be real but will most likely have the structure of rainbow, in an universe wiht muc intelligenfce "hard" envent horizons can from more easy
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:35:12 UTC No. 16266085
>>16265513
>>16266083
the pure physical pressur, of an themric decay will most likely form rainbow like event horizons.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:36:17 UTC No. 16266087
>>16265513
>>16266085
then again the entire planet is a algorythm their for super hard evenhorizons can exist thats my oppinioin
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 17:36:53 UTC No. 16266265
>>16207885
>NPR
thats how you know its fake
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 17:43:39 UTC No. 16266275
A stable Einstein-Rosen bridge is absolutely possible with negative energy.
If there are any top-level physicists reading this, include that in your assumptions and I'm pretty sure things will play out neatly.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 23:26:32 UTC No. 16266858
>>16260027
One dedicated schizo who's spent literal years spamming /sci/ tilting at many different windmills of which astronomy is one of his more consistent.
Check out how many 828 pixel wide phone screencaps with filenames clustered around IMG_500 are OP pics, although this is an old thread hence the 255 filename. This only accounts for phone screenshot spam and not his numerous other threads.
If you really want to waste your time you can go to other threads and look for more iphone screenshots and realize he accounts for a significant portion of /sci/s daily posts when the three schizo namefags aren't in a mania phase.
There's also a different phoneposting spammer who's currently arguing with people about quantum physics being wrong and dinosaurs not existing
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 23:36:18 UTC No. 16266872
>>16266858
Example:
https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search
Lobotomies should have never gone out of style
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 23:42:57 UTC No. 16266881
>>16266275
>A stable Einstein-Rosen bridge is absolutely possible with negative energy.
Some negative energy just flew over my house!
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 23:43:33 UTC No. 16266882
>>16266275
>if you use shit that doesn't fucking exist then you can create something that will never fucking exist
We appreciate your insight
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 01:23:58 UTC No. 16266982
>>16266858
Das right it’s me but don’t worry detective anon. Since you figured me out I will have to start scrambling my file names thanks for the heads up
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 01:35:07 UTC No. 16266996
>>16207885
so if it isn't a black hole holding our galaxy together, what does? You'd have to deny everything we were taught about gravity and orbit etc etc
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 01:40:42 UTC No. 16266998
>>16209442
Those results are all consistent with aether theory retard, not to mention am infinitude of other models that are mathematically equivalent. Your stupid post is exactly the point of this thread. Every scientist will admit that models are just models and should not be conflated with the underlying reality...and then out of the other side of their mouth they brow beat anyone who contradicts muh Einstein's take on the underlying reality
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 01:52:09 UTC No. 16267003
>>16266996
Black holes are sci fi Hollywood science. Space is too massive to mesure. People like you buy into the Hollywood story so nasa gets more money for its space missions with public support.
I mean space is so far beyond what we can practically observe in optical telescopes. We can also measure the ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM using the Doppler effect and other techniques, but to say we actually know what’s out there is a HUGE stretch
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:40:05 UTC No. 16268064
>>16267003
good pic
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 21:19:50 UTC No. 16268099
>>16207885
If black holes aren't real, how am I fucking so many?