🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 07:18:01 UTC No. 16456714
why can't space bros do anything right?
https://www.iflscience.com/cosmic-d
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 07:48:49 UTC No. 16456730
>>16456714
>nips claiming the picture is wrong because the INTERPRETATION (not a concrete takeaway) they had from their own radio image (made with lesser resources) doesn't line up with EHT results
Or maybe Takeshi Miyagi Miyazaki just fucked up in their radio analysis / interpretation of it. Also wtf do they mean by saying that the accretion disc is elongated? The EHT picture doesn't show the entire accession disc anyway.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:30:09 UTC No. 16457362
>retard students that are not worth even bachelors in europe, just spews shit in their macbooks, uneducated people thing their image represent reality
Gee
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:32:30 UTC No. 16457365
She got the credit
Even he fought million lines of code
BUT HIS CODES SUCKED
WHAT NOw INCELS
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:57:41 UTC No. 16457382
I don't think they're saying the deconvolution algorithms were wrong (of which Katie Bouman's was one of four iirc.) They're saying the point spread function was wrong. Garbage in garbage out.
Stop guessing start learning at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:58:12 UTC No. 16457383
>>16456714
Bahahahahahahahaha.
I'm always arguing with science bros on here about black holes.
It's the dumbest science theory that has no value
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:20:52 UTC No. 16457408
Nope. There already already multiple independent reanalyses of the EHT data, all of the others found a result consistent with the published image. The most likely explanation is that Miyoshi fucked up his analysis, some of that is described here in that he forces to algorithm to recover structure on scales which aren't sampled. Does he show his result is repeatable with other codes? No. The EHT team did, with 3 different methods and it has been independently reproduced.
https://eventhorizontelescope.org/b
>>16457282
And here you are, blindly accepting a single paper because it agrees with your prejudice. It is literal confirmation bias, where you ignore all the other papers and pick the one you like. Don't lecture people about being gullible.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:22:56 UTC No. 16457412
>>16456714
Someone post that gif of the dancing orbs and their plasma spasms
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:36:05 UTC No. 16457423
>>16457408
Sounds like the science is settled and any who are not believers should be punished.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:39:11 UTC No. 16457426
>>16457282
professor dave missing on this picture
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 22:32:39 UTC No. 16457500
>>16456730
you realize black holes can change their shape over time right?
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 03:14:58 UTC No. 16459243
>>16457282
>save for a tiny minority of gullible low IQ retards
Those are the same people who thought the sausage pic was real just because some dude on Twitter said "i'm an astronomer and this is a JWST pic lol"
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 06:30:46 UTC No. 16459346
>>16456714
>tweak the algo
>it outputs a different PNG
/sci/ was right again
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 04:28:02 UTC No. 16460528
>>16457426
you can shoop him in
or just get AI to do it for you
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:11:39 UTC No. 16460672
>>16457423
this, but unironically
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:39:37 UTC No. 16461550
>>16457365
Her changes to the font selections were key
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 03:00:13 UTC No. 16461709
>>16457423
this, WE NEED SOME MUSCLE OVER HERE!
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 03:58:31 UTC No. 16461768
>>16456714
>*space photo is not an accurate representation
https://odysee.com/@Realfake_Newsou
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 04:03:37 UTC No. 16461773
>>16456714
Space bros give the ick
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 04:52:35 UTC No. 16461803
>>16457408
Try learning english esl jeetskin
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:07:03 UTC No. 16462512
>>16461773
that woman is not very smart, giving away her test key like that.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:14:06 UTC No. 16463088
>>16457282
>Colorbarred
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:19:10 UTC No. 16463096
>>16459346
regardless that the soiyim goyims on this board will still keep on thinking that nasa's psychedelic colorful 'space' blob pics are real even though you can't see anything like them if you look through an actual telescope
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 11:54:16 UTC No. 16463444
probably this happened:
>attempt to collect some data of a black hole
>try putting it through 15 different math formulas and filters
>it spits out something resembling a black hole
>wow there it is, it's the black hole, publish it PUBLISH IT!
>forget to consider whether what you did even makes sense
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 14:57:37 UTC No. 16463584
>>16463096
but you can use existing tools to detect and reconstruct those images.
unlike the image of the black hole, which is radio noise filtered into a specific shape
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:44:53 UTC No. 16463833
I read this article thinking "man that sucks" then I realized it was like 3 japanese retards saying it and no one else.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:46:58 UTC No. 16463839
>>16457383
>I'm always arguing with science bros on here about black holes.
>doesn't even read the article to see how it's speculation of a couple nobodies saying it's off a little bit
You're literally retarded.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 05:25:44 UTC No. 16464465
>>16463839
>>16463833
>heh nicholas copernicus who? just some polish retard
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 13:54:19 UTC No. 16464914
>>16464465
>Jap Assistant Professor going to be huge for this
You're literally retarded.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 06:10:33 UTC No. 16465775
>>16459346
>hey this thing doesn't work right when I intentionally use it wrong!
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 10:36:09 UTC No. 16465899
>>16457383
black holes exist, anon. even if they didn't in nature, they could be artificially created.
the wacky theories about white holes, worm holes and such don't exist.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 13:24:44 UTC No. 16465964
>>16465899
>Could be artificially created
K. Go create one then. Until then they don't exist. No one has ever seen a black hole and no one has ever made one.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 13:54:14 UTC No. 16465987
>>16465964
>No one has ever seen a black hole
What the fuck do you think is in the picture of OP? What about the picture I just posted? It's a black hole leaving a trail of young blue stars behind it as it cruises through space. There are tons of images of gravitational lensing by black holes, x-ray ejections from blackholes, and other radiation created by them. You don't see the actual black hole because you literally can't, since the light is trapped but you can see it's effects around it.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 16:26:40 UTC No. 16466140
you literally can't take pictures like this from so far away. You'd need a lens the size of the solar system. It's clear the entire thing is not real.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 16:52:14 UTC No. 16466168
>>16465987
>can never actually see the thing, only artifacts from the thing
i've heard this one before
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 17:51:28 UTC No. 16466200
>>16466140
I don't know if you have been paying attention, but all they do is push their theories right into noise territories and then start divining for confirmation.
They are planning to do this with proton decay next.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 17:51:28 UTC No. 16466201
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 22:55:16 UTC No. 16466550
>hay you stupid goys, I have a picture of a black hole
>now gibes me another billions of dollars for muh welfare science funding free money
I thought black holes were so massive that no light can escape, how can they be claiming to have a picture of something that doesn't emit light? Of course its fake
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 01:22:54 UTC No. 16466655
>>16456714
>I_fucking_love_science.com
Kek'd
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:00:54 UTC No. 16467155
BASEDENCE SISTERS.
HOW COULD THIS BE HAPPENING TO US????
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 17:20:05 UTC No. 16467332
>>16466140
We have photos of exoplanets now. What the fuck are you talking about? And there are other types of radiation other than visible light.
>>16466168
You should have.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:25:48 UTC No. 16468332
>>16467332
>We have photos of exoplanets now.
>t. I thought the JWST sausage pic was real
you don't have photos of exoplanets.
those are just as fake as the fake black hole picture, you're just too ignorant of science and too gullible to figure out when you're being lied to
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:05:34 UTC No. 16468365
>>16465987
>What the fuck do you think is in the picture of OP?
he still has a point. heavily inferred images are not pictures of the thing. unfortunately there is no clear dividing line between artificial and natural images; I, personally, would not even consider the false-color images of nearby objects like Mars as 'images of the thing'. an image is only something that shows what I would see with my own eyes. false-color and statistically constructed "images" are useful, but in this age of total distrust they should be called something else or at least clearly watermarked with "NOT A REAL IMAGE".
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:53:19 UTC No. 16468399
>>16468332
>you don't have photos of exoplanets.
You'd be wrong then.
>>16468365
>an image is only something that shows what I would see with my own eyes.
That is a shitty definition. Your computer screen is showing you an image of this board, a completely artificial construction. It's still an image though.
What you propose would be stupid, as the information in the image file is no different if it was taken with a visible light camera or an x-ray detector. Both are stored as 2D image arrays, and can be shown graphically. They are just as real as each other.
The term you are looking for is true color.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:42:07 UTC No. 16468603
>>16456714
I was skeptical when both black holes were donuts conveniently facing us.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 20:28:11 UTC No. 16468686
>>16468365
So if we had the right type of sensors in our eyes to see radio waves you would be fine with it? Because it's technically possible to do. Mosquitoes see in infrared, will the images be real to them?
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 20:35:02 UTC No. 16468697
>>16468603
Ring Galaxies are incredibly rare, let alone one that is facing us in just the right way to form a perfect circle. Not only does this ring galaxy do that, but inside it's ring is ANOTHER ring galaxy ALSO facing us perfectly to make a perfect circle.
What are the odds of that happening?
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 20:59:53 UTC No. 16468713
>>16468697
the universe is a big thing innit
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:19:52 UTC No. 16468734
>>16468713
For you
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:03:10 UTC No. 16468788
>>16468399
you actually think that pic is real lmao
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:23:28 UTC No. 16468810
>>16468788
That pic is real, and you're a pigshit moron
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:31:47 UTC No. 16468814
>>16468788
And how have you scientifically determined it's not real?
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:07:50 UTC No. 16468853
>>16468788
Prove that it's not.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 18:21:55 UTC No. 16469828
>>16468788
They need to presume it's real in order to justify their comic bookish space travel fantasy lives that were implanted in their brains by watching stupid children's cartoons and being unable to differentiate science fiction entertainment from reality.
Anyone who has passed undergrad level optics would know its fake, but that is a tiny minority of people, far less than 1% of the population. Everyone else will just 'trust the science' and presume its real just like they did with the black hole pic and the sausage pic and piltdown man and all of the other many hoaxes and lies that scientists are constantly playing on the seething masses of the uneducated general public
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 22:08:44 UTC No. 16470028
>>16469828
>Anyone who has passed undergrad level optics would know its fake
Then demonstrate your claim, lay out your calculations and argument. You're telling people to question the science, while you have said nothing of substance.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 23:50:18 UTC No. 16470127
The Event Horizon Telescope people posted a rebuttal. However, I only found this German news site covering it.
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Allege
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:30:00 UTC No. 16470161
>>16457426
KEK i hate that guy
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:30:34 UTC No. 16471216
>>16466550
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accre
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:44:19 UTC No. 16471231
>>16466550
How do you see the color black?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 22:38:47 UTC No. 16471340
I just put it through Siril and got totally different results. Its fake
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:00:34 UTC No. 16471572
>>16469828
>Anyone who has passed undergrad level optics
fucking what?
>ts real just like they did with the black hole pic
Except it is real. Even the people questioning it are saying that it is at worst slightly elongated on one side. And their entire argument is weak as fuck.
You are a literal retard.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:02:26 UTC No. 16471573
>>16471572
you have never studied physics and you have no idea what you're talking about
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:08:49 UTC No. 16471578
>>16471573
The image posted of exoplanets is clearly using a coronagraph. You can literally see the star being blotted out so that the gas giants are visible.
You are, again, fucking literally retarded.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:48:31 UTC No. 16471606
>>16471340
Post your results. Of course software for amateur astronomy pretty pictures doesn't work for either millimeter wave VLBI or mid-infrared adaptive optics coronograpy.
Still waiting for your undergrad optics debunking of this exoplanet image. Surely you don't want people to think you're full of shit.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:48:48 UTC No. 16471607
>>16456714
Yeah I kinda figured black holes didn't look like Langoliers
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:29:44 UTC No. 16472263
>>16471606
>amateur astronomy pretty pictures aren't real or something because reasons and stuff
>MUH NASA PRETTY PICTURES ARE TOTALLY REAL!!!!
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 20:27:27 UTC No. 16472332
The retards are looking at this picture and thinking "of course there’s ring are you people blind?" They are not intellectually curious enough to find out HOW these images are generated to begin with. They imagine it’s like taking a photo of the night sky, just boost contrast / saturation with time-lapse photography to get nice colors etc. These electro telescope images aren’t "images" at all, they’re electromagnetic frequency data which are color-coded using advanced models to map frequencies to colors to generate the image. To get the OP’s image a tiny sliver of data was tweezered out of a massive jumble of background signal and the model tweaked until the desired ring was generated. Basically the image creators messed with it until the resulting image showed what they wanted it to show. The problem was that not only was signal-to-noise so low as to be no different from noise ("artifact") but also that the image creators had to break established models for color-mapping. It’s super advanced esoteric radio-imaging shit under discussion but I saw a good video on it here: https://youtu.be/ZlrTe1mi5EQ
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 22:26:58 UTC No. 16472474
>>16472263
Where did I say something wasn't real? I said it won't work, because the software is written for a totally different task. If you had the first clue what you talking about you would know that.
>>16472333
You claim to know what you're talking about but haven't even mentioned the word interferometry. You have no understanding.
>The problem was that not only was signal-to-noise so low as to be no different from noise ("artifact")
Completely false. Pick related shows the visibility amplitudes of the 2016 EHT results from 2016 as reported by Miyoshi et al., on the left is the signal to noise ratios. You can see that the different baselines have SNRs of up to a few hundred, particularly those that include ALMA. So no, it's not low.
Robitaille has no idea what he's talking about, he apparently hasn't even read the paper he's citing. He has never looked at the data, or any astronomical data, he has no idea how VLBI really works. And neither do you.
>also that the image creators had to break established models for color-mapping
Fucking lel. You don't like their colormap, stop the presses. This is proof that you are a pedestrian who has never worked in physics. Next you'll be complaining you don't like their fonts.
>Anyone who has passed undergrad level optics would know its fake
Still waiting for your big knowledge to debunk the exoplanet image.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:10:41 UTC No. 16473720
>>16468399
>The image of this board is entirely artificial
Did you really think that was a good argument?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:11:27 UTC No. 16473721
>>16468814
You think other solar systems are orange blobs on a blue background?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:28:01 UTC No. 16473735
>>16473721
Real=/= true color. Do you even understand what a colormap is?
>>16473720
Why don't you try making a counter argument?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:30:28 UTC No. 16473736
>>16473735
>Real != true color
Lol. Move on kid. Reddit will buy what you are selling.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:32:42 UTC No. 16473741
>>16472332
Yep. Basically what they are doing is similar to just taking static noise on a television set, saying they expect to find a cat on this channel, and then picking and throwing out pixels until they make something cat shaped.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:36:01 UTC No. 16473890
>>16473736
Lel. You started off claiming it was optically impossible, and now you've rowed back to claiming the colormap is misleading.
>>16473741
>pixels
You have no idea what you are talking about.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 22:06:19 UTC No. 16473916
>OMG MUH PALE BLUE DOT!!!!11
>U CAN BARELY SEE EARTH FROM PLUTO!!!
>WE ARE SO INSIGNIFICANT!!!
>AND HUMBLE!!!
>I AM THE HUMBLEST OF ALL TIME!!1!
>btw here is a pic of planets in another star system a billion times further away than pluto
>you can see the planets clearly
>yes this is totally real
>trust me
why are the soiyence goyims so gullible?
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 12:20:53 UTC No. 16474677
>>16473916
Do you need it explained to you that a modern 10 meter telescope is different to the dinky 18 centimeter vidicon camera on Voyager? And I thought you studied optics?
>a billion times further away than pluto
Nope.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:30:25 UTC No. 16474916
>>16473916
Next you're going to say the hubble deep field is faked as well.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 05:02:25 UTC No. 16475720
'black holes' are the astrophysics equivalent of intellectual drivel like picrel.
the people who say black holes are real are the same nincompoops who peer reviewed the bog brother's phd thesis gibberish and found it fascinating, believable and meritorious
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 05:32:30 UTC No. 16475738
I am very pleased to learn that the consensus /sci/ position is that black holes do not exist. As ever, this place has its head on straight.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:47:47 UTC No. 16475906
>>16475738
They do absolutely exist. But not yet.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:08:35 UTC No. 16476627
>>16475738
We have a loud faction that is highly skeptical of any space shit that's more complicated than a planet or star. Or even stars for a while. But the Katie Bouman fracas made them latch onto black holes super hard.