SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge For those interested in astronomy, announcement from the Event Horizon Telescope team 4/10 @0900 EST **first image in 4th post**
Main Page The Lounge For those interested in astronomy, announcement from the Event Horizon Telescope team 4/10 @0900 EST **first image in 4th post**Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Don't Panic |
Thanks for the link. I wasn't as far out to lunch as I thought. From the article, a quote from one of the leaders of the Harvard participants....
In essence, it was a coincidence that the black hole and its stuff was angled right. It was never my claim that the event was fake, btw. I figured someone expected to see a halo and gussied the image up to black out the center for public consumption, and journalism majors doing the reporting missed noting that. Glad to hear it was blind luck to be at the right angle.  | |||
|
The guy behind the guy |
I don't think it's a ring at all. A black hole is basically infinite mass in a very, very small space...like a pin head. That center of the donut isn't the black hole. I'm no physicist, but the actual black hole itself should be infinity small if I'm not mistaken. That is, you can't see it. You can only see the end result of it...which is nothing. How does something smash all that mass into one little space? I dunno, but it's nuts. It distorts space, time and ...follow me here....light. What if the object appearing to be the ring is nothing more than distortion of light? That's what I think is happening if I had to guess. Like a rainbow. A rainbow isn't a two dimensional arc in the sky... https://earthsky.org/earth/wha...s-their-curved-shape | |||
|
Peripheral Visionary |
  | |||
|
| Freethinker |
It’s not. Based on a quick search, estimates of the size of the massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way (the galaxy we’re in) vary from 25 to 60 million kilometers in diameter, but there is no doubt that it has a large finite size. Of course, the “size” of a black hole is somewhat arbitrary in that it’s measured by the distance from its center to where its gravitational influence is strong enough to prevent light from escaping. But the fact that that distance varies with the black hole’s mass is no different from the fact that the Earth’s gravitational influence at any particular degree extends farther out than the Moon’s does. The article whose link I posted above really does a good job of explaining some of the questions about this issue, including how light is distorted around black holes. ► 6.4/93.6 | |||
|
Wait, what? |
Black holes are thought to spin in much the same way he huge stars they used to be did. They are not the center that pulls all matter from all directions like a spherical bath tub drain. In fact, objects traveling fast enough can orbit a black hole the way planets orbit stars. There are images from our own super-massive black hole (Sagittarius A*) that when played in a sequence, clearly show stars in orbit around it and not pulled to their doom. The bright disc seen around black holes are accretion discs. Matter that is accelerated to tremendous speed and burns extremely hotly. Most of it ends up in the black hole, but some objects like stars can be slingshot away from the black hole at escape velocity- the same way we use planets to slingshot space probes at higher speeds and different trajectories. I’m looking forward to better imagery of Sagittarius A*; it’s a hell of a lot closer at a mere 25640 light years from us. *eta- the above video is an excellent way to explain black hole behavior. “Remember to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from a virus they got vaccinated against because you’re not vaccinated.” - author unknown | |||
|
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie |
I don't think our "angle" to the black hole matters at all. Not even in the very least. ~Alan Acta Non Verba NRA Life Member (Patron) God, Family, Guns, Country Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan | |||
|
| Peripheral Visionary |
https://www.google.com/amp/s/w...-horizon-singularity
| |||
|
A Grateful American |
Correct. If a pane of glass has a dimple pressed in it to a specific degree, it will appear as a black hole in the center as light is bent around the dimple through the glass, and the light may be magnified or refracted around the outer edge of the dimple as the distortion brings light waves traveling though the glass giving a brighter edge around the hole. Now, the glass being flat, the view would need to be from a near perpendicular angle to the glass to see the effect the best. Imagine a globe of glass that has the same "bending" properties and the effect would be similar, but from any direction you looked at the light passing through the globe. That is more approximate of a black hole. No matter what point around it you are when looking at it, the view will be the same. The only thing that would be different, would be the "clocking" of the bright/dark of the ring, as that is determined by the spin of the body (center) of the black hole. "the meaning of life, is to give life meaning" ✡ Ani Yehudi אני יהודי Le'olam lo shuv לעולם לא שוב! | |||
|
His Royal Hiney |
And I respectfully say that your statement is corrupted as well. Scientific theories isn't about being true beyond any reasonable doubt. Doubt doesn't even come into play. They are theories because they cannot be proven as absolute fact and applicable in all points of the universe. A theory explains things but under known or unknown restrictions. Take for example the law of gravity. It's a law, not a theory. It's an absolute fact and has been shown applicable in all points of the universe. They can reliably use the predictions that use this law in far off places in the universe. Where it doesn't appear to hold, scientists can rightfully predict something is interfering with the law. Take the theory of special relativity. It's called special, not because it's better than ordinary, but because it only applies to a special set of circumstances and is able to explain / predict relationships inside that special set of circumstances. The theory of general relativity is better at explaining relationships generally but in all circumstances. The theory of general relativity didn't make the theory of special relativity obsolete; it's still a theory. Likewise, the theory of general relativity has been shown to have limitations. We are waiting for the theory of everything. But even if that theory of everything is validated, it's still a theory because we don't know if it's absolute fact. Let me try another way to explain what a scientific theory is. Let's say you don't know what a plane is but found one. You are unable to take it apart and see the inner workings. But you learn to fly it. You pull up on the handle and you feel the plane go up at the same time that you see the flaps on the wings swing in a particular direction. You turn the throttle and you feel the plane bank and you see various appendages on the plane move. You theorized that there's a mechanical linkage between the throttle and the various airplane parts. You start to build up a list of relationships between what you do inside the cockpit and what happens to the plane. And you theorize how the various mechanical wires and pulleys relate the things you do in the cockpit to what the plane parts do. But until you can open up the plane, you aren't really sure that the explanations that describe the relationships are actually true. You may find out that, in the end, the plane controls are electronically controlled and not through mechanical linkages. That's why scientific theories are theories and not facts or laws. They can explain things to a certain extent but they cannot be proven to be absolute fact and applicable universally. "It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946. | |||
|
| half-genius, half-wit |
...and of course, all of this is 54 million years in the past. If the whole shebang was to expand a billion times and engulf the entire galaxy, it would be another 54 million years before we knew about it. We should all take a little comfort in that. | |||
|
| Savor the limelight |
My comment was about this and the photo tigereye posted:
The document you've linked doesn't mention Einstein, rather, it credits several other folks for the idea of black holes dating back to the 18th century. "Objects whose gravitational fields are too strong for light to escape were first considered in the 18th century by John Michell and Pierre-Simon Laplace.[12] The first modern solution of general relativity that would characterize a black hole was found by Karl Schwarzschild in 1916, although its interpretation as a region of space from which nothing can escape was first published by David Finkelstein in 1958." Einstein did not believe black holes existed. "Albert Einstein's equations of gravity are the foundation of the modern view of black holes; ironically, he used the equations in trying to prove these objects cannot exist" The Reluctant Father of Black Holes - Scientific American In this case, Einstein has been proven to be wrong. The image is not a picture. It's a glorified chart, like a pie graph or bar chart or probably a scatter plot. It's a visual representation of a tremendous amount of data so the simple folks, like myself, might understand what the smart people see. It also doesn't peer across the universe like some news accounts claim. It was developed from measurements take right here on Earth. The radio waves started their journey 53 million years ago. The image is not something we could have seen with our eyes if we were at the M87 event horizon 53 million years ago. We have no clue if it's even still there or what it looks like. | |||
|
| Peripheral Visionary |
It is true that the idea of a black hole made Einstein uncomfortable as he didn't like the idea of singularities. Nevertheless his equations suggested their existence, and were later used to predict how they might behave. Computer modeling using Einstein's groundwork was used to predict what sort of image they might find with this work. So even though he was reluctant to accept black holes and tried to disprove their existence, he was still correct about how they would behave. | |||
|
| A Grateful American |
snip for brevity. You could be no more wrong about that. It most certainly is both a "picture" and "visually apparent" as seeing with an eye. All the radio telescopes collimated electromagnetic bits emanating form that source, and focused them to form the image. Both photography and eyesight do just that exact same thing. Photographs take bits of electromagnetic radiation emanating from a source and collimate and focus them on individual particles of silver halide (typically) then when processed those bits give the (negative) image as it appears, often reprocessed in a similar manner to paper giving the final positive appearing image. The eye does exactly the same thing as the film, except that the "image" that is finally rendered in the brain (the photograph) is positive rendering of the image. But the components, operation behavior and results are exactly the same in the important part. If our eyes were capable of seeing the lowest amount of electromagnetic radiation, in that spectrum, from this distance with the resolving power, we would actually "see" that exact image. (maybe a different color or hue). But we would also see it in motion.  "the meaning of life, is to give life meaning" ✡ Ani Yehudi אני יהודי Le'olam lo shuv לעולם לא שוב! | |||
|
| Freethinker |
Thanks for your explanation, Rey HRH, of how the scientific method works. I am familiar with it, but many people aren’t.
I, however, contend that that’s exactly what scientific inquiry is about: to determine whether our theories are correct. If not, then what is the reason for spending all that time, money, and effort that goes into those inquiries? It’s possible that you and I are arguing past each other and that I misunderstand what you’re getting at, so let me make my own position clear by citing some examples of scientific theories. One of the earliest we know about was the theory that the Earth is a sphere (more or less) rather than a flat plane like a disk. That was probably one of the most radical theories ever proposed because it was a flat (NPI) contradiction of what anyone could see with his own eyes: On suitable terrain or the ocean, the surface extended out flat as far as we can see; “Round‽ Preposterous.” But what? At some point in the distant past observers began noticing things that caused them to theorize that maybe the surface of the Earth wasn’t flat, but rather was round. Countless observations, from the fact that when seeing distant ships at sea their masts and sails were visible before their hulls to photographs of the planet from space ultimately demonstrated that the round Earth theory was correct. Does that mean there is no doubt whatsoever that the Earth isn’t a flat disk? Not according to some people who have come up with ingenious explanations for the things the rest of us have observed and believe. But are those explanations reasonable to believe? Not in my opinion and therefore that’s why I contend that the round Earth theory has been demonstrated to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. The Islamic Qur’an says that birds can fly because Allah (“the God”) holds them up in the air. At one time that was as good an explanation as any other, and probably better than most. Now, however, we know that although it could still be true, a more likely explanation is provided by the science of aerodynamics. I am no expert on the subject, but from what I do know I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that birds can fly because of many factors ranging from the fact that they evolved to have hollow bones and streamlined shapes to the physics of how their feathers interact with the air. All those facts started out as things contributing to theories that avian flight was possible without God’s having to be involved in each of the billions of daily occurrences of birds’ flying over the face of the planet. Again, though, does everyone believe all that? Probably not; I wouldn’t expect a literalist devout Muslim to think that the Qur’an could be wrong. As I stated, the same is true of countless other things that we know that were once theories. Another common belief among educated people, including scientists, is that the Earth was formed billions of years ago and that geologic features such as the Grand Canyon are millions of years old. This “ancient Earth” theory is not accepted by everyone, however. Despite the countless bits of hard physical evidence supporting that theory, some people still believe that accounts from ancient myth are the truth and therefore the planet cannot be more than a few thousand years old. In fact, some go so far as to believe that things like ice cores with hundreds of thousands of distinct annual layers or the decay of radioactive elements in rocks demonstrating the passage of eons of time were deliberately created by God (or Satan) to give the appearance of great age. But is ignoring all that evidence reasonable? Not in my opinion. I therefore contend the ancient Earth theory has been demonstrated to be true beyond any reasonable doubt—and that that has been many scientists’ goal for hundreds of years now. ► 6.4/93.6 | |||
|
| Savor the limelight |
I think that's what I was trying to say. It isn't something we can see. My basic understanding is the scientists measured something over a period of time. Did all the telescopes focus on the same field of view as the image every time, or did they focus on smaller portions of the image? When it's said the data was stitched together, that leads my to believe the later is true. In the digital realm, a photograph is a graph of data across vertical and horizontal axes. The data the sensor measures is red, green and blue brightness for each of several million points all at one time. It would be possible to measure each point individually, but it would take a lot of time and be problematic with moving objects. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
Thanks for all that; a good* explanation. * I.e., one that agrees with my position exactly. I was going to say something similar, but you did a much more thorough job of it.  ► 6.4/93.6 | |||
|
| My only apparent accomplishment in life is being banned from an ancient forum |
They were using radio telescopes and the image is a false color representation of the radio waves bending around the black hole. Or that's how I understand it anyway. | |||
|
| A Grateful American |
They focused them in precise location, and use atomic clock precision for all timing and measurements as well as all the calculations to "null" earth's rotation, orbit around the sun, the disturbance of other planets and the moon that effect the position of the "array". A lot of data reductions and a tremendous amount of computer and programing to reduce all of this to provide the final image. And to think our brain does exactly that, and how a person can acquire a target, identify and shoot it it while it and the vehicle he is in are both moving at other person's decision making. (i.e. aircraft gunner for one) It is most remarkable, all of it and all the things used in the process to get that blurry image, will and have already paid dividends in things discovered in working with programs, and equipment and people's minds tackling one problem and having a "eureka" moment to another thing in the back of their minds. "the meaning of life, is to give life meaning" ✡ Ani Yehudi אני יהודי Le'olam lo shuv לעולם לא שוב! | |||
|
| His Royal Hiney |
Scientific theories are constructs that attempt to explain how things are or how things came to be. The most widely believed and supported theories are those that do a very good job of explaining things versus other theories that may not do such as good job of explaining the same things. Superior theories do a better job of accounting for more things that inferior theories fail to account for. Theories remain as theories until they can be proven as accurate fact; the spherical earth theory remained a theory until it was proven the earth was spherical. Thinking that current scientific theories are "true beyond any reasonable doubt" is anti-scientific. If a prevailing scientific theory is considered "true beyond any reasonable doubt," what about other competing theories that may have less popular support or are still in the development phase? Taking one theory as being "true beyond any reasonable doubt" means other competing theories are "not true beyond any reasonable doubt." We still live in a world where both "A" and "Not A" cannot be concurrently true. For example, there is a current competition between two theories: one side says the earth is experiencing global warming or climate change driven largely by people adn the other competing theory is that the earth is not experiencing a global warming / climate change trend that is driven by people. You may believe one or the other side. You may think that your side is "true beyond any reasonable doubt" but the same can be said for the opposing side. You even use the language of one side "Climate change has been proven as fact and climate deniers are simply ignorant and not scientific." Each side attempts to explain the relationships and how things are or how they came to be. But until one or the other is validated to be true, they still both remain theories until proven to be true. What will most likely happen is that one or the other will fall off from favor as it fails to account or explain more things than the other. But that doesn't prove the more superior theory is true, it just proves the other theory explains more things better than the other but it is still a theory and not a fact until proven so. "It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
Yes, “true beyond a reasonable doubt” it more of a legal standard than scientific one. It also is ultimately a personal standard. What I consider to be reasonable doubt may not be someone else’s. When I say that something has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, I am expressing an opinion, just as a jury expresses its opinion by deciding that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn’t change my basic point, however, that science’s ultimate goal is to determine to the degree possible the truth of various hypotheses and the theories they lead to. Another example from history was the so-called “N-Ray Affair” in 1903. At a time of other significant scientific discoveries, the French physicist Prosper-René Blondlot decided he had made his own discovery of a previously unknown form of radiation that he dubbed N-rays. The story is interesting because of how it illustrates that even experienced and respected scientists can be subject to various forms of confirmation bias, but ultimately the hypothesis and theory that N-ray radiation exists were rejected by virtually all of the rest of the scientific community. That rejection wasn’t because other scientists were jealous of Blondlot or that they didn’t like the idea, it was because no one else could replicate his results. That is, they attempted to determine the proof of the theory themselves. When they couldn’t, doubts arose. In one incident a man who was observing a demonstration by Blondlot surreptitiously removed a part of the apparatus. (The demonstration had to be conducted under low light conditions for the supposed results to be seen.) Blondlot didn’t notice that anything had changed when the part was removed. Blondlot reportedly stubbornly stuck to his theory and died believing that N-rays were real. But who else does today? There may be some people who do, just as there are supposedly some who still believe the flat Earth theory, but is it reasonable to doubt that N-rays as described by Blondlot exist? I believe it is reasonable to doubt, and evidently so do the vast majority of researchers in the field of electromagnetism. Why is that? In 1980 Irving M. Klotz, who wrote an article for Scientific American on the matter, commented, “Science has no vicar on the earth to reveal doctrine and no central committee to proclaim dogma.” His point was that science operates by trying to determine the truth of scientific theories through various investigative methods, not because someone appointed to a position of authority declares what the truth is. One such investigative method would be to remove a critical part of a ray analysis apparatus to see if it has any effect on the observed outcome. To reiterate, if determining the truth of a theory or hypothesis isn’t the purpose of science, what is? I assume you know all that, and again we may be talking past each other; I went to the trouble of explaining myself so my own position would be clear. The following statement is not true, however, and is dishonest. Please do not put words in my mouth.
As someone here says, “I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.” If you do not understand my position, that’s one thing; I often cannot understand others’ beliefs, and ultimately give up making the attempt. But falsely distorting someone’s position by ascribing others’ statements to him is the very antihesis of scientific inquiry and civil discourse. ► 6.4/93.6 | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge For those interested in astronomy, announcement from the Event Horizon Telescope team 4/10 @0900 EST **first image in 4th post**
Main Page The Lounge For those interested in astronomy, announcement from the Event Horizon Telescope team 4/10 @0900 EST **first image in 4th post**© SIGforum 2024