OT - Long range photography..Black Hole BS?
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 406
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    5,426
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    452
    Likes (Received)
    2284

    Default OT - Long range photography..Black Hole BS?

    Today's big news was the first photo ever of a black hole.

    Here's my opinion - it's most likely B.S. on the part of dreamers and scientists eager to have something exciting and important in their realm.

    In the astronomy courses I took, the term 'theoretical astronomer' was a commonly used phrase. The professor, who was one, admitted that a great deal of their work was ... theoretical...and had never been proven. Black Holes were part of that.

    A couple years ago I saw a breathtaking photo of some sort of event in outer space. Spectacular colors. Then, if you read further, there was a casual mention that the photo had been 'colorized' to enhance the effect of what we can't actually see. Huh?

    So....do we REALLY have cameras that can photograph anything that far away? Or do we have a bunch of static and 'data' that has been massaged and interpreted by scientists to suit their need?

  2. Likes Joe Miranda, Dualkit, Pathogen, toolsteel, Ox liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Monument CO USA
    Posts
    2,074
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    9
    Likes (Received)
    119

    Default

    Yeh right. They made the whole thing up just for grins. Of COURSE it is computer manipulated. How else do you combine data from multiple sources and make a presentable image for humans. We do not see in the UV and IR ranges for a start.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3870
    Likes (Received)
    1750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GregSY View Post
    do we REALLY have cameras that can photograph anything that far away? Or do we have a bunch of static and 'data' that has been massaged and interpreted by scientists to suit their need?
    Yes, and yes, but take the sneer quotes off "data".

    If you've read anything about this, you'll be aware that a bunch of radio telescopes all over the world have been collecting image data since 2017, with the data collection synchronized by atomic clocks so that data received by telescopes half-way around the world can be correlated. So, there was no film. Nor was there anything like a giant CMOS photo sensor. The collected data went "direct to digital". So there was not a camera in the sense of a Canon or Nikon, but there certainly was a "image forming system based on accumulated incident energy" which is exactly what a camera is. This particular camera happened to be a very long baseline interferometric system that time-shared a bunch of separately operated radio telescopes.

    Because the collected signals are so weak, there was in fact a huge amount of static and noise. That's the primary reason this required years of data collection: to ensure that the persistent signal could be distinguished from the day-to-day noise. The signal comes in every day, but the noise is random (pretty much by definition).

    If you read a little deeper, you'd see that the researchers applied a bunch of competing analysis techniques to dig the signal out of the noise. This is analogous to developing an image on film. And all the techniques came up with very similar image results. The headline "photo" image is actually a compromise among the various specific results.

    While I'm sure the researchers are chuffed to have some actual science on the covers of various newspapers and magazines, the real scientific objective was to determine the shape of the central part of the image. It says something fundamental about gravity and relativity whether that part is circular, squished one way (prolate), or squished the other way (oblate). The extracted image is good enough to make that determination.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    110
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    8
    Likes (Received)
    31

    Default

    It is worthy to note it isn’t a “photograph” In the usual sense of the word, but a visual representation of microwave radio signals collected w/ “a”radio telescope nearly the size of the planet... actually simultaneous recordings from multiple receivers scattered all over the planet.
    Still it’s an incredible visualization and confirmation of a astrophysics theory that arose out of general relativity.

  6. Likes Newman109, bloomautomatic liked this post
  7. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Beaumont, TX, USA
    Posts
    4,679
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    159
    Likes (Received)
    1383

    Default

    Of course it is not an actual, unaltered, visible light photo. We don't have an optical telescope big enough to do that at that distance.

    With an education in physics and a long time interest in astronomy, I find it a lot more believable than "climate change" and we can look at that up close and personal. If you were near enough to that object, it probably would not look like that image to the naked eye. But it does represent something that has a good probability of being a black hole. What you see in the image is not the actual black hole but rather the matter that surrounds it that is being pulled into it. A black hole, by definition, does not radiate anything. If you did look at one up close, it may be very disappointing.

    And, yes, I have heard the theories that they can "leak". But, if that is correct, it is a slow process and you don't see anything that is actually in the black hole, only things that surround it, some of which have "come out of it". So, you don't actually see it, only it's effects on the surrounding space.

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Geneva Illinois USA
    Posts
    5,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2349
    Likes (Received)
    2193

    Default

    If you question if black holes exist, yes they do. In fact they were discovered because light that passed by them was bent due their enormous mass. Validation of Eisenstein's theories.

    Tom

  9. Likes bloomautomatic liked this post
  10. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Modesto, CA USA
    Posts
    6,461
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1037

    Default

    Of course it is a fake. A real black hole is so dense that no light escapes from it. The gravity is so strong the light is pulled into it. Since there is no light , or any other radiation, leaving it all you see is nothing. Kind of like a shadow. I think it relates to Plato? and people living a cave only seeing shadows of the outside world. Does the outside world rally exist or is it all smoke and mirrors.
    Bil lD.

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cairns, Qld, Australia
    Posts
    2,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    815
    Likes (Received)
    709

    Default

    Here's a link to an article about how it was imaged with multiple radio telescopes (of course it was colourized, no one can see radio waves!!!). A key part of the mathematical algorithm used to combine the data from multiple telescopes was invented by Katie Bouman a Caltech computer science student at the time. Her contribution is at the bottom of the article linked below. They had two separate teams processing and stitching the data together to cross check the result: they arrived at the same answer. The larger the diameter of a radio telescope, the finer the detail it can resolve, these days they can mathematically combine several widely separated telescopes to simulate the resolution of a radio dish the diameter of the distance separating the two telescopes.

    katie-bouman.jpg

    Black hole picture captured for first time in space breakthrough | Science | The Guardian

  12. Likes bloomautomatic liked this post
  13. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,090
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrSteve View Post
    It is worthy to note it isn’t a “photograph” In the usual sense of the word, but a visual representation of microwave radio signals collected w/ “a”radio telescope nearly the size of the planet... actually simultaneous recordings from multiple receivers scattered all over the planet.
    Still it’s an incredible visualization and confirmation of a astrophysics theory that arose out of general relativity.
    Below is my mistake...only three days data...5 petabytes.
    This is correct.
    How Did Astronomers Capture the First-Ever Close-Up of a Black Hole?


    Point...the actual base line was the diameter of the earths orbit.

  14. Likes SAG 180, David Utidjian liked this post
  15. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Country
    LATVIA
    Posts
    217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    57
    Likes (Received)
    118

    Default

    people... some have no problem imagining things and believing they are real without any actual proof one seeing the thing in real life or even "seeing" one using instruments, because it fits in "their reality" and also just happens to make their life easier, but will say it is BS when actual science is done and results are interpreted and presented in visual range of human eye calling it "manipulation" as in - being faked

    here is a visual representation of a whole bunch of "data", just some letters and numbers really, looks quite real to me...
    5-axis_parts_-_masks_ggxa3r.jpg

  16. Likes adama, dcsipo, charlie gary, mountie, Ox liked this post
  17. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    14,058
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4552
    Likes (Received)
    6689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jz79 View Post
    people... some have no problem imagining things and believing they are real without any actual proof one seeing the thing in real life or even "seeing" one using instruments, because it fits in "their reality" and also just happens to make their life easier,
    Yeah, what sold me off the religious idea is that any "new, fresh, Original" religion is just a cult! That said, ghosts are real and after seeing one im very very convinced of that fact. More than happy to belive in alien life too as the odds of us being alone seam slim these days + it would kinda suck if were the brightest life forms in a 13 billion light year radius!

    As to black holes, i like em, i believe in em, would be a great solution to waste disposal if we could harness it. Some point we really have to invent a rocket drive technology more advanced than a stone age man taking a dump after too hot a curry so we can actually get our asses out this solar system and go understand this stuff. And i don't mean a more advanced fuel burning rocket! We fundamentally gotta move differently! Yeah i don't know how either!

  18. Likes PlasmaOnTheBrain liked this post
  19. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    2,940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1726
    Likes (Received)
    1951

    Default

    It’s always best to go the the literature and read the research.
    The findings are published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
    The only problem is the paywall.
    That and the untidy fact that depending on your education level it might well sound like ‘gibberish’.
    I think you are going to have to take their word on this one..

    Astronomers capture first image of a black hole | NSF - National Science Foundation

  20. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Somerset, UK
    Posts
    5,007
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    471
    Likes (Received)
    1654

    Default

    I watched an interesting BBC documentary about it last night:-

    BBC Four - How to See a Black Hole: The Universe's Greatest Mystery

    The science was beyond me, but it was fascinating to learn about the logistical aspects. I had trouble grasping the concept of timing to a millionth of a millionth of a second, but more at home with someone bending pieces of aluminium to put in the computers to improve cooling, the difficulty in thinking straight when working at high altitude, the fact that radio telescopes in the Antarctic or even on Hawaii volcanoes aren't as stable as you might wish....

  21. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Elyria Ohio
    Posts
    1,757
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3235
    Likes (Received)
    712

    Default

    So...manipulated data is "real" because it is performed by a bunch of people in a room (rooms) that all "believe" the same thing and are convinced of a particular outcome ahead of the actual outcome and discount any data that does not enhance the probability of that particular outcome - oh ... but that's not religious at all...
    Last edited by Joe Miranda; 04-11-2019 at 06:34 AM. Reason: typo

  22. Likes GregSY, MetalCarnage liked this post
  23. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3915
    Likes (Received)
    2576

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GregSY View Post
    In the astronomy courses I took,
    Did you fail Astronomy class?

  24. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Elyria Ohio
    Posts
    1,757
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3235
    Likes (Received)
    712

    Default

    And then ridicule unbelievers - but that's not religious - it's science!

  25. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Elyria Ohio
    Posts
    1,757
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3235
    Likes (Received)
    712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bcstractor View Post
    Yeh right. They made the whole thing up just for grins. Of COURSE it is computer manipulated. How else do you combine data from multiple sources and make a presentable image for humans. We do not see in the UV and IR ranges for a start.
    So this "so-called" black hole, is it a thing or not a thing?

  26. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Elyria Ohio
    Posts
    1,757
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3235
    Likes (Received)
    712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    It’s always best to go the the literature and read the research.
    The findings are published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
    The only problem is the paywall.
    That and the untidy fact that depending on your education level it might well sound like ‘gibberish’.
    I think you are going to have to take their word on this one..

    Astronomers capture first image of a black hole | NSF - National Science Foundation
    And what you are suggesting is not an aspect of "faith".

  27. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Elyria Ohio
    Posts
    1,757
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3235
    Likes (Received)
    712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jz79 View Post
    people... some have no problem imagining things and believing they are real without any actual proof one seeing the thing in real life or even "seeing" one using instruments, because it fits in "their reality" and also just happens to make their life easier, but will say it is BS when actual science is done and results are interpreted and presented in visual range of human eye calling it "manipulation" as in - being faked

    here is a visual representation of a whole bunch of "data", just some letters and numbers really, looks quite real to me...
    5-axis_parts_-_masks_ggxa3r.jpg
    And by "actual science" you mean what exactly? The manipulation part?

  28. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Elyria Ohio
    Posts
    1,757
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3235
    Likes (Received)
    712

    Default

    The more you guys talk - the more you are falling into a "black hole".
    Last edited by Joe Miranda; 04-11-2019 at 07:11 AM. Reason: typo


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •