Black Hole Image(s) - incorrect?

[rustigsmed (Russell)]

Interesting and eye opening stuff!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjTtelR9emw

[AG Hybrid (Adrian)]

I've been watching this creators content for years. Always presents interesting content and sound concepts of science. He may be onto something.

[xelasnave]

Yes watched it before I got here... I heard that a "template" was used which seem to suggest the image achieved would result by acceptance or rejection of data to fit the expectations ..the trouble is I can't remember where I heard that and so I never went back to think more about what was said if that was indeed what was said but certainly to clarify my impression... Anyways I formed an impression back then that if that was the case it hardley was good science..but I finally thought..this is science if there are issues someone will deal with them...I hope what comes out of it is an accepted practice that makes all data etc available for surutiny...if that cant be done it is really not science in my view...without making it all available it seems like "just take our word for it"...

Alex

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Yes watched it before I got here... I heard that a "template" was used which seem to suggest the image achieved would result by acceptance or rejection of data to fit the expectations ..the trouble is I can't remember where I heard that and so I never went back to think more about what was said if that was indeed what was said but certainly to clarify my impression... Anyways I formed an impression back then that if that was the case it hardley was good science..but I finally thought..this is science if there are issues someone will deal with them...I hope what comes out of it is an accepted practice that makes all data etc available for surutiny...if that cant be done it is really not science in my view...without making it all available it seems like "just take our word for it"...

Alex

Exactly, I saw that somewhere too. Data collected was compared to expectations and rated worthy of announcing based on how close it was to that calculated. In some cases faked pictures were posted of calculated expectations, rather than actual , because it looked better and "nearly" matched actual.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Exactly, I saw that somewhere too. Data collected was compared to expectations and rated worthy of announcing based on how close it was to that calculated. In some cases faked pictures were posted of calculated expectations, rather than actual , because it looked better and "nearly" matched actual.

I hate even suggesting such but there are folk who enjoy it... The thing is if one hides data or makes it difficult for others to replicate the negative folk get traction and what else would one expect....

My problem is I still do not believe that a black hole...as determind by application of General Relativity exists..And I will get called a nutter but the irony is the creator of General Relativity until his dieing day did not accept them as a reality...

Folk I think do not conceptualise a black hole..they focus on the event horizon but fail to grasp that the notion tells us that there is nothing right down to the very centre that is so small we can treat it as zip...but let's say merely the size of a grain of sand which would be a monster according to the notion...really??? So billions of solar mass reduced to the size smaller than a grain of sand..mmm I don't buy it and I don't care what magic picture the maths paints.

Now maths takes us there but I doubt the maths presents what would be the reality...as with so many things the maths of cosmology is happy to extrapolate with no limit upon where that extrapolation may taper off..classic is the expansion of the universe..we see the expansion therefore rewinding we get the universe smaller than an atom..I dont buy it ...but I can say that cause I am not a scientist hemed in by worship of GR extrapolations..

Like if an alien observed a human growing at 5 years old how dumb would it be to extrapolate that growth rate to project a human would be 100 feet tall at 1000 years old...

This magic past the event horizon has me in agreement with the creator of GR I am afraid.

Alex