/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15297876
This image is simply some sort of reconstruction of the black hole with a halo of light due to light being "bent" around it

A black hole is the result of the collapse of a star on itself, so yeah just see it as a spherical object on the sky, the figures you see nearby it have transformed apparent shapes but if you look elsewhere the stars are normal looking

>>15297876
the can and will tell any grandiose lie they can think up when they know for certain that the lie is not disprovable, because they lack conscience and because they profit from abusing public trust.
the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" gets buried into people's brains via american media and reinforces the gullible trusting of those in search of an authority to tell them everything about nature

>>15297876
More like biased by low IQ

> How then is it possible to view beyond the event horizon?
We don't. We observe the halo of hot gas circling around it.

>>15297876
Today anon learns what an accretion disk is

>>15297876
The explanation for the picture is literally placarded everywhere on the internet. You could probably find an explanation on TMZ.

How is this not just an image of an eclipse? Is there some advanced image analysis that can tell the difference?

>>15297876
>implying they took an image of anything
they probably just made a smudge in gimp 2.0 in like 30 seconds, covered each others asses and pocketed millions in research money, awards and fame.

>>15297876
>why do scientists assume it’s a black hole?
It's not an assumption; it's experimental confirmation of a theory. Theory said there should be a black hole at the center of M87, and that if we point a telescope at it we should be able to see its accretion disk. We pointed a (very big) telescope at it and saw its accretion disk.

>>15298435
>they
You mean she?

>>15297876
i think this whole show was just a giant money laundering scam

>>15297876
>is it possible to view beyond the event horizon
this is an unaswered question in physics, however, all information available points to "no." Answering this question would also answer the questions "can i, an object with mass, go faster than light?" and "can i, an object with mass, go back in time?".
as an aside, not that you asked,
>do humans currently have the ability to see past the event horizon
no
>viewing an infinitely dense pointmass from which not even time can escape would be like being able to view the core of a planet
no?
>it doesn't make sense to me
that's a relief. imagine if we could gaze inside. What would we see? Why would there be anything to see? Information/energy from the past? We're sort of asking if we can view things NOW which occured outside of our light cone (all light cones, to be specific) PREVIOUSLY. I just don't see why it could be done.

According to this paper the ring is an artifact.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.04623.pdf

>>15297940
why is the gas conformed in a rotating disk rather than in a amorphous sphere?

>>15298459
lel at her facebook orbiters' names

>>15298547
Black holes spin. Same reason why Saturn has rings.

>>15298547
Conservation of angular momentum. Same reason solar systems form from protoplanetary *discs* rather than amorphous clouds.

>>15298554
then why the frick does evrything in space spin?

>>15298387
>Is there some advanced image analysis that can tell the difference?
No. In fact this image was made by an upscaling/denoising algorithm like stablediffusion.

>>15298556
Because the universe had an initial spin

>>15298545
wack if true considering the same pipeline doesn't show rings on other objects

>>15297876
Nah, you are just fucking retarded.
onions

>>15298627
>wack if true considering the same pipeline doesn't show rings on other objects
The code written to create this image was made especially to produce "black hole" images.

>>15297876
They removed all of the data, operated in the noisy reason, and assumed the result. It is not spectacular. It is fraud.

>>15298459

>>15297876
Rotating black holes don't have spherical event horizons, they're oblate

what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

>black hole
>not actually black or a hole
Why should I give a shit about these dumbass space rocks?

>>15298387
I think I understand now. You would have to know which star is behind the one being occluded, and how big it SHOULD be, because the black hole will bend rays so as to make it look bigger than it is... oh wait, that's assuming that you knew how close the occluded and occluding object are. Maybe you can find that out by tracking parallax, but afaik the "black hole" discovery came from a single image.

>>15298555
Angular momentum is not conserved, try harder.

>>15298547
Nobody knows.
Planets and stars do that because they're fat at the equator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R3ufj28lzM&t=244
Black holes do fuck who knows because you can't look in there.
I have a hard time imagining neutron stars being not perfect spheres. Those bitches are so dense.

>>15298552
She's got batman in there.

>>15298459
She did nothing wrong. The fraud happened way above her paygrade

>>15300064
her nose is bigger than m87. ever seen a female nose bigger than that which wasn't attached to an elephant?

>>15300080
So what she's a kikess. Big deal.

>>15300080
Wow that...explains a lot. Even why she was covering her face in the original image

>>15297933
Editors may have bills to pay.

In Interstellar, why did Cooper's ship rip apart in the black hole but not him?

>>15299685
It very much is.

>>15300481
Because it's a movie.

>>15299685
Noether's theorem says what?

>>15297876
>wouldn’t the event horizon also be spherical?
Who said it isn't?

>>15299685
meds

>>15301355
Technically they arent perfect spheres and this has observable macro scale effects. The most obvious one I can think of is multiple photon discs rather than just one as you would have on a perfect sphere

>>15297876
The event horizon isn't something you can see, it is the area outside of a black hole which once passed you become trapped by the black holes gravitational pull.

>>15300481
Because ayys.

In the film the black hole is a portal of sorts to a 5th dimensional space where cooper can communicate with his daughter.

>>15298459

>>15302091
While that's true, you CAN see the EFFECTS of the event horizon, particularly the way stuff orbits the black hole, gets hot and radiates. That's what was pictured in the famous black-hole photographs. The actual black hole is a black spot, but it's surrounded by hot gas that's visible to telescopes.

>>15302741
I know, but the reason you don't see it in that is because I believe they said it is because of the position of it relative to us.

what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

>>15302891
>look everyone I posted it again

>>15299632
Only physicist do. And fools. It will never have any meaningful impact on our lifes. Its a waste of time.

>>15297876
>interpretation
No. "Interpolation"

>>15300003
She will not sleep with him

>>15297876
Lmao imagine thinking this cgi image is actually a photo, or worst making the normies believe is one

>>15303597
A picture's a picture.

>>15303613
Yeah and they're made with cameras equipped with lenses. Now tell the audience what a lens does to light.

>>15303613
>>15303767
OP image isn't a picture and wasn't captured by a camera. It's a computer rendering by a diffusion algorithm based on a few tiny bits of a noisy dataset of radio telescope measurements.

>>15298051
>is
It's no different than what's around it (which is of course "space" the magical place with no properties that somehow acts upon things according to some delusional crackpots)

>>15303771
>It wans't captured by this light capturing device, it was captured by the other one

Oh yes, "the other one". Because that's magically going to make those light waves stop distorting producing a shadow for you to chase and call "a black hole" (a fucking polarized distortion of light cause by the medium it passes through). Especially when you use light itself to measure and distort the signal more, that makes sense.
If the analog method didn't work, why in the fuck did they make an interpolation method of the method that didn't work? What the fuck are they smoking and where can I get some?

>>15303785
>If the analog method didn't work, why in the fuck did they make an interpolation method of the method that didn't work? What the fuck are they smoking and where can I get some?
I have no idea. I also agree it's bunkum but I think it's for different reasons. They took a bunch of noisy data and resolved the noise using an algorithm designed to produce black holes. Getting anything else would have been more of a surprise, since it's essentially motivated reasoning in algorithm form.

>>15303787
>I have no idea. I also agree it's bunkum but I think it's for different reasons. They took a bunch of noisy data and resolved the noise using an algorithm designed to produce black holes. Getting anything else would have been more of a surprise, since it's essentially motivated reasoning in algorithm form.

So fentanyl. That must be what they're smoking, would make sense since they're rolling with the woke crowd now. I refuse to believe any genuine scientist, let alone non bot posters on this site believe this bullshit.

>>15303795
>I refuse to believe any genuine scientist, let alone non bot posters on this site believe this bullshit.
They don't. This "discovery" resulted in a flood of papers criticizing them for failing to produce an image containing the known features of the object in question. In reality it has a gigantic high-energy jet shooting out of it.

>no we can not do optical interferometry at all
>but when we're using non visible radiation we can totally pull it off
>you've got to trust us on this, even though we've already demonstrated our inability with the technique
>you can't prove we're lying because you don't have your own billion dollar network of telescopes
soientist logic, pure fraud

>>15304347
>In reality it has a gigantic high-energy jet shooting out of it.
In reply they said
>it was just too zoomed in man
No cap