...really?

[Anonymous No.12706749]

[Anonymous No.12706808]

really what? That image was generated by a woman. It's a big accomplishment I've heard.

[Anonymous No.12706823]

>>12706808
I could generate that on mspaint

[Anonymous No.12706827]

>>12706823
That's basically what she did. And then media claimed she invented mspaint.

[Anonymous No.12706891]

>>12706827
you ignorant shits. The image was real big and in multiple parts. she has to write 2 lines of python to fix it. She DISCOVERED black holes

[Anonymous No.12707017]

>>12706749
8 pixels + Gaussian blur = black holes

How do you not get this? What, do you HATE SCIENCE!?

[Anonymous No.12707042]

https://youtu.be/BIvezCVcsYs?t=7m
how to avoid "end up seeing what we expect to see"

[Anonymous No.12707044]

>>12707017
But the photo it self seems legit.

[Anonymous No.12707117]

>>12707044
I don't understand what the text is trying to say.

[Anonymous No.12707126]

>>12707044
The aggregation disc accelerate towards the center of a black hole.
That means it becomes brighter as closer it is to the center.

[Anonymous No.12707133]

>>12707117
>>12707126
Sorry I linked it wrong.
Closer to the center, matter goes faster glows brighter, the original pic did not show any of this features.

[Anonymous No.12707220]

[Anonymous No.12707829]

>>12706749
Black holes don't exist.

[Anonymous No.12707845]

>>12707829
You don't exist

[Anonymous No.12708258]

>How do you not get this? What, do you HATE SCIENCE!?

[Anonymous No.12708264]

>>12707829
This. Still don't think they're real

[Anonymous No.12708270]

>be woman
>write a couple lines of code
>get professorship at 30
it really do be like that dont it

[Anonymous No.12708273]

>>12708270
They baasedjack is right

[Anonymous No.12708274]

>>12708270
>"you will have to try again if your question is to make sense"
>try again
>account blocked
what the fuck is their problem

[Anonymous No.12708287]

>>12706749
Ha! You looked.

[Anonymous No.12708291]

>>12708274
feminism

[Anonymous No.12708293]

>>12708270
If you weren't such a retarded monkey you could spend two seconds to find out she received awards for her master thesis as well as her PhD thesis and that they chose her to lead the team because of her competence. She's the opposite of a diversity hire.

[Anonymous No.12708307]

>>12708293
Obviously dude but im trying to cultivate an atmosphere of rage by straw manning ok

[Anonymous No.12708383]

>>12708307
*strawmanning

[Anonymous No.12708471]

>>12708293
>they chose her to lead the team because of her competence

[Anonymous No.12708507]

>everyone who shows im wrong is a cock-garbling leftist
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.12708522]

>>12707133
>>12707126
>>12707044
The person who made that image doesn't understand resolution. The true image is blurred by the Point Spread Function of the telescope array. So you will never get a sharp edge to it. You have to convolve your model with the PSF.

[Anonymous No.12708584]

>>12708293
>she received awards for her master thesis as well as her PhD thesis
She received those awards because she was a woman, dumbass. Have you been in a physics department? I have. You have no idea how much these professors bend over backwards to reward women for trash. In my department, which had about 10% of women, literally every single woman in the department won awards for being an outstanding student, an outstanding TA, an outstanding thesis, you name it. It's all so very tiresome.

[Anonymous No.12709294]

[Anonymous No.12709299]

[Anonymous No.12709320]

>There are people who think a telescope image is the same as drawing in MSPaint.

[Anonymous No.12709330]

>>12709294
Kek

[Anonymous No.12709353]

>>12707042
>Lady girl woman
I want to strangle these people
A scientist is a scientist, these homosimps deserve the wall.

[Anonymous No.12709382]

>>12708584
>No they just got it because they had a vagina in their pants

[Anonymous No.12709398]

>>12706823
I found the raw copy.

[Anonymous No.12709496]

>>12708522
I understand very well resolution cause I am a digital artist. And this image is meant to show the failings of relativity and not to be hyper realistic and indistinguishable form reality.
You can bet that I understand much more about light, and resolution, and colors and color shifts as you ever will unless you are also an visual artist.
This image is created to show more izzy visualize the failings in the theory compared, to what we really see. And not to be a super good fake.
The point little idiot, if you visualize sth. is not to make sth. more complex but to make sth. simper so you can more izzy understand why what and when.

[Anonymous No.12709524]

>>12709496
Stfu larper. Your language reveals you're a zoomer faggot who doesn't understand what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.12709528]

>>12709382
I've seen men get torn to shreds during their thesis defense, whereas women give talks not even half the quality, couldn't even answer the difference between a quark and a gluon, and was showered with praise and won an award of outstanding thesis. It was absolutely because they were a woman.

[Anonymous No.12709535]

>>12709524
you generation, mischance an random plasma fog as black hole. Good job granulations you are dumb.

[Anonymous No.12709539]

>>12706749
It literally spat out the result they were waiting for.
AKA I don't understand how neural networks function.

[Anonymous No.12710081]

>>12708584
>>12709528
I'm a physicist, so yes, I witnessed those things too. It's even worse in engineering, where I am right now.
It does not apply to her though. Just look up her work.
I completely agree with you otherwise, but it's just not true in this case.

>>12709496
>I am a digital artist.
You're a computer program? You sure sound like one.

[Anonymous No.12710115]

>>12707829
Based

[Anonymous No.12710313]

>>12709496
> And this image is meant to show the failings of relativity
By showing something that couldn't be observed, and then claiming that it doesn't match the observation. It's fucking stupid on every level, it is literally a strawman argument. It's completely circular.
>You can bet that I understand much more about light, and resolution, and colors and color shifts as you ever will unless you are also an visual artist.
I can guarantee you know nothing about VLBI, visibilities or millimetre astronomy. Even a term like resolution doesn't mean the same in astronomy as it does in digital images.
> And not to be a super good fake.
Then you don't understand science. In order to compare a model to data, you have to compare like-for-like. That means creating mock data by feeding your model through a simulated observation, and reconstructing the image. You cannot just open up photoshop and do whatever you like. If you just make something up, then any comparison with the real data is meaningless. In this case the image says the inner edge should be sharper, but the moron who created it doesn't understand that the edge would be blurbed by the PSF.

[Anonymous No.12710334]

>>12709539
Nope. They train and validate on a range of images, not just ones that look like rings.

http://vlbiimaging.csail.mit.edu/beautycontest

[Anonymous No.12710815]

>>12710313
>By showing something that couldn't be observed, and then claiming that it doesn't match the observation. It's fucking stupid on every level, it is literally a strawman argument. It's completely circular.

By showing sth. how it should be according to your model. And then that this expectation doesn't match the observation.
I think you misschanged sth. =( Read again.

Pleas read, what I told you and don't make things up.

Right I didn't know what VLBI means, sadly Infrared behaves like light in optical terms you looser.

It doesn't fucking matter. It is not about the sharp edge you mongo read again. This sharp edge, exists purely for the purpose of better visualization.

The point is, (but sadly you cant read) The lag of an increase in brightens of the aggregation disc closer to the center.

Bahaha you are that stupid arent you? You are that delusional, that you try to arguing about an sharp edge if this never was the point.

[Anonymous No.12710827]

>mfw /sci/ is infested with raging incels

[Anonymous No.12710857]

>>12710115
Based on what???

[Anonymous No.12710861]

Why the fuck is this board infested by /pol/ and /x/ schizos that don't even believe in science? Can you go back to your containment boards please?

[Anonymous No.12710873]

>>12710861
4chan was ruined in 2015

[Anonymous No.12710952]

>>12708293
Yeah she’s the jewish nepotism shoe-in hire

[Anonymous No.12710976]

>>12709353
>i have no argument

[Anonymous No.12710980]

>>12708584
Compare the abstracts of women who get the NSF graduate fellowships and those of men who get it

[Anonymous No.12711000]

>>12710861
there was a massive bump in november with the entirety of /pol/ collectively storming the board with benford's law bullshit and they haven't left since

[Anonymous No.12711641]

>>12710815
This post made me lose many IQ points.

>>12710861
This. Fuck this place.

>>12711000
It started earlier than that, with covid-19 I'd say. Got much worse though. Problem is that people bite.

[Anonymous No.12712029]

>>12710815
> This sharp edge, exists purely for the purpose of better visualization.
Then by you own admission it doesn't show any "failings of relativity".
> The lag of an increase in brightens of the aggregation disc closer to the center.
Again you fail to understand the point of resolution. The width of the disk is not resolved by EHT. So what we see there is driven by the beam. You won't see any increase in brightness towards the centre because it's all smeared together by the resolution. You pretend like you understand this stuff but you clearly don't.
Here is a figure from the paper, the size of the beam is shown by the circle. You won't see any real structure below that scale because it's not resolved. You couldn't possibly see a gradient in the disk because of the resolution.
It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a gradient in brightness or a sharp edge, the reason you can't see these is the same (resolution). This is why any model comparison is utterly worthless without convolving them with the beam.

[Anonymous No.12712051]

I briefly worked on a project regarding visualization of the cancer nebula. It was much less sophisticated than what this Anon >>12712029 is doing it seems, but I can confirm he is 100% right. Just in case that means something to anyone.

[Anonymous No.12712057]

>>12712029
>>12710815
Here are some real relativistic models. Not some bullshit made up by a schizo in paint (who couldn't even spell accretion), real simulations which have been made into mock images. In these models the photon ring is the brightest part. You see that after it has been imaged by the array all the gradient information is gone, smeared out by the beam and truncated by the sensitivity.
So no, these observations are perfectly consistent with relativity.

[Anonymous No.12712141]

>>12707044
>>12710815
Also the idiot who made that image showed the inner edge far too close to the center. That figure is not what relativity predicts at all.

[Anonymous No.12712160]

baboon's anus

[Anonymous No.12712169]

[Anonymous No.12712233]

>>12706749

[Anonymous No.12712234]

>>12708287
You gazed into the darkness.
And the darkness smiled back.

[Anonymous No.12712236]

>>12712160
Uranus

[Anonymous No.12712253]

>>12710861
yeah this board>>12710952
sucks so bad now. rip sci.

[Anonymous No.12712327]

>>12706749
You can get a better version if you look up goatse

[Anonymous No.12712330]

>>12706749
Look. Found a higher quality image. And all it took me was ten seconds on google image search

[Anonymous No.12712356]

>>12707042
Why does everything she says sound like bullshit and not just because she talks with a spit slurry lisp.