Science CONFIRMS black hole "photograph" was FAKE

[Anonymous No.14512810]

Redditors btfo

[Anonymous No.14512815]

>>14512810
>New Scientist
instantly disregarded

this is atypical for them since usually they are the most woo-woo purveyors of stoner science. very rare for them to actually be SKEPTICAL and try to debunk something!

anyhow everything New Scientist says is usually garbage or brainlet-tier. Lubos Motl used to call them “Nude Socialist”

[Anonymous No.14512916]

>>14512815
>Nude Socialist
is this meant to be an insult? sounds based

[Anonymous No.14512920]

>>14512916
Have you seen a scientist? Would you really want to see one of those fags naked? Shudder.

[Anonymous No.14512924]

>>14512810
>shitposting on 4chan
>idea makes it to academia and the news
This is great. What a wonderful website.

[Anonymous No.14512944]

>>14512810
Is anyone surprised. It was a woman that did it right?

[Anonymous No.14512951]

>>14512810
Good. If you're a scientist go on record and serve as proof to historians that not everyone was retarded.

[Anonymous No.14512953]

>>14512810
>https://www.newscientist.com/article/2320810-astronomers-question-if-the-first-picture-of-a-black-hole-is-accurate/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=echobox&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1653444589
>There may be a problem with the first image of a black hole. After three years of analysis, a group of researchers in Japan has produced an image of M87* – the supermassive black hole at the centre of the M87 galaxy – that looks markedly different from the one released by the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) collaboration in 2019. The researchers claim that the EHT group may have made a mistake.
oh no no no

[Anonymous No.14512955]

>literal radio noise
>put through black box computer program that nobody audited
>which shits out a jaypeg which is then given to the media to publish, which each party stating it as fact and thus becomes economic-sociopolitical and hotly debate
>turns out this was a poor basis for gathering information

This is why the only sources I get my news from is Infowars and Daily Stormer.

[Anonymous No.14512956]

Black holes aren't real.

[Anonymous No.14512958]

>>14512953
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14620307

[Anonymous No.14512963]

>>14512956
this

[Anonymous No.14513024]

>>14512955
I need to autistically point out that there were in fact 3 black box computer programs and the final image was the average of jpegs shat out

[Anonymous No.14513027]

>>14512920
Why yes, I know what a scientist looks like

[Anonymous No.14513032]

>>14513024
that’s not autistic anon, that’s straight up exactly the right point to make here.

also keep in mind that there was also a 4th image that wasn’t used, and that 4th one was Bauman’s

[Anonymous No.14513040]

>>14513032
>there was also a 4th image that wasn’t used, and that 4th one was Bauman’s

[Anonymous No.14513080]

>>14512956
You aren't real.

[bodhi No.14513125]

>>14512955
>This is why the only sources I get my news from is Infowars and Daily Stormer.

[bodhi No.14513128]

>>14512955
red ice and mark collett are p good btw on odysee

[Anonymous No.14513140]

>>14512810
what was fake about it?

[Anonymous No.14513151]

>>14513032
>>14513040
Plz tell me more

[Anonymous No.14513172]

>>14513151
Here it is! Totally real!

[Anonymous No.14513179]

>>14513140
It's be easier to list what wasn't fake. As far as we know, the data that started the process was real. Pretty much everything from that point on was artistic license.

[Anonymous No.14513180]

>>14512944
No, the woman didn't actually do anything, just taking the spotlight away from the men who did all the work like always

[Anonymous No.14513204]

>>14513179
Kek. Oh btw the data started the process isnt public we only have data that was (((processed))) who knows how many steps

[Anonymous No.14513216]

>>14513204
>process isnt public
why?

i thought astronomy shit was funded by pubilc

[Anonymous No.14513235]

>Science CONFIRMS black hole "photograph" was FAKE
>CONFIRMS

Yeah, that's not how writing papers works. Something isn't true just because there is one paper claiming so. Note that this isn't the first independent analysis of the M87 EHT data, there have been at least two other independent analyses which confirmed the ring. Note that the second link used exactly the same method as the new Japanese team and found a ring. Many people whined that EHT's analysis was too complex and training could be biased, but this independent analysis does not use any machine learning or training.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..259A/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...924..125C/abstract

But why have you blindly accepted the claim of the Japanese paper? Because of confirmation bias, it confirms your belief so therefore it is the correct answer. This is not good science.

[Anonymous No.14513238]

>>14513235
Helllooooo reddit!

[Anonymous No.14513240]

>>14512955
It's not a "black box" if you developed the code yourself, publish a paper explaining how it works, calibrate it on simulated data and publish it on github.

[Anonymous No.14513243]

>>14513235
Here is the image from the second paper. Again, this method does not use any fancy training or machine learning.

[Anonymous No.14513254]

>>14513240
>calibrate it on simulated data
Do you not spot the problem?

[Anonymous No.14513258]

>>14513243
This image is an order of magnitude more honest representation of what they actually did than painting it orange and tricking goyim into thinking it's a real photo.

[Anonymous No.14513261]

>>14513254
They studied a range of morphologies, not just rings. So no.

[Anonymous No.14513268]

>>14513261
Who cares what they studied all of it limited by human imagination while real life has time and time again proven it's not. Especially when studying something whacky as black holes.
>morphology
You cant scare me with sciency words

[Anonymous No.14513374]

>>14513216
The processing is described in a paper, many of the codes used are also public. The guy is just making shit up.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c57#apjlab0c57s4

[Anonymous No.14513381]

>>14513374
>>14513216
Way to debunk a strawman retards. I said the pre processed data isnt public. Only the processed data is.

[Anonymous No.14513489]

Almost all cosmology is made up, wild guesses based on faint instrument data.

[Anonymous No.14513641]

>>14513027
kek

[Anonymous No.14513658]

>>14513243
>>14513258
The real image.

[Anonymous No.14513672]

>>14512953
Post the whole article, faggot.

[Anonymous No.14513675]

>>14512955
wait until you hear how climate models are made

[Anonymous No.14513939]

>>14513240
>it's open source so that means it was audited
kek

[Anonymous No.14513949]

>>14513180
Actually wrong. She was the head researcher and the one who developed the theory. That was misinformation spread by brainlets.

[Anonymous No.14513964]

>>14513939
Auditing code is not what makes something a blackbox. A blackbox is something you yourself don't understand.

[Anonymous No.14513968]

>>14513964
>definition of blackbox is subjective
moron

[Anonymous No.14513985]

>>14513968
Well you find me a definition somewhere which is not subjective. I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.14513994]

>>14513140

[Anonymous No.14513998]

>>14512920

[Anonymous No.14514000]

>>14513949
>developed the theory
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.14514237]

>>14513489
people forget how they used to depict "artistically" comets as dirty snowballs before photos showed ugly rocks with dunes of gray sand.

every time i see the stupid Interstellar black hole used as example in anything besides fiction i stop the video and purge the channel from my feed. i'm done with stupid popsci parrots