First "photo" of a black hole

Mabzynn

Well-known member
Messages
141
Reactions
560
20064


Question asked:
How can you take photos without light?

Few chuckles from the audience

Answer:
Well, radio is also light. The radio waves are as light as the eye(light?) that enters into the detectors that we have here (points at eyes). They're called eyes. We use the light the waves that come from the remote black hole region in such a, a quite tricky way because the same light that arrives to earth is that same wave that comes to all the different telescopes, and we trap these front of light in our computers. We can then reproduce and play back data but this is also the radio light which is also the same light that comes into the mobile phones and that we are working on in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Another stepped in to help:
What we see, what we see in the image is actually light that is produced by plasma around the black hole it's true that we cannot see it because it's black so we cannot see it but we, we see it's shadow that is being cast on this glowing plasma. So we are actually taking a picture of light. (shrugs)


So which one is it? Did you convert radio waves into the visible light spectrum or did you actually take a picture of light waves?

I mean how is that an acceptable answer from an academic. At least say you assigned colors to the radio waves based on the wavelength of the radio waves received and then created a composite image based on our interpretations of that data. Let's not pretend it's anywhere in the visible light spectrum because by their own definitions it's invisible. But I'm not even sure what their answer is at this point.


The next guy went on to talk about how they "think" black holes are engulfed in an optically thin fog of radio emitting material. So the fact that we see nothing in the middle is quite significant.




I feel like we're playing a stupid game with stupid prizes at this point.
 
Last edited:

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
398
Reactions
940
It’s well known, “seeing is believing”, for we humans. Also, we then think of the item as material- a thing, instead of energy, etc. I believe part of this has been hiding EMagneticism and all its implications while doling the tech out slowly while implementing their plan. Stars as objects instead of these wavy things, and the electron- you know, if something can’t be broken down to the smallest part or conversely the largest (then there’s boundaries!!). This destroys many of the humanist scientific theories.
Same with these old photos it seems now. Once digital photography came in I thought there goes photography as a career. Wrong! To me it’s like people watching a magician on TV. Duh.

Also CGI weather maps. People are beginning to notice they don’t match up with actual weather Bouys and true radar data. Which brings up naming things- same psychological effect as a picture.
 
Last edited:

CitizenShip

Member
Messages
51
Reactions
96
It’s well known, “seeing is believing”, for we humans. Also, we then think of the item as material- a thing, instead of energy, etc. I believe part of this has been hiding EMagneticism and all its implications while doling the tech out slowly while implementing their plan. Stars as objects instead of these wavy things, and the electron- you know, if something can’t be broken down to the smallest part or conversely the largest (then there’s boundaries!!). This destroys many of the humanist scientific theories.
Same with these old photos it seems now. Once digital photography came in I thought there goes photography as a career. Wrong! To me it’s like people watching a magician on TV. Duh.
Yes exactly like this!
 

anotherlayer

Well-known member
Messages
659
Reactions
2,251
Also CGI weather maps. People are beginning to notice they don’t match up with actual weather Bouys and true radar data. Which brings up naming things- same psychological effect as a picture.
The idea that taking a picture of a black hole and building it up for delivery to the masses is just laughable. No one knows what a black hole is and I'm pretty sure no one really cares. We want jobs and food on the table.

And as far as weather maps... we spend all this money to photograph a black hole but we have no capability to send live feeds of the weather back down to earth? We are still using cartoon CGI to show us the "doppler". None of this adds up...
 

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
398
Reactions
940
My husband and and I predict soon, probably the next election, that a big scandal will erupt because a real time video will be changed, in real time. Even though all know this is possible right now, we all ignore it. Still we will believe everything we see or the media will pretend we all believe.
It’s a drag to be absolutely cynical that why sites like these are important. Free up creative thinking that looks past the fake- doesn’t just stop there.
 

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
256
Reactions
1,366
View attachment 20064

Question asked:
How can you take photos without light?

Few chuckles from the audience

Answer:
Well, radio is also light. The radio waves are as light as the eye(light?) that enters into the detectors that we have here (points at eyes). They're called eyes. We use the light the waves that come from the remote black hole region in such a, a quite tricky way because the same light that arrives to earth is that same wave that comes to all the different telescopes, and we trap these front of light in our computers. We can then reproduce and play back data but this is also the radio light which is also the same light that comes into the mobile phones and that we are working on in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Another stepped in to help:
What we see, what we see in the image is actually light that is produced by plasma around the black hole it's true that we cannot see it because it's black so we cannot see it but we, we see it's shadow that is being cast on this glowing plasma. So we are actually taking a picture of light. (shrugs)


So which one is it? Did you convert radio waves into the visible light spectrum or did you actually take a picture of light waves?

I mean how is that an acceptable answer from an academic. At least say you assigned colors to the radio waves based on the wavelength of the radio waves received and then created a composite image based on our interpretations of that data. Let's not pretend it's anywhere in the visible light spectrum because by their own definitions it's invisible. But I'm not even sure what their answer is at this point.


The next guy went on to talk about how they "think" black holes are engulfed in an optically thin fog of radio emitting material. So the fact that we see nothing in the middle is quite significant.




I feel like we're playing a stupid game with stupid prizes at this point.

Apparently you beat me to this post by 2 hours :sneaky:

Success meant simultaneous coordination between teams and clear skies on several continents at the same time. Observations were coordinated using atomic clocks known as hydrogen masers - which are accurate to within one second every 100 million years. One night in 2017 - the conditions were perfect.


"We got super lucky, the weather was perfect," said EHT member Ziri Younsi based at University College London.
Right. So according to them, this "photo" was taken in 2017 when the weather was "perfect," so it apparently took them two full years to come out with this? I know people who can whip something like this up in photoshop in 30 minutes. I think the folks at NASA are in dire need of some photoshop tutorials if it took them this long...

In the immortal words of Our Science God Who art in Tesla, Elon Musk:

“You can tell it’s real because it looks so fake."
 
OP
Mabzynn

Mabzynn

Well-known member
Messages
141
Reactions
560
Yes this is just like the story of the image of the atom, well no we can't see it because we don't have the tools to measure it but here is an image of what we think it looks like!
The thing is we do have the tools and they're very basic. They're just ignored.

Look at ferrocells/supercells, we can actually see how the universe is expressing itself (and this is not confined to magnetism):

20067


As above so below.
 
Last edited:

BrokenAgate

Well-known member
Messages
362
Reactions
1,282
View attachment 20064

Question asked:
How can you take photos without light?

Few chuckles from the audience

Answer:
Well, radio is also light. The radio waves are as light as the eye(light?) that enters into the detectors that we have here (points at eyes). They're called eyes. We use the light the waves that come from the remote black hole region in such a, a quite tricky way because the same light that arrives to earth is that same wave that comes to all the different telescopes, and we trap these front of light in our computers. We can then reproduce and play back data but this is also the radio light which is also the same light that comes into the mobile phones and that we are working on in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Another stepped in to help:
What we see, what we see in the image is actually light that is produced by plasma around the black hole it's true that we cannot see it because it's black so we cannot see it but we, we see it's shadow that is being cast on this glowing plasma. So we are actually taking a picture of light. (shrugs)


So which one is it? Did you convert radio waves into the visible light spectrum or did you actually take a picture of light waves?

I mean how is that an acceptable answer from an academic. At least say you assigned colors to the radio waves based on the wavelength of the radio waves received and then created a composite image based on our interpretations of that data. Let's not pretend it's anywhere in the visible light spectrum because by their own definitions it's invisible. But I'm not even sure what their answer is at this point.


The next guy went on to talk about how they "think" black holes are engulfed in an optically thin fog of radio emitting material. So the fact that we see nothing in the middle is quite significant.




I feel like we're playing a stupid game with stupid prizes at this point.
They are very sure of themselves without actually saying much of anything. :cautious: What article is this taken from?
 

Andrinus

Member
Messages
29
Reactions
90
Why has this black hole photo a black hole in its center at all?

Assuming we think of a black hole as a spherical something, the light emitting aurora should be distributed equally around it. Ok, you would have a longer 'path' through the aurora on the sides compared to the middle, therefor the center should really be darker than the edge. At the same time it could even appear brighter in the middle because the light yield at our camera position (the earth) should be more intensive.

Or do we assume that a black hole is like a rotating disk, with light being driven outwards in centripedal movement? Then we are lucky to have instantly catched one example with our observation position sitting almost perfectly on the rotation-axis, hm? ;)
 

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
775
Reactions
2,047
Pay attention to 'the audience'. The 'hard working, multi tasking, no time for anything' zombies who graze information coming through their phones and social media subscriptions so if it says 'black hole' any image of one has to have a 'black hole' in it or 'it isn't real'.

"Nothing too see here move along, move along," type of blinding.
 

maco144

Active member
Messages
41
Reactions
125
330 Trillion miles away they declare they spotted this, lol. There is now a bit of fabricated controversy that the main face (Katie) did almost nothing relevant in the actual programming which was all done by a MIT LGBT (Chael). Getting women interested in STEM still seems to be the narrative while autistic transgender individuals have naturally been inclined to programming.

I'm not sure how kosher this subject is on this site but I do believe in the trans deception pervades society from top down where most of the famous people in the news and such are part of the deception and katie bouMAN looks very much like a jewish male to female transgender individual. I just add that in that I see that as a huge signal to the overall fakeness of the story (as if space stories arent fake enough!).
 
Last edited:

Mondea

New member
Messages
4
Reactions
11
Why has this black hole photo a black hole in its center at all?

Assuming we think of a black hole as a spherical something, the light emitting aurora should be distributed equally around it. Ok, you would have a longer 'path' through the aurora on the sides compared to the middle, therefor the center should really be darker than the edge. At the same time it could even appear brighter in the middle because the light yield at our camera position (the earth) should be more intensive.

Or do we assume that a black hole is like a rotating disk, with light being driven outwards in centripedal movement? Then we are lucky to have instantly catched one example with our observation position sitting almost perfectly on the rotation-axis, hm? ;)
Not sure if i see the point in this speculation. If this photo is fake then the whole premise of black hole existance is bogus. If its real then the speculation from you point of view would be pointless given that the scientists who took the photo most likely know more of the physics behind this subject.

As far as the photo goes, nobody here can tell if its fake or real. It could obviously be easily faked, but there is really no evidence for it and your gut feeling is as good as it gets.
 

Top