First "photo" of a black hole

Andrinus

Member
Messages
31
Reactions
98
[...] that it looked even more fake than the "dark side of the moon" image.

Image: Dark side of the moon

Is this image ment to show real things, in one real moment at all (i.e. a photography)?
  • When zooming in a little bit, the softening artefacts are easily detectable, for instance at the edge between moon and white clouds
  • How would the whole earth be lightened by the sun while the moon remains dark? No, the sun don't travel between the earth and the moon :sneaky:
  • The proportioning suggests that the 'camera position' would have been away roughly 4 times the distance moon-earth itself. Quite some extra light seconds to go, just for a selfie :)
 

Jim Duyer

Well-known member
Messages
179
Reactions
464
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.
For many years the idea of a Black Hole was simply a theory. Physicists were unable to prove that they even existed. And now they have a photo? I call bullshit.
 

BrokenAgate

Well-known member
Messages
366
Reactions
1,313
Image: Dark side of the moon

Is this image ment to show real things, in one real moment at all (i.e. a photography)?
  • When zooming in a little bit, the softening artefacts are easily detectable, for instance at the edge between moon and white clouds
  • How would the whole earth be lightened by the sun while the moon remains dark? No, the sun don't travel between the earth and the moon :sneaky:
  • The proportioning suggests that the 'camera position' would have been away roughly 4 times the distance moon-earth itself. Quite some extra light seconds to go, just for a selfie :)
That looks like a copy-paste job, and not a very good one. They don't really even look three-dimensional.
 

makzpj

Member
Messages
13
Reactions
66
They are lying to the audience. This is not a photo. It’s just colored data points according to some interpretation.

In other words, it’s a graph. But saying “we collected some data and arranged it in the form of colored dots” won’t sell as well as “first photo ever of a black hole”.
 

UnchainedZA

New member
Messages
7
Reactions
19
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.
Their first attempt was 9/11, and they failed at it.
Those on the ground say there was no planes, just explosions. But everyone else were shown planes via the media.
 

RecycledSoul

Well-known member
Messages
142
Reactions
289
Their first attempt was 9/11, and they failed at it.
Those on the ground say there was no planes, just explosions. But everyone else were shown planes via the media.
All it takes a computer with the right software and a “green screen”. It’s how meteorologists all do it on the evening news these days. They are not standing in front of anything but a blank light green wall. If they forget & wear something the right (or wrong technically) shade of green, That part of their body will appear hollow on tv.
 

codis

Well-known member
Messages
143
Reactions
323
All it takes a computer with the right software and a “green screen”. It’s how meteorologists all do it on the evening news these days. They are not standing in front of anything but a blank light green wall.
This technique is quite old, by the way - at least 50 years.
The 9/11 fakery was done on a computer, with the planes inserted via video editing software (according to this guy).
When people watch Hollywood movies, they should perhaps care less about the story (either pathetic or copied anyways), but more about the implications of the massive CGI usage for reality, and for other media products. Anyone seen Forrest Gump, shaking hands with Nixon ???
But this topic would segue into NASA ...
 
Last edited:

Top