[guest39538]

You plan on showing us evidence that the picture is fake any time soon?

Do you plan on showing us any evidence that the picture is real ?

They always claim you have no evidence when the point is , neither do them .

Show me the camera they took the photo with ? You can't can you .

[guest39538]

''Stronger proof for black holes'' ?  Really ?  Don't you mean factual proof ?

added- ''We didn't know we were going to get a ring of light'' , then how the hell did you point your telescope when a BH is invisible ? Can't be seen ?

The female version of Mr Cox , conditioning ...

[Kryptid]

Do you plan on showing us any evidence that the picture is real ?

This is like telling me to disprove a conspiracy theory. You can't do that. Conspiracy theories can't be disproved. So the burden of proof is on you, as the conspiracy theorist, to provide evidence that the image is faked. You don't start off with the assumption that everything shown to the world by scientists is faked until proven real. That leads to madness.

They always claim you have no evidence when the point is , neither do them .

You mean "they", not "them". And what would you even accept as evidence that the image is real? If they showed you piles of data on a computer, you'd just say that you have no idea what it meant (because you don't even understand basic algebra), so you wouldn't accept that as evidence either.

Show me the camera they took the photo with ? You can't can you .

I can show you all of the "cameras".

The South Pole Telescope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole_Telescope#/media/File:South_pole_telescope_nov2009.jpg

The Atacama Large Millimeter Array: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Large_Millimeter_Array#/media/File:ALMA_Antennas_on_Chajnantor.jpg

The Atacama Pathfinder Experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Pathfinder_Experiment#/media/File:Phot-24a-06.jpg

The Heinrich Hertz Submillimeter Telescope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hertz_Submillimeter_Telescope#/media/File:SMT_1.png

The IRAM 30 m Telescope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRAM_30m_telescope#/media/File:Observatorio_IRAM_Pico_Veleta.jpg

The Large Millimeter Telescope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Millimeter_Telescope#/media/File:GTM_imagen.JPG

The Submillimeter Array: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submillimeter_Array#/media/File:Smithsonian_Submillimeter_Array.jpg

[guest39538]

And what would you even accept as evidence that the image is real?

I'd accept a real photo , not a data generated ''photo'' from algorithms .

1) You can't see Bh's

2) A bh does not emit visible light

3) outside a black hole does not produce visible light

The photo is a visible wavelength

A visible wavelength for something that has no visible wavelength is obviously fake .

[Kryptid]

I'd except a real photo , not a data generated photo from algorithms .

So in other words, you were telling me to provide evidence that the image of M87* is real when you knew in advance that no level of evidence would be sufficient to suit you. This is called being "closed-minded".

1) You can't see Bh's

2) A bh does not emit visible light

3) outside a black hole does not produce visible light

The photo is a visible wavelength

A visible wavelength for something that has no visible wavelength is obviously fake .

Which further demonstrates that you don't understand the physics of black holes. The light is not from the black hole, it is from the accretion disk.

[guest39538]

I'd except a real photo , not a data generated photo from algorithms .

So in other words, you were telling me to provide evidence that the image of M87* is real when you knew in advance that no level of evidence would be sufficient to suit you. This is called being "closed-minded".

1) You can't see Bh's

2) A bh does not emit visible light

3) outside a black hole does not produce visible light

The photo is a visible wavelength

A visible wavelength for something that has no visible wavelength is obviously fake .

Which further demonstrates that you don't understand the physics of black holes. The light is not from the black hole, it is from the accretion disk.

That's bs ,  it's computer generated association  from white noise .

[guest39538]

 ''If they showed you piles of data on a computer, you'd just say that you have no idea what it meant (because you don't even understand basic algebra), so you wouldn't accept that as evidence either.''

So you admit its not a photo ?


It's a pile of white noise data and the algorithm creates the image that is required .

[Kryptid]

That's bs ,  it's computer generated association  from white noise .

Please support this claim with evidence.

So you admit its not a photo ?

Every single image you see on your computer screen, photograph or not, has data behind it. Same thing here. It's not a photograph using a handheld camera, but it's a photograph in the sense that it's an image taken of an object in the real world.

[guest39538]

That's bs ,  it's computer generated association  from white noise .

Please support this claim with evidence.

So you admit its not a photo ?

Every single image you see on your computer screen, photograph or not, has data behind it. Same thing here. It's not a photograph using a handheld camera, but it's a photograph in the sense that it's an image taken of an object in the real world.

So you admit its not a real photo  and I have supported my claim with her own explanation of the process .

You can try and dress it as much as you like but it won't change the fact that the image is not  a photo of a BH .

Fake science to create more funds into fake science . 


Same fake chit with CERN .

[Kryptid]

So you admit its not a real photo

I never said that.

I have supported my claim with her own explanation of the process .

How so?

Fake science to create more funds into fake science . 

Repetition of a claim is not evidence that the claim is correct.

Same fake chit with CERN .

More claims of conspiracy...

[guest39538]

So you admit its not a real photo

I never said that.

I have supported my claim with her own explanation of the process .

How so?

Fake science to create more funds into fake science . 

Repetition of a claim is not evidence that the claim is correct.

Same fake chit with CERN .

More claims of conspiracy...

How so ?  Because her process isn't taking a picture its compiling a load of random data and the algorithm makes patterns/shapes out of the data . 

And its not conspiracy theory , CERN and this has no other  use but that of the practitioner . It is subjective , naïve  and a waste of money .

[Kryptid]

random data

This is the part I'm talking about. Where do you get the idea that this data is random?

And its not conspiracy theory , CERN and this has no other  use but that of the practitioner . It is subjective , naïve  and a waste of money .

Claiming that a large group of people are swindling the world at large is a conspiracy theory.

[guest39538]

random data

This is the part I'm talking about. Where do you get the idea that this data is random?

And its not conspiracy theory , CERN and this has no other  use but that of the practitioner . It is subjective , naïve  and a waste of money .

I've just took the same picture , it doesn't matter what data I monitor , the program I use can always pick out the redshift around my lens.  Look a BH ….


bh4.jpg (13.96 kB . 426x238 - viewed 3964 times)

sum dum guys

[Kryptid]

So you can't support the claim that the data taken by the EHT is random.

[guest39538]

So you can't support the claim that the data taken by the EHT is random.

Of course it's random ., several telescopes recording white noise and the program identifies comparisons and forms a shape and image , the image is always going to be round because the telescope is round, the frequency of light entering the telescope will be a variate , the program is seeing the telescope lens . round.

Its not a BH , congrats you've took a picture of the telescope lens .

[Kryptid]

the image is always going to be round because the telescope is round

I guess you've never seen pictures of nebulas and gas clouds taken by telescopes, huh?

white noise

Who said the telescopes are recording white noise?

[guest39538]

the image is always going to be round because the telescope is round

I guess you've never seen pictures of nebulas and gas clouds taken by telescopes, huh?

white noise

Who said the telescopes are recording white noise?

She did more or less in her explanation video .  She said the earth is spinning and the image entering the telescope is constantly changing ,  no constant , white noise . (more or less)

Nebulas produce visible light . can see them .

Didn't you know Hubble redshift is redshifted  light entering the telescope ?  Not distant bodies receding ?

[Kryptid]

She said the earth is spinning and the image entering the telescope is constantly changing ,  no constant , white noise

If you think "constantly changing" is the same as "white noise" than that's another thing you've demonstrated that you don't understand. White noise is random. It's devoid of useful information. Something that is constantly changing in a regular way is not random (as would be the case for the EHT).

Nebulas produce visible light . can see them .

So does the accretion disk around a black hole.

Didn't you know Hubble redshift is redshifted  light entering the telescope ?  Not distant bodies receding ?

Red herring.

[guest39538]

She said the earth is spinning and the image entering the telescope is constantly changing ,  no constant , white noise

If you think "constantly changing" is the same as "white noise" than that's another thing you've demonstrated that you don't understand. White noise is random. It's devoid of useful information. Something that is constantly changing in a regular way is not random (as would be the case for the EHT).

Nebulas produce visible light . can see them .

So does the accretion disk around a black hole.

Didn't you know Hubble redshift is redshifted  light entering the telescope ?  Not distant bodies receding ?

Red herring.

No , the accretion disk does not produce visible light or you could take a real photo .

And ...whoops hubble ,
I have told you all before that science is not all that and has lots of things wrong .



bh5.jpg (14.14 kB . 430x223 - viewed 3883 times)

Just let me know when they are ready to do some real science .

[Kryptid]

No , the accretion disk does not produce visible light or you could take a real photo .

So now you deny that super-heated plasma glows in the visible spectrum...

The reason why we can't take photographs of M87* with a conventional camera is the because the black hole and accretion disk have an angular diameter that is far too small. You wouldn't be able to see it that way. You might as well be arguing that a gnat on top of a mesa on the horizon must not reflect visible light because you can't take a picture of it with a handheld camera from your vantage point.

I have told you all before that science is not all that and has lots of things wrong .

Yes, you've said a lot of anti-scientific nonsense.