[guest39538]

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.

Actually , scientific investigation revealing their nonsense  and money scams .

A secret society of scientists , them , they , it .  No more accepting their bs .

I've just destroyed an expanding universe , you have no evidence at all now I've just destroyed Hubble , I was going to leave that be , but as science treats me so bad , I intend to make them look stupid as they are .

[Kryptid]

Actually , scientific investigation revealing their nonsense  and money scams .

A secret society of scientists , them , they , it .  No more accepting their bs .

I've just destroyed an expanding universe , you have no evidence at all now I've just destroyed Hubble , I was going to leave that be , but as science treats me so bad , I intend to make them look stupid as they are .

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist.

[guest39538]

Actually , scientific investigation revealing their nonsense  and money scams .

A secret society of scientists , them , they , it .  No more accepting their bs .

I've just destroyed an expanding universe , you have no evidence at all now I've just destroyed Hubble , I was going to leave that be , but as science treats me so bad , I intend to make them look stupid as they are .

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist.

Spoken like a true scientist who doesn't do bs .  The redshift of the Hubble observation is the telescope end , not the object end . 

[Kryptid]

who doesn't do bs

The irony is overwhelming.

[guest39538]

who doesn't do bs

The irony is overwhelming.

There is no BS in my science , I say what I observe not what I don't observe .

The inverse square law , by time light reaches the telescope it has naturally redshifted because of the inverse . 

Quite obvious really .

[Kryptid]

You say this:

There is no BS in my science

Then you turn right around and contradict yourself by saying this:

The inverse square law , by time light reaches the telescope it has naturally redshifted because of the inverse .

[guest39538]

You say this:

There is no BS in my science

Then you turn right around and contradict yourself by saying this:

The inverse square law , by time light reaches the telescope it has naturally redshifted because of the inverse .

No , consider a distant object , the light from the object coming towards you weakens in magnitude and intensity because of the inverse .

[Kryptid]

No , consider a distant object , the light from the object coming towards you weakens in magnitude and intensity because of the inverse .

You understand neither the inverse square law nor redshift.

[guest39538]

No , consider a distant object , the light from the object coming towards you weakens in magnitude and intensity because of the inverse .

You understand neither the inverse square law nor redshift.

Of course not, you would say that .  Did you know that the doppler redshift of distant bodies would be a sign of contraction , not expansion ? 
White light has to be compressed to form a wavelength not expanded

Understand , the magnitude of light hitting the hubble lens only has sufficient force to be red .

[Kryptid]

Did you know that the doppler redshift of distant bodies would be a sign of contraction , not expansion ? 
White light has to be compressed to form a wavelength not expanded

Yep, sounds like your usual gibberish.

[guest39538]

Did you know that the doppler redshift of distant bodies would be a sign of contraction , not expansion ? 
White light has to be compressed to form a wavelength not expanded

Yep, sounds like your usual gibberish.

Red shift is the light hitting the lens on Hubble and compressing to see red .

[Kryptid]

This post:

Red shift is the light hitting the lens on Hubble and compressing to see red .

And this post:

Did you know that the doppler redshift of distant bodies would be a sign of contraction , not expansion ? 
White light has to be compressed to form a wavelength not expanded

Contradict this post:

Spoken like a true scientist who doesn't do bs .

[guest39538]

This post:

Red shift is the light hitting the lens on Hubble and compressing to see red .

And this post:

Did you know that the doppler redshift of distant bodies would be a sign of contraction , not expansion ? 
White light has to be compressed to form a wavelength not expanded

Contradict this post:

Spoken like a true scientist who doesn't do bs .

No , I was getting the point across .  Hubble is not an actual observation , again the redshift is data driven .  The data of redshift is the telescope end , they have created observer affect .

[Kryptid]

No , I was getting the point across .

The point that you've made is that you don't understand the physics of light.

Hubble is not an actual observation , again the redshift is data driven .  The data of redshift is the telescope end , they have created observer affect .

You keep contradicting your earlier assertion...

[guest39538]

No , I was getting the point across .

The point that you've made is that you don't understand the physics of light.

Hubble is not an actual observation , again the redshift is data driven .  The data of redshift is the telescope end , they have created observer affect .

You keep contradicting your earlier assertion...

I don't . 

Redshifting light entering a telescope does not mean anything other than that. Hubble data is the light that's entered the telescope not the light of the object changing .

[Kryptid]

And you wonder why other people don't take you seriously...

[guest39538]

And you wonder why other people don't take you seriously...

Its 5.13 am here , I've not been asleep yet , sorry if my explanation is a bit crap , fuzzy brain lol .

[guest39538]

When somebody finally takes me serious , I'll get proper serious and we can go straight into experiments .  I have lots and lots of experiments to do .

[guest39538]

How about active camouflage ?  Somebody must want something to vanish .


added- energy weapon ? Plasma fusion ?

Big bangs ?

super subs ?

super boats ?

spaceship ?

Ray guns ? (sort of)

I can separate time from space if you'd like .  More use than simulated BH pics put it that way .

[Bored chemist]

No , consider a distant object , the light from the object coming towards you weakens in magnitude and intensity because of the inverse .

You understand neither the inverse square law nor redshift.

It's a much longer list than that.