Black Hole Picture and Research Links

a reply to: Phantom423

Einstein predicted black holes and didn't believe they were possible himself!

When it comes to predicting Black Holes, Einstein was very late to the party.

British natural philosopher John Mitchell predicted Black Holes in 1783.

It was Michell who, in a paper for the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, read on 27 November 1783, first proposed the idea that there were such things as black holes, which he called "dark stars"

en.wikipedia.org...

Lets stop all this " Einstein Predicted Black Holes " nonsense.

a reply to: alldaylong

Last night, BBC4 had an hour long docu on the whole mission, QI.
Extremely complex with the multiple telescope setup...I dare say the programme will be repeated soon, perhaps tonight even...worth a look though.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

The black hole is in M87 - the Messier Galaxy, not the Milky Way, which is our galaxy. I don't know the geometry of this black hole relative to its galaxy equator. Actually, I was wondering today why they chose M87 and not the Milky Way black hole.

The answers are probably in the six research papers which I intend to read over the next few weeks.

Right now there's a lot of reading to be done, a lot of questions to be asked. That's the fun part!

Last I checked our central black hole in our galaxy has an alleged acreation disk parallel with the galactic plane which would be difficult to resolve, since we are basically on the same galactic plane. Looking at another galaxy like m87 would probably give a clearer view of a galactic centre and its carnivore.

Cheers - Dave

Even if the plane of the accretion disk was on edge from our viewpoint, the black hole's gravity would bend the light of the accretion disk behind it so that light appears above and below the black hole.

This video describes that, first by showing what we would see if a black hole's accretion disk is perpendicular to or point of view, but then (starting at the 6:38 mark) what it would look like viewed from any random angle, such as edge on.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

The black hole is in M87 - the Messier Galaxy, not the Milky Way, which is our galaxy. I don't know the geometry of this black hole relative to its galaxy equator. Actually, I was wondering today why they chose M87 and not the Milky Way black hole.

The answers are probably in the six research papers which I intend to read over the next few weeks.

Right now there's a lot of reading to be done, a lot of questions to be asked. That's the fun part!

Last I checked our central black hole in our galaxy has an alleged acreation disk parallel with the galactic plane which would be difficult to resolve, since we are basically on the same galactic plane. Looking at another galaxy like m87 would probably give a clearer view of a galactic centre and its carnivore.

Cheers - Dave

Even if the plane of the accretion disk was on edge from our viewpoint, the black hole's gravity would bend the light of the accretion disk behind it so that light appears above and below the black hole.

This video describes that, first by showing what we would see if a black hole's accretion disk is perpendicular to or point of view, but then (starting at the 6:38 mark) what it would look like viewed from any random angle, such as edge on.

Yep, that is correct and it leaves a blank space because of the gravity well. Question is, how do you resolve a nothing on its edge, by simply calculating the boundaries of a predicted null space? Its still not a real measurement as you're calculating the effect (a proxy) caused by the black hole, not the black hole itself.

It's an interesting process and valid, but it's a lot like my measuring gravity waves using a temporal proxy. I couldn't measure the actual waves because they were far too large, so I measured the temporal effect caused by the gravity wave. I can analyze the temporal effects like they can analyze the gravity lensing, but neither of us can analyze the actual effect or target object as one changes reality (gravity waves) and the other is beyond reality (black holes).

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Correct. They've said all along that they are imaging the silhouette of the black hole against the light of its accretion disk -- not the black hole itself.

There is nothing to image of the black hole from the event horizon inward since nothing (visible light, radio waves, no EM radiation of any kind) would emanate from that region.

its in another galaxy m 87, I think. so we are looking at a 2 d disc essentially and a 3 d blackhole. so actually to say that gas is moving towards us or away from us is pure poppycock. nonetheless a nice picture, showing the black hole. actually this pic and my recent thread on astronomical observation, vindicates my view of thought, in that black holes are black because the velocity of light there is zero
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Uh Oh..The media gave Katie Bouman credit, where credit wasn't due.

As the mainstream media attempts to give researcher Katie Bouman credit for the first “photos” of a black hole, it appears her role may have been mostly supervisory, and that other researchers did the majority of the leg work.

According to data provided publicly by GitHub, Bouman made 2,410 contributions to the over 900,000 lines of code required to create the first-of-its-kind black hole image, or 0.26 per cent. Bouman’s contributions also occurred toward the end of the work on the code.

Source: bigleaguepolitics.com...

Why did the media like Katie so much? Or, was it Katie herself who took too much credit, I wonder?

a reply to: carewemust

Andrew Chael, the person this article mentions as writing 850,000 lines of code, says it is untrue that he wrote that much cade, and also gives a lot of credit to Katie Bouman for writing the algorithm that stitched together the data from the four separate teams, even if she did not enter a lot of code.

It seems the article you posted has incorrect information, and didn't bother asking Mr. Chael about the accuracy of their information.

That’s completely wrong, Chael said in a Twitter thread of his own that went viral Thursday. Not only are the claims in the meme flat-out incorrect, but Chael – as an openly gay man – is also part of an underrepresented demographic in his field.

“While I appreciate the congratulations on a result that I worked hard on for years, if you are congratulating me because you have a sexist vendetta against Katie, please go away and reconsider your priorities in life,” he tweeted....

...Chael said. He certainly didn’t write “850,000 lines of code,” a false number likely pulled from GitHub, a Web-based coding service. And while he was the primary author of one piece of software that worked on imaging the black hole, the team used multiple different approaches to avoid bias. His work was important, but Bouman’s was also vital as she helped stitch together all the teams, Chael said.

www.mercurynews.com...

Although the article does go on to say it isn't fair to single out Bouman as the "primary" person who was responsible for turning the data into these images over the last two years, a misunderstanding that she says she is trying to correct:

In truth, singling out any one scientist in a massive, cross-disciplinary group effort like the Event Horizon Telescope’s project is bound to create misapprehensions. Many who shared an equally viral image of Bouman clutching her hands in joy at the sight of the black hole came away wrongly believing she was the sole person responsible for the discovery, an idea the postdoctoral researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has tried to correct.

“No one algorithm or person made this image,” Bouman wrote on Facebook, “it required the amazing talent of a team of scientists from around the globe and years of hard work to develop the instrument, data processing, imaging methods, and analysis techniques that were necessary to pull off this seemingly impossible feat.”

Oh these things are always a huge team of people, and they obviously deserve lots of congratulations. It is being somewhat anally retentive or prudish not to recognize however the team leaders of some aspects of the result. From my own involvement in large international collaborations. When there is a specific main analysis there is always a driving force or figure head of that who more often than not does indeed deserve some praise. Those people singled out are also typically people who would also admit that "its not all me" much like said int he post above.

This want to witch hunt and find agenda everywhere is quite irritating. Giving credit where credit is due is fine, inventing some kind of outrage based on some one looking at a public git hub page is... pathetic

And this comes from... bigleaguepolitics... really? *sigh* should have known