The giant galaxy around the giant black hole

The giant galaxy around the giant black hole
The galaxy M87, imaged here by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, is home to a supermassive black hole that spews two jets of material out into space at nearly the speed of light. The inset shows a close-up view of the shockwaves created by the two jets. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/IPAC

On April 10, 2019, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) unveiled the first-ever image of a black hole's event horizon, the area beyond which light cannot escape the immense gravity of the black hole. That giant black hole, with a mass of 6.5 billion Suns, is located in the elliptical galaxy Messier 87 (M87). EHT is an international collaboration whose support in the U.S. includes the National Science Foundation.

This image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows the entire M87 galaxy in . The EHT image, by contrast, relied on light in radio wavelengths and showed the black hole's shadow against the backdrop of high-energy material around it.

Located about 55 million light-years from Earth, M87 has been a subject of astronomical study for more than 100 years and has been imaged by many NASA observatories, including the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-ray Observatory and NuSTAR. In 1918, astronomer Heber Curtis first noticed "a curious straight ray" extending from the galaxy's center. This bright jet of high-energy material, produced by a disk of material spinning rapidly around the black hole, is visible in multiple wavelengths of light, from radio waves through X-rays. When the particles in the jet impact the (the sparse material filling the space between stars in M87), they create a shockwave that radiates in infrared and of light but not . In the Spitzer image, the shockwave is more prominent than the jet itself.

The giant galaxy around the giant black hole
The galaxy M87 looks like a hazy, blue space-puff in this image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. At the galaxy's center is a supermassive black hole that spews two jets of material out into space. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/IPAC

The brighter jet, located to the right of the galaxy's center, is traveling almost directly toward Earth. Its brightness is amplified due to its high speed in our direction, but even more so because of what scientists call "relativistic effects," which arise because the material in the jet is traveling near the speed of light. The jet's trajectory is just slightly offset from our line of sight with respect to the galaxy, so we can still see some of the length of the jet. The shockwave begins around the point where the jet appears to curve down, highlighting the regions where the fast-moving particles are colliding with gas in the galaxy and slowing down.

The second jet, by contrast, is moving so rapidly away from us that the relativistic effects render it invisible at all wavelengths. But the shockwave it creates in the interstellar medium can still be seen here.

Located on the left side of the galaxy's center, the shockwave looks like an inverted letter "C." While not visible in optical images, the lobe can also be seen in radio waves, as in this image from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's Very Large Array.

The giant galaxy around the giant black hole
This wide-field image of the galaxy M87 was taken by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. The top inset shows a close-up of two shockwaves, created by a jet emanating from the galaxy's supermassive black hole. The Event Horizon Telescope recently took a close-up image of the silhouette of that black hole, show in the second inset.Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration

By combining observations in the infrared, , visible light, X-rays and extremely energetic gamma rays, scientists can study the physics of these powerful jets. Scientists are still striving for a solid theoretical understanding of how gas being pulled into black holes creates outflowing jets.

Infrared light at wavelengths of 3.6 and 4.5 microns are rendered in blue and green, showing the distribution of stars, while dust features that glow brightly at 8.0 microns are shown in red. The image was taken during Spitzer's initial "cold" mission.


Explore further

The fading ghost of a long-dead star

Citation: The giant galaxy around the giant black hole (2019, April 26) retrieved 21 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-04-giant-galaxy-black-hole.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
995 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 26, 2019
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
https://www.acade...ilky_Way

Apr 26, 2019
I find it interesting, that the Large Spiral Galaxies in this region of Local Space & Span of Temporary Time.
All share a number of similarities.
Even considering how early it is in their few aeons of existence?
These LSG's are complex critters.

Dependent of course on how recently they have been engorginbg themselves on a neighboring galaxy or six-pack thereof.

As our technology continues to evolve sophistication. No telling what other fascinating surprises we will find.

"fascinating" as in the Classical definition of the idea.

Apr 27, 2019
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
https://www.acade...ilky_Way


Of course it's a black hole. The only way it wouldn't be a black hole is if modern physics is wrong about almost everything, and I rather doubt that.

There's nothing wrong with indirect observation.

Apr 27, 2019
Nutjobs can't figure out the difference between Sgr A* and M87*.

Apr 27, 2019

Of course it's a black hole. The only way it wouldn't be a black hole is if modern physics is wrong about almost everything, and I rather doubt that.

There's nothing wrong with indirect observation.
says obs

Oh, so you would never disagree to a surgeon operating on your body parts with indirect observation, right? Or how about your getting hit by a train while walking on the railroad tracks while seeing the train only with an indirect observation?
The alleged Black Hole in M87 is too far away from Earth to take a clear and distinct optical picture of it, and now we know that the picture of M87 that resembles a bagel was not actually the full picture but had to be enhanced with Imaging Algorithms. This obviously means that the picture-taking quality needs vast improvements where the ACTUAL IMAGE is the result. There is no ACTUAL IMAGE - it is only the ghost of one.

Apr 27, 2019
Oh, so you would never disagree to a surgeon operating on your body parts with indirect observation, right? Or how about your getting hit by a train while walking on the railroad tracks while seeing the train only with an indirect observation?
The alleged Black Hole in M87 is too far away from Earth to take a clear and distinct optical picture of it, and now we know that the picture of M87 that resembles a bagel was not actually the full picture but had to be enhanced with Imaging Algorithms. This obviously means that the picture-taking quality needs vast improvements where the ACTUAL IMAGE is the result. There is no ACTUAL IMAGE - it is only the ghost of one.


And what would you know?

Apr 27, 2019
Of course it's a black hole. The only way it wouldn't be a black hole is if modern physics is wrong about almost everything, and I rather doubt that.

There's nothing wrong with indirect observation.


The quote was from someone that confuses the poor resolution and the gravitational-to-optical mechanisms of the first ever black hole photo. The image details, such as roundness and intensity variation, meant that general relativity and a spinning black hole was shored up. And the contending theories - which today are mostly on the object since the alternative gravity theories has fared badly recently - were demoted. As a note they were not killed off - yet.

Next generation images will resolve even better, and add detail to observation.

The ideas of 'direct/indirect' observation seem not testable so not scientific - and not very 'direct' FWIW. I think they reflect that person's unstated biased opinions of what he likes or not like. Such opinions are immediately forgettable.

Apr 27, 2019
Oops, I meant the quote that observicist was commenting on!

Apr 27, 2019
There's nothing wrong with indirect observation.
,,,,,,and false airbrushed algorithms?

https://www.space...age.html

Above is the almost exact image as the so-called M87 radio image except it is in the visible wavelength portion of the EM Spectrum.

The image inserted in the above pic frame shows a black center because the image was ONLY recorded radio wavelength electro-magnetic waves, this leaving EVERYTHING else BLACK including all visible wavelengths. Then the photo-shopped algorithms inserted a false bright color visible wavelength imaging of the bright ring formed by the otherwise invisible radio waves as it
is shown as forming the ring of the doughnut.


Apr 27, 2019
Obviously, the best science would be to go there and take measurements. We are awfully far away, after all. Although I have almost no doubt in the existence of black holes or that these are them, much of the rest of what passes for certainty is pure conjecture at these distances.

Granted, we're here and going there would be impractical at this point in our interstellar capabilities, to say the least.

However, it's like being stranded on a deserted island and deciding to build a street map of New York City based on an occasional fata morgana effect you notice. You might get lucky and catch a mirage of the New York City skyline one day in a fata morgana. But, don't kid yourself about the completeness of your map.

Apr 27, 2019
There's nothing wrong with indirect observation.
,,,,,,and false airbrushed algorithms?

https://www.space...age.html

Above is the almost exact image as the so-called M87 radio image except it is in the visible wavelength portion of the EM Spectrum.

The image inserted in the above pic frame shows a black center because the image was ONLY recorded radio wavelength electro-magnetic waves, this leaving EVERYTHING else BLACK including all visible wavelengths. Then the photo-shopped algorithms inserted a false bright color visible wavelength imaging of the bright ring formed by the otherwise invisible radio waves as it
is shown as forming the ring of the doughnut.

says Benni

Good to see you. It appears that tbglarsson and obs (& others) are firmly seated in the proposal that "indirect observation" is just as good as a Direct observation, particularly in a photo that is replete with artificially made imaging.

Apr 27, 2019
-contd-
@Benni
How does one account for their strident belief that 'artificially contrived PHOTOS of Black Holes are the "proof-is-in-the-pudding" for the existence of their desperately required Black Holes so that Einstein's GR may be validated beyond doubt? Proving that Einstein was correct in all things is the bulwark of their propositions.
And these are allegedly "learned men" who discern shadows as only shadows and not monsters.

It seems that they are amongst the "science is settled" crowd who feel superiour to those of us who would much rather wait for better and better quality photos that show the actual positively-drawn images that are not acquired from Imaging Algorithms and artists' illustrations.
Perhaps these pseudoscientists such as obs and tbglarsson are willing accomplices to the "science is settled" fluff that seems to permeate this physorg website.

Apr 27, 2019
There's nothing wrong with indirect observation.
,,,,,,and false airbrushed algorithms?

https://www.space...age.html

Above is the almost exact image as the so-called M87 radio image except it is in the visible wavelength portion of the EM Spectrum.

The image inserted in the above pic frame shows a black center because the image was ONLY recorded radio wavelength electro-magnetic waves, this leaving EVERYTHING else BLACK including all visible wavelengths. Then the photo-shopped algorithms inserted a false bright color visible wavelength imaging of the bright ring formed by the otherwise invisible radio waves as it
is shown as forming the ring of the doughnut.



You haven't got a clue about any of the relevant science. You lost. Go away, loser.

Apr 27, 2019

It seems that they are amongst the "science is settled" crowd who feel superiour to those of us who would much rather wait for better and better quality photos that show the actual positively-drawn images that are not acquired from Imaging Algorithms and artists' illustrations.
Perhaps these pseudoscientists such as obs and tbglarsson are willing accomplices to the "science is settled" fluff that seems to permeate this physorg website.


Wrong, you ignorant clown. It isn't the phys.org website. It is the whole of the relevant scientific community. The only people troubled by the observation are a bunch of scientifically illiterate clowns on phys.org.

Apr 27, 2019
Einstein ring

An early galaxy — 10 billion light-years away — has been transformed into an almost perfect circle, thanks to the twisting and bending of light by gravity.

Albert Einstein theorized that the fabric of space-time was not rigid, but flexible, like the surface of a trampoline. A massive object, in this case a foreground galaxy, can bend space the way a bowling ball bends the fabric of the trampoline. That bend causes any light from background objects to curve around the foreground object instead of travelling in a straight line — and if the two objects are perfectly lined up, the background galaxy will appear as a circle surrounding the foreground, or lens, galaxy, in what scientists call an "Einstein ring."

Be careful what you believe
when
your viewing indirect observations
they
Might be more indirect than you bargained for
https://www.space...age.html

Apr 27, 2019
@Benni
How does one account for their strident belief that 'artificially contrived PHOTOS of Black Holes are the "proof-is-in-the-pudding" for the existence of their desperately required Black Holes so that Einstein's GR may be validated beyond doubt? Proving that Einstein was correct in all things is the bulwark of their propositions.


>Egg............there is not one word in all of Einstein's General Relativity whereby the thesis gives credence to the existence of a stellar body on which infinite gravity & density can be found. I continually challenge those who believe in such fantasy to put up the lead-in paragraph in GR where the hypothesis is found, if they even bother to respond, they start talking about Schwarzschilds BH Math which is not found in GR, then they say, "There it is", well, that's not GR & that's not Einstein.

Apr 27, 2019
Anyone with some real curiosity should do something observationally interesting here........click back & forth between the above inset of the image on this page & the link below to the Einstein Ring & notice how exactly alike the images are:

https://www.space...age.html

What you do is scroll up to the inset image on this page, then open a 2nd window bringing up the website of the Einstein Ring image, this way you & just repeatedly flip back & forth between the two websites to view how EXACTLY alike the images look. Notice how in each image there appears to be bright bulges within the ring of both images, in fact you could almost exact fit one over the other by simply rotating one or the other ring 180°, the brighter bulges looks almost as if they could be congruent to one another.

Apr 27, 2019
It be an Algorithm, Benni

This has been gone into in great depth
all algorithms look the same
because
an algorithm cannot see, Benni
and
the telescope does not know what it is seeing
so
it cannot tell the algorithm what a selfie looks like
as we do not know what a selfie looks either
which is why Benni, it looks like a artists interpretation
As is being said Benni, a textural wall of sound has been sung on this Selfie

You are back Benni, count your lucky stars Benni***** all 5 of them

Apr 27, 2019
which is why Benni, it looks like a artists interpretation
......well of course it's artistry to insert that bright colored ring in there like they did. All they recorded was gravitational lensing of radio wavelengths from behind the galaxy, or maybe even from stars behind our line of sight of the galactic bulge. They would have gotten the same Einstein Ring of visible light had there not been so much intergalactic dust blocking visible light from the center of the galactic bulge.

Apr 27, 2019
No one can tell algorithm what Selfie looks like

Benni
which is why Benni, it looks like a artists interpretation
......well of course it's artistry to insert that bright colored ring in there like they did..

Professor Katie Bouman explained in her lecture
all algorithms look the same, a facebook photo looks the same as a street photograph as an algorithm
she said we have to tell the algorithm what we are looking at
because we have never seen Selfie we have to assume what we think Selfie looks like
Professor Katie Bouman knows her subject, but just like everyone else she also has never seen Selfie
So she also does not know what Selfie looks like

p.s. beware algorithms bearing Selfies, Benni

Apr 27, 2019
granny. benni, egg,
as long as I have a choice?
Whether to believe inthe product pf an algorithm?
or
believe any of you gibbering looneytick wethers?

I believe DS is right, none of you are numerate to do the math.

Apr 27, 2019
I believe DS is right, none of you are ....
.....is DS short for Dark Stuff?

Apr 27, 2019
@Benni's past failures with math are legendary.

There's the DEs he's failed to solve, and most embarrassingly, he can't even solve

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

Apr 27, 2019
@Benni's past failures with math are legendary.

There's the DEs he's failed to solve, and most embarrassingly, he can't even solve

2 + 2 / 2 = ?
......all this time schneibo, and you still haven't been able to get the answer? Maybe there's some dark stuff hanging over you occluding your visual capacity to see numbers clearly?

Apr 27, 2019
Oh, I know the answer. It's implicit in the precedence of mathematical operations.

You don't and have demonstrated that multiple times. Anyone who knows math knows this. There is no place to run, there is no place to hide.

I would bet that you were told about this when you were eight years old and have forgotten it. I was told, and I didn't forget it because I'm smarter than you.

Apr 27, 2019
Oh, I know the answer. It's implicit in the precedence of mathematical operations.

Anyone who knows math knows this.
......then why do you continually ask for my assistance in solving it? Maybe it's because you think it's a Differential Equation, so you accede the solution to Benni? Okay, let me start by giving you a clue to your problem, it's not a Differential Equation. Does this help?

You see, what I'm trying to do is raise you to a level of math skills such that you don't need to be so dependent on me.

Apr 27, 2019
I'm not asking for any assistance.

I'm asking if you know. And you don't.

Now stop lying.

Apr 28, 2019
The Truth be out

No one has seen Blackhole
so
no one can say what Blackhole looks like
as
no one can say what an eventhorizon looks like, not having seen one
and
Algorithm has to told what it is seeing, as all algorithms look the same
which
one and all
this
meaneth, that we have to tell Algorithm what a Blackhole and an eventhorizon looks like
but
as Professor Katie Bouman pointed out, as we have never seen a Blackhole and an eventhorizon
we can only surmise, guess as to what we have never seen as to what we imagine it looks like
this
one and all
is
why we imagine Blackhole as a doughnut that has a black hole in the middle
this meaneth our Blackholes Selfie, is truly a fiction of our vivid imagination
or
more correctly
this artists simulation that we visualise as Selfie
so
Algorithm hath constructed Selfie in this artist's simulation
that
as we dream of Selfie, Selfie is actually this artists simulation
Does it not get you just their!

Apr 28, 2019
So tell us the answer to 2 + 2 / 2 = ? @granny.

Apr 28, 2019
......well of course it's artistry to insert that bright colored ring in there like they did. All they recorded was gravitational lensing of radio wavelengths from behind the galaxy, or maybe even from stars behind our line of sight of the galactic bulge. They would have gotten the same Einstein Ring of visible light had there not been so much intergalactic dust blocking visible light from the center of the galactic bulge.


Wrong, thicko. You lost. Why are you still here?

Apr 28, 2019
This Algorithm Rearranges Data to your little heart's desire

Get a fuzzy indistinguishable photo of your grandmother
put
this photo through Algorithm
then
remember as to what your grandmother looked like in this photo
then
Algorithm will rejumble this photo and keep honing it
till
you say, Ah yes, that is grandmother
but
here is the rub
If you instead, tell Algorithm what your father looks like instead
then
Algorithm will rejumble this same photo and keep honing it
till
you say, Ah yes, that is father
because
as
Professor Katie Bouman pointed out - All Algorithms look the Same

p.s. this algorithm is Obfuscation at its finest

Apr 28, 2019
This Algorithm Rearranges Data to your little heart's desire

Get a fuzzy indistinguishable photo of your grandmother
put
this photo through Algorithm
then
remember as to what your grandmother looked like in this photo
then
Algorithm will rejumble this photo and keep honing it
till
you say, Ah yes, that is grandmother
but
here is the rub
If you instead, tell Algorithm what your father looks like instead
then
Algorithm will rejumble this same photo and keep honing it
till
you say, Ah yes, that is father
because
as
Professor Katie Bouman pointed out - All Algorithms look the Same

p.s. this algorithm is Obfuscation at its finest


Ignorant, lying clown. Go away you useless burke.

Apr 28, 2019
Still waiting for the correct answer to 2 + 2 / 2 = ?

Does it really take you this long?

Teh stoopit, it burnz.

Apr 28, 2019
Still waiting for the correct answer to 2 + 2 / 2 = ?

Does it really take you this long?


Benni can't do maths. As proven. You may have a long wait :)

Apr 28, 2019
When one needs conformation
all
That is needed is a little patience
This Algorithm Rearranges Data to your little heart's desire

Get a fuzzy indistinguishable photo of your grandmother
put
this photo through Algorithm
then
remember as to what your grandmother looked like in this photo
then
Algorithm will rejumble this photo and keep honing it
till
you say, Ah yes, that is grandmother
but
here is the rub
If you instead, tell Algorithm what your father looks like instead
then
Algorithm will rejumble this same photo and keep honing it
till
you say, Ah yes, that is father
because
as
Professor Katie Bouman pointed out - All Algorithms look the Same

p.s. this algorithm is Obfuscation at its finest


JD> Ignorant, lying clown. Go away you useless burke.

Thank you jonesy, for Reblogging my textual comment

p.s. now that's the jonesdave of old we all know, welcome back JD

Apr 28, 2019
^^^^^Scientifically illiterate clown thinks his clueless ramblings are of some relevance to real scientists! Guess what, thicko? You are a clueless irrelevance.

Apr 28, 2019
Still waiting for an answer to 2 + 2 / 2 = ?

Apr 28, 2019
Castrogiovanni, as Professor Katie Bouman pointed out - All Algorithms look the Same

What Katie Bouman
was referring to, jonesy old bean
is
Honesty!
Katie Bouman was intending everyone to honestly tell the truth
when
describing this fuzzy picture to Algorithm
but
Katie Bouman pointed out, that as we have no mental image of a blackhole
we
can only imagine what a blackhole looks like
then
Algorithm will rejumble this mental image and keep honing it
till
you say, Ah yes, that is Blackhole

It matters not what the original photo was
because
this Algorithm rearranges data to your little heart's desire
because algorise a photo then all Algorithm's look the same
which
meaneth, jonesy dear chap
you have to have actually seen a blackhole and eventhorizon
so
as to tell Algorithm how to rejumble this data
into
The actual photograph of the blackhole before you into Algorithm's Selfie

Do You Get the Picture, jonesy!

Apr 28, 2019
So what's the answer to 2 + 2 / 2 = ? @granny?

Apr 28, 2019
Da Schneib> So what's the answer to 2 + 2 / 2 = ? @granny?

Da Schneib 2 + 2 / 2 = 1+1+1 Da Schneib

Apr 28, 2019
Nope. Wrong again.

You have to be able to explain where the 1s came from.

Apr 28, 2019
I'm not asking for any assistance.
......yes, you are

I'm asking if you know.
..........Why? Just so you can hightail it back to your 6th grade math teacher & tell her you finally got the right answer to that question she put on a test causing you to flunk the test? You should feel embarrassed coming into a science chatroom unable to comprehend the solution.

How many other people, like jimmybobber, have already given you an answer & still you won't even believe them until you get verification from Benni that jimbo was right? Or was he?


Apr 28, 2019
Now don't tell me Da Schneib, what is 1+1+1

Dear Da Schneib the unsolvable Da Schneib 2 + 2 / 2 = 1+1+1
Nope. Wrong again.

You have to be able to explain where the 1s came from.

Do you recall?
being told
that
whatever this answer
to
2 + 2 / 2 = ?
it will never be the correct answer
2 + 2 / 2 = ? will forever remain flitting in and out of the quantum fluctuations for time immortal?
Till this interweb decays or whichever is the sooner

So as time immortal flows (2/2) = 1 we have (2+1) = 3 or as was pointed out in the first place
2+2/2 = 2+(2/2) = 2+(1) = 2+2/2 = 1+1+1
because
Da Schneib, Bennies half a neutron forever lives as this is where 2 + 2 / 2 = ? roots lay
so
pease Da Schneib
Perpetuate 2 + 2 / 2 = ? then Bennies littleth cupeth of joyeth over floweth with joyeth for eternity!

Apr 28, 2019
You're the one presenting the proof. So prove it. So far you're getting an F.

Apr 28, 2019
Throwing shit against the wall to see if any sticks isn't good enough. This is math, and math has proofs, and you're not giving any. Sorry, throwing shit at the wall isn't math.

I know the answer, and I can prove it. You can't. You're innumerate.

Apr 28, 2019
Thank you Da Schneib
for
your agreeing to this fact, all Algorithm's look the same
because
Algorithm's are akin to this pantograph in Art College
in a nutshell
Algorithm makes a copy of your painting of Blackhole

Apr 28, 2019
Still waiting for an answer to 2 + 2 / 2 = ?

It's your IQ da schnied, 3!

Apr 28, 2019
Thank you Da Schneib
for
your agreeing to this fact, all Algorithm's look the same
because
Algorithm's are akin to this pantograph in Art College
in a nutshell
Algorithm makes a copy of your painting of Blackhole


"To write a computer program, you have to tell the computer, step by step, exactly what you want it to do. The computer then "executes" the program, following each step mechanically, to accomplish the end goal. That's where computer algorithms come in. The algorithm is the basic technique used to get the job done."..........in other words an algorithm is CONCLUSION oriented software designed to provide a predetermined conclusion.

Apr 28, 2019

"To write a computer program, you have to tell the computer, step by step, exactly what you want it to do. The computer then "executes" the program, following each step mechanically, to accomplish the end goal. That's where computer algorithms come in. The algorithm is the basic technique used to get the job done."..........in other words an algorithm is CONCLUSION oriented software designed to provide a predetermined conclusion.


Wrong thicko. You lost. Loser. Go away,

Apr 28, 2019
This Algorithm

The instant
Professor Katie Bouman showed algorised photographs all look the same
and
we describe to Algorithm the actual image we are aiming for
this
Algorithm and all it stood for was lost
because
Katie Bouman elaborated
saying we hone this blackholes image to what we think a blackhole should look like from the theory
from that moment
this Algorithm was lost and all it stood for
because
Why do we need a Selfie of Blackhole, if we have to describe this Blackhole to Algorithm?

p.s. answers on a postcard to Selfie, Blackhole, M87

Apr 28, 2019
oh granny, of course I know what a Blaxk Hole looks like.

Just like every other accumulation of gravitrons.

What do you mean?
You do not know what gravity looks like?
Do you not have any attention to pay?
Gravity used to look like
\sum \mathbf {F} =0\;\Leftrightarrow \;{\frac {\mathrm {d} \mathbf {v} }{\mathrm {d} t}}=0.
F → = m a → {\displaystyle {\vec {F}}=m{\vec {a}}} {\vec {F}}=m{\vec {a}}

Then Gravity hit the gym, lost some weight & got itself a spiffy new tailor & now looks like
G_{\mu \nu }+\Lambda g_{\mu \nu }={8\pi G \over c^{4}}T_{\mu \nu }

Apr 28, 2019
THE USUAL QUOTES & QUIPS & BULLYING SCHIT by Castrovagina (SO FAR)
(and that's only in THIS phorum)

"And what would you know?"

"You haven't got a clue about any of the relevant science. You lost. Go away, loser."

"Wrong, you ignorant clown. It isn't the phys.org website. It is the whole of the relevant scientific community. The only people troubled by the observation are a bunch of scientifically illiterate clowns on phys.org."

"Wrong, thicko. You lost. Why are you still here?"

"Ignorant, lying clown. Go away you useless burke."

"Benni can't do maths. As proven. You may have a long wait :)"

"^^^^^Scientifically illiterate clown thinks his clueless ramblings are of some relevance to real scientists! Guess what, thicko? You are a clueless irrelevance."

"Wrong thicko. You lost. Loser. Go away,"

(Next, I will tabulate the quotes & quips & bullying schit from Da Schneibo and rrwillsj; and any others who exhibit the same infantile behaviours/attitudes)

Apr 28, 2019
^^^^Nobody gives a toss. The posts were completely accurate.

Apr 28, 2019
Next, I will tabulate the quotes & quips & bullying schit from Da Schneibo and rrwillsj; and any others who exhibit the same infantile behaviours/attitudes.


Why not 'tabulate' (which means to put into table format, which you haven't done - lern to Inglish) all the lies and scientifically illiterate crap posted by yourself, Benni and Granville? See if Phys.org will grant you a one-off 1 million character limit.

Apr 28, 2019
This fuzzy Selfie was expected

Exactly rrwillsj
rrwillsj> oh granny, of course I know what a Blaxk Hole looks like \sum \mathbf {F} =0\;\Leftrightarrow \;{\frac {\mathrm {d} \mathbf {v} }{\mathrm {d} t}}=0.
F → = m a → {\displaystyle {\vec {F}}=m{\vec {a}}} {\vec {F}}=m{\vec {a}}

Then Gravity hit the gym, lost some weight & got itself a spiffy new tailor & now looks like
G_{\mu \nu }+\Lambda g_{\mu \nu }={8\pi G \over c^{4}}T_{\mu \nu }

Why do we need Selfie?
when from your own description
we already know what Selfie looks like
especially
as we tell Algorithm how to paint this Blackholes Selfie
effectively
by copying
Algorithm is guilty of plagiarism
as in the world of art they have another term for copying
so
thanks, rrwillsj
for
making this clear, Algorithm copied our image of how we already knew how Blackhole
looks in its selfie
then
We got our plagiarised copy from Algorithm

p.s. it must be the way you tell them, rrwillsj

Apr 28, 2019
Next, I will tabulate the quotes & quips & bullying schit from Da Schneibo and rrwillsj; and any others who exhibit the same infantile behaviours/attitudes.


Why not 'tabulate' (which means to put into table format, which you haven't done - lern to Inglish) all the lies and scientifically illiterate crap posted by yourself, Benni and Granville? See if Phys.org will grant you a one-off 1 million character limit.
says Castrovagina

Perhaps you didn't understand that physorg phorums don't allow for true tabulation of information as in table form, columns, etc. For that reason I followed physorg's preference for tabulating by listing your quotes, quips, and dopey idiocy, not to mention your faux superiourity complex over your betters. The space between each was to ensure that you understood what you had said and that others knew of it. But at least YOU don't have the habit of spelling "the" as "teh", and then saying "Teh stoopit, it burnz.". I will give you THAT.

Apr 28, 2019


THE USUAL QUOTES & QUIPS & BULLYING SCHIT by Da Schneib (SO FAR)
(and that's only in THIS phorum)

"Nutjobs can't figure out the difference between Sgr A* and M87*."

"@Benni's past failures with math are legendary.
There's the DEs he's failed to solve, and most embarrassingly, he can't even solve
2 + 2 / 2 = ?"

"Oh, I know the answer. It's implicit in the precedence of mathematical operations.
You don't and have demonstrated that multiple times. Anyone who knows math knows this. There is no place to run, there is no place to hide.
I would bet that you were told about this when you were eight years old and have forgotten it. I was told, and I didn't forget it because I'm smarter than you."

"I'm not asking for any assistance.
I'm asking if you know. And you don't.
Now stop lying."

"So tell us the answer to 2 + 2 / 2 = ? @granny."

"Still waiting for the correct answer to 2 + 2 / 2 = ?
Does it really take you this long?
Teh stoopit, it burnz."


Apr 28, 2019
-contd-
QUOTES & QUIPS & BULLYING SCHIT by Da Schneib

"So what's the answer to 2 + 2 / 2 = ? @granny?"

"Nope. Wrong again.
You have to be able to explain where the 1s came from."

"You're the one presenting the proof. So prove it. So far you're getting an F."

"Throwing shit against the wall to see if any sticks isn't good enough. This is math, and math has proofs, and you're not giving any. Sorry, throwing shit at the wall isn't math.
I know the answer, and I can prove it. You can't. You're innumerate."

(NOTICE that Da Schneibo presents a math problem which can never be solved, which is why Da Schneibo refuses to give the answer/solution to his OWN math problem that he insists on others solving it (so that he can tell them that their answer is incorrect.
This presentation of an unsolvable math problem by Da Schniebo is deceitful from a lying scumbag.) Even Castrovagina will not venture to offer the solution.

Apr 28, 2019
This presentation of an unsolvable math problem by Da Schniebo is deceitful from a lying scumbag.) Even Castrovagina will not venture to offer the solution.
.......but several months back jimmybobber did offer schneibo a solution, remember him? Yeah, he was so excited about beating Benni to the solution that jimbo made it a point of bragging how he was beating Benni to the answer, then schneibo had to jump in & try to explain why jimbo really didn't mean what he clearly stated about the answer, yeah, schneibo psycho-babble stuff.

Apr 28, 2019
SEU, a new variation appeared today

Da Schneib 2 + 2 / 2 = 1+1+1 Da Schneib

Mathematics and art blended into one

Apr 28, 2019
Benni, this brave new algorithmic photographic world
Thank you Da Schneib
for
your agreeing to this fact all Algorithms look the same
Algorithms are akin to this pantograph in Art College
in a nutshell
Algorithm makes a copy of your painting of Blackhole


To write a computer program you have to tell the computer step by step exactly what you want it to do The computer then executes the program following each step mechanically to accomplish the end goal That's where computer algorithms come in The algorithm is the basic technique used to get the job done in other words an algorithm is CONCLUSION oriented software designed to provide a predetermined conclusion

If as it seems Benni, Algorithm can match any image from any given photographic data
do not inform unscrupulous establishments
do not go near low building and bridges, Benni
there might be unscrupulous selfie algorithmic cameras lying in wait
It is algorithm's photographic evidence against yours

Apr 28, 2019
Benni, this brave new algorithmic photographic world

To write a computer program you have to tell the computer step by step exactly what you want it to do
The computer then executes the program following each step mechanically to accomplish the end goal
That's where computer algorithms come in
The algorithm is the basic technique used to get the job done
in other words an algorithm is CONCLUSION oriented software designed to provide a predetermined conclusion
says granville

The computer is only following orders like a good mechanical soldier, based on the information it was 'fed' and then filed away for references.
Beautiful system, that. Almost similar to the indoctrination of a sentient mind into believing anything that it had been "programmed" to believe/think.
Such algorithms may be used for either good or evil, with no ability for dissent since it is a mere program inside a machine.

Apr 28, 2019
SEU, a new variation appeared today

Da Schneib 2 + 2 / 2 = 1+1+1 Da Schneib

Mathematics and art blended into one
says granville

More deceit from Da Schniebo, coupled with a desire to prevent everyone from finding a correct solution since there is none.

@Benni
Yes. I remember jimmy bobber's attempt at following in Da Schniebo's path of glory. jimmybobs is very likely one of Da Schniebo's sox that was created for the purpose of shoring up Da Schniebo's image. But that's what sox are for, isn't that right, DS?

Apr 28, 2019
Has anyone noticed how strangely quiet the EHT Team has been about imaging SgrA*? You would have thought if they were really serious about their work that they would have first gone after the easiest target at the center of our own galaxy........looks maybe like they punted with no explanation?

Apr 28, 2019
Has anyone noticed how strangely quiet the EHT Team has been about imaging SgrA*? You would have thought if they were really serious about their work that they would have first gone after the easiest target at the center of our own galaxy........looks maybe like they punted with no explanation?
says Benni

LOL They might have read some criticism in one or more science sites such as physorg. Many of us have certainly been a bit rough on their glorious accomplishment, mainly due to the Imaging Algorithms that was intended to fix the missing parts of their photo of the Black Hole at Messier87.
I think that most humans who have a dedicated affinity toward science such as Physics, Astrophysics and Astronomy are more apt to consider it an insult when shenanigans such as photo-fixing with Image Algorithm programming is done on a photo which should have been pristine and true to the subject it is supposed to portray.
They claimed that SgrA* was too jittery and abandoned it.

Apr 28, 2019
They claimed that SgrA* was too jittery and abandoned it.


"jittery".............huh? Is this a new Pop-Cosmology term? Can you put up a link or two? I'd sure like to know the physics of "jittery" when it come to radio-telescopes.

I think that most humans who have a dedicated affinity toward science such as Physics, Astrophysics and Astronomy are more apt to consider it an insult when shenanigans such as photo-fixing with Image Algorithm programming is done on a photo which should have been pristine and true to the subject it is supposed to portray.
It being odd how this:

https://www.space...age.html

......ended up looking like their black hole.


Apr 29, 2019
My camera has three CCDs and an image processor that uses algorithms. Are you telling me the siensetis or the telepathic aliens or the Illuminati are altering the images? The imaging processors that use algorithms, and the algorithms they use, are called "Bionz." Google it.

What a nutjob.

Apr 29, 2019
Nutjobs can't figure out the difference between Sgr A* and M87*.
Lol, nice one

RNP
Apr 29, 2019
They claimed that SgrA* was too jittery and abandoned it.


"jittery".............huh? Is this a new Pop-Cosmology term? Can you put up a link or two? I'd sure like to know the physics of "jittery" when it come to radio-telescopes.


In the unlikely event that you really are interested in the answer to this question, see Question 6 near the end of https://www.forbe...ncement/

Note that there are other causes due to activity in the locale (E.g. the accretion disc)

Apr 29, 2019
They claimed that SgrA* was too jittery and abandoned it.


"jittery".............huh? Is this a new Pop-Cosmology term? Can you put up a link or two? I'd sure like to know the physics of "jittery" when it come to radio-telescopes.

the answer to this question, see Question 6 near the end of https://www.forbe...ncement/

.......look exactly like the pseudo-image of M87? More than likely Rguy you've never heard of an Einstein Ring.

Aren't you just so pleased Benni is so ever present to keep you well updated on real science instead of make believe drawings created by algorithms?

RNP
Apr 29, 2019
More than likely Rguy you've never heard of an Einstein Ring.

I knew Benni would not be interested in the science, and fully expected him to resort to insults.
So, as usual, his comments are valueless - no surprises there.

Apr 29, 2019
Supernova 1987A time-lapse video

Benni
if at any time
in your desolation in the wilderness
when you think your gods have forsaken you
take heart
and
think only of Supernova 1987A
this
time laspe video of Supernova 1987A
if
you have ever seen this M87 Selfie
you will have to pinch your self
because
this is not a time lapse video of Selfie
this
is Supernova 1987A's time-lapse video
https://www.youtu...BEnioClU

Apr 29, 2019
LOL They might have read some criticism in one or more science sites such as physorg. Many of us have certainly been a bit rough on their glorious accomplishment, mainly due to the Imaging Algorithms that was intended to fix the missing parts of their photo of the Black Hole at Messier87.


Dear me! Imagine being so stupid as to think that real scientists would take any notice whatsoever of junk written in a comments section by unqualified, scientifically illiterate nutjobs! The mind boggles.

Apr 29, 2019
Has anyone noticed how strangely quiet the EHT Team has been about imaging SgrA*? You would have thought if they were really serious about their work that they would have first gone after the easiest target at the center of our own galaxy........looks maybe like they punted with no explanation?


Which is another lie from the King of Lying.

Apr 29, 2019
NOTICE that Da Schneibo presents a math problem which can never be solved,....


Yes it can. Any reasonably mathematically gifted 12 year old could solve it. It is, quite literally, child's play. Anybody that can't solve it, or claims that it cannot be solved is, by definition, an idiot.

Apr 29, 2019
Benni
RNP
savvys84
Da Schneib
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
Castrogiovanni
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
Why have you missed all these tasty titbits
you missed that tongue in cheek press announcement
that uneasy presence by the EVH scientists
if you did not see it
if you did not sense it, well your Obfuscation antenna needs a might tuning
after all this time you have spent seeking out this science
The
best speaker
Professor Katie Bouman
who gave the best lecture
the only Professor who gave an insight to this Algorithm
Professor Katie Bouman, who calls it what it is
Katie Bouman, who does not hide the truth
Katie Bouman, the only one with that gift of the gab
that
without Katie Bouman, this whole blackhole would have been as dreary as this Selfie
as
now this dreadful dreary Selfie
has drifted into obscurity
This Selfie has put the Dreaded Black Spot on blackhole research
if
only
they
had
taken
a
leaf out these Artists Simulations
and
Added a little colour and detail to Selfies Cheeks

Apr 29, 2019
12 years old? I learned this stuff when I was 9!

Apr 29, 2019
If you learned this stuff when you were 9
Da Schneib> 12 years old? I learned this stuff when I was 9!

What are you doing here, regressing?

p.s. if you stay here long enough, you will retire a youthful teenager, Da Schneib

Apr 29, 2019
2 + 2 / 2 = x (statement)
2 + (2 / 2) = x (operational priority)
2 + 1 = x (substitution)
x = 2 + 1 (reversal of an equation)
x = 3 (substitution)

Any questions, fools?

Apr 29, 2019
In Memoriam of Da Schneib, On this day of our lord this Twenty-ninth of April in this year 2019
Born into this phys.org

Da Schneib
August 3, 2014
14365 Comments
-79 rating

Da Schneib Cenotaph Reads

2 + 2 / 2 = x (statement)
2 + (2 / 2) = x (operational priority)
2 + 1 = x (substitution)
x = 2 + 1 (reversal of an equation)
x = 3 (substitution)

For in Perpetuity
Da Schneib, His question on these dusty boards still echoes down these phys.org corridors

Apr 29, 2019
It's just a proof, and one they teach in gradeschool where I come from. Where did you supposedly get educated that you don't know it?

Apr 29, 2019
It's just a proof, and one they teach in gradeschool where I come from. Where did you supposedly get educated that you don't know it?


Indeed. It is taught at primary school in the UK. BODMAS;

https://www.thesc...s-bodmas

How it seems to have escaped the notice of the clowns on here can only be guessed at. Never attended school, perhaps?

RNP
Apr 29, 2019
By coincidence, this has just appeared related to the other source of "jitter" I mentioned above;

https://phys.org/...uds.html

Apr 29, 2019
Has anyone noticed how strangely quiet the EHT Team has been about imaging SgrA*? You would have thought if they were really serious about their work that they would have first gone after the easiest target at the center of our own galaxy........looks maybe like they punted with no explanation?


Benni the braying jackass comes up with another asinine gem, I guess asinine and jackass do go together. Do another differential equation for us, oh that's right you can't, sorry.


Apr 29, 2019
Has anyone noticed how strangely quiet the EHT Team has been about imaging SgrA*


If you'd watched the press conference, or read the paper, you wouldn't have to keep lying;

Another primary EHT source, Sgr A*, has a precisely measured mass three orders of magnitude smaller than that of M87*, with dynamical timescales of minutes instead of days. Observing the shadow of Sgr A* will require accounting for this variability and mitigation of scattering effects caused by the interstellar medium (Johnson 2016; Lu et al. 2016; Bouman et al. 2018).


https://iopscienc...BQb3PjYc

Apr 29, 2019
NOTICE that Da Schneibo presents a math problem which can never be solved,....


Yes it can. Any reasonably mathematically gifted 12 year old could solve it. It is, quite literally, child's play. Anybody that can't solve it, or claims that it cannot be solved is, by definition, an idiot.
says Castro'sVagina

If it's only 'child's play', why haven't YOU presented the solution to it after all this time? Since you think of yourself as a "genius", your silence shows that YOU are a lying idiot who is too scared to show that you know the answer to the problem that Da Schniebo expects everyone else to solve - but won't do it himself. Show us the answer/solution.

Apr 29, 2019
If it's only 'child's play', why haven't YOU presented the solution to it after all this time? Since you think of yourself as a "genius", your silence shows that YOU are a lying idiot who is too scared to show that you know the answer to the problem that Da Schniebo expects everyone else to solve - but won't do it himself. Show us the answer/solution.

2 + 1 = 3. Wow, that really stretched my capabilities! BODMAS, dummy. Division comes before addition and subtraction. So you solve for 2/2 first, which leaves 2 + 1. Seriously, year 6 pupils are taught this.

Apr 29, 2019
Given the above, what would (2 + 2)/2 equal?

Apr 29, 2019
Has anyone noticed how strangely quiet the EHT Team has been about imaging SgrA*


Another primary EHT source, Sgr A*, has a precisely measured mass three orders of magnitude smaller than that of M87*, with dynamical timescales of minutes instead of days. Observing the shadow of Sgr A* will require accounting for this variability and mitigation of scattering effects caused by the interstellar medium (Johnson 2016; Lu et al. 2016; Bouman et al. 2018).


https://iopscienc...BQb3PjYc

says CastroV

From your iop.org link:

"In conclusion, we have shown that direct studies of the event horizon shadow of supermassive black hole candidates are now possible via electromagnetic waves, thus transforming this elusive boundary from a mathematical concept to a physical entity that can be studied and tested..."
- with the use of Imaging Algorithms also.

Apr 29, 2019
A nice little Y6 homework exercise for Benni, SEU & Granny. And any 10 - 11 year olds who might be reading;

http://www.mathsp...dmas.pdf

Apr 29, 2019
From your iop.org link:

"In conclusion, we have shown that direct studies of the event horizon shadow of supermassive black hole candidates are now possible via electromagnetic waves, thus transforming this elusive boundary from a mathematical concept to a physical entity that can be studied and tested..."
- with the use of Imaging Algorithms also.


And..........? I think these people know what they are doing. Unlike the clowns on here desperate to not believe the observations.

Apr 29, 2019
They claimed that SgrA* was too jittery and abandoned it.


"jittery".............huh? Is this a new Pop-Cosmology term? Can you put up a link or two? I'd sure like to know the physics of "jittery" when it come to radio-telescopes.

I think that most humans who have a dedicated affinity toward science such as Physics, Astrophysics and Astronomy are more apt to consider it an insult when shenanigans such as photo-fixing with Image Algorithm programming is done on a photo which should have been pristine and true to the subject it is supposed to portray.
It being odd how this:

https://www.space...age.html

......ended up looking like their black hole.

says Benni

Yes, I noticed a bit of a similarity in the "Einstein Ring" from Space.com (the article from 2016) with the current photo of the alleged BH at M87*. I don't think that one is derived from the other. Probably just a coincidence.

Apr 29, 2019
From your iop.org link:

"In conclusion, we have shown that direct studies of the event horizon shadow of supermassive black hole candidates are now possible via electromagnetic waves, thus transforming this elusive boundary from a mathematical concept to a physical entity that can be studied and tested..."
- with the use of Imaging Algorithms also.


And..........? I think these people know what they are doing. Unlike the clowns on here desperate to not believe the observations.
says CastroV

No one is desperate to 'disbelieve' observations, as long as such observations were/are not TAMPERED with so that its true characteristics were/are transformed from something that had to be changed into something else so that those changes would MORE REFLECT what the going scientific concept/opinion is. IOW, it is unwise to believe concepts/opinions from scientists 'right out of the gate', especially when there is a chance that they are wrong. Surprised you never learned that

Apr 29, 2019
Yes, I noticed a bit of a similarity in the "Einstein Ring" from Space.com (the article from 2016) with the current photo of the alleged BH at M87*. I don't think that one is derived from the other. Probably just a coincidence.


Sod all similarity. The space.com image has a rather bright object in the centre of the ring, that is obviously causing the lensing. Stop listening to the idiot Benni - he is a clueless nerk.

Apr 29, 2019
No one is desperate to 'disbelieve' observations, as long as such observations were/are not TAMPERED with so that its true characteristics were/are transformed from something that had to be changed into something else so that those changes would MORE REFLECT what the going scientific concept/opinion is. IOW, it is unwise to believe concepts/opinions from scientists 'right out of the gate', especially when there is a chance that they are wrong. Surprised you never learned that


So, you'll have a scientific source to back up your desire not to believe in the observation, yes? Otherwise it is one more worthless crank opinion.

Apr 29, 2019
A nice little Y6 homework exercise for Benni, SEU & Granny. And any 10 - 11 year olds who might be reading;

http://www.mathsp...dmas.pdf
says Castrovagina

Your attempt to insult sceptics is laughable. Particularly when all you do and have been doing is to attempt to insult. I think that you really don't know as much as you THINK you know, or are trying to make other commentators believe that you are a genius of sorts. That makes you a 'genius' in your own mind.

Apr 29, 2019
A nice little Y6 homework exercise for Benni, SEU & Granny. And any 10 - 11 year olds who might be reading;

http://www.mathsp...dmas.pdf
says Castrovagina

Your attempt to insult sceptics is laughable. Particularly when all you do and have been doing is to attempt to insult. I think that you really don't know as much as you THINK you know, or are trying to make other commentators believe that you are a genius of sorts. That makes you a 'genius' in your own mind.


Tosser. I have never claimed to be a genius. IQ in the top 1 percentile, but I can't help that :) I just happen to know a shed load more than cretins like you.

Apr 29, 2019
A nice little Y6 homework exercise for Benni, SEU & Granny. And any 10 - 11 year olds who might be reading;

http://www.mathsp...dmas.pdf
says Castrovagina

Your attempt to insult sceptics is laughable. Particularly when all you do and have been doing is to attempt to insult. I think that you really don't know as much as you THINK you know, or are trying to make other commentators believe that you are a genius of sorts. That makes you a 'genius' in your own mind.


Tosser. I have never claimed to be a genius. IQ in the top 1 percentile, but I can't help that :) I just happen to know a shed load more than cretins like you.
ssays CV

As I said, which you misinterpreted as usual, you ARE a genius IN YOUR OWN MIND. Else you would not have found it necessary to mention your IQ. You don't have to claim it. Even Da Schniebo isn't quite as self-aggrandising as you. Only a mite stupider.

Apr 29, 2019
is Supernova 1987A's time-lapse video
.......intensely interesting granDy, how it is there can be so many different stellar objects which look exactly like the enhanced radio-wavelength image of M87, only difference being that the untouched REAL IMAGES didn't need algorithmic enhancement.

Apr 29, 2019
direct studies of the event horizon shadow of supermassive black hole candidates are now possible via electromagnetic waves,

And so too are plasmoids, in all their toroidal glory. They get us all hyped up for a black hole and present a plasmoid, must be embarrassing for the Darkists.

Apr 29, 2019
I have never claimed to be a genius. IQ in the top 1 percentile,
.....then why is it you only have an Anthropology degree from the U of Auckland, NZ? I've yet to meet an Anthropologist who could solve a Differential Equation even though you've been here to brag about doing just that in a high school algebra course.

Meanwhile schneibo is still stuck in his own math routine......I wonder if he thinks he's got it right yet? No matter, he's got an Anthropologist to help him over the hump. Hmmmmm, hump?

Apr 29, 2019
Yes, I noticed a bit of a similarity in the "Einstein Ring" from Space.com (the article from 2016) with the current photo of the alleged BH at M87*. I don't think that one is derived from the other. Probably just a coincidence.


Sod all similarity. The space.com image has a rather bright object in the centre of the ring, that is obviously causing the lensing. Stop listening to the idiot Benni - he is a clueless nerk.


What you don't understand about the specrtoscopy is that ALL but radio wavelengths were eliminated from the image, that's why everything else appears BLACK.

You see that big black blob inside the bright ring of your favorite algorithmic image? If that image were taken in visible light the bright ring would disappear & the bright interior of the galaxy would replace that black blob, but there is no Einstein Ring in the visible light part of the spectrum, only in the lower energy radio wave length portion.

Apr 30, 2019
This Obfuscated Selfie

Supernova 1987A time-lapse video
Benni
if at any time
in your desolation in the wilderness
when you think your gods have forsaken you
take heart
and
think only of Supernova 1987A
this
time lapse video of Supernova 1987A
if
you have ever seen this M87 Selfie
you will have to pinch your self
because
this is not a time lapse video of Selfie
this
is Supernova 1987A's time-lapse video
https://www.youtu...BEnioClU

.......intensely interesting granDy, how it is there can be so many different stellar objects which look exactly like the enhanced radio-wavelength image of M87, only difference being that the untouched REAL IMAGES didn't need algorithmic enhancement
about this spectroscopy ALL but radio wavelengths were eliminated from the image
That's why everything else appears BLACK

Stephen Hawking: Blackhole Theoretician, showed true Blackholes exist only in Theory


Apr 30, 2019
You see that big black blob inside the bright ring of your favorite algorithmic image? If that image were taken in visible light the bright ring would disappear & the bright interior of the galaxy would replace that black blob, but there is no Einstein Ring in the visible light part of the spectrum, only in the lower energy radio wave length portion.


Lol. What an idiot! Just link to the scientist that is claiming this, you uneducated nutjob. We are not interested in the claims of mentally deranged D-K sufferers.

Apr 30, 2019
.....then why is it you only have an Anthropology degree from the U of Auckland, NZ? I've yet to meet an Anthropologist who could solve a Differential Equation even though you've been here to brag about doing just that in a high school algebra course.


You are a lying tosspot. I have never claimed any such thing. And how come I know far more about physics than you do, little boy? Because you have never studied it, and I have. Simple.

Meanwhile schneibo is still stuck in his own math routine......I wonder if he thinks he's got it right yet? No matter, he's got an Anthropologist to help him over the hump. Hmmmmm, hump?


Go away, you lying POS. You are as thick as two short planks, and have zero maths skills. As proven by the fact that you cannot solve something that is taught to 10 year olds! Dumb, or what?

Apr 30, 2019
direct studies of the event horizon shadow of supermassive black hole candidates are now possible via electromagnetic waves,

And so too are plasmoids, in all their toroidal glory. They get us all hyped up for a black hole and present a plasmoid, must be embarrassing for the Darkists.


And another liar. No plasmoid, dumbo. Nobody is claiming such idiotic nonsense, other than a bunch of Velikovskian cretins. No science, no mechanisms, no evidence. Pure woo.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more