Quote:

For more than a year they calibrated and corrected and reality-checked their data. Then in June, they released the final Sagittarius A* and M87 data to four small groups tasked with making images. Radio astronomers make images by feeding data about the radiation they have observed to algorithms that construct a picture of the object that emitted it. If the E.H.T. were an actual telescope the size of Earth, making images would be straightforward, the results unambiguous and direct. But because the E.H.T. is just a few specks of mirror on a rotating globe, an infinite number of possible images could explain any given data set. To be sure the images they extracted from their data depicted what was really up there in the sky, they installed checks and balances in the imaging process — hence the four separate groups. To avoid poisoning one another’s minds — so that no one could accidentally nudge another group into seeing a black-hole shadow that wasn’t really there — these groups worked in isolation, making images using different algorithms and techniques, trying hard to discredit anything that looked too sharp, too clean, too likely to be the product of wishful thinking.

---

killingravensun said:

ok, well nevermind that the theory of black holes is a logical fallacy set up to brush aside concerns about observations that dont fit the theory of relativity

---

chibiabos said:

The idea of a black hole results pretty directly from general relativity.  The prediction dates back to way before there was any evidence for them and the concept follows pretty easily from the observations that provided the motivation to develop theories special and general relativity in the first place.

---

killingravensun said:

as for evidence, wrong, there is no evidence for black holes, inference is not evidence, its conjecture

---

killingravensun said:

chibiabos said:

The idea of a black hole results pretty directly from general relativity.  The prediction dates back to way before there was any evidence for them and the concept follows pretty easily from the observations that provided the motivation to develop theories special and general relativity in the first place.

---

so what? because someones pet theory is popular but has no evidence we should just whistle and move on? thats not how science works

as for evidence, wrong, there is no evidence for black holes, inference is not evidence, its conjecture

---

chibiabos said:

It's not that general relativity is popular.  It's that every attempt to produce a result that violates general relativity produces results that fit the predictions of general relativity.

---

chibiabos said:

There's about a century's worth of experimentation to back it up.

---

DividedQuantum said:

Wow... those are some interesting assertions.

---

killingravensun said:

chibiabos said:

It's not that general relativity is popular.  It's that every attempt to produce a result that violates general relativity produces results that fit the predictions of general relativity.

---

categorically false, in fact just the opposite is true, stupid scientists claim to know how the universe works but then observations dont agree, only 5% of baryonic matter is understood, the rest of the theory is gobbledy gook about dark matters and blackened holes, neither of which can be found after decades of experiment

chibiabos said:

There's about a century's worth of experimentation to back it up.

---

no there isnt, please, i implore you, post just one link to any science that isnt inference that confirms the standard model

---

LogicaL Chaos said:

If LIGO isn't recording Gravity Waves, then how do scientists record Gravitation?

---