Black hole scientists stitching the data together

[Xantos]

Infineon, thanks for this.

This just goes to show that my first instinct about it is quite likely correct one - the image they are showing us as, a proof of Einstein being correct yet again, is nothing but a bokeh donut type of exaggeration of the true image which probably looks like this



They were probably pressured so hard to produce results and justify the huge money spent that they started seeing positive results where there are none.

[D_Archer]

Thanks Infineon, that is the real paper, too bad it is 52 pages.. i read the abstract and conclusion now and looked at most of the figures..

It all sounds iffy at best.. not sure how to review all of this... time will tell (or it takes time to read it all, i like how people here actually take an effort, i was pretty sickened by how mainstream stooges accept it all wholesale)

At the end of the conclusion they say this:

the ring diameter is consistent with the expected “shadow” of a ∼6.5 × 109 Me black hole.

But in the press release they say they actually imaged the shadow, without double quotation, so even if a real observation, we are not even looking at a shadow of something that does not exist, we are just looking at a ring...

I like the Radio picture below*:


Other images:
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... pOnRPQ.png
Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / CoolCosmos, via

I think taking a step back and looking at the whole instead of the hole is a better way to do astronomy. Ie look at things you actually observe, bright plasma, matter jets, flows, dust etc.. look at real things, holistic.

Regards,
Daniel

[seasmith]

I like the Radio picture below*:

Other images:
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/120 ... pOnRPQ.png
Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / CoolCosmos, via

I think taking a step back and looking at the whole instead of the hole is a better way to do astronomy. Ie look at things you actually observe, bright plasma, matter jets, flows, dust etc.. look at real things, holistic.

D, That's great comparison collage there from JPL/Caltech.
I think the first image (x-ray), with the shortest wavelength, probably represents the most purely electrical dynamic; while the final RF image is more likely a warm dusty plasma thermal signature (with a twisty-lobed morphology of its own).

It's easier to color-code a thermal image as well.
º

[Zyxzevn]

How to take a picture of a black hole | Katie Bouman | TEDx

Via a political blog, I learned that this method was proposed, but not used.

Probably they needed more "certainty".

[Zyxzevn]

Better video about the explanation of the algorithm that was used.
Katie Bouman “Imaging a Black Hole with the Event Horizon Telescope”

She tells a lot of stuff that I learned on University and job.

It seems that they generate an image from the model and check whether it fits the data.
Because the data is too noisy.
In computer vision, it is a common method for finding known objects and variants,
and it can give false positives and oversimplifies the resulting model.
It can only generate simulated images.
They averaged the images of the teams together.

We can bring in our own model and it would be just as good as theirs!
So it is the smoking Snoop model, chosen by democratic majority.

They also use machine learning which is known to give false positives.
I am not sure why and how they used it. Seems unnecessary.

Their method seems also unable to detect systematic errors (artefacts) or filter
errors at extreme magnification. I did not see extreme tests.
Strangely I do not see her mention gradual steps of magnification, which is
necessary for calibration and feedback. And would show the plasma beam.
Now it is a one-shot.

They just guessed which model seemed the best out of many alternatives,
not considering any artefacts.

If I am fair, In some I can almost see the positions of the radio-telescopes on earth (=bokeh artefact).
But in another I see a 5 or 6 sided shape (=antenna artefact?).
Correcting for the first would show a star with a tail, I believe.

Of course rings can still work in EU, or a rotating plasma ball.
Shape can also differ per frequency.
In this discussion I criticize their CSI-enhance technology.
They probably want to use it everywhere.

[Webbman]

if you think about a birkeland current and its counter rotating concentric tubes you might see that the sunspots are visualizations of the connections to these other rings from the primary input.

in the center of the galaxy this effect might be more pronounced so instead of getting the occasional connection we have permanent connections.

since plasma can be moved with magnetism there might be a number of configurations from our central bright star to a "dark" star with a massive torus, a bright star and torus, multiple rings with dark or light center or any other combination which is determined electrically from the incoming current and the electrical properties of the central star or stars. Dark here of course means higher frequency radiation. Its actually brighter/higher energy if you think about it.

its not unthinkable that plasma can be shunted to a more electrically stable configuration.

all they are measuring with the radio waves is the plasma. The star itself is likely only giving off gamma and x rays due to the high energy environment.

[Michael Mozina]

Better video about the explanation of the algorithm that was used.
Katie Bouman “Imaging a Black Hole with the Event Horizon Telescope”

She tells a lot of stuff that I learned on University and job.

It seems that they generate an image from the model and check whether it fits the data.
Because the data is too noisy.
In computer vision, it is a common method for finding known objects and variants,
and it can give false positives and oversimplifies the resulting model.
It can only generate simulated images.
They averaged the images of the teams together.

We can bring in our own model and it would be just as good as theirs!
So it is the smoking Snoop model, chosen by democratic majority.

They also use machine learning which is known to give false positives.
I am not sure why and how they used it. Seems unnecessary.

Their method seems also unable to detect systematic errors (artefacts) or filter
errors at extreme magnification. I did not see extreme tests.
Strangely I do not see her mention gradual steps of magnification, which is
necessary for calibration and feedback. And would show the plasma beam.
Now it is a one-shot.

They just guessed which model seemed the best out of many alternatives,
not considering any artefacts.

If I am fair, In some I can almost see the positions of the radio-telescopes on earth (=bokeh artefact).
But in another I see a 5 or 6 sided shape (=antenna artefact?).
Correcting for the first would show a star with a tail, I believe.

Of course rings can still work in EU, or a rotating plasma ball.
Shape can also differ per frequency.
In this discussion I criticize their CSI-enhance technology.
They probably want to use it everywhere.

After watching some videos on how the data was "crunched", I'm inclined to share your concern about "artifacts" of their techniques, vs something that's actually there. However......

From my perspective, as it relates to EU/PC theory, such a massive object would simply be a huge electrical current generator, or homopolar generator as Alfven called them. If that is indeed an accretion disk, then the rotation of the object would tend to induce current in the surrounding plasma and we've got the galaxies biggest electrical generator, which also explains why we see massive Birkeland currents shooting out of that galaxy.

I don't believe that massive objects achieve infinite densities, and I suspect that the mainstream overestimates their mass, but I see no reason that massive objects cannot exist at the cores of galaxies. They just end up being a focal point, or the physical anchors of a complex physical circuitry system in space.

I don't see why it matters to our community one way or the other. If massive objects do exist, they're the ultimate homopolar generator as Alfven described them. They're an obvious means to generate electrical current.

[crawler]

(1) Its a bit like putting clay on a skull to make a face.
(2) U need to have a face or race etc in mind.
(3) And i am not sure whether the clay-on-skull technique has ever been proven to work (praps it has).
(4) Have u ever seen them bring in a second clay team to have a 2nd attempt at a face? No, that might not be a good look.
(5) After all in most cases the main aim is merely to entertain, or to have a nice looking front cover.

Re the event horizon team, re (2), they need to have a genus in mind.
They might be putting clay on an elephant's skull to make a human face.

[seasmith]

(1) Its a bit like putting clay on a skull to make a face.
(2) U need to have a face or race etc in mind.
(3) And i am not sure whether the clay-on-skull technique has ever been proven to work (praps it has).
(4) Have u ever seen them bring in a second clay team to have a 2nd attempt at a face? No, that might not be a good look.
(5) After all in most cases the main aim is merely to entertain, or to have a nice looking front cover.

Re the event horizon team, re (2), they need to have a genus in mind.
They might be putting clay on an elephant's skull to make a human face.

Did you have a particular skull shape or genus in mind
?

[crawler]

(1) Its a bit like putting clay on a skull to make a face.
(2) U need to have a face or race etc in mind.
(3) And i am not sure whether the clay-on-skull technique has ever been proven to work (praps it has).
(4) Have u ever seen them bring in a second clay team to have a 2nd attempt at a face? No, that might not be a good look.
(5) After all in most cases the main aim is merely to entertain, or to have a nice looking front cover.

Re the event horizon team, re (2), they need to have a genus in mind.
They might be putting clay on an elephant's skull to make a human face.

Did you have a particular skull shape or genus in mind?

I am happy with the image being as per the prediction which is a doughnut with black center hole, the doughnut itself being the radiation from orbiting dust & gas & plasma, that radiation being bent up to 360 arcdeg due to gravity, with a brighter side due to speed of approach to us.

Back at 3:40pm on April7 i said that blackholes must usually be a Michellian dark star. So any image must be of a MDS, but thatthere image will be as predicted (& no GR or singularity needed), because the event horizon team's image will not be able to tell the difference.

But anyhow they know where the clay should go, so bias is unavoidable.

What kind of image might a separate team come up with, ie if blind, ie if not told beforehand what the image is supposed to show. They might come up with a woolly mammoth.

[Webbman]

well ill take a plasmoid over a black hole any day but i do think there is something in there. Whether its a forming star or formed because of a star there i think there needs to be something there to anchor and stabilize the torus.

the jet is light years long so its been active a long time.

[seasmith]

~
"something" indeed.

Folks don't even know what is at the center of the Earth, let alone the center of a galaxy.
Perhaps there is an electrical connection ?

CoG and electrical 'earthing' or 'grounding' are also rather nebulous concepts, right in there with plasmoids and the whole "dark energy" yada yada.
It's Springtime, go outside and play...
º∞º

Damn shame about Notre Dame

[Zyxzevn]

(1) Its a bit like putting clay on a skull to make a face.

They are injecting different models, and guess which one seems the best.

So it is more like throwing shit on the wall,
and see where it sticks.

[Webbman]

if you think of matter as electrical excrement you might be on to something there lol.

[D_Archer]

(1) Its a bit like putting clay on a skull to make a face.

They are injecting different models, and guess which one seems the best.

So it is more like throwing shit on the wall,
and see where it sticks.

Exactly this.

I do find it increasingly disturbing that official electric universe videos, take the "observation" the mainstream scientits make and and seem to accept it and propose an EU explanation..., yes sure a plasmoid is ok, i proposed the same and a torus, yes sure why not... but a little more critical analysis of the methods to get the "observation'" from the EU camp would be welcome.....

Regards,
Daniel