- Posts: 294
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm
- Posts: 1002
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Let me explain the procedure:
1. Combining data from different telescopes to increase resolution
The data from different radio-telescopes are combined to create a picture.
Combining telescopes creates a very big lens.
This works well with telescopes close together.
The resolution can statistically be increased by the rotation and movement of earth.
Here are the places of the telescopes:
Triangle of Europe, North America, South America
Triangle of Hawaii, North America, South America
2. Noise is too much. We can't use it!
This data is not very good, due to too much noise.
Probably the data is also not in focus.
So the team decided to create a selection-method that only picked the data
that resembled something.
The most found "something data" is used.
Everything else is regarded "noise".
3. The team finds very different solutions.
The team found very different solutions to the data.
All seem similar in the appearance: bright spots around a centre.
They don't pick one, instead they take some average to produce the final image.
4. Repeating the process that they used.
I created a frame with the same positions as the radar-telescopes.
I put this on front of a 1.4 canon lens.
I made photographs of a single bright laser point, with different
This is exactly the same as combining more radio-telescopes over the world to create a big lens.
The radio-telescopes are similar to the open parts on the lens.
5. Major problem: Bokeh causes a false positive.
Somehow my lens did not always use all the holes, but I think you all got the idea.
All bokeh versions create a ring around the actual object,
and show duplicates of the original object.
It also creates bigger dots on places where the telescopes are located.
If the focus is too close the locations are reversed of when the focus is too far.
The bokeh of the Hawaii version is also almost the reverse of the Europe version.
6. Combining false positives.
As I explained above, the selection method selects the most common features of all pictures.
They can not really determine whether they are in focus or not.
They selected the data from the different telescopes on different times depending on how well
they match the most common feature.
And from other information that they produced, the data seems indeed not in focus.
The BOKEH version of the picture is the most common one.
So very likely they select the BOKEH versions of the pictures.
They can get similar BOKEH pictures from both the Europe and the Hawaii triangle,
just with different focus.
So it is very likely that they selected these as good images.
So with means we get a lot of images that look like a black hole,
but all are the BOKEH false positives.
The dark centre in the middle might be caused by atmospheric disturbances.
Longer distance through the atmosphere gives a darker image.
Which is another false positive.
Very likely the team screwed up, and their procedure selected the BOKEH false positives.
This means that the black hole picture is a BOKEH effect picture.
Because all images are out of focus, we can not even determine what is really there.
It can be a small star, or any other smaller structure.
But because the bright spots are likely duplicates,
from the fourth choice it seems to be a single star with a beam pointing out.
The resolution is simply to low, the noise to large, and too much filters are being used.
Let's remember when this happened before:
Realize that the black/bokeh hole is even lower in resolution.
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... exist.htmlA mysterious black hole surrounded by a thin 'accretion' disk of gases and other cosmic debris that astronomers claim 'shouldn't exist' has been discovered at the heart of a spiral galaxy.
NGC 3147, found around 130 million light-years away in the Draco constellation, was uncovered by scientists using the Hubble Space Telescope.
The supermassive black hole, which weighs roughly 250 million times more than the sun, shouldn't have a disk of matter surrounding it, according to Einstein's theories of relativity.
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am
What to do in case observation does not validate theory? Take a look at the theory? Never, the theory is the bible.
The conundrum is that the disk shouldn't be there, based on current astronomical theories.
Just add more theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_ ... ad_science"In part, due to misunderstandings about how deferent/epicycle models worked, "adding epicycles" has come to be used as a derogatory comment in modern scientific discussion. The term might be used, for example, to describe continuing to try to adjust a theory to make its predictions match the facts."
What to do if a pupil says 5 + 5 = 12 ? It's simple: he can explain there is an invisible 2 somewhere, a "dark number". Now 5 + 5 = 12, with the new "dark math", and the teacher should applaud him for his discovery.
- Posts: 1002
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
You are now promoted.Roshi wrote: What to do if a pupil says 5 + 5 = 12 ? It's simple: he can explain there is an invisible 2 somewhere, a "dark number". Now 5 + 5 = 12, with the new "dark math", and the teacher should applaud him for his discovery.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests