So, folks, we’re told the Event Horizon Telescope captured an *image* (not really, if truth be told) of the black hole in M87. You’ve all seen it … the donut hole *picture*. What they aren’t telling you, of course, is that would also be what a plasmoid looks like, end on. And we know that we’re looking at M87 almost along the rotational axis. Now they published that *image* more than 2 years ago. You'd think by now they’d have captured an image of another black hole … say the one in our own galaxy. But they haven't. Maybe Covid prevented that? Or maybe the reasons given in this article
https://www.inverse.com/science/milky-w ... prediction ... explain that. In any case, they're now saying they may have an image by the end of the year. And Geoffrey Bower, a project scientist at the Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, says
it should appear very similar in the sky as M87.” “We'd very much like to see that same kind of image and demonstrate that that effect that we see in M87 is present in Sagittarius A*." But would it? It’s important to point out (and the article didn’t) that the *image* of the Milky Way’s *black hole* will be from the side of the object, not down the rotational axis, like it was with M87. So what will it show? Another donut? I don't think so. And will that image again be consistent with a plasmoid? Well, what do you know! Looks like this is what we might expect in that case ...
https://www.nifs.ac.jp/en/lhdreport/img/0299e_002.png
And the truth is that the EHT M87 *image* took about eight hours of observations and then months and months and months of processing to *create*. Due to the difficulties pointed out in the article, *imaging* the Sagittarius A object may take much longer observationally and require even more processing to *create*. And the processing will likely again be based on the assumption that it’s a black hole and not a plasmoid. In other words, they’ll get the answer they pre-program into the algorithms they are using ... and probably get misled again. But that’s ok from their point of view. As long as they get a fuzzy *image* they can claim is a blackhole, they will have the argument they need to get more funding for a next generation EHT (see
https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAwa ... ID=1935980 ). Yes, folks, they are already planning on building 10 more telescopes, costing something on the order of $140 million dollar total … with a $13 million/year operating budget ... in order to get a slightly sharper image of a black hole that will confirm their pre-conceived notions of what they are looking at. When you’re chasing gnomes, money is no object. Right?
