... is “higher resolution” than the original one (the one on the left). I just wonder how much or our tax money they spent to get this *improved* result, given that the first, probably bogus, image reportedly cost about $19 million.
And mind you, I suspect they got the same basic result (a ring) because they used the same biased methodology to produce the image that Miyoshi, et. al., warned them about. That being the case, I got to wondering if there had been any additional discussion of the issues Miyoshi and his associates raised. I discovered that after the original imaging team (referred to hereafter as EHTC) commented on Miyoshi's work in the June 2022 WEB PAGE titled “Imaging Reanalyses of EHT Data” on the EHT website, the three Japanese scientists responded to those criticisms with this (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.13279.pdf) in August 2022. In their response, they accurately summarized the EHTC’s June 2022 criticisms as follows:
Then they proceeded to demolish each criticism.a) The EHT images of M87 are among the most vetted interferometric images ever published (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al., 2019a,b).
(b) Four independent analyses (Arras et al., 2022; Carilli & Thyagarajan, 2022; Lockhart & Gralla, 2022; Patel et al., 2022) have reconstructed the ring-like structure of M87, employing a diverse set of techniques.
(c) The EHTC and its members have published two additional papers, employing newly developed and independent techniques, that confirm the original results (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al., 2021; Sun & Bouman, 2021).
(d) The EHTC has determined that a new re-analysis (Miyoshi et al., 2022) is based on a flawed understanding of EHTC data and its methods.
(e) Ring-like structures are unambiguously recovered under a broad range of imaging assump- tions, including field of view. Additionally, large-scale jet structures are unconstrained by this high-resolution data.
I think they make quite valid points about the EHTC’s criticisms.
They write …
And then they sum things up as follows:Point (a) is the subjective claim of the EHTC without any supporting data or fact. In our paper we have demonstrated that this claim is not true.
Concerning point (b), it is important whether the analyses in four papers are really in- dependent and supporting the EHTC result or not. So we have carefully studied the ”Four independent analyses” and have found that, one of them, Carilli & Thyagarajan (2022) ac- tually obtains the result very similar to ours, using the imaging algorithm similar to what we have used (the so-called hybrid mapping). … snip … Therefore, one of the four papers the EHTC listed as ”have reconstructed the ring-like structure” prove the validity of our result as well. Therefore, EHTC’s statement ”new re-analysis (Miyoshi et al., 2022) is based on a flawed understanding of EHTC data and its methods, leading to erroneous conclusions.” doesn’t make sense.
Concerning the other three papers, Lockhart & Gralla (2022) started from a ring, Arras et al. (2022) used essentially the same method as that of EHTC, and Patel et al. (2022) used the EHTC software itself. Therefore these three papers cannot be regarded as ”independent analyses”.
Point (c) does not really add anything new to point (a), since the methods they used in these papers have the same problems as those in their original papers. Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al. (2021) tried to determine the polarization but the imaging software is the same as that used in Paper IV(SMILI). Sun & Bouman (2021) used a machine-learning technique, and apparently their training input images are all compact. Thus, most likely the neural network of Sun & Bouman (2021) is trained to find compact structure, even when the data actually contain emissions from a wider region.
In point (d), the EHTC claimed our re-analysis is based on ”a flawed understanding of EHTC data and its methods.” However, the EHTC did not make clear where our understanding is flawed. Moreover, as we have stated above, one of the ”Four independent analyses”, Carilli & Thyagarajan (2022), have actually obtained the result very similar to ours. Since the method and results of Carilli & Thyagarajan (2022) are quite close to ours, EHTC should make clear what is ”a flawed understanding of their data and methods”, not only for our work but also for Carilli & Thyagarajan (2022).
In point (e), the EHTC claimed that Ring-like structures are recovered under a broad range of imaging assumptions, including the field of view. However, the actual fields of view set by the EHTC are limited to a very narrow area. In Miyoshi et al. (2022), we have calculated and shown the range of the field of view (FOV) over which the data contains information. The FOV settings of the EHTC are two orders of magnitude narrower than ours.
Unfortunately (and as expected) the media just ignored their response … as did the EHTC.In conclusion, all of the five points raised by the EHTC are subjective and unsubstantiated claims. Thus they do not prove the correctness of the result of EHTC. Sincerely we hope that the EHTC will publish, not a collection of unsubstantiated claims, but a discussion based on scientific arguments.
Otherwise, they should retract the statement of ”new re-analysis(Miyoshi et al., 2022) is based on a flawed understanding of EHTC data and its methods, leading to erroneous conclusions.”
So I ask ... is this scientific method at work?
No, it isn’t.
It’s the mainstream IN HIDING, unable to defend itself from the criticisms.
So instead, we have them wasting more of YOUR tax money to get basically the same probably incorrect ring image they did before, using the same problematic procedure as before, then getting that bogus work promoted by the mainstream media that is in cahoots with them to keep you funding their bogus work. After all, both mainstream astrophysicists and mainstream media have the costs associated with their rather pleasant standards of living to support (at your expense). That's the important part. Sad but true. But then science is dead and we are headed for a new dark ages.
