Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #585249 > unrolled thread

BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way,

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 20:20 -0700
    Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 20:45 -0700
      Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 21:25 -0700
        Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 22:09 -0700
          Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 22:26 -0700
          Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of   the Milky Way, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-14 07:32 +0200
            Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 23:13 -0700
              Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-14 13:54 -0500
                Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-05-18 01:01 +0200
                  Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-17 16:46 -0700
              Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of   the Milky Way, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-15 08:12 +0200
    Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the  Milky Way, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-12 22:14 -0700
      Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-12 22:25 -0700
      Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the   Milky Way, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-13 12:04 -0700
        Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-13 17:44 -0700
          Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 18:06 -0700
            Crank Richard Hertz goes off the deep end "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 19:35 -0700
          Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-15 00:48 -0700
            Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-15 10:39 -0700
              Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-16 09:35 -0700
                Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 10:58 -0700
                  Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-16 11:37 -0700
                    Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 22:59 -0700
                      Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-17 09:26 -0700
                        Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-17 09:58 -0700
                          Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-17 10:08 -0700
                        Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of  the Milky Way, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-17 10:17 -0700
                          Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-17 10:44 -0700
                            Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-17 11:00 -0700
                  Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-16 20:03 -0500
                Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-17 11:27 -0700
                  Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-17 15:02 -0500
                    Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-17 13:41 -0700
                      Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-17 14:38 -0700
                        Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-17 14:52 -0700
                          Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-17 18:36 -0700
                            Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-17 20:27 -0700
              Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-18 11:09 -0700
                Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-18 12:05 -0700
                  Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of  the Milky Way, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-18 14:40 -0700
                Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-18 14:59 -0700
                  Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 23:34 -0700
            Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 22:50 -0700
    Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-13 07:12 -0700
      Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 09:06 -0700
        Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-13 09:36 -0700
        Crank Richard Hertz mental unraveling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 09:44 -0700
          Re: Crank Richard Hertz mental unraveling The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-13 10:30 -0700
          Re: Crank Richard Hertz mental unraveling Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 12:04 -0700
          Re: Crank Richard Hertz mental unraveling The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-13 12:31 -0700
        Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-13 12:19 -0700
    Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 03:37 -0700
      Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 11:45 -0700
        Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-14 12:00 -0700
          Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 13:06 -0700
            Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-14 13:23 -0700
            Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-14 14:24 -0700
              Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 22:10 -0700
                Re: BREAKING: First image of supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-15 06:24 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#585562

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> >
> > (watch how real women scientists are treated in the scientific community)
> >
> > https://www.netflix.com/title/81303549
> 
> So, I saw that Netflix title...
> https://www.netflix.com/title/81303549
> 
> After seeing a few interviews
> what I get from it is..
> 
> All men Scientists in the scientific community
> feel that *all* women scientists
> should be working at Pornhub instead of
> in their scientific labs, am I right?

So, in this Netflix film documentary.."Picture a Scientist"

the male scientists walks in the lab and sees the female scientists and
ask her..."Are you the janitor?"



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585633

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 6:58:33 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote: 
> > 
> > The Starmaker wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > (watch how real women scientists are treated in the scientific community) 
> > > 
> > > https://www.netflix.com/title/81303549 
> > 
> > So, I saw that Netflix title... 
> > https://www.netflix.com/title/81303549 
> > 
> > After seeing a few interviews 
> > what I get from it is.. 
> > 
> > All men Scientists in the scientific community 
> > feel that *all* women scientists 
> > should be working at Pornhub instead of 
> > in their scientific labs, am I right?
> So, in this Netflix film documentary.."Picture a Scientist" 
> 
> the male scientists walks in the lab and sees the female scientists and 
> ask her..."Are you the janitor?"
> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
> and challenge 
> the unchallengeable.

That's sexist.

What if they ask it to a she-male? Gender choice matters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585631

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 12:48:44 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

> 
> space is wet 
> but 
> you're 
> like a fish 
> you don't feel 
> the wet.
> The Starmaker wrote: 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585267

El jueves, 12 de mayo de 2022 a las 23:20:51 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:

> The collected data, around 2017, was post-processed during 5 YEARS until 
> the result MATCHED the database of possible solutions of general relativity. 
> 
> This is EXACTLY the same process used around LIGO for detecting gravitational 
> waves. Any signal was compared with hundred of thousand of patterns 
> stored in supercomputers, which are the result of different solutions of 
> the equations of GR. 
> 
> Now, go and believe whatever you want. But you was warned about this crap.

LOL........you continue to make our days with all the nonsense you post. Keep up posting them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585269

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 11:12:51 AM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 12 de mayo de 2022 a las 23:20:51 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió: 
> 
> > The collected data, around 2017, was post-processed during 5 YEARS until 
> > the result MATCHED the database of possible solutions of general relativity. 
> > 
> > This is EXACTLY the same process used around LIGO for detecting gravitational 
> > waves. Any signal was compared with hundred of thousand of patterns 
> > stored in supercomputers, which are the result of different solutions of 
> > the equations of GR. 
> > 
> > Now, go and believe whatever you want. But you was warned about this crap.
> LOL........you continue to make our days with all the nonsense you post. Keep up posting them.

Another ignorant, this time a chileno, who should know better, being a retired EE (even his background is on packet networking).

Tell me, Miguelito, once you accept that a "photograph" of microwave radiation can be done by warping 30 Ghz of bandwidth, starting
at about 2 Ghz  (millimeters) INTO the reddish visible range (400-600 nanomenter), by an arbitrary TRANSPOSING, then:

1) How come the alleged black hole, which lies FLAT on the galactic plane (invisible to us), MAGICALLY is tilted about 40" toward 
    Earth, to present to us the BLACKNESS of the hole so it can be shown as a DOCTORED imaged, which took 5 years to construct.

2) How come the "light blob", composed of ionized gases that spin around the BH at nearly the speed of light, still has energy left
     to be radiated toward us, in the microwave region?

3) How come is that this DOCTORED blurred photograph is EXACTLY at the center of the Milky Way (how do they know the coordinates)?

4) How does this help the narrative that a BH is present at the center of EVERY FUCKING GALAXY, which is the source of the whirling
    process in galaxies rotation? They are claiming a GRADIENT of rotation speed that goes from the speed of light at the center to a
    period of 200 million years at the edge where we are located?
    It's a problem of the chicken and the egg: which comes first? BH or gases rotating, being crushed in clusters to form 100 billion stars
    and then forming a BH at the center, which will eventually collapse OR the other way around?

5) But most important thing: HOW COME don't you realize that THEY HAVE TO SHOW A PHOTO OF A BLACK ZONE, so gullible
    imbeciles like you BUY the shitty concept that it's only visible by NOT BEING VISIBLE?

    You are a fucking retarded, chilean. You should return any degree on science or engineering that you managed to acquire 
    in your lifetime. Ignorant, fatally indoctrinated asshole who SIDED with relativists just to have friends in the corrupted chilean
    scientific community. You sold your soul to the devil, just to have some PhD friends to talk to, and to show off that they
    are your friends.

    Regarding COMMON SENSE and knowledge, you are at the level of Moroney, Bodkin or Dono. Just fucking nobodies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585271

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:06:12 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 11:12:51 AM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: 
> > El jueves, 12 de mayo de 2022 a las 23:20:51 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió: 
> > 
> > > The collected data, around 2017, was post-processed during 5 YEARS until 
> > > the result MATCHED the database of possible solutions of general relativity. 
> > > 
> > > This is EXACTLY the same process used around LIGO for detecting gravitational 
> > > waves. Any signal was compared with hundred of thousand of patterns 
> > > stored in supercomputers, which are the result of different solutions of 
> > > the equations of GR. 
> > > 
> > > Now, go and believe whatever you want. But you was warned about this crap. 
> > LOL........you continue to make our days with all the nonsense you post. Keep up posting them.
> Another ignorant, this time a chileno, who should know better, being a retired EE (even his background is on packet networking). 
> 
> Tell me, Miguelito, once you accept that a "photograph" of microwave radiation can be done by warping 30 Ghz of bandwidth, starting 
> at about 2 Ghz (millimeters) INTO the reddish visible range (400-600 nanomenter), by an arbitrary TRANSPOSING, then: 
> 
> 1) How come the alleged black hole, which lies FLAT on the galactic plane (invisible to us), MAGICALLY is tilted about 40" toward 
> Earth, to present to us the BLACKNESS of the hole so it can be shown as a DOCTORED imaged, which took 5 years to construct. 
> 
> 2) How come the "light blob", composed of ionized gases that spin around the BH at nearly the speed of light, still has energy left 
> to be radiated toward us, in the microwave region? 
> 
> 3) How come is that this DOCTORED blurred photograph is EXACTLY at the center of the Milky Way (how do they know the coordinates)? 
> 
> 4) How does this help the narrative that a BH is present at the center of EVERY FUCKING GALAXY, which is the source of the whirling 
> process in galaxies rotation? They are claiming a GRADIENT of rotation speed that goes from the speed of light at the center to a 
> period of 200 million years at the edge where we are located? 
> It's a problem of the chicken and the egg: which comes first? BH or gases rotating, being crushed in clusters to form 100 billion stars 
> and then forming a BH at the center, which will eventually collapse OR the other way around? 
> 
> 5) But most important thing: HOW COME don't you realize that THEY HAVE TO SHOW A PHOTO OF A BLACK ZONE, so gullible 
> imbeciles like you BUY the shitty concept that it's only visible by NOT BEING VISIBLE? 
> 
> You are a fucking retarded, chilean. You should return any degree on science or engineering that you managed to acquire 
> in your lifetime. Ignorant, fatally indoctrinated asshole who SIDED with relativists just to have friends in the corrupted chilean 
> scientific community. You sold your soul to the devil, just to have some PhD friends to talk to, and to show off that they 
> are your friends. 
> 
> Regarding COMMON SENSE and knowledge, you are at the level of Moroney, Bodkin or Dono. Just fucking nobodies.
Exoplanets, gravity waves, black holes.  NSF Grant Boondoggles.  I remember one time at a LIGO meeting in Bellevue on the Microsoft campus right after the wave event, I put the question...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585272 — Crank Richard Hertz mental unraveling

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:06:12 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>snip insane ranting<

Dick,

It is entertaining to watch your mental unraveling. You need to stuff in as much posts, soon you will not be able to write, not being able to speak follows close behind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585274 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz mental unraveling

Dono. wrote:
> 
> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:06:12 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >snip insane ranting<
> 
> Dick,
> 
> It is entertaining to watch your mental unraveling. You need to stuff in as much posts, soon you will not be able to write, not being able to speak follows close behind.


Where did you get your haircut, the pet shop? 

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585283 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz mental unraveling

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:44:33 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:06:12 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >snip insane ranting< 
> 
> Dick, 
> 
> It is entertaining to watch your mental unraveling. You need to stuff in as much posts, soon you will not be able to write, not being able to speak follows close behind.

Ignorant cretin, you don't know shit about radio interferometry and their limitations, with respect to optical telescopes, which
have 140,000 times more power to resolve spatial information at the designated target, far away.

You barely may be able to scan a distant celestial object with sub-arcsecond resolution, BUT (and understand this, fucking idiot), you
are SCANNING such object in the MICROWAVE REGION!!, not in the OPTICAL REGION!!

Then, you have to use A LOT OF MATHEMATICS (2D Fourier, etc.) plus A LOT of computer power and instrumentation to MERGE the
data gathered along large arrays of dish telescopes IN THE MICROWAVE AREA to obtain DATA at every spot focused. It can be done
24x7 because they receive RADIO signals, but the processes to FILTER humongous amount of NOISE is incredible painful and slow.

Also, when you resolve a single spot (maximum resolution) with an optical telescope, you can gather the ENTIRE optical content of
the area within the distant spot. This is because you are using A SINGLE OPTICAL reflecting lens. Then, you can amplify it (zoom)
until a noise limit is reached.

When you are focusing a single spot with an array of radio-telescopes scattered to achieve a larger "virtual diameter" of the lens, you
HAVE TO UNDERSTAND that the info gathered from the focused spot (with larger resolution than optical lenses), you are OBSERVING
IT through a "swiss cheese slice".

You CAN'T COLLECT 100% of the data of the spot. You only collect data from K sub-spots of the distant target.

Why? Because it's equivalent to break an optical telescope reflecting disk and leave only K pieces on place. So, you can have bigger
angular resolution, but you HAVE LOST the info from the missing pieces of the dish. And, if you want to augment the intra-spot
resolution, the amount N of radio-telescopes scattered around Earth can be HUGE, so computing the data would become impossible.

Then, what geniuses do? Simple and disgusting:

1) Gather the data of K points of the array and ensemble them in the frequency domain.
2) Heavily filter and post-processes data to get rid of almost endless source of NOISE.
3) Heavily INTERPOLATE dotted data, in order to FILL THE GAPS of the missing (not captured) info of MW signals.
4) Heavily post-process the entire dot, at the limit of resolution, to obtain the equivalent of an optical dot.
5) HEAVILY post-process the information of all the collected DISTANT DOTS, to obtain a MICROWAVE MAP of the celestial object.
6) As IMBECILES LIKE YOU, DONO, would not understand what the fuck a MICROWAVE MAP represents, they PLAY WITH YOUR MIND
    by transposing the microwave bandwidth spots, REMAPPING THEM in the optical zone, which is more than 100,000 times above
    the captured frequencies. AND YOU FALL FOR IT, BECAUSE YOU ARE A GULLIBLE IMBECILE.
7) Meanwhile, the real data on the OPTICAL ZONE of the distant object remains UNREACHABLE by optical telescopes.

Capito? You and other laymen like you, DONO, have been played this way for decades. 

Worse yet, I'm sure you ADORE the multi-source, multi-wavelength PICTURES of distant galaxies, which are finally rendered by
LIBERAL ARTISTS AT HOLLYWOOD.

I've written about this in one thread, about three months ago, and THE HERD WENT CRAZY.

Now, learn something about how difficult is to process data in radio-astronomy. Find this paper, is free of charge:

Radio Interferometry

Tetsuo Sasao and Andre B. Fletcher
Introduction to VLBI Systems
Lecture Notes for KVN Students
Partly Based on Ajou University Lecture Notes
Issued July 14, 2005


It's taught at a South Korean University.

Why SK is interested in these topics? Because they know that A MARKET for any kind of related instrumentation
exists in the western world, so the Ministry of Technology is very interested in forming people in this subject.

Like the powerful MITI directed the whole field of science and technology in Japan since 1960.

They are very happy selling multi-million dollars technologies to retarded assholes at USA and Europe, while they strenghten
their abilities to go deep in technology. A win-win situation.

Keep posting, Adrian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585288 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz mental unraveling

Dono. wrote:
> 
> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:06:12 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >snip insane ranting<
> 
> Dick,
> 
> It is entertaining to watch your mental unraveling. You need to stuff in as much posts, soon you will not be able to write, not being able to speak follows close behind.


A meshugener zol men oyshraybn, un im araynshraybn.

They should free a madman, and lock you up.




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585287

El viernes, 13 de mayo de 2022 a las 12:06:12 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 11:12:51 AM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: 
> > El jueves, 12 de mayo de 2022 a las 23:20:51 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió: 
> > 
> > > The collected data, around 2017, was post-processed during 5 YEARS until 
> > > the result MATCHED the database of possible solutions of general relativity. 
> > > 
> > > This is EXACTLY the same process used around LIGO for detecting gravitational 
> > > waves. Any signal was compared with hundred of thousand of patterns 
> > > stored in supercomputers, which are the result of different solutions of 
> > > the equations of GR. 
> > > 
> > > Now, go and believe whatever you want. But you was warned about this crap. 
> > LOL........you continue to make our days with all the nonsense you post. Keep up posting them.
> Another ignorant, this time a chileno, who should know better, being a retired EE (even his background is on packet networking). 
> 
> Tell me, Miguelito, once you accept that a "photograph" of microwave radiation can be done by warping 30 Ghz of bandwidth, starting 
> at about 2 Ghz (millimeters) INTO the reddish visible range (400-600 nanomenter), by an arbitrary TRANSPOSING, then: 
> 
> 1) How come the alleged black hole, which lies FLAT on the galactic plane (invisible to us), MAGICALLY is tilted about 40" toward 
> Earth, to present to us the BLACKNESS of the hole so it can be shown as a DOCTORED imaged, which took 5 years to construct. 
> 
> 2) How come the "light blob", composed of ionized gases that spin around the BH at nearly the speed of light, still has energy left 
> to be radiated toward us, in the microwave region? 
> 
> 3) How come is that this DOCTORED blurred photograph is EXACTLY at the center of the Milky Way (how do they know the coordinates)? 
> 
> 4) How does this help the narrative that a BH is present at the center of EVERY FUCKING GALAXY, which is the source of the whirling 
> process in galaxies rotation? They are claiming a GRADIENT of rotation speed that goes from the speed of light at the center to a 
> period of 200 million years at the edge where we are located? 
> It's a problem of the chicken and the egg: which comes first? BH or gases rotating, being crushed in clusters to form 100 billion stars 
> and then forming a BH at the center, which will eventually collapse OR the other way around? 
> 
> 5) But most important thing: HOW COME don't you realize that THEY HAVE TO SHOW A PHOTO OF A BLACK ZONE, so gullible 
> imbeciles like you BUY the shitty concept that it's only visible by NOT BEING VISIBLE? 
> 
> You are a fucking retarded, chilean. You should return any degree on science or engineering that you managed to acquire 
> in your lifetime. Ignorant, fatally indoctrinated asshole who SIDED with relativists just to have friends in the corrupted chilean 
> scientific community. You sold your soul to the devil, just to have some PhD friends to talk to, and to show off that they 
> are your friends. 
> 
> Regarding COMMON SENSE and knowledge, you are at the level of Moroney, Bodkin or Dono. Just fucking nobodies.

LOL. Keep posting. Every time you post you show how ignorant are jobless argentinians.

We do not see x-rays but we can see our bones in an x-ray!
We do not see infrared but fiber optics carry infrared light.
We can't see the center of our galaxy but infrared and submillimetre spectroscopy allows our telescopes to see a big number of stars orbiting our black hole (among them S2 which we have followed for almost TWO orbits).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585313

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:20:51 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

[snip]

https://blogs.futura-sciences.com/e-luminet/2018/03/07/45-years-black-hole-imaging-1-early-work-1972-1988/
https://blogs.futura-sciences.com/e-luminet/2019/05/23/40-years-of-black-hole-imaging-2-colors-and-movies-1989-1993/
https://blogs.futura-sciences.com/e-luminet/2019/06/12/40-years-of-black-hole-imaging-3-from-kerr-black-holes-to-eht/

In particular, note this image from part 2
https://blogs.futura-sciences.com/e-luminet/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/05/Comparison-JAMJPL1989-EHT2019.jpg

Re the need for modeling in generating images from VLBI:
"Generating images from very long baseline interferometric 
observations poses a difficult, and generally not unique, 
inversion problem. This problem is simplified by the introduction
 of constraints, some generic (e.g., positivity of the intensity)
 and others motivated by physical considerations (e.g., 
smoothness, instrument resolution). "
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c1f

Similar issues arise in solving X-ray diffraction patterns for 
protein structure. One always needs the amino acid sequence
of the protein so that the data can be fit to possible ways that
the protein can be folded:
"...the diffraction data obtained from the diffraction pattern are 
combined with various methods of structural analysis and data 
fitting to analyze the electron density distribution in the three-
dimensional space within the unit cell."
https://www.creative-biostructure.com/comparison-of-crystallography-nmr-and-em_6.htm

Likewise with NMR analysis of proteins. One obtains distances
between atoms in the protein (including between amino acids
specifically labeled with 15N, 13C and 2H at precise positions)
and uses the data to fold the protein model into the correct
shape. (same reference as above)

I'm wondering if Richard thinks that published protein structures
are all nonsense because of the need for modeling and iterative
data fitting...  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585324

On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 7:37:37 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:20:51 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> 
> [snip] 
> 
> https://blogs.futura-sciences.com/e-luminet/2018/03/07/45-years-black-hole-imaging-1-early-work-1972-1988/ 
> https://blogs.futura-sciences.com/e-luminet/2019/05/23/40-years-of-black-hole-imaging-2-colors-and-movies-1989-1993/ 
> https://blogs.futura-sciences.com/e-luminet/2019/06/12/40-years-of-black-hole-imaging-3-from-kerr-black-holes-to-eht/ 
> 
> In particular, note this image from part 2 
> https://blogs.futura-sciences.com/e-luminet/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/05/Comparison-JAMJPL1989-EHT2019.jpg 
> 
> Re the need for modeling in generating images from VLBI: 
> "Generating images from very long baseline interferometric 
> observations poses a difficult, and generally not unique, 
> inversion problem. This problem is simplified by the introduction 
> of constraints, some generic (e.g., positivity of the intensity) 
> and others motivated by physical considerations (e.g., 
> smoothness, instrument resolution). " 
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c1f 
> 
> Similar issues arise in solving X-ray diffraction patterns for 
> protein structure. One always needs the amino acid sequence 
> of the protein so that the data can be fit to possible ways that 
> the protein can be folded: 
> "...the diffraction data obtained from the diffraction pattern are 
> combined with various methods of structural analysis and data 
> fitting to analyze the electron density distribution in the three- 
> dimensional space within the unit cell." 
> https://www.creative-biostructure.com/comparison-of-crystallography-nmr-and-em_6.htm 
> 
> Likewise with NMR analysis of proteins. One obtains distances 
> between atoms in the protein (including between amino acids 
> specifically labeled with 15N, 13C and 2H at precise positions) 
> and uses the data to fold the protein model into the correct 
> shape. (same reference as above) 
> 
> I'm wondering if Richard thinks that published protein structures 
> are all nonsense because of the need for modeling and iterative 
> data fitting...

Excerpt from https://blogs.futura-sciences.com/e-luminet/2019/05/23/40-years-of-black-hole-imaging-2-colors-and-movies-1989-1993/

***************************** 
The black hole visualizations obtained by Jean-Alain Marck not only were a very significant improvement of all previous work, but they would remain unsurpassed for about twenty years, both scientifically and aesthetically. 

As a striking illustration, Figure 5 below compares the view of an accretion disk calculated by Marck for an observer in the equatorial plane of a Schwarzschild black hole, including all the shift effects, a truly physical model of the accretion disk and effects of light diffusion, and the famous view designed in 2014 for the science-fiction movie Interstellar, calculated with similar conditions (except the fact that the black hole was of the Kerr type, but as already pointed out the rotation does not affect significantly the asymmetry of the image). 

The latter was obtained by a team of 200 graphic animation experts who used a general relativistic programming code provided by their scientific advisor Kip Thorne (Kip Thorne : The Science of Interstellar, Norton & Company, november 2014). At the time it was presented by some medias as a « simulation of unprecedented accuracy » (e.g. A. Rogers,  The Warped Astrophysics of Interstellar, 2014).
***************************** 

As I wrote before, liberal arts and CGI designers at Hollywood worked very hard to make the depictions of BH look PRETTY.

Should I REPEAT that you CAN'T TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS of anything that radiates EM energy outside the visible window (440-750 nm)?

Can it be possible, on this Earth, that some people INSIST that radio signals in the microwave region, 100,000 times below the 
frequency range of visible light, STILL PRETEND to show a fucking MICROWAVE MAP as an OPTICAL PHOTO?

I don't care if the target radiates in the MW region, the IR region or the UV-X rays region. The PLOT that's rendered by drawing data from
those regions, OUTSIDE the optical window, are just DIAGRAMS, NOT PHOTOS.

If you want to present the data AS IF the info collected by radio-telescopes or X-rays telescopes AS VISUALS, then you are interfering with
NATURE, which defined what humans can see for hundred of thousand years.

Now, if you want to TRANSPOSE data into the optical window, many challenges appear:

1) How to REMAP data from specific frequencies below and above the optical range INTO COLORS?
2) How do you manage the FACT that the bandwidth of the radiation is MUCH GREATER than the optical window?
    What ALGORITHM do you use to COMPRESS or EXPAND such bandwidth to fit into the optical range?
3) What are the RULES used to make the FAKE PHOTO to be aesthetically PRETTY, for the easy to deceive mind of laymen?
4) How come scientists involved in the MAKING OF FAKE PHOTOS feel about being DECENT, HONEST PEOPLE?
5) Besides their jobs and privileges, what else is at stake IF THEY DON'T DELIVER A COHERENT NARRATIVE within the community?
6) Why they don't give a try to Laplace's concepts of black holes? Just to COMPARE!


Regarding your questions, I only have one simple answer: IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A DIRECT OBSERVATION AND RECORDING OF ANY
PHYSICAL EVENT, then what you present as evidence IS QUESTIONABLE, because it can be manipulated at will to fit expectations.

I never saw any CGI about magnetic fields, but I had a pretty clear idea of a DIRECT OBSERVATION of its effects on iron powder
which was, previously, evenly distributed on a paper. And this was observed almost 200 years ago, and fitted the mathematics.

I saw infinite amount of DIAGRAMS (2D, 3D) about the lobes of EM radiation emitted by dipoles or complex array of antennae,
and they FIT not only the mathematics, but THEY CAN BE MEASURED POINT BY POINT USING A PROBE. Yet, nobody attempted
to take PHOTOS or VIDEOS of such complex patterns. In particular, the spectacular operation of multi-target phase array radars.

For anything that exist at dimensions lower than 0.1 nm (1 Armstrong), IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ANY PHOTOGRAPHIC REGISTER.
So, you can have DIAGRAMS (2D-3D), and color them. But claiming that you have photos is just blasphemy.

Just browse YT CGI of a single H atom at different stages of energy. They are pretty, and the result of QM math meeting AutoCad.
But, even with this part of physics, the rendering IS PURELY SPECULATIVE.
No one has a fucking idea of what an atom LOOKS LIKE. Even less what an electron looks like, or a photon.

On the other side of magnitudes of length, in cosmic environments, SIMILAR RULES OF REASON APPLY.

But if you, being part of a science elite, want to say otherwise and use PROPAGANDA, then you are a partner in the crime of science,
and you are either a pawn, a middleman or a top dog of A FUCKING CABAL AGENDA.

Think about this, and think which are the interests behind such actions, besides the agenda to perpetuate parasitic jobs, privileges
and milk money from the public funds.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585328

El sábado, 14 de mayo de 2022 a las 14:45:24 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 7:37:37 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote: 

> 
> As I wrote before, liberal arts and CGI designers at Hollywood worked very hard to make the depictions of BH look PRETTY. 
> 
> Should I REPEAT that you CAN'T TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS of anything that radiates EM energy outside the visible window (440-750 nm)? 
> 
> Can it be possible, on this Earth, that some people INSIST that radio signals in the microwave region, 100,000 times below the 
> frequency range of visible light, STILL PRETEND to show a fucking MICROWAVE MAP as an OPTICAL PHOTO? 
> 
> I don't care if the target radiates in the MW region, the IR region or the UV-X rays region. The PLOT that's rendered by drawing data from 
> those regions, OUTSIDE the optical window, are just DIAGRAMS, NOT PHOTOS. 
> 
> If you want to present the data AS IF the info collected by radio-telescopes or X-rays telescopes AS VISUALS, then you are interfering with 
> NATURE, which defined what humans can see for hundred of thousand years. 
> 
> Now, if you want to TRANSPOSE data into the optical window, many challenges appear: 
> 
> 1) How to REMAP data from specific frequencies below and above the optical range INTO COLORS? 
> 2) How do you manage the FACT that the bandwidth of the radiation is MUCH GREATER than the optical window? 
> What ALGORITHM do you use to COMPRESS or EXPAND such bandwidth to fit into the optical range? 
> 3) What are the RULES used to make the FAKE PHOTO to be aesthetically PRETTY, for the easy to deceive mind of laymen? 
> 4) How come scientists involved in the MAKING OF FAKE PHOTOS feel about being DECENT, HONEST PEOPLE? 
> 5) Besides their jobs and privileges, what else is at stake IF THEY DON'T DELIVER A COHERENT NARRATIVE within the community? 
> 6) Why they don't give a try to Laplace's concepts of black holes? Just to COMPARE! 
> 
> 
> Regarding your questions, I only have one simple answer: IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A DIRECT OBSERVATION AND RECORDING OF ANY 
> PHYSICAL EVENT, then what you present as evidence IS QUESTIONABLE, because it can be manipulated at will to fit expectations. 
> 


LOL, you continue to write funny and totally wrong nonsense.....

Learn a bit (that is an impossible mission for you) in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_astronomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_astronomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_astronomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_astronomy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585330

On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 14 de mayo de 2022 a las 14:45:24 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió: 
> > On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 7:37:37 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > As I wrote before, liberal arts and CGI designers at Hollywood worked very hard to make the depictions of BH look PRETTY. 
> > 
> > Should I REPEAT that you CAN'T TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS of anything that radiates EM energy outside the visible window (440-750 nm)? 
> > 
> > Can it be possible, on this Earth, that some people INSIST that radio signals in the microwave region, 100,000 times below the 
> > frequency range of visible light, STILL PRETEND to show a fucking MICROWAVE MAP as an OPTICAL PHOTO? 
> > 
> > I don't care if the target radiates in the MW region, the IR region or the UV-X rays region. The PLOT that's rendered by drawing data from 
> > those regions, OUTSIDE the optical window, are just DIAGRAMS, NOT PHOTOS. 
> > 
> > If you want to present the data AS IF the info collected by radio-telescopes or X-rays telescopes AS VISUALS, then you are interfering with 
> > NATURE, which defined what humans can see for hundred of thousand years. 
> > 
> > Now, if you want to TRANSPOSE data into the optical window, many challenges appear: 
> > 
> > 1) How to REMAP data from specific frequencies below and above the optical range INTO COLORS? 
> > 2) How do you manage the FACT that the bandwidth of the radiation is MUCH GREATER than the optical window? 
> > What ALGORITHM do you use to COMPRESS or EXPAND such bandwidth to fit into the optical range? 
> > 3) What are the RULES used to make the FAKE PHOTO to be aesthetically PRETTY, for the easy to deceive mind of laymen? 
> > 4) How come scientists involved in the MAKING OF FAKE PHOTOS feel about being DECENT, HONEST PEOPLE? 
> > 5) Besides their jobs and privileges, what else is at stake IF THEY DON'T DELIVER A COHERENT NARRATIVE within the community? 
> > 6) Why they don't give a try to Laplace's concepts of black holes? Just to COMPARE! 
> > 
> > 
> > Regarding your questions, I only have one simple answer: IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A DIRECT OBSERVATION AND RECORDING OF ANY 
> > PHYSICAL EVENT, then what you present as evidence IS QUESTIONABLE, because it can be manipulated at will to fit expectations. 
> >
> LOL, you continue to write funny and totally wrong nonsense..... 
> 
> Learn a bit (that is an impossible mission for you) in: 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_astronomy 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_astronomy 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_astronomy 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_astronomy


MULTI-SOURCE, MULTIWAVELENGTH, LONG EXPOSURE IMAGE OF M31 ANDROMEDA GALAXY

https://sci.esa.int/web/herschel/-/48182-multiwavelength-images-of-the-andromeda-galaxy-m31

QUOTE:
All three images, at far-infrared, optical and X-ray wavelengths, are COMBINED in a COLOR COMPOSITE (bottom left panel) showing the interplay of stars at all evolutionary stages and, thus, a unique view of the history of star formation within Andromeda: the current stars in the optical, in X-rays the stars that once were, and in the far-infrared the stars that will be.

**************************

It required, besides IR, optical and X-ray wavelength composition, HOURS OF EXPOSURE.

Now, this galaxy is very close to ours. Imagine the work behind images of galaxies 1,000 million ly far away.

And ASK YOURSELF this question: If I could be on the outer space, 350 Km far away from Earth, looking DIRECTLY through
the Hubble telescope (having 1 hour to spend there), COULD I SEE THIS IMAGE?

No? Then the image on the link IS FAKE, and I was deceived.

Do you understand this, asshole?

If you negate the above and persist claiming that DOCTORING SPACE IMAGES and spreading them to the public IS OK, then you
are a fucking cretin and a deceiver.

One thing is to use post-processed images for scientific purposes, to be used within the community.

Another VERY DIFFERENT THING is to use images processed for use by knowledgeable people ONLY, and use CNN, BBC and other
MSM channels to DECEIVE THE LAYMEN that are the gullible recipient of such information and DON'T UNDERSTAND how it was made.

It's a PR stunt, designed to deceive and create shock and awe on ordinary people's mind, WHICH INCLUDES YOURSELF 100%.

Capito, asshole?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585331

On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 1:06:04 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: 
> > El sábado, 14 de mayo de 2022 a las 14:45:24 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió: 
> > > On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 7:37:37 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > As I wrote before, liberal arts and CGI designers at Hollywood worked very hard to make the depictions of BH look PRETTY. 
> > > 
> > > Should I REPEAT that you CAN'T TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS of anything that radiates EM energy outside the visible window (440-750 nm)? 
> > > 
> > > Can it be possible, on this Earth, that some people INSIST that radio signals in the microwave region, 100,000 times below the 
> > > frequency range of visible light, STILL PRETEND to show a fucking MICROWAVE MAP as an OPTICAL PHOTO? 
> > > 
> > > I don't care if the target radiates in the MW region, the IR region or the UV-X rays region. The PLOT that's rendered by drawing data from 
> > > those regions, OUTSIDE the optical window, are just DIAGRAMS, NOT PHOTOS. 
> > > 
> > > If you want to present the data AS IF the info collected by radio-telescopes or X-rays telescopes AS VISUALS, then you are interfering with 
> > > NATURE, which defined what humans can see for hundred of thousand years. 
> > > 
> > > Now, if you want to TRANSPOSE data into the optical window, many challenges appear: 
> > > 
> > > 1) How to REMAP data from specific frequencies below and above the optical range INTO COLORS? 
> > > 2) How do you manage the FACT that the bandwidth of the radiation is MUCH GREATER than the optical window? 
> > > What ALGORITHM do you use to COMPRESS or EXPAND such bandwidth to fit into the optical range? 
> > > 3) What are the RULES used to make the FAKE PHOTO to be aesthetically PRETTY, for the easy to deceive mind of laymen? 
> > > 4) How come scientists involved in the MAKING OF FAKE PHOTOS feel about being DECENT, HONEST PEOPLE? 
> > > 5) Besides their jobs and privileges, what else is at stake IF THEY DON'T DELIVER A COHERENT NARRATIVE within the community? 
> > > 6) Why they don't give a try to Laplace's concepts of black holes? Just to COMPARE! 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Regarding your questions, I only have one simple answer: IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A DIRECT OBSERVATION AND RECORDING OF ANY 
> > > PHYSICAL EVENT, then what you present as evidence IS QUESTIONABLE, because it can be manipulated at will to fit expectations. 
> > > 
> > LOL, you continue to write funny and totally wrong nonsense..... 
> > 
> > Learn a bit (that is an impossible mission for you) in: 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_astronomy 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_astronomy 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_astronomy 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_astronomy
> MULTI-SOURCE, MULTIWAVELENGTH, LONG EXPOSURE IMAGE OF M31 ANDROMEDA GALAXY 
> 
> https://sci.esa.int/web/herschel/-/48182-multiwavelength-images-of-the-andromeda-galaxy-m31 
> 
> QUOTE: 
> All three images, at far-infrared, optical and X-ray wavelengths, are COMBINED in a COLOR COMPOSITE (bottom left panel) showing the interplay of stars at all evolutionary stages and, thus, a unique view of the history of star formation within Andromeda: the current stars in the optical, in X-rays the stars that once were, and in the far-infrared the stars that will be. 
> 
> ************************** 
> 
> It required, besides IR, optical and X-ray wavelength composition, HOURS OF EXPOSURE. 
> 
> Now, this galaxy is very close to ours. Imagine the work behind images of galaxies 1,000 million ly far away. 
> 
> And ASK YOURSELF this question: If I could be on the outer space, 350 Km far away from Earth, looking DIRECTLY through 
> the Hubble telescope (having 1 hour to spend there), COULD I SEE THIS IMAGE? 
> 
> No? Then the image on the link IS FAKE, and I was deceived. 
> 
> Do you understand this, asshole? 
> 
> If you negate the above and persist claiming that DOCTORING SPACE IMAGES and spreading them to the public IS OK, then you 
> are a fucking cretin and a deceiver. 
> 
> One thing is to use post-processed images for scientific purposes, to be used within the community. 
> 
> Another VERY DIFFERENT THING is to use images processed for use by knowledgeable people ONLY, and use CNN, BBC and other 
> MSM channels to DECEIVE THE LAYMEN that are the gullible recipient of such information and DON'T UNDERSTAND how it was made. 
> 
> It's a PR stunt, designed to deceive and create shock and awe on ordinary people's mind, WHICH INCLUDES YOURSELF 100%. 
> 
> Capito, asshole?

On the subject of star formation, there are no extant images of a star ever coming to life; either by means of the force of gravity or in any other way.   Gravitational star formation remains an unproven theory.  The Horse Head Nebula and the Pillars of Creation are now known to be expanding every part of their volumes, not contracting. Additionally, the gravitational theory of star formation has been convincingly falsified by the ideal gas law.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585332

El sábado, 14 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:06:04 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: 

> > LOL, you continue to write funny and totally wrong nonsense..... 
> > 
> > Learn a bit (that is an impossible mission for you) in: 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_astronomy 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_astronomy 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_astronomy 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_astronomy
> MULTI-SOURCE, MULTIWAVELENGTH, LONG EXPOSURE IMAGE OF M31 ANDROMEDA GALAXY 
> 
> https://sci.esa.int/web/herschel/-/48182-multiwavelength-images-of-the-andromeda-galaxy-m31 
> 
> QUOTE: 
> All three images, at far-infrared, optical and X-ray wavelengths, are COMBINED in a COLOR COMPOSITE (bottom left panel) showing the interplay of stars at all evolutionary stages and, thus, a unique view of the history of star formation within Andromeda: the current stars in the optical, in X-rays the stars that once were, and in the far-infrared the stars that will be. 
> 
> ************************** 
> 
> It required, besides IR, optical and X-ray wavelength composition, HOURS OF EXPOSURE. 
> 

So what? Everybody, with a little bit of knowledge of photography, knows that when the light sources (like planets) are dim, you need to enlarge your exposure time. More than 100 years ago, they used telescopes which exposed the film for a few hours to get  a proper photography.

> Now, this galaxy is very close to ours. Imagine the work behind images of galaxies 1,000 million ly far away. 
> 
> And ASK YOURSELF this question: If I could be on the outer space, 350 Km far away from Earth, looking DIRECTLY through 
> the Hubble telescope (having 1 hour to spend there), COULD I SEE THIS IMAGE? 
> 

Depends on the type of sensor the telescope is using. You appear to know nothing about telescopes.

> No? Then the image on the link IS FAKE, and I was deceived. 
> 

Indeed you are a complete ignorant in telescopes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585339

On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 6:24:48 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 14 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:06:04 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió: 

<snip>

> > And ASK YOURSELF this question: If I could be on the outer space, 350 Km far away from Earth, looking DIRECTLY through 
> > the Hubble telescope (having 1 hour to spend there), COULD I SEE THIS IMAGE? 
> >
> Depends on the type of sensor the telescope is using. You appear to know nothing about telescopes.
> > No? Then the image on the link IS FAKE, and I was deceived. 
> >
> Indeed you are a complete ignorant in telescopes.

Miguelito, we both hold an EE degree plus a couple of Master degrees, and we have about the same age.

I'm not going to enter into a silly contest "I know more than you" type. We both know the bases behind what I wrote
before. It comes with the EE degree. Plus, I've started with telescopes around 1967, when I invested 6 months MAKING
my own telescope with the help of the local amateur astronomy club. I polished the disk with my hands during 2 months,
and received help to integrate the optics that we imported from Japan. We were three kids that couldn't afford to buy a
10" telescope, which costed several thousand USD by then.

I used it for almost 8 years, until I bought a better one.

About what can be accepted about multisource, multiwavelength images is subjective, because it depends on the understanding
of each qualified individual to consider them legit or not.

I'm the one who don't approve such kind of imagery for public consumption, because they are misunderstood by laymen. So, I'm
strongly against its use by NASA, ESA or whichever just for PR. It forces them to make the images to look pretty and impressive.

I sustain that such PR, which pollutes MSM, documentaries, books, etc., is wrong. It confuses the minds of ordinary people.
I have no problem with using doctored images to highlight particular aspects of data rendered as pics, but for professional use only.

Now, you can decide to go the other way, and be OK with this kind of FAKE IMAGES being spread in the media. I think that it's wrong
and that it only is done to marvel the audience and to get support for more funds for the next projects, without questioning.

But it causes that a false concept of what celestial bodies are, what the universe is, etc. be built in the head of people. It's wrong, and
the easy availability of CGI tools to any amateur causes that more and more deceiving images and videos pollute YouTube and similar.

And if you don't grasp what I mean, just watch any YT video about this massive blackhole and READ THE COMMENTS. Just a few days
have passed, and you can obtain dozens of videos made by INFLUENCERS in pursuit of fame and money.

This is not how science has to be managed and divulged.


  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585355

El domingo, 15 de mayo de 2022 a las 1:10:33 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 6:24:48 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: 
> > El sábado, 14 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:06:04 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
> <snip>
> > > And ASK YOURSELF this question: If I could be on the outer space, 350 Km far away from Earth, looking DIRECTLY through 
> > > the Hubble telescope (having 1 hour to spend there), COULD I SEE THIS IMAGE? 
> > > 
> > Depends on the type of sensor the telescope is using. You appear to know nothing about telescopes. 
> > > No? Then the image on the link IS FAKE, and I was deceived. 
> > > 
> > Indeed you are a complete ignorant in telescopes.
> Miguelito, we both hold an EE degree plus a couple of Master degrees, and we have about the same age. 
> 

I have also a PhD in EE

> About what can be accepted about multisource, multiwavelength images is subjective, because it depends on the understanding 
> of each qualified individual to consider them legit or not. 
> 

I  was one of the responsible for starting our research group in Astro Engineering, which in 2009 (together with professors from the Astrophysics Institute) evolved into the Astro Engineering Center (https://www.aiuc.puc.cl/index_php/aiuc/). We are active in researching technologies to improve the job of  the big observatories in Chile.

> I'm the one who don't approve such kind of imagery for public consumption, because they are misunderstood by laymen. So, I'm 
> strongly against its use by NASA, ESA or whichever just for PR. It forces them to make the images to look pretty and impressive. 
> 
> I sustain that such PR, which pollutes MSM, documentaries, books, etc., is wrong. It confuses the minds of ordinary people. 
> I have no problem with using doctored images to highlight particular aspects of data rendered as pics, but for professional use only. 
> 
> Now, you can decide to go the other way, and be OK with this kind of FAKE IMAGES being spread in the media. I think that it's wrong 
> and that it only is done to marvel the audience and to get support for more funds for the next projects, without questioning. 
> 
> But it causes that a false concept of what celestial bodies are, what the universe is, etc. be built in the head of people. It's wrong, and 
> the easy availability of CGI tools to any amateur causes that more and more deceiving images and videos pollute YouTube and similar. 
> 
> And if you don't grasp what I mean, just watch any YT video about this massive blackhole and READ THE COMMENTS. Just a few days 
> have passed, and you can obtain dozens of videos made by INFLUENCERS in pursuit of fame and money. 
> 
> This is not how science has to be managed and divulged.

You do not know how science is divulged. First a study is performed, then a report is submitted to a journal and last some of the findings may appear in the press. 
For instance, the black hole at the center of our Galaxy has been studied for over 30 years. On October 16, 2002, an international team led by Reinhard Genzel at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics reported the observation of the motion of the star S2 near Sagittarius A* throughout a period of ten years. This was done using observatories in Chile. According to the team's analysis, the data ruled out the possibility that Sgr A* contains a cluster of dark stellar objects or a mass of degenerate fermions, strengthening the evidence for a massive black hole. The observations of S2 used near-infrared (NIR) interferometry (in the Ks-band, i.e. 2.1 μm) because of reduced interstellar extinction in this band. SiO masers were used to align NIR images with radio observations, as they can be observed in both NIR and radio bands. The rapid motion of S2 (and other nearby stars) easily stood out against slower-moving stars along the line-of-sight so these could be subtracted from the images.

Schödel, R.; et al. (2002-10-17). "A star in a 15.2-year orbit around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way". Nature. 419 (6908): 694–696. arXiv:astro-ph/0210426. Bibcode:2002Natur.419..694S. doi:10.1038/nature01121. PMID 12384690. S2CID 4302128.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web