First real picture of black hole revealed

[Did You See Them]

Image of supermassive black hole at centre of Milky Way

https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/EQ8ik2cs7vYpd0SlGSqLVw/https/d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/tAB5f3ZdRnikHiK9rFtZ_black%20hole.jpg

More: https://news.sky.com/story/live-first-real-picture-of-black-hole-to-be-revealed-11689502

[Star Tsar]

Here is a stream of press conference revealing the news...


Deep Astronomy

Space Fan News | Event Horizon Telescope First Results

Streamed & Published 10th April 2019

Tony shares the first results from the worldwide collaboration of telescopes known as the Event Horizon Telescope will be live streamed here.

dlKLLiazGbI

[CurEus]

But is it really a black hole?....Electric Universe theory does not allow for a "black hole".......
Am waiting for them to weigh i so all perspectives are on the table for consideration

"Black holes cannot be directly seen, but astrophysicists continue to maintain that they exist because of their putative effects. They assume that matter can accelerate and compress until it is “spaghettified”, or stretched, whereupon it is torn apart and reconfigured by intense gravity fields.

Almost all (more than 95%) of galaxies are thought by astronomers to be home to one or more black holes. Since matter spins around a black hole at extreme velocities, consensus opinions state that it heats up from friction, generating X-rays and ultraviolet light. It is those emissions that are interpreted as indirect evidence for black holes.
Previous Pictures of the Day take issue with that model. The terminology, itself, is highly speculative and ambiguous. To say that X-rays and ultraviolet light are created in gravity fields is to betray an ignorance. Experiments in the laboratory create those energies by accelerating charged particles in an electric field.
Con't in article

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2019/02/06/do-black-holes-matter/





(http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-madness-of-black-holes/)

[DaveToo]

How difficult would it be to 'photoshop' such an image?

[KiwiElf]

How difficult would it be to 'photoshop' such an image?

Not too difficult, would take a fair few hours tho! (It's how they do it in TV/movies) ;)

[DaveToo]

How difficult would it be to 'photoshop' such an image?

Not too difficult, would take a fair few hours tho! (It's how they do it in TV/movies) ;)


Thanks. I ask, given some of the sponsors of this photo; NASA and the National Science Foundation and what they stand to gain from such a discovery of something that is 50 million light-years from Earth.

[Cardillac]

just today on Germain mainstream media (radio) was this announced-

I just think this must be ancient news; for how long has this info been known?

Larry

[DaveToo]

just today on Germain mainstream media (radio) was this announced-

I just think this must be ancient news; for how long has this info been known?

Larry

The info about black holes is ancient.
The photo of one is supposed to be new.


Dates I will never forget in my life:

- July 20, 1969 First manned mission to land on the moon (brought to you by NASA).
- April 10, 2019 First photo of black hole released to the public (brought to you by NASA).

[Hughe]

Mainstream astronomers have been scam artists for a century!

[Did You See Them]

I was ( still am ) a member of an Astronomy forum back in 2008 when I had a sighting.
I thought ( as you would ) that other forum members there would want to discuss - and at that time I was very open to it being a natural unknown phenomenon although I had difficulties really believing that.
The abuse they levelled at me for even daring to suggest anything related to ufo's, aliens etc was staggering.
I learned a lesson that day about so called "intelligent discussion" with blinkered academics !

[DaveToo]

This young woman (Katie Bouman) enthusiastically explains how pictures of black holes are constructed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7n2rYt9wfU

You can see their 2016 black hole image at 12:22.

It's funny how more than two years ago they were able to construct a picture of a black hole that looks eerily similar to the "First real picture of a black hole" released yesterday.

Compare the image at 12:22 with the one released yesterday:

https://twitter.com/ehtelescope/status/1115964692802019328/photo/1

[pluton]

Mainstream astronomers have been scam artists for a century!

Do you imply that the pic of the black hole is a scam and that black holes in reality don't exist, or they do, but there is no way to capture an image of them?

[Hervé]

...


... better than Photoshop: AutoCAD... computer generated graphics modelling their most recent theoretical equations of what a black hole should be/look like....


From Jim Stone:

Black hole pictured: Non-story (http://82.221.129.208/.wn7.html)

No black hole was pictured. The image going around the web and even made part of the Google doodle was not an optical telescopic photo of a black hole, it was instead the result of a math equation applied to data. This type of stuff has been done for years. Non story as far as I see it. When they actually photograph a black hole for real, I'll take notice.

[pluton]

The evidence could no longer be denied.


Good morning, Heavenly Father. Here's your breakfast...

Where's my donut?

Oh, right here.

40436

[DaveToo]

...

... better than Photoshop: AutoCAD... computer generated graphics modelling their most recent theoretical equations of what a black hole should be/look like....



I'm all ears and eyes for this story Herve.

As I posted above, Katie Bouman explained how pictures of black holes are constructed, much to my surprise.

The problem, according to Ms. Bouman, is that the 'black holes' are so far away from Earth (50 million light years) that it would need a telescope the size of the Earth to see them.

So the clever scientists have devised a way to circumvent building a telescope of that size.
The details are explained in the above cited video.

One of the problems I have with the technique is that the long-awaited photo of the black hole looks indistinguishable from the image they released more than two years ago.
What a coincidence. :)

[Valerie Villars]

How difficult would it be to 'photoshop' such an image?

Not too difficult, would take a fair few hours tho! (It's how they do it in TV/movies) ;)


Thanks. I ask, given some of the sponsors of this photo; NASA and the National Science Foundation and what they stand to gain from such a discovery of something that is 50 million light-years from Earth.

They gain their salary and their pensions and accolades from other scientists who do the same. Quite a cushy life for some.

[Ernie Nemeth]

This is just hype. The picture, as Herve, of course, already mentioned, is a composite amalgamation of assumed missing data. Just like the brain fills in the gaps in the human retinal image, where arteries and veins obscure the rods and cones with which we see...

And a black hole is just that - black. If there even is such an object.

[Baby Steps]

We see the doughnut of hot plasma or other very energized material orbiting...what?

It must be massive, and exert a huge gravitational pull. OK.

But also remember what observation over many years shows. The further out you look - backwards into the past - the smaller the galaxies are. They start, at the outer limits of our observation, as the super bright quasar objects, and as they age they GROW. The biggest ones are those closest to us.

Galaxies grow. The objects in the middle, are , on a net basis, not consuming them, rather more likely building them.




New Scientist:

If you think black holes are strange, white holes will blow your mind. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032080-100-if-you-think-black-holes-are-strange-white-holes-will-blow-your-mind/)



NEVER trust the textbooks, even the ones written by great scientists. In his celebrated 1972 tome Gravitation and Cosmology, Nobel prizewinning physicist Steven Weinberg called the existence of black holes “very hypothetical”, writing that “there is no [black hole] in the gravitational field of any known object of the universe”. He was dead wrong. Radio astronomers had already been detecting signals from matter falling into black holes for decades without realising. Today we have lots of evidence that the sky is teeming with them.

The story may now be repeating itself with white holes, which are essentially black holes in reverse. In another renowned textbook, the world-leading relativity theorist Bob Wald wrote that “there is no reason to believe that any region of the universe corresponds to” a white hole – and this is still the dominant opinion today. But several research groups around the world, including my group in Marseille, have recently begun to investigate the possibility that quantum mechanics could open a channel for these white holes to form. The sky might be teeming with white holes, too.

The reason to suspect white holes exist is that they could solve an open mystery: what goes on at the centre of a black hole. We see great amounts of matter spiralling around black holes and then falling in. All this falling matter crosses the surface of the hole, the “horizon” or point of no return, plummets towards the centre, and then? Nobody knows.

[DeDukshyn]

How difficult would it be to 'photoshop' such an image?

Not too difficult, would take a fair few hours tho! (It's how they do it in TV/movies) ;)


Thanks. I ask, given some of the sponsors of this photo; NASA and the National Science Foundation and what they stand to gain from such a discovery of something that is 50 million light-years from Earth.

This imaged involved all the major telescopes on earth and their crews to make - it wasn't a "NASA" project - NASA is publishing the image. That image could be made easily with a photo editor. Getting all the major observatories in the world together to "fake" such an event would be next to impossible to pull off.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


But is it really a black hole?....Electric Universe theory does not allow for a "black hole".......


The phenomenon has been labelled as a "black hole" so that is what it is called. What they really are and how they really work is still 99% a mystery. Scientists generally have a fair bit of pride and arrogance and pretend they know more know than they do.

So the way I see it, the Electric Universe theory still fits with the phenomenon we have labelled "black holes".

[pluton]

From Jim Stone:

Black hole pictured: Non-story (http://82.221.129.208/.wn7.html)

No black hole was pictured. The image going around the web and even made part of the Google doodle was not an optical telescopic photo of a black hole, it was instead the result of a math equation applied to data. This type of stuff has been done for years. Non story as far as I see it. When they actually photograph a black hole for real, I'll take notice.


No math equation was in reality involved, just an algorithm necessary to put together the enormous amount of acquired data. There are various comparisons indicating that taking a pic of the M87 black hole is virtually impossible.

Doeleman calls the feat the “equivalent of being able to read the date on a quarter in LA when we’re standing here in Washington, D.C.”

In order to take a meaningful snapshot of that black hole, astronomers would have to use a telescope about 10,000 km in diameter, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can use different telescopes positioned around the globe. The drawback is that you need to develop a very clever method how to put the image together.

[Hughe]

The very definition of Black Holes can not allow it to be created in physical universe. Educated fools or delusional scientists believe in Black Holes. Infinite density or zero volume is nonsense. Suppose Black Hole does exist, scientists would have created mini Black Holes in the labs around world. They can not create the condition of infinite density using physical matter that supposedly produce infinite gravity.

When a theory ignores fundamental laws of physics to construct a imaginary state, it becomes pseudoscience. Gravitational collapse of a star violates law of energy conservation and thermodynamics. According to Big Bang theory, our universe is a close system with initial amount of energy is fixed. To create an infinite density, it requires infinite amount of energy.

:frusty:

[DeDukshyn]

The very definition of Black Holes can not allow it to be created in physical universe. Educated fools or delusional scientists believe in Black Holes. Infinite density or zero volume is nonsense. Suppose Black Hole does exist, scientists would have created mini Black Holes in the labs around world. They can not create the condition of infinite density using physical matter that supposedly produce infinite gravity.

When a theory ignores fundamental laws of physics to construct a imaginary state, it becomes pseudoscience. Gravitational collapse of a star violates law of energy conservation and thermodynamics. According to Big Bang theory, our universe is a close system with initial amount of energy is fixed. To create an infinite density, it requires infinite amount of energy.

:frusty:



How about this? Now can they exist? :) Often, it is the understanding that is not correct, and when (if) that is determined, new possibilities of understanding how something works or what it is, emerge.


A quantum gravity theory suggests that the cores of black holes may be a region of highly curved spacetime, rather than a singularity point with zero volume and infinite density.
https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.211301

[DaveToo]

How about this? Now can they exist? :)


A quantum gravity theory suggests that the cores of black holes may be a region of highly curved spacetime, rather than a singularity point with zero volume and infinite density.
https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.211301

Forget all the theory.
You can argue either side of the argument until you are blue in the face.

We now have a photo that proves there are black holes! :)

[DeDukshyn]

How about this? Now can they exist? :)


A quantum gravity theory suggests that the cores of black holes may be a region of highly curved spacetime, rather than a singularity point with zero volume and infinite density.
https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.211301

Forget all the theory.
You can argue either side of the argument until you are blue in the face.

We now have a photo that proves there are black holes! :)

What we have is an "Image" created by all the most powerful telescopes on Earth pointed at something at the center of our galaxy. That's what they did, and that's the image that resulted.

The label for this phenomenon is "black hole". If we called it something different, would it be more acceptable? Consider that scientists are even calling this thing a "black hole" only because it shares maybe a very few of perhaps a plethora of qualities that other observed objects in the galaxy have, that we have also called "black holes" that scientists claim are collapsed giant stars so this "label" has transferred to apply to that object as well.

Is this unreasonable or are we only supposed to think and assume in others and speculate in "absolutes"? I guess to do so, enables the ability to call almost everyone out in smugness for not knowing or understanding everything 100%, if that's your thing.

It's far more likely that scientists understanding of what they claim to understand is grossly exaggerated, than a giant conspiracy amongst all the scientists to "trick" you into believing "black holes" (whatever that phenomenon is) exist when they don't. What's the motivation? Whats the benefit of that lie? Hide a flat earth maybe?

[DaveToo]

What we have is an "Image" created by all the most powerful telescopes on Earth pointed at something at the center of our galaxy. That's what they did, and that's the image that resulted.

The label for this phenomenon is "black hole". If we called it something different, would it be more acceptable? Consider that scientists are even calling this thing a "black hole" only because it shares maybe a very few of perhaps a plethora of qualities that other observed objects in the galaxy have, that we have also called "black holes" that scientists claim are collapsed giant stars so this "label" has transferred to apply to that object as well.

Is this unreasonable or are we only supposed to think and assume in others and speculate in "absolutes"? I guess to do so, enables the ability to call almost everyone out in smugness for not knowing or understanding everything 100%, if that's your thing.

It's far more likely that scientists understanding of what they claim to understand is grossly exaggerated, than a giant conspiracy amongst all the scientists to "trick" you into believing "black holes" (whatever that phenomenon is) exist when they don't. What's the motivation? Whats the benefit of that lie? Hide a flat earth maybe?


I hear ya loud and clear and get your point. I also have a science background.
But why didn't they release the photo of the black hole two years ago?
The photo they had then looks exactly like the photo they released yesterday.

I could understand it if they were trying to refine the image, get a clearer sharper image.
But it's the same colors, same fuzziness...

[DeDukshyn]

What we have is an "Image" created by all the most powerful telescopes on Earth pointed at something at the center of our galaxy. That's what they did, and that's the image that resulted.

The label for this phenomenon is "black hole". If we called it something different, would it be more acceptable? Consider that scientists are even calling this thing a "black hole" only because it shares maybe a very few of perhaps a plethora of qualities that other observed objects in the galaxy have, that we have also called "black holes" that scientists claim are collapsed giant stars so this "label" has transferred to apply to that object as well.

Is this unreasonable or are we only supposed to think and assume in others and speculate in "absolutes"? I guess to do so, enables the ability to call almost everyone out in smugness for not knowing or understanding everything 100%, if that's your thing.

It's far more likely that scientists understanding of what they claim to understand is grossly exaggerated, than a giant conspiracy amongst all the scientists to "trick" you into believing "black holes" (whatever that phenomenon is) exist when they don't. What's the motivation? Whats the benefit of that lie? Hide a flat earth maybe?


I hear ya loud and clear and get your point. I also have a science background.
But why didn't they release the photo of the black hole two years ago?
The photo they had then looks exactly like the photo they released yesterday.

I could understand it if they were trying to refine the image, get a clearer sharper image.
But it's the same colors, same fuzziness...


They were trying to refine the image. They collected data over several years. The did release some early images, but wanted to wait more time and collect more data to try to refine the image. But its probably like rendering a 3D image with a biased path tracing renderer - 90% of the image become clear in the first few minutes of rendering - while several hours of further rendering only fills in that final 10%, but if you want that 10%, you have no choice but to wait for those hours while the simulation slowly collects the fringe "energy" (simulated photons in a 3D renderer's case) and adds the details to the image.

It doesn't look a whole lot more interesting than the originals, but that could easily be just because gathering energy for an image like this will most certainly follow a similar pattern to what I explained in 3D rendering, or the image just didn't refine as much as they thought it would.

Its not a stretch to consider this.

Here's an article from 2018 with some explanations as to why they wanted to capture more data over time and the original images they gathered: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/this-is-why-the-event-horizon-telescope-still-doesnt-have-an-image-of-a-black-hole-192ea94f97b7

EDIT: Sorry, on further reading the "original" images that were distributed were mostly simulated using a small amount of of prelim data - the black and white images on the page I linked to above are these "simulated" images (meaning the took some prelim data, ran it through a simulator that would re-iterate the existing data within allowable perturbations and over time the rest of the image was built.

The new image looks very close to the original simulated ones, but supposedly, they now have had enough time to capture enough data and th eimage they presented is not a simulated one, but one based on actual collected data.

That should clear things up for you. :)

Six images were simulated as to what the image might look like after all the data had been gathered ....

Some of the possible profile signals of the black hole’s event horizon as simulations of the Event Horizon Telescope indicate.

Here's the six simulated images that were meant to predict what it might look like:
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*Z3sNYTMJfMB4I-pz.jpg

Well it looks like the image embedder is broken ... the image is at the link I posted above anyway near the bottom of the article.

[Hughe]

Crothers, S.J., Black Hole Escape Velocity, Sky Scholar, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZbDLd42Uws

Robitaille, P.-M., Gravitational Thermodynamics - Is it Science?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ2F2Kw5-nQ

[Star Tsar]

Mr Steve Mera theorizes...


Higher Journeys With Alexis Brooks

BLACK HOLE M87 - What You DIDN'T Know (UNTIL NOW!!)

Published 12th April 2019

The first ever image of Black Hole Messier 87 or M87 has just been released to the public.

But what about this gigantic anomaly (billions of times larger than our sun) don't we know that may hold the key to the idea of portals or missing people on this planet?

We explore this and more with paranormal investigator Steve Mera in this special edition of Conscious Commentary!

-bwR5_73Kg4

[pluton]

The cosmologists would have to go through all the data returned by the UFO displays, which were dedicated to the subject of black holes, to learn that black holes don't explode like supernovae, because they leak dark energy. The evidence that they do is not available, because the constituents of dark energy are unknown to us.

Btw, there are super-giant UFO's out there that conceal their presence by the way of misidentification. Here is an example (https://www.3dartistonline.com/users/7554/thm1024/1369075447_done.png).


Scientists Have Captured the First Ever Image of a Black Hole

40440