Author Topic: Sagittarius A*  (Read 8644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2022, 10:06:11 pm »
No, that is "Rorschach".  I also know what "wank" means.
I'm not surprised to see a forged image on YouTube.
See section 5 of the paper I cited which discusses the reconstructed images.
By the way, you seem to agree with Einstein, who in 1939 also found black hole solutions to his GR equations disturbing, dare I say "icky"?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1968902?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I don’t understand Einstein's paper. And i don’t understand section 5 of that M87 image paper.
What i do understand is that my aether theory says that blackholes are impossible.
Its like this. An object cannot achieve a speed of  c/1 through the aether.
Hence, aether cannot achieve a speed of c/1 when the aether flows into an object (eg the surface of a star)(or supermassive body).
If light propagates at c/1 through the aether, & if the aether flows into a body at less than  c/1, then light can escape, albeit slowly.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c96/pdf
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reluctant-father-of-black-holes-2007-04/
http://old.phys.huji.ac.il/~barak_kol/Courses/Black-holes/reading-papers/Einstein1939.pdf

http://www.ptep-online.com/2011/PP-24-15.PDF
Five Fallacies Used to Link Black Holes to Einstein’s Relativistic Space-Time
Douglas L. Weller
E-mail: physics@dougweller.com
For a particle falling radially toward a compact mass, the Schwarzschild metric maps
local time to coordinate time based on radial locations reached by the particle. The
mapping shows the particle will not cross a critical radius regardless of the coordinate
used to measure time. Herein are discussed five fallacies that have been used to make it
appear the particle can cross the critical radius.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2022, 10:28:38 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline thinkfat

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2161
  • Country: de
  • This is just a hobby I spend too much time on.
    • Matthias' Hackerstübchen
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2022, 10:08:42 pm »
There's a nice Veritasium video about the image and how the data to create it was generated. Might be easier to swallow than the actual physics paper.
Everybody likes gadgets. Until they try to make them.
 

Offline TimFoxTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #27 on: May 13, 2022, 10:10:34 pm »
To Aetherist:  Your theory states that black holes are impossible.
A very large-scale experiment shows that Sag A* has all the features expected of a "supermassive" black hole.
Perhaps your aetherial theory does not agree with experiment in gravitational systems.
(I was referring to sections 3 and 5 of the Sag A* paper, but there is similar material in the earlier M87* paper.)
« Last Edit: May 13, 2022, 10:12:30 pm by TimFox »
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #28 on: May 13, 2022, 10:24:00 pm »
To Aetherist:  Your theory states that black holes are impossible.
A very large-scale experiment shows that Sag A* has all the features expected of a "supermassive" black hole.
Perhaps your aetherial theory does not agree with experiment in gravitational systems.
(I was referring to sections 3 and 5 of the Sag A* paper, but there is similar material in the earlier M87* paper.)
I am ok with supermassive bodies.
These do not have to be very massive to semi-trap light.
I agree with Einstein that light slows near mass. Hence the escape velocity of a body duznt need to be  c/1 if light is to be trapped, the escape velocity needs to be  c'/1, where  c' is slower than c. Hence as i said bodies do not have to be very massive to semi-trap light.

Previously i said that the aether inflow to a body can't attain  c/1, i should have said  c'/1.
Hence even tho the speed of light is slowed near the body, the speed of aether  inflow is also slowed, hence i can still say that a blackhole is impossible.
 

Offline TimFoxTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #29 on: May 13, 2022, 10:28:27 pm »
Or, as Galileo might have said, "yet, they exist".
(Yes, I know that the original quotation is apocryphal.)

Of course, this is how theories are tested in real physics.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2022, 10:30:13 pm by TimFox »
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #30 on: May 13, 2022, 10:37:23 pm »
Or, as Galileo might have said, "yet, they exist".
(Yes, I know that the original quotation is apocryphal.)

Of course, this is how theories are tested in real physics.

John Michell predicted large dark stars (& possibly large dark bodies) in 1783.  Pierre-Simon Laplace predicted large invisible stars (& large invisible bodies)in 1793.  Both used Newtonian gravity to calculate the escape velocity, which needs to be greater than the speed of light.   They used simple ballistics, they didnt need relativity nor any singularity nor super-dense matter.
  https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/9892/
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/9892/1/Microsoft_Word_-_Paper__Black_Hole_Concept_Final_.pdf
Michell said that the Sun would be a dark star if 497 times larger (ie 122,763,473 solar masses). 
Using modern numbers this 497 becomes 485.3.
And we would have a dark star if the same size as Earth & 2156 solar masses. 
This 2156 reduces to 1079 solar masses if  we use Einstein's idea that light slows near mass (c reduces to c'). 
Here we insert the escape velocity into the equation for gamma to get the kmps of the slowed light near such a Michellian dark star. 
This 1079 reduces to 780 solar masses if we assume that the dark star has an atmosphere with n=1.33 (ie like water), ie slowing the escaping light in that proportion (c' reduces to c").
Michellian Dark Stars surely exist, & they are a kind of blackhole. 
I wonder whether the events horizon team can tell the difference tween their singularity kind of impossible blackhole & a  Michellian Dark Star (& Laplacian invisible bodies)?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2022, 10:47:46 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2022, 11:56:38 pm »
The image is the work of many instruments scattered around the globe and the way in which they are combined is amazing.  The amount of data and the amount of data processing is at another level.
Why am I not surprised aetherist is a "Sky Scholar" fanboy. Brian 
Yesirreee – at another level.
Look at  7:00 on the youtube. 
Their blackhole image is  7416 by 4320 pixels, ie 31,037,120 pixels.
Which is  0.2 micro arcsec per pixel. [according to Robitaille].
They have used data processing to improve their telescope resolutions by a factor of  1250 or more. [according to Robitaille]
That means that their telescopes would provide  20.5 pixels each which is processed to give over 31 million pixels. [according to me]
If this technique were used for hospital MRIs then the MRIs would be able to see down to less than a single human cell. [according to me]

   
Sky Scholar     38K subscribers      Comments    814   
The Black Hole Image - Data Fabrication Masterclass!    25,405 views  Jan 7, 2020  The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results.
Link to Professor Robitaille’s papers on Vixra:  http://vixra.org/author/pierre-marie_...
« Last Edit: May 14, 2022, 09:23:51 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #32 on: May 14, 2022, 12:09:33 am »
In any case, thanks for not posting a link to a YT video. Ain't nobody got time to watch YT all day!
Here are some more links to Pierre Marie Robitaille youtubes.
Sky Scholar: Lectures, Interviews, and Podcasts by Pierre-marie Robitaille

 

Offline dietert1

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2473
  • Country: br
    • CADT Homepage
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2022, 12:19:22 am »
The massive object has an event horizon. The physics inside the event horizon is unknown and it will remain unknown. Everybody can use their own fantasy. For a scientist a singularity is enough of a model.
Of course the new images don't show the black hole but its cosmic ambient outside of its event horizon. As far as i understand gravitational red shift makes hard x-ray radiation observable as mm waves here on earth.

Regards, Dieter
 

Offline jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4002
  • Country: us
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #34 on: May 14, 2022, 12:23:49 am »
If this technique were used for hospital MRIs then the MRIs would be able to see down to less than a single human cell.
MRI's have gotten a lot better over time.  Today, they can resolve objects that are 100 um across.(https://kottke.org/19/07/the-highest-resolution-mri-scan-of-a-human-brain#:~:text=A%20team%20of%20researchers%20at,small%20as%200.1%20millimeters%20across.)

RBC's are about 8 um.  WBC's are larger.  Megakaryocytes and many tissue cells approach that size.
 

Offline TimFoxTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2022, 01:16:52 am »
Aetherist:  I think you still don’t understand the difference between pixels and resolution.
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2022, 01:48:57 am »
If this technique were used for hospital MRIs then the MRIs would be able to see down to less than a single human cell.
MRI's have gotten a lot better over time.  Today, they can resolve objects that are 100 um across.(https://kottke.org/19/07/the-highest-resolution-mri-scan-of-a-human-brain#:~:text=A%20team%20of%20researchers%20at,small%20as%200.1%20millimeters%20across.)

RBC's are about 8 um.  WBC's are larger.  Megakaryocytes and many tissue cells approach that size.
Robitaille was the pioneer.

http://www.ptep-online.com/2011/PP-26-L1.PDF
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #37 on: May 14, 2022, 01:51:43 am »
Aetherist:  I think you still don’t understand the difference between pixels and resolution.
I suppose that pixels cant remedy a lack of resolution, but pixels can make resolution look worse.
 

Offline TimFoxTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #38 on: May 14, 2022, 01:57:06 am »
Aetherist:  I think you still don’t understand the difference between pixels and resolution.
I suppose that pixels cant remedy a lack of resolution, but pixels can make resolution look worse.
When I had to demonstrate the spatial  resolution of my company’s imaging systems to our customers, I always displayed finer pixel spacing then the physical resolution.  Otherwise, you couldn’t see it.  This is elementary.
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2022, 03:09:32 am »
Aetherist:  I think you still don’t understand the difference between pixels and resolution.
I suppose that pixels cant remedy a lack of resolution, but pixels can make resolution look worse.
When I had to demonstrate the spatial  resolution of my company’s imaging systems to our customers, I always displayed finer pixel spacing then the physical resolution.  Otherwise, you couldn’t see it.  This is elementary.
Yes, naturally.
But, u didn’t fake the image & its resolution.
 

Offline TimFoxTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2022, 03:16:23 am »
Aetherist:  I think you still don’t understand the difference between pixels and resolution.
I suppose that pixels cant remedy a lack of resolution, but pixels can make resolution look worse.
When I had to demonstrate the spatial  resolution of my company’s imaging systems to our customers, I always displayed finer pixel spacing then the physical resolution.  Otherwise, you couldn’t see it.  This is elementary.
Yes, naturally.
But, u didn’t fake the image & its resolution.
Of course not.  Nor did they.  The relatively low resolution in the 2D images is obvious.  If you look at the paper, there are more quantitative displays of the reconstructed data.  Please be more careful about accusing scientists of fraud.
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2022, 04:46:51 am »
Aetherist:  I think you still don’t understand the difference between pixels and resolution.
I suppose that pixels cant remedy a lack of resolution, but pixels can make resolution look worse.
When I had to demonstrate the spatial  resolution of my company’s imaging systems to our customers, I always displayed finer pixel spacing then the physical resolution.  Otherwise, you couldn’t see it.  This is elementary.
Yes, naturally.
But, u didn’t fake the image & its resolution.
Of course not.  Nor did they.  The relatively low resolution in the 2D images is obvious.  If you look at the paper, there are more quantitative displays of the reconstructed data.  Please be more careful about accusing scientists of fraud.
According to Pierre Marie Robitaille they claim that a team of dishes can see 1250 times as well as an individual dish, hence an 80 mm doughnut on the moon would have the same resolution as a 100 m doughnut.
Here i was making a comparison in the context of their cosmic measurement – taking an individual dish microwave image of a doughnut on the speedy moon & taking a team image would i suppose present additional difficulties.

Another way of looking at it,  0.2 micro-arcsec at  384,400,000,000 mm (the ave dist to the moon) is  0.373 mm.
80 mm (the size of the doughnut) divided by 0.373 mm is 214.
214 times 214 is 46,000 pixels of resolution.
32,000,000 pixels (the pixels in their blackhole image) divided by 46,000 is 700.
Hence the resolution of their blackhole image is  700 times the resolution of their array.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2022, 05:50:30 am by aetherist »
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2022, 10:08:45 am »
Quote
214 times 214 is 46,000 pixels of resolution.
32,000,000 pixels (the pixels in their blackhole image) divided by 46,000 is 700.
Hence the resolution of their blackhole image is  700 times the resolution of their array.

I think you are conflating capture resolution with display resolution.

Quote
According to Pierre Marie Robitaille

Maybe you should treat what he says more critically.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2022, 02:58:26 pm by dunkemhigh »
 
The following users thanked this post: daqq, Jacon

Offline TimFoxTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2022, 02:38:52 pm »
"A gentle introduction to interferometry", in cartoons:
https://www.eso.org/sci/meetings/2015/eris2015/L1_Jackson_Interferometry.pdf
 

Online Alex Eisenhut

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3550
  • Country: ca
  • Place text here.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2022, 03:35:55 pm »
Um, isn't c/1 ... c?
Hoarder of 8-bit Commodore relics and 1960s Tektronix 500-series stuff. Unconventional interior decorator.
 

Offline dietert1

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2473
  • Country: br
    • CADT Homepage
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #45 on: May 14, 2022, 04:43:54 pm »
They explain in all detail how they arrived at three plausible images and they chose the threefold one as an interpretation of the measurements. There is no error that anyone here could possibly discover.
One question that occured to me: If the accretion disk is visible as a ring from earth, it seems to be near orthogonal to the plane of our galaxis. Strange, maybe i have to read the paper.

Regards, Dieter
 

Offline jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4002
  • Country: us
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #46 on: May 14, 2022, 05:23:48 pm »
Unless it's spherical and one is simply seeing a cross section.
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15797
  • Country: fr
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #47 on: May 14, 2022, 05:37:26 pm »
Veritasium may address that here: https://youtu.be/Q1bSDnuIPbo?t=989
 
The following users thanked this post: dietert1

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #48 on: May 14, 2022, 05:37:36 pm »
Quote
If the accretion disk is visible as a ring from earth, it seems to be near orthogonal to the plane of our galaxis

The initial video from Veritasium explains that the accretion disk would appear to be orthogonal regardless of it's actual attitude (jump to around 19:45).
 
The following users thanked this post: dietert1

Offline TimFoxTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #49 on: May 14, 2022, 05:41:30 pm »
Here is a muckraking discussion of Dr Robitaille's "pseudoscientific" ideas apart from his training as a radiologist and inventor in the development of MRI, especially ultra-high magnetic field systems:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille
I post this only to allow others to decide about his reliability on black-hole imaging.
Note that Dr Robitaille's discussion of "Kirchhoff's Law" is not about the "KVL" in circuit theory, but a totally different law about black-body radiation (not to be confused with black-hole radiation).
 
The following users thanked this post: MrAureliusR


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf