General > General Technical Chat
Sagittarius A*
<< < (9/20) > >>
TimFox:

--- Quote from: aetherist on May 14, 2022, 03:09:32 am ---
--- Quote from: TimFox on May 14, 2022, 01:57:06 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on May 14, 2022, 01:51:43 am ---
--- Quote from: TimFox on May 14, 2022, 01:16:52 am ---Aetherist:  I think you still don’t understand the difference between pixels and resolution.
--- End quote ---
I suppose that pixels cant remedy a lack of resolution, but pixels can make resolution look worse.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Yes, naturally.
But, u didn’t fake the image & its resolution.

--- End quote ---
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.
aetherist:

--- Quote from: TimFox on May 14, 2022, 03:16:23 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on May 14, 2022, 03:09:32 am ---
--- Quote from: TimFox on May 14, 2022, 01:57:06 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on May 14, 2022, 01:51:43 am ---
--- Quote from: TimFox on May 14, 2022, 01:16:52 am ---Aetherist:  I think you still don’t understand the difference between pixels and resolution.
--- End quote ---
I suppose that pixels cant remedy a lack of resolution, but pixels can make resolution look worse.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Yes, naturally.
But, u didn’t fake the image & its resolution.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
PlainName:

--- 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.
--- End quote ---

I think you are conflating capture resolution with display resolution.


--- Quote ---According to Pierre Marie Robitaille
--- End quote ---

Maybe you should treat what he says more critically.
TimFox:
"A gentle introduction to interferometry", in cartoons:
https://www.eso.org/sci/meetings/2015/eris2015/L1_Jackson_Interferometry.pdf
Alex Eisenhut:
Um, isn't c/1 ... c?
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod