| General > General Technical Chat |
| Sagittarius A* |
| << < (12/20) > >> |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on May 14, 2022, 09:34:51 pm --- --- Quote ---Have u seen/heard what Robitaille says? --- End quote --- Precis the relevant part. I'm not going to sit through 3 hours of random videos trying to figure out which bit you think will make your point. If you understand it you can say it yourself. --- End quote --- This Robitaille youtube might be the best of his i think 4. It is only 10 minutes 27 seconds long. I mention it in my reply#31. The bits at 7:00 & at 7:59 are gooder. Sky Scholar 38K subscribers Comments 814 length is 10:27. 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: Pierre Marie Robitaille's…. https://vixra.org/author/pierre-marie_robitaille In my reply#4 i mention another of his anti-blackhole youtubes which is 13:28 long. Plus in #4 i mention some of his other youtubes that relate to blackholes – the durations are 11:49 & 6:41 & 14:42 & 7:59. Plus in #4 i mention 2 youtubes by Stephen Crothers that relate to the silliness of Einsteinian blackholes – 6:42 & 5:24 duration. These 8 youtubes add to 78 minutes. A list of some of Pierre Marie Robitaille's papers. But none appear to specifically target blackholes. https://vixra.org/author/pierre-marie_robitaille |
| PlainName:
--- Quote ---These 8 youtubes add to 78 minutes. --- End quote --- I don't care if they are 10 minutes. That's still 9:30 longer than it takes to read. --- Quote ---The bits at 7:00 & at 7:59 are gooder --- End quote --- Thank you. |
| PlainName:
--- Quote --- The bits at 7:00 --- End quote --- I am not sure how they work this stuff out, but I note that the data was acquired over 5 nights, and presumably the final is a composite of 5 sets of data. There will be subtle differences between each set and that could be used to enhance the resolution. Think of using a single sensor to scan along a line - the result is not one pixel wide. Although the result might have distinct steps (which would be your resolution), if you repeat the scan the steps would be in a slightly different place. Put them together and you have a higher resolution scan. Further, my understanding is that each data point is not like a screen pixel, either on or off. As the sensor tracks across the target the signal will increase in magnitude and then fall off again as the signal received at each array machine goes in and out of phase with the other. So the pixels yon Pierre shows are probably incorrect as I think the real thing would not have sharp edges. Perhaps he was just demonstrating a grid, but then why fill them in? |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on May 14, 2022, 11:49:00 pm --- --- Quote --- The bits at 7:00 --- End quote --- I am not sure how they work this stuff out, but I note that the data was acquired over 5 nights, and presumably the final is a composite of 5 sets of data. There will be subtle differences between each set and that could be used to enhance the resolution. Think of using a single sensor to scan along a line - the result is not one pixel wide. Although the result might have distinct steps (which would be your resolution), if you repeat the scan the steps would be in a slightly different place. Put them together and you have a higher resolution scan. Further, my understanding is that each data point is not like a screen pixel, either on or off. As the sensor tracks across the target the signal will increase in magnitude and then fall off again as the signal received at each array machine goes in and out of phase with the other. So the pixels yon Pierre shows are probably incorrect as I think the real thing would not have sharp edges. Perhaps he was just demonstrating a grid, but then why fill them in? --- End quote --- I am really impressed & pleased at modern technology. But at the limit i think that we naturally tend to push & fudge & cherrypick a little. It reminds me of the beautiful LIGO ring down signal version of the quadrupolar gravitational waves emitted by 2 colliding blackholes, which as admitted later was merely an artist's masterpiece made for public consumption by their public relations team. Meanwhile back at the ranch we need to ask how we could say see say a doughnut on the moon, if Earth's atmosphere causes so much twinkling, while at the same time there is say a bit of say haze & fog. Robitaille says that the horizon team claim (explicitly or praps implicitly) a resolution 1250 times better than the resolution of a single dish (or praps he meant the resolution at a small array, if a small array) based on the problem of diffraction at a dish. Just realized. I think that the horizon team invoke planar waves. Why should the light etc from the BH be in the form of planar waves? Why & how did the photons gladly form formations of waves? I know that photons are sticky, & readily form waves (eg lasers), if given a good chance. So, duz propagating for thousands of years give photons enuff time to form formations? Can photons form formations at 2 certain frequencies, while these photons are in the middle of lots of other photons having lots of other frequencies. Do photons having the same frequency find each other, & then form formations (planar waves)? And then retain these formations whilst surrounded by formations having other frequencies. And then retain these formations whilst some parts of that wavefront is slowed by going throo or near to mass (eg stars, dust, air). Nah, it smells fishy. |
| TimFox:
Do you know the meaning of "plane wave" in classical electrodynamics and electromagnetic waves? |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |