Author Topic: Sagittarius A*  (Read 8633 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: 00
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #75 on: May 15, 2022, 10:55:26 pm »
It is sad to see the EEVBlog forum being transformed into a soapbox for anti-scientific ideas.
 
The following users thanked this post: MikeK, MrAureliusR, thinkfat

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #76 on: May 15, 2022, 11:16:09 pm »
4.4. GRMHD Model Theory Metrics We compute the polarimetric observables (|m|net, |v|net, 〈|m|〉, β2) described in Section 2.3 from model images blurred with a circular Gaussian kernel with a FWHM of 20 μas in order to compare them to the ranges measured from EHT and ALMA-only data. Both 〈|m|〉 and β2 depend on the resolution and hence the size of the Gaussian blurring kernel. The value of β2 also depends on the choice of the image center. We do not shift the library images before computing βm coefficients for comparison with the range inferred from the EHT image reconstructions, which have been centered by aligning them to the centered, fiducial total intensity images in EHTC IV. As discussed in Palumbo et al. (2020), a centering offset u expressed as a fraction of the diameter of a PWP m = 2 ring causes a quadratic falloff in β2 power as δβ2/|β2| ≈ 4u2 . Effects on the β2 phase enter at similar order. In the case of the EHT image, u is likely less than one-fifth, meaning that centering errors in β2 will be sub-dominant to other uncertainties, such as the choice of the blurring kernel or the variation across methods and days.

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10125786/1/Akiyama_2021_ApJL_910_L13.pdf
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10576
  • Country: gb
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #77 on: May 15, 2022, 11:57:01 pm »
In my previous reply i mentioned the problem of the speed of electricity on a wire due to temperature.
In other threads on this forum i have advised that the speed of electricity along a wire will be affected by the aetherwind, which blows south to north through Earth at  500 km/s (which is c/600).

Can this aetherwind be blocked or deflected by a suitably shaped metallic membrane? Perhaps a foil of aluminium in the form of a chapeau?
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #78 on: May 16, 2022, 12:46:35 am »
In my previous reply i mentioned the problem of the speed of electricity on a wire due to temperature.
In other threads on this forum i have advised that the speed of electricity along a wire will be affected by the aetherwind, which blows south to north through Earth at  500 km/s (which is c/600).
Can this aetherwind be blocked or deflected by a suitably shaped metallic membrane? Perhaps a foil of aluminium in the form of a chapeau?
In the oldendays they thort that the stationary aether could be dragged or partially dragged by moving objects.
Modern aether theory reckons that a uniform speed differential will not drag aether, but that aether is dragged by non-uniform motion, ie by acceleration.
And that the drag duznt depend on the element (eg Al), it just depends on the mass (& praps on the size of the acceleration).
And modern aether theory reckons that the background aetherwind blows through Earth approx south to north at 500 km/s.

My own version of aether theory says that a spinning body expels aether at the poles (ie at the axis), which creates an axial outflow of aetherwind. Podkletnov found this effect. So too Depalma.  I call it the centrifuging of aether, a kind of artificial gravity praps. I don’t know how strong this effect is. But if a spinning disc was suitably placed & suitably aligned then it could partially block or deflect or add to the local aetherwind.
I don’t know why anyone would want to do this.

A supermassive spinning body would suck aether in at equator, & spit aether out at the 2 poles.
This would create or add to jets emitted at the poles.
Now where have i seen such jets ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2022, 07:14:01 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline raptor1956

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 869
  • Country: us
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #79 on: May 16, 2022, 02:51:42 am »
In my previous reply i mentioned the problem of the speed of electricity on a wire due to temperature.
In other threads on this forum i have advised that the speed of electricity along a wire will be affected by the aetherwind, which blows south to north through Earth at  500 km/s (which is c/600).

Can this aetherwind be blocked or deflected by a suitably shaped metallic membrane? Perhaps a foil of aluminium in the form of a chapeau?

I think the approach France took during the Revolution was more effective than an aluminum foil chapeau, the Guillotine proved 100% effective!
 
The following users thanked this post: MrAureliusR

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #80 on: May 16, 2022, 08:03:28 pm »
Here is a copy of a comment made on the Thunderbolts forum, re the EHT, re papers explaining how the EHT paint pretty pictures of blackholes, or u might call it the assembling of a pretty puzzle, or the processing of pretty patchworks.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/black-holes-scale/
Black holes all look like donuts, regardless of their size……..………. The black hole, called Sagittarius A*, is a type called a supermassive black hole, which is found at the center of almost all galaxies. Ours is on the smaller end for such giants: At 4.3 million times the mass of the sun, it’s much smaller than other monsters like the one is Messier 87 which was imaged in 2019 and which is 6.5 billion times the mass of the sun ………….……….. However, images of these two black holes look notably similar, both showing a distinctive donut shape. And that agrees precisely with physicists’ predictions, which said that black holes would appear the same no matter what size they are …………..

https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/method-image-black-holes
……………. A method to image black holes ……………. Researchers from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and Harvard University have developed a new algorithm that could help astronomers produce the first image of a black hole ……………………. Even with atmospheric noise filtered out, the measurements from just a handful of telescopes scattered around the globe are pretty sparse; any number of possible images could fit the data equally well. So the next step is to assemble an image that both fits the data and meets certain expectations about what images look like…………….


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.01413.pdf
…………….. Reconstructing an image using bispectrum measurements is an ill-posed problem, and as such there are an infinite number of possible images that explain the data. The challenge is to find an explanation that respects our prior assumptions about the “visual” universe while still satisfying the observed data …………. We generate data using a collection of black hole, celestial, and natural images ……………… Flexibility of the patch prior framework allows us to easily incorporate a variety of different “visual” assumptions in our reconstructed image. For instance, in the case of the EHT, simulations of a black hole for different inclinations and spins can be used to train a patch model that can be subsequently used for reconstruction ……..


https://educationalblogspotforyou.wordpress.com/2019/04/13/https-theamazingscienceofhumanbrain-blogspot-com-2019-04-how-to-take-picture-of-black-hole-html/
……………. Algorithms developed to take the picture of the black hole………….. Since there are number of infinite images that perfectly explain our telescope measurements, we have to chose between them in some way. We do this by ranking the images based upon how likely they are to be the black hole image, and then choosing the one that’s most likely……………. But when it comes to the images from black hole, we’re posed with a real conundrum; we’ve not seen any black hole images before…………….. In that case what is likely a black hole image, and what should we assume about the structure of black hole? ………………. If all images produce a very similar – looking image, then we can start to become more confident…………….. One way we can try to impose different image features is by using pieces of existing images. So, we take a large collection of images, and we break them down into their little patches. We then can treat each image like a puzzle pieces. And we used the commonly seen puzzle pieces to piece together in an image that also fits our telescopic measurements. Different types of pieces has distinctive set of puzzle pieces……….
« Last Edit: May 16, 2022, 08:08:28 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7508
  • Country: va
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #81 on: May 16, 2022, 08:20:53 pm »
Quote
So the next step is to assemble an image that both fits the data and meets certain expectations about what images look like

You seem to be thinking that the image is being used as proof that black  holes exist. It isn't - without the image the things would still exist according to the appropriate theories. So it follows that something that fits the data and looks like what it is expected to look like serves the purpose (that is, of being able to 'see' a black hole, just like you could see that single-pixel image of a doughnut on the moon).
 
The following users thanked this post: TimFox

Offline TimFoxTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #82 on: May 16, 2022, 08:26:39 pm »
The authors of this paper show lots of calculations to see what possible models fit the observed data, and the reconstructed image is just a side-show.  Of course, the media showed it because it's a cute picture.
 

Offline dietert1

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2473
  • Country: br
    • CADT Homepage
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #83 on: May 16, 2022, 08:53:17 pm »
Evaluation of models and comparing their predictions with measured data is the standard procedure in experimental physics. The models chosen to be tested are not based on personal preference, nor on religious imagination nor on computer game fantasy, but on mathematics. One criterion is a model to test be "simple" or "minimal". In the case of Sagittarius A* they have a conclusion on the mass, but not yet on the spin. They need more measurements to do that.

The idea of aether as a substance to carry electromagnetic fields and propagate light waves was proven superfluous long ago and isn't part of physics anymore (since about 150 years). It fell victim to scientific progress, similar to "phlogiston".

Regards, Dieter
 
The following users thanked this post: TimFox

Offline TimFoxTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #84 on: May 16, 2022, 08:57:18 pm »
By the way, my original intent in citing the paper was to show a good example of a well-done peer-reviewed scientific paper, with references, on a very complex topic that is available to the general public (not behind a paywall), thanks to the openness of IOP, the publisher of Astrophysical Journal and Astrophysical Journal Letters.
(Although I'm not surprised by some of the replies.)
« Last Edit: May 16, 2022, 09:23:35 pm by TimFox »
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #85 on: May 16, 2022, 09:30:53 pm »
Quote
So the next step is to assemble an image that both fits the data and meets certain expectations about what images look like
You seem to be thinking that the image is being used as proof that black  holes exist. It isn't - without the image the things would still exist according to the appropriate theories. So it follows that something that fits the data and looks like what it is expected to look like serves the purpose (that is, of being able to 'see' a black hole, just like you could see that single-pixel image of a doughnut on the moon).
Yes, but, getting back to a say 9 pixel image of what we reckon is a doughnut on the Moon. 
1. Lets show that 9 pixel image to Isaac Newton to see what he sees.
2.  We tell Isaac that there is a theory that there is a substance called dough.
3.  And if u have a certain quantity of dough, & if the dough forms a certain shape (due to natural processes), &
4.  if the temperature accords within certain limits (not too cold, not too hot, due to natural processes), &
5.   if the doughnut is then covered with a layer of coloured sugary substance, & if
6.  the doughnut is then sprinkled with some small coloured sugary objects, &
7. Isaac is told that all of the processes etc from (2) to (7) have been seen in nature or in the lab, mostly individually, but
8.  there is a theory that if they all happen at one location at one time then they can form a new object called a doughnut,
9.  which has never been observed, but
10.  the 9 pixel image on the Moon has been predicted to be in the correct place & time & conditions to make the never before seen doughnut, &
11.  we hand Isaac a pretty painting of just such a doughnut, &
12.  we ask Isaac if the painting accords with the 9 pixel image, &
13.  he says not really, so
14.  we show him a folder of different coloured etc possible doughnuts, &
15.  he finds one that accords best with the 9 pixels, but not very well, so
16.  we advise Isaac that we went through this exercise already once before about  3 yrs ago, & that at that time a guy called Albert also picked a painting from the folder which almost matched thems 9 pixels, &
17.  therefore we ejaculate that we now have a 2nd confirmation of doughnuts, &
18.  we publish & we get a Nobel Prize for Science, no, wait,
19.  a Nobel Prize for Art.
20.  We tell Isaac that since doughnuts have now been proven to exist,
21.  there is now a new theory that doughnuts are edible, & delicious.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2022, 10:11:17 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #86 on: May 16, 2022, 09:36:36 pm »
By the way, my original intent in citing the paper was to show a good example of a well-done peer-reviewed scientific paper, with references, on a very complex topic that is available to the general public (not behind a paywall), thanks to the openness of IOP, the publisher of Astrophysical Journal and Astrophysical Journal Letters.
(Although I'm not surprised by some of the replies.)
Was the peer review carried out by cooks from Dunkin Donuts.
The doughnut found 3 yrs ago was a million times the mass of the latest doughnut.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2022, 11:21:59 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15797
  • Country: fr
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #87 on: May 16, 2022, 09:37:59 pm »
I admit this was entertaining.
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #88 on: May 16, 2022, 09:47:21 pm »
Evaluation of models and comparing their predictions with measured data is the standard procedure in experimental physics. The models chosen to be tested are not based on personal preference, nor on religious imagination nor on computer game fantasy, but on mathematics. One criterion is a model to test be "simple" or "minimal". In the case of Sagittarius A* they have a conclusion on the mass, but not yet on the spin. They need more measurements to do that.

The idea of aether as a substance to carry electromagnetic fields and propagate light waves was proven superfluous long ago and isn't part of physics anymore (since about 150 years). It fell victim to scientific progress, similar to "phlogiston".  Regards, Dieter 
If u had a 9 pixel image (i mean measured data), & u compared that image with every painting in the art world (i mean every possible model), then i expect that many of thems paintings (i mean models) would fit perfectly.
And, many more would fit ok if we sort of squint a bit.
And, i bet that we could find at least one donut scientist who saw a doughnut every time.


Re aether & the aetherwind, if u do a google search for "Demjanov"& "aether" u will find his papers.
Here is oneovem. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0103103.pdf
« Last Edit: May 16, 2022, 10:13:57 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #89 on: May 16, 2022, 09:52:33 pm »
I admit this was entertaining.
Isaac was of course in charge of all of the manufacture of dough for the whole of England later in life.
 

Offline TimFoxTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #90 on: May 16, 2022, 10:02:40 pm »
By the way, my original intent in citing the paper was to show a good example of a well-done peer-reviewed scientific paper, with references, on a very complex topic that is available to the general public (not behind a paywall), thanks to the openness of IOP, the publisher of Astrophysical Journal and Astrophysical Journal Letters.
(Although I'm not surprised by some of the replies.)
Was the peer review carried out by cooks from Dunkin Donuts.

As written in the paper, the authors acknowledge the contributions of anonymous peer reviewers.  "We thank the anonymous referees for helpful comments that improved the paper." in section 8.
You really should look at the important content of the paper, not the images (which are interesting, but not the crux of the matter).
Complaining that this object was not resolved (in the technical sense of the word) as thoroughly as in, say, my 4x5 inch film image of the Railway Exchange building in Chicago, is puerile.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2022, 03:21:04 am by TimFox »
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #91 on: May 17, 2022, 02:27:24 am »
Latest update on the black heart of the galaxy.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #92 on: May 17, 2022, 09:04:08 am »
It is sad to see the EEVBlog forum being transformed into a soapbox for anti-scientific ideas.

You are all the ones that fed and keep feeding aetherist.
 
The following users thanked this post: MikeK

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #93 on: May 17, 2022, 10:10:17 pm »
The Electric Universe mob reckon that blackholes are in fact actual doughnuts, consisting of an electric-magnetic toroidal Plasmoid.

https://thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=736


Wal Thornhill: On the Black Hole's Non-existence      5,735 views  Apr 20, 2019 
Here is PART TWO of the interview with physicist Wal Thornhill…3.1K
ThunderboltsProject  199K subscribers   Comments   677



Wal Thornhill: Black Hole or Plasmoid?  Space News   105,526 views  Apr 17, 2019  In this interview recorded on April 8, 2019, physicist Wal Thornhill discusses why the recent so-called "first picture of a black hole" actually affirms the plasmoid…  4.4K   ThunderboltsProject       199K subscribers      Comments    "The whole idea of consensus science is nonsense anyway because the truth is not found by a vote" Thornhill.    1,128 Comments
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15797
  • Country: fr
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #94 on: May 17, 2022, 10:43:35 pm »
"Donuts... is there anything they can't do?"

 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: Sagittarius A*
« Reply #95 on: May 17, 2022, 11:33:45 pm »
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.04623.pdf
The jet and resolved features of the central supermassive black hole   of M 87 observed with EHT
Makoto Miyoshi,        1 Yoshiaki Kato2 And Junichiro Makino3
6. CONCLUSION Using the public data released by the EHTC, we obtained images of the central region of M 87 using the improved calibration obtained using the standard hybrid mapping method. As a result, we found the following.
1. The core of M 87 is resolved into a core-knot structure, instead of a ring. Three features C, K and W are seen. While feature C is definitely a core and feature K is a knot, feature W is not so easy to explain. Feature W may be a lensing image due to the strong gravity of SMBH. Another possibility is that there are two SMBH system and that feature W is another SMBH in the core of M 87. Assuming that W is another knot, the three features could be initial jet structures with an opening angle of ∼ 70◦ at a distance of about 10 Rs from the core.
2. The 230 GHz image has a jet structure consistent with the previous lower-frequency observations. It has brightened edges from the core to at a few mas points. The intensity is decreased along the jet axis much rapidly as compared with lower observations.
3. The ∼ 40 µas ring that the EHTC reported is an artifact due to the effect of data sampling bias and the very narrow FOV setting that enhances the bias effect. The u-v coverage of the EHT for M 87 observations lacks the ∼ 40 µas spatial Fourier components that produce artifact structures of ∼ 40 µas size.

« Last Edit: May 17, 2022, 11:35:57 pm by aetherist »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf