Kind of like waiting to see what the appeals process does for that cop who was convicted by a jury of killing someone.

Note: No one is claiming that this is the be-all, end-all of black hole imaging. Of course it's just the start. But you also stated that they chose M87 instead of Sag A *despite* more crap being in the way, when the links I posted state the exact opposite.

Yeah, but re-read them with the pic above that I posted in mind. They don't ring quite as true.

Also, I'm sure you've seen the simple representation of a black hole... a rubber sheet with a ball bearing on it, creating a funnel like object. That's partially true. But black hole is 3 dimensional, it's like a whole bunch of funnels arranged in a BALL shape. The event horizon is the upper larger edge of that funnel shape.

Try to picture the event horizon from a BALL of funnel shapes.

Ofc, these folk will defend their work. They have to. But like the canals on Mars that were just as vigorously defended, the scientists of the time were wrong. They definitely saw something in the photos of Mars, they just guessed wrong as to what it was that they saw.

I think we will find that a black hole is a lot more amazing than we can even imagine...yet. I also don't think that we have ANY technology that can IMAGE one. I'm not even sure there IS a technology, short of tossing something into one, that would even let us see it at all, on any wavelength.

When we do physically discover a black holes outside of the center of a galaxy, we will probably have to put something in orbit around it, that we CAN see (or image), so others don't mistakenly get too close.


/e I do think that there has to be black holes, and a black hole at the center of each galaxy. But the math tells us that. That is provable by MORE than just one method.

This post was edited by Ghot on Apr 13 2019 11:43am

Please stop trying to explain astrophysics it's incredibly embarassing for you.

Quoth the kid, who as I did as well, at one time... THINKS they have a handle on things that they don't.

A place to run for your life! Mall of America!

What gets studied is just as important as what the results are. Take the sugar lobbies actions to prevent sugar being studied and pushing for fat being studied.

Public opinion of a field also shapes policy, take conservatives attempts to discredit climate research that are still ongoing

I was thinking mostly of "science" in the sense of "hard science". Granted, medicine and climatology are fields which particularly often touch on heavily politicized questions and debates.

So I dont even disagree with you when you say:


So yes, I agree that medicine and climatology are heavily "compromised" by politics.


My point still stands: "science", in the sense of "natural sciences", "hard science" or more generally of "studying reality using the scientific method", is not something inherently political. Like everything in this world, they can be politicized, but imho there is a difference between something "being political" and something "being politicized".

I mean, yeah, the definition of science doesn't include "political", but the practice of science in the modern world is heavily intertwined in politics. Money has to come from somewhere after all.

Would you consider physics or chemistry to be heavily intertwined in politics? What about mathematics, what about computer science?

As I said, imho medicine and climatology are two of the most politicized fields, and their degree of politicization is not representative of the entirety of (hard) science.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 13 2019 03:08pm