Black Hole: An image much too big to transmit over the Internet.

See https://youtu.be/hMsNd1W_lmE

For a background explanation see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/03/epic-astronomers-may-have-photographed-a-black-hole-for-the-very-first-time/
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Apr 3, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):


See https://youtu.be/hMsNd1W_lmE

For a background explanation see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/03/epic-astronomers-may-have-photographed-a-black-hole-for-the-very-first-time/

So not photography in the traditional sense, and resolution should improve as
the array grows along with computer capability. It certainly makes a whole
new meaning of post processing.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 16:12:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Apr 3, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):


See https://youtu.be/hMsNd1W_lmE

For a background explanation see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/03/epic-astronomers-may-have-photographed-a-black-hole-for-the-very-first-time/

So not photography in the traditional sense, and resolution should improve as
the array grows along with computer capability. It certainly makes a whole
new meaning of post processing.

How would you class the sensor size?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 16:21:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Wednesday, 3 April 2019 19:13:05 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 3, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):


See https://youtu.be/hMsNd1W_lmE

For a background explanation see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/03/epic-astronomers-may-have-photographed-a-black-hole-for-the-very-first-time/

So not photography in the traditional sense, and resolution should improve as
the array grows along with computer capability. It certainly makes a whole
new meaning of post processing.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

No way I believe, even with the highest-resolution optical telescopes to image the event-horizon of the Milky Way black hole as an extended image. I think today the best telescopes may be able to image over 4 pixels 1/50th of an arc second, but I'm not sure. In any case, there is too much interposed dust between us and the galactic centre to allow an optical image.

The 'Dehaze" slider in LR works real well.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Apr 3, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 16:12:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Apr 3, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):


See https://youtu.be/hMsNd1W_lmE

For a background explanation see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/03/epic-astronomers-may-have-photographed-a-black-hole-for-the-very-first-time/

So not photography in the traditional sense, and resolution should improve
as the array grows along with computer capability. It certainly makes a whole
new meaning of post processing.

How would you class the sensor size?

Big ****in’ Array, or BFA

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 2019-04-03 18:59, Eric Stevens wrote:

See https://youtu.be/hMsNd1W_lmE

For a background explanation see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/03/epic-astronomers-may-have-photographed-a-black-hole-for-the-very-first-time/

Oy.

It's not the "image" that is too big. It's the collection of data that
is eventually processed to make the image that is too big to transmit.

The array is not recording "images". It's recording information that
describes the signal at a particular time. (VLBI).

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

On 4/5/2019 12:37 AM, RichA wrote:


snip


Yes, I got interested for nothing. Even so, a black hole surrounded by matter in-falling into the singularity (which don't really exist since string theory is true) would likely only show as a glowing sphere (the matter in-falling) and would not show some black abyss.


Please cite your authority, and/or calculations to prove that the string
theory is true. We await with bated breath.

If what you say is true, why is it still called a "theory."

Just asking.


--
PeterN

On 4/4/2019 5:12 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-04-03 18:59, Eric Stevens wrote:

See https://youtu.be/hMsNd1W_lmE

For a background explanation see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/03/epic-astronomers-may-have-photographed-a-black-hole-for-the-very-first-time/


Oy.

It's not the "image" that is too big.Â* It's the collection of data that
is eventually processed to make the image that is too big to transmit.

The array is not recording "images".Â* It's recording information that
describes the signal at a particular time. (VLBI).


At least someone one here knows what he is talking about, and seems to
understand some what we don't know.


--
PeterN

On Sun, 7 Apr 2019 15:52:14 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 5:12 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-04-03 18:59, Eric Stevens wrote:

See https://youtu.be/hMsNd1W_lmE

For a background explanation see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/03/epic-astronomers-may-have-photographed-a-black-hole-for-the-very-first-time/


Oy.

It's not the "image" that is too big.Â* It's the collection of data that
is eventually processed to make the image that is too big to transmit.

The array is not recording "images".Â* It's recording information that
describes the signal at a particular time. (VLBI).


At least someone one here knows what he is talking about, and seems to
understand some what we don't know.

He could have said exactly the same thing about the way an ordinary
camera produces a raw file.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 4/7/2019 7:41 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2019 15:52:14 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 5:12 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-04-03 18:59, Eric Stevens wrote:

See https://youtu.be/hMsNd1W_lmE

For a background explanation see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/03/epic-astronomers-may-have-photographed-a-black-hole-for-the-very-first-time/


Oy.

It's not the "image" that is too big.* It's the collection of data that
is eventually processed to make the image that is too big to transmit.

The array is not recording "images".* It's recording information that
describes the signal at a particular time. (VLBI).


At least someone one here knows what he is talking about, and seems to
understand some what we don't know.

He could have said exactly the same thing about the way an ordinary
camera produces a raw file.

....except (VLBI) doesn't apply to raw files.
--
==
L...
RC
--