5 ms·

Uh.. It's the reason that the "shadow" is larger than the Schwarzschild radius. He's describing the ratio of the "rim" to the "hole". So while the picture may b

by bdamm 8y ago

Uh.. It's the reason that the "shadow" is larger than the Schwarzschild radius. He's describing the ratio of the "rim" to the "hole". So while the picture may be fuzzy, there's information in it anyway about what the pictures means relative to how large/spin we think the black hole is. In fact I wish he'd said more about the Doppler effect.

wallace_f 8y ago
Ok I mean, now what you're writing, that's not even wrong. The black part of the image being larger than the actual radius of the blackhole is a discussion about the relative size of the black area you see in the image, to the actual black hole itself. I think that should make sense to you? It's not an argument about why he predicts it will look like a "fuzzy coffee stain," as opposed to other simulated images. Are you able to see the difference between those two ideas? I think you have some other discussion you were having confused with this one. To remind you about your earlier comment, you stated disagreement with me, saying this video was him only talking about why he predicted the image to look like a "fuzzy coffee stain" as opposed to some other simulated and theorized predicgions. I think the above paragraph and reply should obviously show you why this is actually not true. Are you still with me? I do think most of the video is interesting, but he never states an argument about why he chose that prediction. That was what I thought was ridiculous. Science is about reason and evidence, not just saying "believe me." Maybe you watched a different video? You should watch this video, the last 30% talks about simulations done in which the acretion disk reflects around the black hole, he uses example images which look a bit different!
- darkpuma 8y ago
  The reason for the fuzziness should be obvious. It's really far away and it's really hard to see. Expecting a jump from "never seen before" to "seen in amazing visual clarity" is unrealistic.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    That's also not even wrong. You can't see why? Let's say we're imagining what Uranus would look like. I draw a picture, and say it should look like a "fuzzy Jupter." But you ask, why should it look that way? Do you have a reason? And I say you should be confident, but don't provide an argument. By the end, I start talking about how it might look like Saturn. Then I come along and say, "it should be obvious the fuzziness is because it is far away." That final statement is not even wrong. It misses the point.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Are you upset that the Veritasium video didn't explicitly spell out for you that this black hole is very far away, so the first image of it ever is basically certain to be fuzzier than IMAX fidelity computer simulations used in a Hollywood movie? I think you're being very silly.
      - wallace_f 8y ago
        What? You obviously didn't read what I wrote.
        darkpuma 8y ago
        > "What? You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Are you ok?" You're ranting about Saturn and Jupiter for some reason. Why don't you calm down and look at page eight of the paper that Veritasium video was based on: https://ve42.co/luminet https://ve42.co/luminet "Image of a spherical black hole with thin accretion disk Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 75, no. 1-2, May 1979, p. 228-235" Look at that last image, and squint at it until it gets fuzzy. Lo and behold, a fuzzy coffee mug stain! Perhaps it was a mistake for him to make the focus of the video on the physics of black holes, rather than the limitations of state of the art radio interferometry... but I don't think so.
        wallace_f 8y ago
        It's really strange that you are unable to understand such a simple complaint I made, even after going to extra effort to spell it out. You even have even become aggressive insulting. I understand that some people become that way when they get confused, but how is it possible you are confused here? I think you are literally not even reading my comments. Either that, or you are going through some personal issues right now. I think it might help you if you tried to first understand that I am not complaining about the image being fuzzy. I have no idea why you keep going back to that. I spelled out an analogy to explain this to you and you got angry and insulting. Are you really sure you are ok? You clearly have something going on.
- bdamm 8y ago
  I think what you're hoping for is a more exhaustive survey of what black holes are theorized to look like, with different possibilities. Is that right? The problem here is your expectation does not match the product. It's like you went to a car dealer and are upset they didn't sell you an airplane. It isn't surprising to me that Derek focuses on one form, since Veritassium is providing content for the armchair consumer, that he chooses what he believes to be the best model and presents that. This isn't a PhD defense, after all, it's just a timely video so that folks can appreciate the image that the EHT group has released (is going to release, at the time of Veritassium's video.) Did you have some other models in mind? Interesting to me is that Veritassium's presented model doesn't explain the corona-like features, nor any attempt at explaining the "blobs" although he does say that blobs would be exiting to see. And there they are! What fun.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Yea sort of. I mean I said I liked the episode, I just think this part is bad form (I'm paraphrasing): >why can you expect it to look like this? well because it's just going to look like this. Now, I'm not trying to say his prediction was unwise. I just think it's first of all bad form to say something like "the reason is just trust me," in scientific discussions (even if you are correct)... but second I actually do want to know at least some explanation to that question. Granted, I'm not saying the video does not explain anything about the image. I wanted to know: why can we be sure it will look like this, and not other simulated images? That's all. You can see on the EHT's own website a gallery of other simulated models of what could be expected from a radio image. And the second part of my criticism, was that by the end of the video, he was using images inspired by other models, and particularly of one where the accretion disk dominated the image. I dont care how many downvotes I get, I know the difference between right and wrong and this is a perfectly reasonable criticism. Anyways, since my posts lost 60 karma in 1 hour somehow (almost uniformly coming from posts in other threads, wtf?) some other opportunistic types see it as a chance for bullying. Even writing stuff like 'you've obviously got your jimmies rustled mate!' or other extremely bad faith assumptions like 'if you cant understand why it's fuzzy, it's far away!' The best is the troll bait comment, 'do you really think one person is downvoting you?' Groupthink, bullying, and authority define right and wrong for some people--they can't even write something that even addresses an actual comment or argument. People are crazy. Eventually they just start addressing the negativity itself, abandoning any substantive argument, and focusing on the negativity itself. The next step is using the negativity as its own justification (you deserve negativity because otherwise you wouldnt be receiving negativity kind of assumptions implicig in the above troll bait comment). But still all that I dont think explains why comments in unrelated posts (even ones that were being complimented) got the same time-unform mass-downvotes?? I think I haven't experienced anything like this before on this site until recently. I lost 60 karma in the a few hours.

by bdamm 8y ago

wallace_f 8y ago

Ok I mean, now what you're writing, that's not even wrong. The black part of the image being larger than the actual radius of the blackhole is a discussion about the relative size of the black area you see in the image, to the actual black hole itself. I think that should make sense to you? It's not an argument about why he predicts it will look like a "fuzzy coffee stain," as opposed to other simulated images. Are you able to see the difference between those two ideas? I think you have some other discussion you were having confused with this one. To remind you about your earlier comment, you stated disagreement with me, saying this video was him only talking about why he predicted the image to look like a "fuzzy coffee stain" as opposed to some other simulated and theorized predicgions. I think the above paragraph and reply should obviously show you why this is actually not true. Are you still with me? I do think most of the video is interesting, but he never states an argument about why he chose that prediction. That was what I thought was ridiculous. Science is about reason and evidence, not just saying "believe me." Maybe you watched a different video? You should watch this video, the last 30% talks about simulations done in which the acretion disk reflects around the black hole, he uses example images which look a bit different!

darkpuma 8y ago
The reason for the fuzziness should be obvious. It's really far away and it's really hard to see. Expecting a jump from "never seen before" to "seen in amazing visual clarity" is unrealistic.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  That's also not even wrong. You can't see why? Let's say we're imagining what Uranus would look like. I draw a picture, and say it should look like a "fuzzy Jupter." But you ask, why should it look that way? Do you have a reason? And I say you should be confident, but don't provide an argument. By the end, I start talking about how it might look like Saturn. Then I come along and say, "it should be obvious the fuzziness is because it is far away." That final statement is not even wrong. It misses the point.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Are you upset that the Veritasium video didn't explicitly spell out for you that this black hole is very far away, so the first image of it ever is basically certain to be fuzzier than IMAX fidelity computer simulations used in a Hollywood movie? I think you're being very silly.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      What? You obviously didn't read what I wrote.
      - darkpuma 8y ago
        > "What? You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Are you ok?" You're ranting about Saturn and Jupiter for some reason. Why don't you calm down and look at page eight of the paper that Veritasium video was based on: https://ve42.co/luminet https://ve42.co/luminet "Image of a spherical black hole with thin accretion disk Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 75, no. 1-2, May 1979, p. 228-235" Look at that last image, and squint at it until it gets fuzzy. Lo and behold, a fuzzy coffee mug stain! Perhaps it was a mistake for him to make the focus of the video on the physics of black holes, rather than the limitations of state of the art radio interferometry... but I don't think so.
        wallace_f 8y ago
        It's really strange that you are unable to understand such a simple complaint I made, even after going to extra effort to spell it out. You even have even become aggressive insulting. I understand that some people become that way when they get confused, but how is it possible you are confused here? I think you are literally not even reading my comments. Either that, or you are going through some personal issues right now. I think it might help you if you tried to first understand that I am not complaining about the image being fuzzy. I have no idea why you keep going back to that. I spelled out an analogy to explain this to you and you got angry and insulting. Are you really sure you are ok? You clearly have something going on.
bdamm 8y ago
I think what you're hoping for is a more exhaustive survey of what black holes are theorized to look like, with different possibilities. Is that right? The problem here is your expectation does not match the product. It's like you went to a car dealer and are upset they didn't sell you an airplane. It isn't surprising to me that Derek focuses on one form, since Veritassium is providing content for the armchair consumer, that he chooses what he believes to be the best model and presents that. This isn't a PhD defense, after all, it's just a timely video so that folks can appreciate the image that the EHT group has released (is going to release, at the time of Veritassium's video.) Did you have some other models in mind? Interesting to me is that Veritassium's presented model doesn't explain the corona-like features, nor any attempt at explaining the "blobs" although he does say that blobs would be exiting to see. And there they are! What fun.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  Yea sort of. I mean I said I liked the episode, I just think this part is bad form (I'm paraphrasing): >why can you expect it to look like this? well because it's just going to look like this. Now, I'm not trying to say his prediction was unwise. I just think it's first of all bad form to say something like "the reason is just trust me," in scientific discussions (even if you are correct)... but second I actually do want to know at least some explanation to that question. Granted, I'm not saying the video does not explain anything about the image. I wanted to know: why can we be sure it will look like this, and not other simulated images? That's all. You can see on the EHT's own website a gallery of other simulated models of what could be expected from a radio image. And the second part of my criticism, was that by the end of the video, he was using images inspired by other models, and particularly of one where the accretion disk dominated the image. I dont care how many downvotes I get, I know the difference between right and wrong and this is a perfectly reasonable criticism. Anyways, since my posts lost 60 karma in 1 hour somehow (almost uniformly coming from posts in other threads, wtf?) some other opportunistic types see it as a chance for bullying. Even writing stuff like 'you've obviously got your jimmies rustled mate!' or other extremely bad faith assumptions like 'if you cant understand why it's fuzzy, it's far away!' The best is the troll bait comment, 'do you really think one person is downvoting you?' Groupthink, bullying, and authority define right and wrong for some people--they can't even write something that even addresses an actual comment or argument. People are crazy. Eventually they just start addressing the negativity itself, abandoning any substantive argument, and focusing on the negativity itself. The next step is using the negativity as its own justification (you deserve negativity because otherwise you wouldnt be receiving negativity kind of assumptions implicig in the above troll bait comment). But still all that I dont think explains why comments in unrelated posts (even ones that were being complimented) got the same time-unform mass-downvotes?? I think I haven't experienced anything like this before on this site until recently. I lost 60 karma in the a few hours.