4 ms·
> It was presented by the media as a "photo", but it seems to me like it's more similar to the "image" we get from reconstruction of wifi signals Are you sugge
by perrygeo 3y ago
> It was presented by the media as a "photo", but it seems to me like it's more similar to the "image" we get from reconstruction of wifi signals
Are you suggesting that emitting or reflecting visible radiation is required before we can prove something exists in objective reality? Your own point about Wifi signals proves you wrong - we can detect wifi in other wavelengths and thus learn a great deal about it. Just like we can with black holes.
There is no distinction between "images" and "photos" - they're both electromagnetic radiation converted to a visual medium. There's nothing unique about radiation in the 380 to 700 nanometers wavelength range that makes it somehow more scientifically valid for remote sensing.
- claytongulick 3y agoDid you read the methodology that was used to come up with the "photo"? It's a far cry from just shifting the spectrum a bit to the visible range.
- perrygeo 3y agoAny digital or analog photo is a far cry from our biological signal processing. Yes, their methodogy used lots of signal manipulation to produce the photo. Just like an RGB digital camera does. Just like analog film. Just like our rods, cones and visual cortex. Which one is the "correct" way to process the signal? What you're claiming is that "photos" have privileged scientific status over other types of sensors/processing hardware. Someone else might claim that only biological sensors have privileged status. But neither claim is scientific since it cannot be verified. In lieu of a testable hypothesis, we have to conclude that all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation and all mathematically-valid signal processing techniques are fair game for empirical observation.