And you're wrong with that assumption. I've explained in detail why. You repeating the same nonsensical statement won't change anything about that.And my point, had you bothered to read, was that the bias IS almost certainly correct....
No, it doesn't. The bias comes from yet unconfirmed theories, which were supposed to be verified by direct observations, like an actual image of a black hole. But this image is not an actual image directly taken of a black hole, but an image that was generated by an algorithm that was built by definition to output something similar to what was already expected.this "bias" comes from decades of observation
You have serious problems with reading comprehension, don't you? Otherwise why would you ask me this pointless and loaded question (which is another logical fallacy, which you seem to be unable to avoid committing all the time).what makes you think it's wrong?!!?
Nope. The "real data" was full of random noise, in which data originating from the black hole was indistinguishable from the noise "superimposed" over it. And the bias was used to filter out and separate the actual data from the noise. Which by definition skewed the results towards what was already expected, and didn't allow a result that was totally different from what was postulated.And while the software takes this "previous bias" as PART of rendering this image, it was by no means the only way. Those 8 giant telescopes still had plenty of "real" data that reinforced the image - without any bias.
They might. Or they might not. Or they might present their findings for more what it actually is, because of fame. Or to justify all the money spent. Or to get more funding. Wouldn't be the first time in human history. Actually, this happens all the time.Again, before you shoot down something that tons of brilliant people spent years and millions of dollars on, perhaps think that just MAYBE, they might know a bit more than you do?
But even if we'd know for certain that this is not the case here by any means (which we don't), that still wouldn't mean that the points I brought up are invalid. Not because you assume these people were brilliant, and not because millions of dollars were spent on this, anyway.