Taking that picture of a black hole required massive amounts of data

[FF222]

And my point, had you bothered to read, was that the bias IS almost certainly correct....

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.

this "bias" comes from decades of observation

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.

what makes you think it's wrong?!!?

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Now, IF the bias was correct, the image still could be "correct". But if the bias was incorrect this is most likely a totally false image. Or at least contain the same possible inaccuracies as the original data used to bias the filtering algorithm.

Sure, but we have no reason to assume the bias is wrong. If new data is generally consistent with the preponderance of already established data then it is reasonable to assume that the new data is also correct.

If the new data contradict the preponderance of already established data, then the data will be initially suspect until a lot of other people working in the same field can either confirm it or find that there's a problem with it.

In this case the data is generally consistent with established observations and theory so there's no need to be initially suspect of the conclusion. Now you can rest assured that there are other astrophysicists typing to find flaws and errors in these observations and conclusions as the discovery of truly new things in science are what scientific careers are made of.

 

[FF222]

Sure, but we have no reason to assume the bias is wrong.

We have no reason to assume it's right either. The problem is, that this image is presented as a confirmation for our existing theories, where in fact it's not that.

If new data is generally consistent with the preponderance of already established data

But we have no "new data" and "established data" here. We have no "established data" here, because no picture of an actual black hole was taken previously. And we have no "new data" either - we only had "new data + random noise", inseparable from each other, and we used to filter out the noise by biasing the algorithm towards what we expected to see based on our existing theories.

If the new data contradict the preponderance of already established data

In order to do that, we'd have to have "established data" and "new data" first. We currently have none of these.

In this case the data is generally consistent with established observations and theory

No, the data is not consistent with established observations, because we have no established observations. And the picture had no change but to be by definition consistent with theories, because the filter used to separate the data from noise was biased towards said theories.

 

[FF222]

This image: http://I.4cdn.org/g/1554987004661.png perfectly describes what's the problem and what's going on here.

 

[Lew Zealand]

An attempt at a meme? Is that supposed to mean something?

You’re confusing no previous images of black holes with no data. There is a mountain of extant data as well as theory about black holes and this doesn’t contradict any of it.

If you have access to the data they used to generate the image and somehow can come up with a different conclusion, then by all means do so and publish in a peer reviewed journal of some respectability.

But all I see right now from you is a lot of hand waving and speculation without any evidence to back it up.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Well, I think you misunderstood my post... or possibly English isn’t your first language... or you’re just trying to be a sh1t disturber....

The data was not simply “noise” that was filtered with a bias....do you really think that’s what millions of dollars and years of time was spent on?

I suggest you find something better to do than inanely poo poo important research... maybe do a study of your own?

 

[wiyosaya]

Sure, but we have no reason to assume the bias is wrong. If new data is generally consistent with the preponderance of already established data then it is reasonable to assume that the new data is also correct.

If the new data contradict the preponderance of already established data, then the data will be initially suspect until a lot of other people working in the same field can either confirm it or find that there's a problem with it.

In this case the data is generally consistent with established observations and theory so there's no need to be initially suspect of the conclusion. Now you can rest assured that there are other astrophysicists typing to find flaws and errors in these observations and conclusions as the discovery of truly new things in science are what scientific careers are made of.

According to my understanding, the data was put through a very rigorous examination that took something like two years and literally involved something like 200 scientists - so an extensive validation was done up-front and data analysis is on-going. That does not mean that they could not have made a mistake, but that seems not all that likely. https://phys.org/news/2019-04-astronomers-unveil-photo-black-hole.html

As you well know, that is the nature of the scientific process. In all but the rarest of cases, scientists do not publish data willy-nilly as lack of a well-grounded scientific process in their papers would almost certainly be career suicide.

 

[DelJo63]

The Smithsonian Channel had a nice documentary on the process, logistics and the analysis it took to create the image. The software used to create the image was 'calibrated' against a known object before attempting to produce the image that was published.

For the math majors, the software was 'tuned' to produce a reasonable image via interpolation of measured results to fill-in the gaps between the eight observation sites.

Just as there are those that insist that no one landed on the Moon in 1969, there will be nay sayers on this as well. IMO, it's great to see theoretical answers finally being justified by empirical results.