If we can capture light moving radially outward from the black hole, why is the middle of this black...

this guy is right

>perpendicular to the direction of the camera
There is no camera brainlet, it's a reconstruction based on radio signals.

A black hole is not a sphere, it's a hole, so you can't orbit it like you would orbit a star.
Maybe pic related will help OP understand.

Attached: nigger.png (559x358, 15K)

Here's another picture to help OP.

Attached: HOLE.jpg (1280x720, 160K)

I've been saying it all along - it's a scam. It was made in gimp

a black hole is a sphere though. its a collapsed star. the gravity well is spherical in 3D

>There is no camera brainlet, it's a reconstruction based on radio signals.
That's what a camera does, though.

>A black hole is not a sphere, it's a hole
Oh it's bait, nvm

There is no light moving radially outward from the black hole. The black hole does not emit light.

>A black hole is not a sphere
Give me one credible reason why it wouldn't behave like a sphere.

because it's gravity is sooo soooo powerful that it's own light cant even escape from it and reach us. This is why it looks black.

Just watch this.
youtube.com/watch?v=zUyH3XhpLTo&t=0s

>this isn't an image pulled directly from a telescope, it is rather a glorified data plot.
That IS what images pulled directly from (non-optical) telescopes are.

Look, you know nothing about technology or astronomy, so just be quiet and learn some things.

Because it's spinning, the accretion disk is called a disk for a reason.

>Look, you know nothing about technology or astronomy, so just be quiet and learn some things.
You forgot physics. They know nothing about physics either.

wrong as fuck, don't talk about shit you know nothing about

oh God how old is he? He's got white beard already.
>tfw I could be getting white hair soon and still a kissless virgin

Shit user, go find yourself a nice trap to kiss before it's too late.

If you're going to pretend to be smart, at least back it up with proper capitalization and punctuation.

You don't know jack.

And yet this was the first time such an image was called a photo.

You are fucking retarded. If light is orbiting a black hole how the fuck would it ever reach you?

What world do you live in?
>Hey Stacey, I love the plots of data you took at your wedding!
>You mean photos?
>No one calls them that!

The camera used for the wedding photo captured light rays in the visible spectrum.

Nobody said the light was orbiting the singularity; matter is though and it emits energy we can detect.

Attached: 1554584625526.jpg (1024x762, 144K)

So the metric if something is a photo or not is what wavelength the sensor is attuned for?
An infrared camera does not take photos, correct?

I'm not sure THEY called it a photo. The definition of a photo is fairly murky, though.
Generally they call these images. Even NASA called the composite photos they make "images" instead of photos.
It's still being generated from captured photons so arguments can be made.

There's no way for light to come in at an angle where it'd bend in front of the event horizon. Any photons between us and the event horizon are not making it to our telescopes, hence we can't see them even if they are there.

>based on the source data
There were 2 petabytes of source data.

An infrared camera captures images. It makes no sense to say they take photos. This is the first time they are parading an image as a photo, as if this is exactly what you would see with your eyes if you were closer.

What if your camera is just sensitive to frequencies outside the visible spectrum for humans?
Many cameras, especially cellphone cameras, will capture light form infrared remotes. Is that still a photo?

>Capture photons
>Plot them on a grid
>Encode them as a series of 1s and 0s
Am I talking about radio astronomy or using your phone's camera?

Are you saying that there are no stars between the black hole's event horizon and Earth? There's no reason the center of this "photo" should be black except to fit the narrative.

5 petabytes of source data.
250kG of HDDs.

So a photo is something that looks the same as if you were seeing it with your eyes?

Someone better tell all those photographers to stop using lenses and lens filters.

>Are you saying that there are no stars between the black hole's event horizon and Earth?
Quite possible at the time they made the observations.
Things are moving and they had to wait for good conditions to take the observations, so waiting for stars to move out of the way could have been part of that.

This is what the black whole would of looked like from different angles!

Attached: output4.webm (640x360, 2.57M)

No retard, he said if it doesn't look like what you'd see with your eyes it's not a photo. I'm sorry to tell you, your cellphone can't take photos.

Light isn't bouncing back to the capture device from there. Every angle would look the same. Would see light entering from all other angles but no light/photons bouncing back from it's own angle?.

If it is not a mostly accurate representation of what you would see with a human eye, it is not a photo. If there are a few inaccurate pixels that is fine.

Have you ever heard of glasses?

A black hole IS a sphere, the black part is just where the gravity around the collapsed star is so high that light can't escape it. And you CAN absolutely orbit around a black hole.

youtube.com/watch?v=IM8HvoaKsBU

There are no stars directly between Earth and the supermassive black hole in M83, no.
Space is REALLY large. Remember that the closest star to our own is 39,924,000,000,000 kilometers away. Voyager 1 is 18,800,000,000 km away, about 1/500th of a percent.

>all cameras have shittier dynamic range than human eyes
>no cameras take photos
Well, shit.

Big if true.

Exactly. Photos don't exist.

This is a supermassive black hole in the center of a galaxy. Do you know what a galaxy is?

why is Jow Forums being so retardedly contrarian wrt this black hole thing

>This is the first time they are parading an image as a photo, as if this is exactly what you would see with your eyes if you were closer.
This.
When I first read there would be a "photo" of it, I assumed they meant an actual photo.
I wondered why it looked orange.
Dissappointed to learn the color is just a brightness heatmap and not a photo at all.

They want to feel superior about all the people being excited about something they don't understand, by being upset about something they don't understand.

Do you know how BIG galaxies are?

Not a globular cluster.

So you are saying that there are no stars between the event horizon of the black hole and Earth?

Yes.

Most images of space are taken in frequencies of light which are well below or well above visible frequencies.

Even if there were stars blocking M83's galactic center, the accretion disk of the black hole's event horizon is so large, and so bright that it would outshine any stars around it.
Any stars that are close to the black hole at the center of M83 would be tiny compared to it.

I'm saying that AT THE TIME OF THE OBSERVATION there WERE no stars between the event horizon of the black hole and Earth.

>cellphone cameras will capture light form infrared remotes
What? Show me an example!

>Most images of space are taken in frequencies of light which are well below or well above visible frequencies.
And they are called images. Not photos.

Stars aren't very close together, you know.

the black hole in the pic is the size of the solar system
even the biggest stars would look tiny
most telescopes can tune their focus anyways, especially those working outside the visible light spectrum
infrared lets you see through some gas clouds for example

Attached: wiisensor.jpg (1280x720, 38K)

Galaxys are not 2D.

There's no fundamental difference between taking a photograph with one frequency of light versus another. They may require different techniques, but at the end of the day you are recording photons and plotting them in a way that resolves an image.
Everything from film, to x-ray telescopes does this in some way. You're recording photons. "Photo" meaning light, "graph" meaning to record. To record light. Photograph.

Then why has NASA been very careful about not calling the images they take with telescopes "photographs" until now?

No shit. They're also not static.

They had to make it look like a, you know, black hole. They'd be laughed out off the press conference if they presented an orange blob instead.

Exactly, which is why such alignments are improbable. The chance for interference is minimized even more by these observations being in wavelengths where typical stars are not particularly bright or noticeable next to a highly active 6.5 billion solar mass object.

Attached: Messier_87_Hubble_WikiSky.jpg (2160x2160, 207K)

Because people are dumb and argue over things like this and the simplest way to avoid it is to just use a generic term.

So in reality, this is not what you would see with your eyes, and they are parading this around as a "photograph" for more clicks.

You're recording photons and making them into an image. A photograph.

Who gives a fuck.

>this is not what you would see with your eyes
Modern photography is dead if this is your criteria.

No it's not. When I look at an photograph taken with a phone, it resembles real life.

>There were 2 petabytes of source data.
produce 256 butes of 16x16 image

>ask a stupid question and get destroyed
>deflect with pedantics that have nothing to do with the original discussion
Retards. Every time.

miracle anus

Congratulations you've figured out that the radio telescopes created an imagine based on radio wave data instead of a giant planet sized CCD

and by einstein you mean henry cavendish right?

The original discussion was that this is a glorified data plot, not a photo.

Tbh that's basically any image captured ever.

Images captured with digital cameras make an attempt to imitate real life.

Are you implying the scientific community didn't?

No they don't. High end cameras just record all the light data it can, so you can adjust the exposure, contrast, etc. with as little clipping as possible.
Every professional photo you've seen required post-processing to look accurate to real life.

The end result looks like real life. This does not.

Then I don't really understand what your laughably incorrect rambling about stars getting in the way has to do with that, whichever the case, you've been outed as an idiot and should probably just stop posting.

>Every

What's more "real life"? The RAW image that captures more light data than you can ever hope to see on a screen, or the screen that displays a limited amount of that data at once?

Astronomers might disagree with you, considering "real life" does not end at the boundaries of the visible spectrum.

For digital photos. But if you want to be pedantic, then there are likely a very small amount of digital, professional photographs which look good and were taken without any kind of post processing in something like LightRoom. But most people are just going to use LightRoom.

no you dum dum
holes are rings (propably ellipsoidal, not even a perfect circle)
the event horizon looks mor elike a torus, but instead of a doughnut hole its propably more lile a dimple

I don't give a shit about the raw data when viewing a photograph. People don't give a shit about the raw data for this black hole "photograph". What matters is how something looks through human eyes.

>What matters is how something looks through human eyes.
Not really.

Real life is more than what the human eyes can see.

But that is not the intent of a PHOTOGRAPH.