We finally took a photo of a black hole

[MusicallyInspired]

Or better yet, put some on the moon too!

[DeadPoolX]

Many people are just making fun of this photo being so blurry and don't understand what it means and just making Eye of Sauron jokes...

Most people are morons who shouldn't be allowed on the Internet, so that doesn't really surprise me. With all the crackpot conspiracy theories out there (i.e. we didn't land on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, the Earth is flat, vaccines cause autism, etc) I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with one about this yet.

[Tawmis]

Many people are just making fun of this photo being so blurry and don't understand what it means and just making Eye of Sauron jokes...

Most people are morons who shouldn't be allowed on the Internet, so that doesn't really surprise me. With all the crackpot conspiracy theories out there (i.e. we didn't land on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, the Earth is flat, vaccines cause autism, etc) I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with one about this yet.

Just look at the first video in the image...

[MusicallyInspired]

I don't totally disrespect people who question stuff we take for granted. It means they're being honest with themselves and learning to not believe just anything and everything they're told. Proving that the Earth is round, for instance, is not an easy task (on your own). But the extremists who totally believe in a flat Earth model and who try to convince everyone else are just trading in one belief for another without any work. I got no respect for them.

Me personally, I don't really trust anyone that I don't know. Even with this black hole photo we're just trusting a bunch of people we've never met and believing their science and trusting that it's not just a computer generated image made in Photoshop (it would be easy enough with detail like that). It most likely is a black hole photo (actually, photo is probably the wrong word) but there's no way that I personally can prove it. The only reason we all believe it is is because everyone else does and tells us that we should too. For things like 9/11, flat Earth, moon landing, etc and other conspiracies I choose to just go with what we're told but I also keep my mind open. Call me stupid for that if you like, but I just keep coming back to "I wasn't there so what do I know?" Sure, a lot of other people were and I believe them for the most part because either way it doesn't affect my personal life in any way (so far) so there's no reason not to believe it.

Plus, the flat Earth theory is just plain interesting. In a "what if" kind of way. I don't give it serious credence, mind you. And sure, it may be loaded with inaccuracies when compared to science (which may or may not be proven true compared to what I personally have knowledge of), but I find it fascinating in the same way that we all find sci-fi fascinating. We don't love Star Wars and Star Trek for no reason. Some people just go way way too far with it. Like, ok, I get the fact that I personally have never left North America and visited the Antarctic to see if there's a "ridge" or if anything lies beyond it (some people say that the Antarctic is the rim of the flat Earth but that the flat Earth could be much larger than we think and our governments just don't want us to know what's past it). I get that line of thinking. But to just go straight on to "Oh yeah, man, the government is lying to us! The world is flat and they know it and everyone is in on it!" that's just the same problem. You can't prove that anymore than you can prove a round Earth (again, I'm just saying no one person can personally prove it without going into space for themselves, not that it's not provable with science or third party testimony).


TL;DR: So to sum up. Some people question things and that's a good exercise in being independent and thinking critically. Some people go to the extreme and just believe science or conspiracies on a whim because they can't think for themselves. The former I have much more respect for than most people who believe in science whole-heartedly. The latter I have no respect for. Also, I believe the Earth is most likely round. Also, I suppose this is way off topic lol. Oops.

[MusicallyInspired]

I do think the media is really pushing this whole "This one woman is the mastermind behind taking a photo of a black hole!" a little too far. The girl herself was quoted as saying that it was absolutely a team effort and that no one person could have done it without the others. And I don't think she's just being modest. There's no one single person (man or woman) behind such a monumental feat that took years to produce results from and hundreds and hundreds of people and dozens of countries to work together to bring about. She was obviously certainly a very important part of the process, no doubt. I just think this whole narrative is being jumped on and pushed a little too much.

Congrats on her amazing efforts, though!

[Tawmis]

I do think the media is really pushing this whole "This one woman is the mastermind behind taking a photo of a black hole!" a little too far. The girl herself was quoted as saying that it was absolutely a team effort and that no one person could have done it without the others. And I don't think she's just being modest.

But she's right though - and that's why she's being modest (or honest). She came up with the theory/algorithm thing but it took a mess of computer geeks and such to get it all computed in and done - and begin the capturing process.
So when she says it's a team effort, I think she's being honest - but in a very modest kind of way. She knows that she may have "done it" - but it did require the assistance of many others skills, assets, etc., to make what she did possible.
So kudos to her for not simply saying, "Yeah, it was all me."

[Tawmis]

"I... See.... You..."

[notbobsmith]

I don't totally disrespect people who question stuff we take for granted. It means they're being honest with themselves and learning to not believe just anything and everything they're told. Proving that the Earth is round, for instance, is not an easy task (on your own). But the extremists who totally believe in a flat Earth model and who try to convince everyone else are just trading in one belief for another without any work. I got no respect for them.

Me personally, I don't really trust anyone that I don't know. Even with this black hole photo we're just trusting a bunch of people we've never met and believing their science and trusting that it's not just a computer generated image made in Photoshop (it would be easy enough with detail like that). It most likely is a black hole photo (actually, photo is probably the wrong word) but there's no way that I personally can prove it. The only reason we all believe it is is because everyone else does and tells us that we should too. For things like 9/11, flat Earth, moon landing, etc and other conspiracies I choose to just go with what we're told but I also keep my mind open. Call me stupid for that if you like, but I just keep coming back to "I wasn't there so what do I know?" Sure, a lot of other people were and I believe them for the most part because either way it doesn't affect my personal life in any way (so far) so there's no reason not to believe it.

Plus, the flat Earth theory is just plain interesting. In a "what if" kind of way. I don't give it serious credence, mind you. And sure, it may be loaded with inaccuracies when compared to science (which may or may not be proven true compared to what I personally have knowledge of), but I find it fascinating in the same way that we all find sci-fi fascinating. We don't love Star Wars and Star Trek for no reason. Some people just go way way too far with it. Like, ok, I get the fact that I personally have never left North America and visited the Antarctic to see if there's a "ridge" or if anything lies beyond it (some people say that the Antarctic is the rim of the flat Earth but that the flat Earth could be much larger than we think and our governments just don't want us to know what's past it). I get that line of thinking. But to just go straight on to "Oh yeah, man, the government is lying to us! The world is flat and they know it and everyone is in on it!" that's just the same problem. You can't prove that anymore than you can prove a round Earth (again, I'm just saying no one person can personally prove it without going into space for themselves, not that it's not provable with science or third party testimony).


TL;DR: So to sum up. Some people question things and that's a good exercise in being independent and thinking critically. Some people go to the extreme and just believe science or conspiracies on a whim because they can't think for themselves. The former I have much more respect for than most people who believe in science whole-heartedly. The latter I have no respect for. Also, I believe the Earth is most likely round. Also, I suppose this is way off topic lol. Oops.

I have to disagree with you here. For one thing, scientist are open minded. Just think: Eratosthenes of Cyrene proved the Earth was round over Two Thousand Years Ago! That certainly went against conventional wisdom at the time. Not only did he prove it was round, his calculations were off by only 41 miles of the actual measured value! That's a remarkable achievement and one that should be celebrated. Einstein gave us a better understanding of the universe than we ever had before. From a practical standpoint, without the corrections for relativity, the GPS system would accumulate an error of 10 km per day! There were things predicted in the early days of Relativity and Quantum mechanics a century ago that have only recently been experimentally demonstrated. Many of these things challenged the view of how the universe is "supposed" to work (even Einstein had qualms about Quantum on principle), but hypotheses were made, theories tested, experiments done and reviewed by peers. All of this is freely available for anyone to view. Long held precepts can be challenged, the trick is you have to demonstrate why you are right. Scientist spend their careers doing this. And that is why I reject the notion that somehow it is okay to casually dismiss accepted scientific facts. Why? What makes the person think the theory are wrong? If a person wants to believe the earth is flat, it doesn't really affect me or anyone else and nothing will convince them otherwise. The problem lies when policy decisions are made. If the science supports a conclusion, but it is rejected by someone who just doesn't "believe" it without offering a rational argument as to why, that is dangerous. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Not everyone can be an expert. I wouldn't presume to tell a carpenter how to do his job, or question a historian if George Washington or the Roman Empire really existed. People have to learn to trust the rigors of the scientific process.

As for flat earthers themselves, it's an easy experiment to do. A few years ago, some high schools students bought a digital camera and a GPS transmitter off eBay and sent it up in a weather balloon. It went high enough up to capture the curvature of the earth. Anyone can do it. They just wanted to see how cheap they could do it. Conspiracy theories always have a nefarious purpose for the conspiracy. What I don't understand about flat earthers is: what is the nefarious purpose. The powers that be are trying to convince us that the world is round so that they can... what?

I do think the media is really pushing this whole "This one woman is the mastermind behind taking a photo of a black hole!" a little too far. The girl herself was quoted as saying that it was absolutely a team effort and that no one person could have done it without the others. And I don't think she's just being modest.

But she's right though - and that's why she's being modest (or honest). She came up with the theory/algorithm thing but it took a mess of computer geeks and such to get it all computed in and done - and begin the capturing process.
So when she says it's a team effort, I think she's being honest - but in a very modest kind of way. She knows that she may have "done it" - but it did require the assistance of many others skills, assets, etc., to make what she did possible.
So kudos to her for not simply saying, "Yeah, it was all me."

What troubles me most about this incident was that once her involvement became public, the internet trolls immediately pounced trying to prove it couldn't be true. I don't think this would have happened if the post-doc was a man. Acknowledging a woman in science is a good thing. Sometime ago, our dry ice delivery man assumed a colleague was our secretary. She has a PhD in biophysics.

[MusicallyInspired]

I have to disagree with you here. For one thing, scientist are open minded. Just think: Eratosthenes of Cyrene proved the Earth was round over Two Thousand Years Ago! That certainly went against conventional wisdom at the time. Not only did he prove it was round, his calculations were off by only 41 miles of the actual measured value! That's a remarkable achievement and one that should be celebrated. Einstein gave us a better understanding of the universe than we ever had before. From a practical standpoint, without the corrections for relativity, the GPS system would accumulate an error of 10 km per day! There were things predicted in the early days of Relativity and Quantum mechanics a century ago that have only recently been experimentally demonstrated. Many of these things challenged the view of how the universe is "supposed" to work (even Einstein had qualms about Quantum on principle), but hypotheses were made, theories tested, experiments done and reviewed by peers. All of this is freely available for anyone to view. Long held precepts can be challenged, the trick is you have to demonstrate why you are right. Scientist spend their careers doing this. And that is why I reject the notion that somehow it is okay to casually dismiss accepted scientific facts. Why? What makes the person think the theory are wrong? If a person wants to believe the earth is flat, it doesn't really affect me or anyone else and nothing will convince them otherwise.

That's all well and good. But it's still based on knowledge that bunch of people I don't know hold and a bunch of scientific theories that I don't know the first thing about nor how to prove. I'm not saying that I wouldn't come to the same conclusion if I tested those theories myself. I don't believe anyone should be beholden to believing others no matter how much research they've done, accolades they've acquired, or feats they've achieved, when it comes to their own personal world view. Just because everyone says and believes something doesn't mean any one individual has to take it as gospel. I believe that's where the spirit of science and the scientific method came from in the first place.

Another point I want to lay out on the table is that believing the Earth is flat and questioning whether or not it's round are two entirely different things.

The problem lies when policy decisions are made. If the science supports a conclusion, but it is rejected by someone who just doesn't "believe" it without offering a rational argument as to why, that is dangerous. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

Ohhhhhh boy I couldn't agree more with this! This could go off in a completely different direction but I'm not going to go take that route right now.
So, continuing on...

If the science supports a conclusion, but it is rejected by someone who just doesn't "believe" it without offering a rational argument as to why, that is dangerous. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Not everyone can be an expert. I wouldn't presume to tell a carpenter how to do his job, or question a historian if George Washington or the Roman Empire really existed. People have to learn to trust the rigors of the scientific process.

This seems to me like part of what can lead to the growth of the seeds of totalitarian and legalistic behaviour. People don't have do trust anything. And calling that dangerous is in my humble opinion dangerous. I agree that facts are facts, whether we're mistaken about them or not. I certainly don't believe everyone has "their own truth" and all that nonsense that a lot of people go on about nowadays. It's all just a matter of whether we're on the same page or not with what's actually true. Everyone's got their own journey to get there. Some people don't take it, others take it more quickly than others. But it's their journey and nobody can tell them how to walk it. No, I wouldn't tell a carpenter how to do his job. I wouldn't even tell a scientist how to do his job. But when he tells me what to believe about the world I don't care what he does or how much he knows I'm not going to just take that information and believe it without vetting it and mulling over it and thinking about it for myself because I want to live with the freedom of my own beliefs. As anyone should. It's not about disbelieving anyone per see. It's just healthy caution. I think that's justified.

I agree that it's probably most likely safe to believe a lot of what science is talking about and the people who pursue and further it in their careers and lives, but I still don't believe there's anything wrong with just taking anyone's word for anything at the drop of a hat just because everyone else believes it.

As for flat earthers themselves, it's an easy experiment to do. A few years ago, some high schools students bought a digital camera and a GPS transmitter off eBay and sent it up in a weather balloon. It went high enough up to capture the curvature of the earth. Anyone can do it. They just wanted to see how cheap they could do it. Conspiracy theories always have a nefarious purpose for the conspiracy. What I don't understand about flat earthers is: what is the nefarious purpose. The powers that be are trying to convince us that the world is round so that they can... what?

I'm not saying I'm a flat Earther or that flat Earthers are right. I'm not saying that someone who questions accepted facts also has to mean that they think everyone is out to get them. Can't someone be simply skeptical for themselves without starting a conspiracy movement or any of that? I think we're talking about two different hings. Honestly, I get slightly worried when people start getting frantic about making people believe science like their life depends on it. "You HAVE to believe it! It's scientific fact!" talking like they're a heretic or something. I'm not saying you're doing that, I just don't see why we can't let people live their own way. Some people are just working things out for themselves. Let them be and if they're honest they'll come to the right conclusions on their own. The ones who aren't honest aren't going to listen anyway. I'm just saying there's some maturity and wisdom in the idea of not simply accepting everything you're told at face value.

What troubles me most about this incident was that once her involvement became public, the internet trolls immediately pounced trying to prove it couldn't be true. I don't think this would have happened if the post-doc was a man. Acknowledging a woman in science is a good thing. Sometime ago, our dry ice delivery man assumed a colleague was our secretary. She has a PhD in biophysics.

I've got news for you. Internet trolls have been around since before there was an internet. They aren't new. And they're not going away any time soon.

[Tawmis]

What troubles me most about this incident was that once her involvement became public, the internet trolls immediately pounced trying to prove it couldn't be true. I don't think this would have happened if the post-doc was a man. Acknowledging a woman in science is a good thing. Sometime ago, our dry ice delivery man assumed a colleague was our secretary. She has a PhD in biophysics.

These days I ignore Internet Trolls, because they're out there with their wild ideas and crazy conspiracies... the only time I ever engage with Internet Trolls is when I am extremely bored ... I open up Twitter, look up a hashtag I know is causing a $#!+ storm with insecure white males (say like #CaptainMarvel) and go to town on them (never getting mad, just out there - being one of them - an Internet Troll - yanking chains). Did the same thing for Solo and The Last Jedi... just yanking chains left and right and engaging with people until they blocked me; but never, ever cussing. Just using logic and opinions.

[Rath Darkblade]

If the science supports a conclusion, but it is rejected by someone who just doesn't "believe" it without offering a rational argument as to why, that is dangerous. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Not everyone can be an expert. I wouldn't presume to tell a carpenter how to do his job, or question a historian if George Washington or the Roman Empire really existed. People have to learn to trust the rigors of the scientific process.

This seems to me like part of what can lead to the growth of the seeds of totalitarian and legalistic behaviour. People don't have do trust anything. And calling that dangerous is in my humble opinion dangerous. I agree that facts are facts, whether we're mistaken about them or not. I certainly don't believe everyone has "their own truth" and all that nonsense that a lot of people go on about nowadays. It's all just a matter of whether we're on the same page or not with what's actually true. Everyone's got their own journey to get there. Some people don't take it, others take it more quickly than others. But it's their journey and nobody can tell them how to walk it. No, I wouldn't tell a carpenter how to do his job. I wouldn't even tell a scientist how to do his job. But when he tells me what to believe about the world I don't care what he does or how much he knows I'm not going to just take that information and believe it without vetting it and mulling over it and thinking about it for myself because I want to live with the freedom of my own beliefs. As anyone should. It's not about disbelieving anyone per see. It's just healthy caution. I think that's justified.

I agree that it's probably most likely safe to believe a lot of what science is talking about and the people who pursue and further it in their careers and lives, but I still don't believe there's anything wrong with just taking anyone's word for anything at the drop of a hat just because everyone else believes it.

I think we're using the wrong terminology here about science. No-one has to "believe" in science to understand it - science is not a matter of belief, like faith. Science simply is, whether you believe in it or not. The apple fell on Newton's head because of the earth's gravitational pull, not because Newton "believed" that gravity exists. Gravity exists, whether you believe in it or not.

The same goes for all kinds of science - and science is a big term: biology, physics, and chemistry are just the beginning. They help us make sense of the world around us. Biologists help to protect us from diseases, they study the natural world in all kinds of ways. Physicists do all kinds of research, from the Big Bang to black holes to the elements of the universe. And chemistry? Where would we be without chemists (also known in the US as 'pharmacists')? Chemistry's contribution is immense, from more effective fertilisers to more powerful dynamite to nitrocellulose, as well as more effective medicines.

"Belief" has no place in science. Scientists don't act on belief, but on proof. If a scientific hypothesis is incorrect - if it cannot be tested for and proved right or wrong, again and again - then it is cast aside. It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of proof.

[MusicallyInspired]

I agree that it's probably most likely safe to believe a lot of what science is talking about and the people who pursue and further it in their careers and lives, but I still don't believe there's anything wrong with just taking anyone's word for anything at the drop of a hat just because everyone else believes it.

Agh I meant to say something more like:

"but I still don't believe people should be taking anyone's word for anything at the drop of a hat just because everyone else believes it."

I think we're using the wrong terminology here about science. No-one has to "believe" in science to understand it - science is not a matter of belief, like faith. Science simply is, whether you believe in it or not. The apple fell on Newton's head because of the earth's gravitational pull, not because Newton "believed" that gravity exists. Gravity exists, whether you believe in it or not.

The apple fell on Newton's head. That much we know for sure (maybe. I wasn't there ). Science explains it with what we call "gravity". I believe in gravity (for the time being), but who's to say some other scientific theory that replaces gravity won't come about through the rigors of the scientific process and we'll all change our views accordingly? I'm not saying gravity doesn't exist (like flat Earthers do), I'm just saying scientific rules and laws (at least our terminologies and explanations) change all the time. The facts of the universe don't change. The universe is what it is whether we understand it properly or not. I'm with you there. It's not a matter of belief. The sky is blue because it's blue, not because we believe it's blue. I'm talking about how we understand it. Our explanations for why the sky is blue may change over time as we collect more data and discover elements of the universe we weren't previously aware of before (again, I'm just using sky colour as an example, I'm not saying we don't know why the sky is blue). Calling the facts of the universe science is I think a misuse of terms here. Our understanding of and the pursuit of knowledge about the universe is called science. Not the universe itself. I think it's somewhat narcissistic to conflate the two.

The same goes for all kinds of science - and science is a big term: biology, physics, and chemistry are just the beginning. They help us make sense of the world around us. Biologists help to protect us from diseases, they study the natural world in all kinds of ways. Physicists do all kinds of research, from the Big Bang to black holes to the elements of the universe. And chemistry? Where would we be without chemists (also known in the US as 'pharmacists')? Chemistry's contribution is immense, from more effective fertilisers to more powerful dynamite to nitrocellulose, as well as more effective medicines.

Totally agree.

"Belief" has no place in science. Scientists don't act on belief, but on proof. If a scientific hypothesis is incorrect - if it cannot be tested for and proved right or wrong, again and again - then it is cast aside. It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of proof.

Again, I agree with you here....until we stumble upon some new facts of the universe that prove theories incorrect even though they seemed to work out reliably with the evidence we had at the time. There was a Star Trek TNG episode where Data crashed on a planet or something and forgot his identity and the fact that he was an android and stumbled upon a primitive village. Their scientist believe that fire lived in all things and you would "awaken" the fire by exposing it to heat (something like that). Data corrected this theory by saying that just because it is combustible doesn't mean it was inside the whole time. He also proved the existence of particles by testing for radiation. Something they couldn't do (or didn't know how to do) beforehand.

A real world example: take the Andromeda galaxy. We've always believed that it was a galaxy twice the size of the Milky Way. But I just watched a YouTube video the other day where some new evidence was discovered that points to the fact that Andromeda is likely half the size of the Milky Way because of some globular clusters we've found in our own galaxy that seem to defy our initial estimations of its size. "Proven scientific fact" is always true until it's proven wrong...by scientific fact. I'm not saying science is fallible by the way, I'm saying it's always evolving our understanding of the universe. It's our understanding that changes and that directly affects personal belief. People used to think the world was flat hundreds of years ago. Now we don't (for the most part). That's proof of faith and belief right there. People believed the Earth was the center of the solar system (and the universe) until they didn't. We believed our galaxy was half the size of Andromeda until we didn't (if that theory continues to pan out). There's no way to know what will remain true tomorrow that we accept as fact today.

But regardless, I'm not talking about scientists. I'm talking about all us laymen that don't (yet) understand all facets of science and how we currently understand what the universe is and how it works. We have to take their word for it because we haven't devoted our lives to it. We the laymen have to believe on faith that these scientists are right because we haven't done any of the experiments ourselves for the most part. I'm sure a lot of non-scientists have proven theories for themselves and that's awesome. I'm not talking about these people. I'm saying when scientists say to someone working a 9-5 job who never leaves his hometown and never takes a trip or goes to some special class or seminar that explains why the Earth is round (or even if he does) that until he tests the reality of those claims (I use "claims" because as far as he's concerned that's all they are strictly speaking) he is taking on faith that the Earth is in fact round and not flat. And I understand why someone who would never have made his own experiments to test these claims wouldn't pounce on believing that the Earth is in fact round. I'm not saying I do, I'm just saying I understand the thought process.

I don't understand the thought process of switching from "the Earth is round because some people told me so" to "the Earth is flat and those people are lying to us even though I haven't tested that theory either."

[Collector]

[MusicallyInspired]

That's a little unfair. Most kids who say that still have to take the classes whether they like it or not. And they learn. They can't just avoid the classes just because they don't want to and then end up growing up without the knowledge and becoming so-called "science deniers." That notion is a bit silly. That said, at least in school you get to do experiments on a smaller scale with simpler things, but on the whole the traditional schoolroom textbook student/teacher programming lecture center environment is less hands-on and moreso basically the same thing as just getting information from a third party and taking their word for it. Until you break out into the scientific field for yourself (whether on your own at home as a hobby or as a career path).

[Tawmis]

That's a little unfair. Most kids who say that still have to take the classes whether they like it or not.

It's a bird! It's a plane! No... it's just the joke going over your head.