Radio Telescopes Combine Data for First-ever Image of a Supermassive Black Hole

Cat study of black hole...

Conclusion: meeOOww

That's really cool. I can't wait until we get better at measuring gravitational waves and can start to really analyze the gravity wave spectrum of black holes

I am a lowly gawker in the intergalactic peanut gallery. Love the stuff, always interested to see the latest thing. Just read and really enjoyed the blog here about black holes emitting B flat.

I am disappointed that the simulated images are not more informative (I couldn't see the video but I realize there is a time sequence there which might convey a bit more?). There are numbers on the side of the images (at the link you posted) but there is nothing to indicate what those numbers represent. And there is no indication what the different colors represent either.

It's probably a personal failing that makes me bothered by the syntax and use of the word 'image', as well. Yes I understand it is an image of radio data, not an image of a black hole as I would see it if I were in front of it, just lookin. Which would presumably look black, just plain black, to my ordinary eyes, until they B flattened. I just want to read 'radio data image' or 'data image' every time, instead of a casual mention of data followed by a discussion of the "image of a black hole".

I also realize that it's important to budgets for this important work, to have publicity and especially images to throw out to the world of gawkers. I am immensely grateful to NASA for making so many real images available, and I've spent many hours just gawking at those truly inspiring images... again it may be a personal failing that 'artist's renditions' eg of 'habitable worlds' are not so pleasing in the mix (and I should be glad to know that they are employing artists!). I click on a story expecting to see something 'real' and instead it's 'what somebody imagined'. It's gotten to the point that I search immediately for that little subscript to see whether I may as well go read a comic book. Some secondary news providers may even misrepresent these images as real. So it leaves me a little touchy about how clearly these 'images' are explained or described for the gawkers.

As regards the present data image, I think it is cool to show a spatial representation of radio waves emanating from the bh, iff that is what the data provides. I want to know what the colors mean, and how this simple image captures the information that is present. I know what images of 'B flat' could look like, and several ways that audio and radio data can be visually represented which are information-rich, at its best, both pleasing ( 'beautiful' ) and a very meaningful image. If I missed all that by not seeing the video, pls advise.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/radio-telescopes-combine-data-to-capture-firstever-image-of-a-supermassive-black-hole/news-story/d9c2cb732eea80fb381f0cfb055bf106?from=rss-basic

Thanks. That was informative. I did some image searches on the black hole merge as well and I have new respect for the artists taking on the challenge of simulating things as yet unseen.

I do wish though that it was always made very clear, whether an image is 'real' ie a visual image, an image generated from data, or an image interpreting the concept, but without direct input of data.

Yeah, I found the nature of the image confusing too. It sounds like it was a simulation of averaged data, but I'm not sure.

...and all along, I thought people were speaking figuratively about their browser being a blackhole for time.