>>13242832Then there is the project that first "took a picture of a black hole". Huge amounts of data captured around the globe just to achieve such capture. They all seem so tired in the end. Over and over they repeat "Hopefully we get something after 10 years of hard work and sleepless nights". But when the time comes, with most people excited, some rise alarms: "maybe we need to make sure the data is properly calibrated". The warnings are ignored. Then they get some captures, inconclusive and even contradictory (as it all depend on the algorithms uses to digest the data). "Maybe we shouldn't be so excited and take a step back, just to confirm with have the actual black hole". But again the warnings are ignored, and the documentary keeps the positive vibes: They have waited too long for giving up, so four teams are formed to prepare and "decide what images are the actual valid ones". And here lies the problem: a bunch of people with predefined ideas of what the black hole looks like (based on simulations), deciding what algorithm is creating the actual image (as no one has actually see it, and the images are not truly optical values in photons). And of course, they reach a consensus in the end. But... Is the picture correct, or even from the correct object? We clearly don't know, yet the documentary implies so.
In summary: a bunch of equations that could be pure rubbish, and a bunch of pixels that well could be a blurry cloud of gas, all making headlines and History. Sweet
(2/2)
