Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Netflix Accused of LYING, Pushing Climate Change PROPAGANDA" video.

@Comic Book Guy they said it was a composite from data analized by multiple observatories. The whole reason we never had a photo of a black hole is because of the physical limits on angular resolution. There's no mirror big enough. But I guess people tune out when they get nerdy. By the way, I am pretty sure any digital camera has an array of sensors that encode information about every pixel on a file. All digital photos are CGI because it's a composite from different sensor data.
7
@Comic Book Guy they did describe it as a composite made from observations made under a specific range of the radiation spectrum. Maybe you missed it, maybe the reporting was shoddy at the source you read, but they weren't trying to mislead anyone. "that's why the digital camera analogy is false; the camera records the actual light-wave data" - you do realize that to a sensor it doesn't fucking matter if the light is invisible or not, right? Point a TV remote at a camera. You'll see a purple glow unless the manufacturer put a filter because the sensor will see that light and interpret it as purple. There's even cameras with a slight night vision mode, they don't work as light intensifiers like in NVGs but allow you do see a green tint that allows you to see things that you wouldn't see on a normal camera. Because we humans are limited to a "visible spectrum" we typically consider visible light different from the rest of radiation. But if we had cones that interpreted IR we'd call IR "visible light" too. Some animals see IR. Light-wave data is not different from any other radiation wave data other than the fact that we can actually see it with our own eyes. I used digital cameras for my analogy and not film photography because we specifically made film to react to visible light (although radiation damage can be observed on film, I know there's artifacts on pictures taken on Chernobyl right after the disaster and film that traveled through space will wash out the colors but you get what I am saying), I am not very knowledgeable on photography but I am sure we could change the chemicals on film to make them react to a broader spectrum. Meanwhile digital cameras can pick up outside the visible spectrum and if you want them to not pick up IR you'll actually have to put a filter before the sensor. Look at FLIR imaging or images taken by a modern IR homing missile. It's a camera. It picks up a spectrum we cannot see. The camera doesn't care for the limits on human vision. It does what it was designed to do. "There's no such thing as radio-wave-light" - "In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[5][6] In this sense, gamma rays, X-rays, microwaves and radio waves are also light." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
2
@Comic Book Guy "defined in the dictionaries" - oh yes, because dictionaries are the ultimate authority in physics. "a camera, whether digital or chemical, or any device being able to detect or show the affects of humanly invisible EM radiation, doesn't = us seeing the invisible EM radiation" - that wasn't the argument. Nobody said that. You said that no EM radiation outside the visible spectrum could be considered light, which is false. "TV remotes don't flash purple or any colour" - again I just said it is interpreted as purple light. "the camera represents the invisible EM radiation with visible EM radiation." - now think long and hard about what you just said because that proves my entire point. "The dark objects/surroundings of night are not made light-grey by night vision cameras" - nobody claimed that. You're grasping at straws to disprove anything, even what was not said. "it seems that the ones who use "Dunning-Kruger" are the ones who've got nothing better than petty ad hominem." - it's not Ad Hominem my guy, you literally just fucking pretended to know better than someone else because you are not aware of a piece of knowledge required to understand his statement. "yet you seem to struggle with the fucking basic concept of INVISIBILITY" - the black hole isn't invisible. We can see the orange glow of the accretion disc. That's how we knew where it was in the first place. The problem is that you can't fucking see shit because of all the dust and clouds in the way and the lack of angular resolution. So they picked a band from the spectrum that could get through the matter.
1
@Comic Book Guy I mean, you're as pedantic as the Comic Book Guy but at least he is knowledgeable about stuff. Dictionaries reflect culture because meaning if often defined by society - see, the example of "literally" now being used by people who don't actually mean something literally changing the dictionary definition. Tell me, when soldiers using night vision goggles and want to mark a position they crack some IR chemlights so why are they "chemical lights" if IR is not visible? And they use IR lasers to aim their rifles when the night vision googles do not allow them to look through the ironsights or scope, laser means "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation". Insects and shrimp can see UV radiation. Wouldn't that make UV a form of light as well? "The intellectually honest, unbiased person can tell that the guy was covering his ass" - if you're actually intellectually honest you would realize he was explaining it to normies. He was actually being honest because he corrected himself to let people know the light wasn't visible. Normies would assume the object is visible on a normal telescope that works with your eyeballs so he made sure people understood they picked a non-visible part of the spectrum. All EM is part of the same phenomenon. It just so happens that we can see part of its spectrum. X-rays, radio, UV, IR, Microwave, Gamma-rays and visible light are all EM. They're all part of the same phenomena with different wavelengths. They're all waves and its quantum are photons. What you see are photons hitting your eyes. An X-ray of your bones is photons hitting your body. Therefore they're all light. "that is BOUND to be taken as an attack upon the person's character and BOUND to be taken as an attack made to undermine the person's arguments" - you are insisting that EM radiation is not light because of your own lack of understanding of the topic and then pretend to know more than a scientist even though he technically didn't make any mistake. How is it an Ad Hominem to tell you that your own lack of expertise is clouding your judgement and making you see conspiracies where they don't exist? "you've seen a visual representation of its radio waves" - I understand what you're getting at. I do. But take for example the Sun. If you take a photo of it through the visible light spectrum is just a bright ball and you can't see anything. Have you ever seen eclipses or Venus crossings through those dark lenses? That's what the Sun looks like. A white ball. So most pictures of the Sun you have seen are photos taken through the X-ray spectrum, where you actually see the dark spots, the sections burning brighter and those arcs that look like flames. We color fill them with orange. But that image is true to life because it actually allows you to see what's going on the surface of the Sun without the image simply being washed out by the blinding white light emitted by it. We only did a similar thing to a black hole, figure out what it looks like in a spectrum that doesn't get washed out and color fill with the orange that we can see on visible light telescopes.
1