That's all any image is. But if you mean "is this what it would look like to your naked eye", then no, it's not. Because you can't see this with the human eye.Ah, so glowy thing with hole in it. But how can it be called an image if it was composited from hundreds of telescopes? Is this actually what it "looks like" or is this just a visualization of data?
When science gets good at marketing you get lobotomies, dick chops, eugenics counselors at state fairs, and carbon credits. It's good that it's usually bad at marketing.While I think this is a fantastic step forward for science, and a pretty neat image, given the amount of hype around this, I wholly think this is underwhelming and unspectacular.
The problem with hyping science to dumb people like me is that the end product is always - always - fucking lame. This looks like something I could see if I was shitfaced at dunkin donuts at 2am.
Important image? Yes. Impressive? Only to those that are interested. Spectacular? No, absolutely not. Science is terrible at marketing.
You do realize that he's like 3/4 shitposting whenever he makes statements right? Like I know Poe's Law gets us all at one time or another, but it should be pretty obvious in that idiot's case.Imagine hating women and those damn feminazis so much that you think a gigantic scientific achievement was faked because a woman was attached to it.