←back to thread

27 points DaveZale | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hinkley ◴[] No.45569239[source]
Why “just released” if the paper the image came from is dated 2022?
replies(1): >>45569334 #
1. DaveZale ◴[] No.45569334[source]
maybe this:

One more flare happened since then, in 2022, but because of instrumental limitations, it was caught only at a prestage (M. J. Valtonen et al. 2023; M. J. Valtonen 2024). At the same time, more flares were discovered in historical photographic plate studies so that only eight of the expected 26 flares remain unconfirmed (R. Hudec et al. 2013). All the unconfirmed ones are due to lack of known photographs at the expected epochs.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae057e

replies(1): >>45570989 #
2. hinkley ◴[] No.45570989[source]
I understand that patterns and confirmations often come from data captured years ago and reanalyzed. That’s how some comets are discovered.

What I don’t get is how you can say we are publishing the first picture and then post a picture that was published three years ago.

It looks like HN has now changed the title from the “all editors should be fired” exhibit list to something more reasonable, but the linked article is still titled, “Scientists capture first image of two black holes in orbit.”