You used an example with correlated data when in this context the error is uncorrelated. If the error is correlated when you assume it is uncorrelated, you will measure a correlated error rather than what you intended to measure. This is what they did.
Does this community understand this sort of language? So many communities these days have their own private speech patterns. It is as though the internet caused the tower of Babel to fall.
There are some very old sockpuppets in many communities. I've known community managers who maintain small armies of sock puppets for various passive-aggressive purposes. I just got here and can only go by the experience I've had as a newcomer.
Also, I keep getting the same number of downvoters - 8.
Does this community have more than 8 members?
Could you have this discussion elsewhere? You are being very rude.
Organizing your data according to how weird it looks to you is not scientific.
That is all you need to know to understand what EHT and gjm did.
Just because you can use an algorithm to automate such a process doesn't make it any more scientific.
Making such a simulation is exactly what gjm did and by doing so, he inadvertently proved his thesis false, even though he was still so tied in knots that he couldn't see that was what he'd done.
The point of the post was to explain the root causes of the mistakes EHT and gjm are making, not to prove that they made a mistake.
If the fact that mistakes were made isn't obvious to a reader, there isn't really much that anyone can say to help that person understand.
Incidentally, I wrote a novel in which a science experiment adopts a many worlds interpretation and all hell breaks loose. It is a satire about the pitfalls of social engineering and I named it My Adorable Apotheosis: Don't Look Back, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, but I've been told that the title is god awful and that I'd have better luck with something along the lines of
Information Theory: A Novel
I encourage people like gjm who want to make comments that are longer than the post itself to make their own posts. In https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oAsHa6xYMTBJWJGX6/the-new-scientific-method, he claimed that, like EHT, he could organize random data according to a 'weirdness criterion' and that the result was scientific. Such a seemingly magical result would surely be worth publishing far and wide, if true, but if all of his points rest on such a false premise, his whole argument must fall like a house of cards and it is pointless to go through each individual point. I don't like making unnecessary noise.
Thank you for your very diplomatic response. I understand that disruptions must be carried out slowly and with caution. I'm also beginning to understand that from certain perspectives, the purpose of physics education is to keep certain types of people busy, so that they don't cause any trouble. I find it unfortunate that many non-troublesome people get trapped in this net alongside the people who need more institutional support. This was a theme in a novel I wrote and I think that literature is a great way to help unbalanced people begin to see more sides of the issues that concern them.
After having already posted 6 articles here laying out the problem of black hole astronomy in both technical and colloquial terms, I did have two more articles that put the material into a larger context.
But they have a more energetic tone and perhaps now is not the right time for that. Sometimes ideas need time to sink in.
Thank you for the suggestion about the quantum and physics forums. I might be able to contribute there in a less controversial manner.