I think you mean precision and not accuracy. Accuracy is a moot issue. The precision comes from calculation of the gravitational effect of the black hole on surrounding stars. You could argue the precision is too significant, but as long as the methodology is stated in the paper and everyone s on board with the method, it becomes an acceptable estimate. You could also formulate your own methodology and publish your results, which is how science is supposed to work.
OK, thanks.
So the size of this black hole is calculated on the gravitational effects and that’s not the same calculation used to figure out how far away the black hole is from us. I get that.
So yes, I do quibble with the precision discrepancy. I’m curious how scientists can determine how a particular object in space is related to other objects in space that are all 25,000 light years + or - a few hundred (or thousand) light years away from us.
Such precision is astounding, especially considering all the variables to be calculated from presumably hundreds of objects being measured for their gravitational effects.
Our climatologists should be consulting the brilliantly precise astronomers on their methods. Maybe we’ll be better able to predict seasonal weather patterns than we are currently able to do.