The black hole image

All the GRMHD numerical simulations use the 3+1 decomposed form. What is the advantage of using this formalism, such as Wilson, Valencia, covariant etc.

Is there any publicly available code to understand the photon trajectories using Mathematica (other programming languages are also useful)? Please provide some links if possible.

We have seen in our paper, that for a 10 solar mass non-rotating BH, magnetic field strength can reach up to 10^(5 to 6) Gauss close to the horizon. Now, if we notice the observation of EHT, they report for a 10^9 solar mass BH, field strength reaches up to 1-30 Gauss near the horizon. So, is there any specific explanation for how the magnetic flux changes from stellar to supermassive BHs?

Recent numerical simulations show that the inner part of the disk seems to oscillate in presence of a Large scale magnetic field or when the disk is in MAD state. So, can we correlate this sort of behaviour with the variability of the source?

The recent development of EHT images influenced us to study the shadow of a BH in more detail, as we can extract some information about the source. But I feel there is no strong evidence or support for determining the spin of the compact source.

Your comments are welcome.

We all know that accretion disks around BHs are presumably be magnetized in nature. If we consider ideal MHD, we know magnetic fields are frozen within the plasmas. Now, magnetic fields are turbulent, so can they help in raising the temperature of the disk? And is it significant?

Sometimes peer reviewers write incorrect comments about your paper, or they disagree with you on some issue, but you know that they are wrong. If you are lucky enough to be given a chance to revise your paper, when you explain that they are wrong, they get defensive and write even worse reviews and change their recommendation to reject. What is the best way to handle this issue? Withdrawing the paper and submitting it to somewhere else? If we have to change our papers according to referee comments, just to have a chance to publish it, then it will be bad for academic discourse. I have seen this too many times that I recognize it as a problem in academic publishing. Unfortunately, people who are not very knowledgeable about an issue volunteer to review papers on that issue and yet, their review reports are given more weight than your rebuttals, when it comes to the decision on your paper. I have never seen a case in which the editor sided with the authors, when there is disagreement between the authors and reviewers. Peer reviewers always have to be satisfied, that is the unestablished rule. This kills plurality of ideas, causes to propagate wrong information, inflates irrelevant citations, inflates the size of papers, reduces the quality of published articles, etc.

Otherwise what this status means. If the Editor has received the comments from reviewer then why he is not sending it to Authors. As 10 days already spent till the status changed.??

To assess the accuracy of LULC classified images, a confusion matrix is created and overall accuracy, Kappa coefficient and user's and producer's accuracy are to be calculated. In a confusion matrix, which among user's and producer's accuracy is significant? Also, if we multiply user's and producer's accuracy (for eg. user's accuracy is 80% and the producer's accuracy is 78%, on multiplying 80% and 78% we get 62.4%), can we draw any discussion on the classified image?