What exactly is physically accurate here though? Because its not:

1. The relative brightness of different parts of the image

2. The colouring

3. The general relativistic effects of a black hole, other than the most basic disk warping effect

4. The relative colouring or brightness change from doppler

When you make a post about a physically accurate rendering, people usually expect it to be a decent representation of the underlying object in *some* capacity

There are of course constraints in terms of what the human eye can see and what we can portray - eg wanting to present alternative radio frequencies, highlighting different aspects of a black hole etc, which is why we make *specific* brightness and colouring map choices. That isn't a justification for making *arbitrary* choices in brightness and colouring map choices, because otherwise you could do sin(brightness * 1000) and call it physically accurate. In fact any output is an arbitrary colourmapping of a physically accurate black hole rasterisation under this definition, including a pure white square

Colour mapping and scale absolutely is very very much not an arbitrary choice, I linked elsewhere the event horizon telescope talking about this specific issue. People go to great lengths to put the work in to make physically accurate renderings, to convey accurately what you're looking at. I'm surprised to see you say that its considered arbitrary for renderings

There's a lot of room for doing visualisations to show off a specific element of a black hole, but the output here is near completely free of any physically accurate content. This is one of the more basic simulations I've seen - and that's before getting into the fact that it contains coding errors