B18: Hungry Skies
The article “Star Eater” about black holes and the idea of
time was super interesting. The author brought up the physics and facts that
are not common knowledge and helped the reader understand the extent of
amazingness using comparisons. For example, relating the energy of an atomic
bomb to the energy that would be generated from a marshmallow coming in contact
with a neutron star’s gravitational pull. By making other comparisons to
familiar objects, such as “crumbs on a table cloth after a hearty meal,”
“smaller than an eyeball,” “a separate bubble in the Swiss cheese of reality,”
and “sugar-cube-size fragment,” the author pulls off making this prickle-filled
article understandable and engaging. Another technique I noticed is that the
author seems to keep his paragraphs short and sweet. If the author had written
long paragraphs, the reading would have felt like it dragged on and the reader
might have felt as though they were increasingly likely to get lost in the
author’s lengthy writing. Another way to keep the readers engaged was that the
author only shared the facts that were necessary and avoided dragging on and on
as that may cause the readers to lose interest. The reader kept terms common
while still appropriate and correct for the science he was discussing. The
author also debunked some false statements, which I found interesting and
valuable. The author addresses Huxley’s three directions and by heading towards
the universal, he engages society/his readers with his topic. Since this was a
researched article, providing information about the history of this idea of
“black holes” added to the overall topic. The information about Einstein
accounting for, but not allowing himself to believe that black holes exist
added some comfort to me as a reader because black holes are complex and
complicated to describe and define or imagine, so the fact that Einstein and
many other physicists could not wrap their heads around the concept of black
holes was comforting. It is paradox how much we know, yet how little we
know about something that has never been seen (in action) by the human eye.
Comments
Post a Comment