Black hole seen devouring star in best detail yet

A black hole has been seen devouring a star in the best detail yet, thanks to observations made over the course of two years by NASA's GALEX spacecraft. Such observations will help astronomers weigh black holes that are too far away to study in any other way. Full Story »

Posted by Autumn Carlson

See All Reviews »

Review

Warren Keith Wright
2.9
by Warren Keith Wright - Oct. 1, 2008

An important and interesting science story, somewhat hampered by its presentation. McKee understands the material---the major requirement for such an assignment---and conveys the researchers’ excitement. But when writing about black holes, you need some other word than “holes” to designate gaps in knowledge (para. 3), and estimating a black hole’s mass is not exactly the same as “weighing” it (which suggests putting it on scales---though admittedly the scientists use the same verb). Syntax needs attention too: “Colossal black holes at the centres of galaxies are thought to swallow stars that wander too close to them about once every 10,000 years” has a wobble in the middle. Asking someone to visualize a quadrant of the sky “covering about 40 times the area of the Full Moon” is hard (5 rows of 8?); maybe 6x7, 42, would easier to do. The main problem is the controlling metaphor of devour-swallow-meal: the animation necessarily speeds up a process that is spread over a great many years---and the disparity of scale between the human activity of eating and the immense processes of slow absorption, dissolution, and recombination produces a misleading impression, as if this were an interstellar version of When Sharks Attack. The material is sensibly ordered, ending with a view to future developments; but the difficulty of presenting such cosmic events without falling into inaccurate figurative fallacies has not quite been overcome here. It reads as though it needed one more draft.

See All Reviews »

Warren's Rating

Overall
2.9

Average
from 10 answers
Quality
2.9
Facts
3.0
Information
3.0
Sourcing
3.0
Style
2.0
Context
3.0
Popularity
3.0
Recommendation
3.0
Credibility
3.0
More How our ratings work »