Gavin Smart
Mr.Ippolito
Chemistry
January 6, 2022
Two stars’ close encounter may explain a cosmic flare that has barely faded
By: Ken Croswell
Two stars come extremely close to hitting each other in space, and the flare that has become the product of this and it has been visible from Earth for almost 100 years. The flare was first observed in 1936, because supernovas are the most common reason for flares, they thought it was that but supernovas don’t last that long so they knew it couldn’t be that. New computer simulations give us a clue as to what might be the cause. They think that one star is orbiting the other, and because of how close they are together this is causing the flare up. They also explain how the flare up has been going on for so long. Then they tell us how they might test this theory in the future.
One good thing the article did was they went straight to the point, they didn’t drag the discussion on for too long, this didn’t make the article boring and dull to read. Another good thing the article did was they used good quotes to support what they were saying or to further explain what they were saying, for example “It is a plausible explanation,” says Scott Kenyon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge” (Croswell 1). This gives us better security that what they are saying is legit. Another good thing the article did was all the different sub topics they talked about. They went from talking about what it was discovered in 1936, to telling us about the new computer simulations that allowed them to have this theory, to talking about how they could test this theory.
Bruno Kahraman
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Chemistry C even
January 10, 2021
Two stars’ close encounter may explain an enduring cosmic flare | Science News
Bronxville HS Core Chemistry: Two stars' close encounter may explain a cosmic flare that has barely faded (bhscorechem.blogspot.com)
For this Current Event I read Gavin Strong's Review on "Two stars' close encounter may explain a cosmic flare that has barely faded" by Ken Croswell, and I think he did a good job. One thing I found interesting about the review was the time period of the flare's visibility. The review says, "Two stars come extremely close to hitting each other in space, and the flare that has become the product of this and it has been visible from Earth for almost 100 years." I was surprised by how long the flare was visible as astronomers must've been able to see it and gather data on it for almost a century. Another thing I found interesting about the review was how the scientists originally hypothesized the event as a result of a supernova. The review says, "The flare was first observed in 1936, because supernovas are the most common reason for flares, they thought it was that but supernovas don’t last that long so they knew it couldn’t be that." I found it interesting how scientists have already had data to pool on supernovas and were able to compare the flare to that of supernovas. the last thing I found interesting in the review was the scientists' current hypothesis about the flare. The review states, "They think that one star is orbiting the other, and because of how close they are together this is causing the flare up." While in middle school, I've been taught multiple examples of planets or stars with other objects orbiting around them, but never learned about a star orbiting another star.
While Gavin did a good job building up my interest in the subject, his review fails to address a few points brought up. One issue I had with the review was how it gave little information on the use of computer simulations. The review says, " They also explain how the flare up has been going on for so long. Then they tell us how they might test this theory in the future." While the article stated earlier that computer simulation was to be used and that it would be used on the flare, we aren't told how the computer simulation works or why it was the most practical option. Another issue I had with the review was the example used to show how the article used quotes well. The review says, "Another good thing the article did was they used good quotes to support what they were saying or to further explain what they were saying, for example ' '“It is a plausible explanation,”' says Scott Kenyon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge' (Croswell 1)." While quote used was very bare and didn't feel as impactful as the authority of the astrophysicist's title. This quote from the article could've served to support how the article is backed by trustworthy people.
While Gavin had a few issues with his review, he does a great job bringing up the use of new technology in the scientific world. The review says, "They went from talking about what it was discovered in 1936, to telling us about the new computer simulations that allowed them to have this theory, to talking about how they could test this theory." We now have access to computer simulations and countless other specific devices that astronomers and scientists alike lacked back in 1936 when the flare was first sighted. New technology will allow us to keep growing as a species and better understand the universe around us, and simulations like the ones occurring aren't exceptions.