Black Holes

While there are many things that really work in this scientific journal article, there are points when my attention is completely lost. Beginning with the parts which work well, the author does a great job beginning the article with a unique definition and using commonalities to relate difficult concepts. The four line introduction explaining how Einstein was wrong really shows how large this topic is. It demonstrates how complex the topic is and how it is easily misunderstood. At the same time, this abstract defines a black hole in simple words. "A collapsed star" is actually what a black hole is, and that is how it is defined. Simple, yet understood. At the same time, when it gets to the later paragraphs and the finer detail, the author does a good job relating facts to common items. For example, saying that a "sugar cube sized" fragments weighs a ton really helps relate the ideas. On that topic though, all of these ideas compound on each other. There is a constant pounding of information at the beginning with no real ease into anything. Numbers are getting thrown around. Magnitudes of size and weight are compiling. There is very little discussion in between each inset of fact and it all becomes a lot to comprehend.