Charlie Gay
Current Events 7
AP Biology C-Odd
11/6/17
Fleur, Nicholas St. "Inside Giza’s Great Pyramid, Scientists Discover a Void." The New York Times. The New York Times, 02 Nov. 2017. Web.
“Inside Giza’s Great Pyramid, Scientists Discover a Void”
I really enjoyed reading Nicholas St. Fleur’s article “Inside Giza's Great Pyramid, Discover a Void.” This article is about scientists who used muons, which are “the heavy cousins of electrons that form when cosmic rays from outer space collide with particles in Earth’s atmosphere.” The researchers from Nagoya University were the one’s who made the first measurements. These particles were used to discover a “void” inside the Great Pyramid of Giza. Fleur explained how muons worked by writing, “as the muons pass through matter they lose energy and decay, so if the team detected a small number of muons, that means they were passing through matter.” They detected a large number of muons in the area they discovered to be a void. The next step after this discovery is unclear. They will no doubt be conducting further research to gather more information on this void. However, some people do not think that this discovery is that groundbreaking. Zahi Hawass, an Egyptologist, former Egyptian government minister and head of the scientific committee appointed by the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities to review the work said “They found nothing,” noting that such construction gaps had been known of for at least two decades. “This paper offers nothing to Egyptology. Zero.” This makes it clear that no one is clear on what the next step is, or even how important these findings are.
This article could lead us to learn more about the Egyptian society and the pyramids. Although no one is quite clear on what this “void” will contain, some believe that it could contain riches from the Pharaoh Khufu (the pharaoh the pyramid was made for). However, others merely think that it was a room to provide support to hold the pyramid up. Even if this “void” was used just for support it will still provide more information on the structure of the pyramid. This could even lead to applications in some of our buildings. The Egyptians were masters of architecture and we have learned a lot from them already. This new discovery could be yet another technique that we could include in our architecture.
I really enjoyed reading this article. This article did a great job of explaining everything that they were talking about very clearly. For example, this article did a great job of explaining what a muon was and how they utilized it to make their discovery. Although I liked that this article cited many different experts ideas on the topic, I wished that they had less varying views. Each of the experts had differing views, which I found to be confusing. This article did not take a side on whether these findings are groundbreaking or not. In order to improve this article I think that Fluer should make his opinion and omit some of the experts that have differing views. I think that this would make the article stronger and more interesting to read.
Timothy Cushman
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Ap Biology - Current Events Comment
6 November 2017
Current Events #7
Fleur, Nicholas St. "Inside Giza’s Great Pyramid, Scientists Discover a Void." The New York Times. The New York Times, 02 Nov. 2017. Web. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/science/pyramids-giza-void.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront
Charlie’s review of "Inside Giza’s Great Pyramid, Scientists Discover a Void" was very interesting and informative. He did a great job writing his review. One thing Charlie did well was defining his terms. For example, he stated, “Used muons, which are “the heavy cousins of electrons that form when cosmic rays from outer space collide with particles in Earth’s atmosphere.” By including the definition, it allowed me to better understand an important point. Another aspect of his review that was well done was including quotes throughout. Quotes like, “as the muons pass through matter they lose energy and decay, so if the team detected a small number of muons, that means they were passing through matter,” allow the reader to better understand the complicated topic that was being discussed in the article. The quotes also gave the review credibility by showing there is data to back it up with along with explaining things in a specific way that the author of the article chose. Finally, Charlie was able to identify areas where the article could be improved. His idea about the author giving his idea and including fewer ideas of researchers try and reduce the reader's possible confusion. Overall, Charlie wrote a great review of the article that was both informative and interesting.
Despite a great review, there were a few aspects that could be improved upon. Charlie mentions how no one is sure if the findings are groundbreaking or not; however, he never takes a side and gives his opinion on the findings. He only states how they could allow us to better understand the Egyptians. It would have been beneficial and interesting to hear some more detailed ideas on why Charlie thinks this is important. Secondly, Charlie states that “They will no doubt be conducting further research to gather more information on this void.” However, he did not mention what their plan for the next steps was. This left the reader wondering what could be done next. By including information on possible further investigations, it would answer some questions that Charlie left unanswered.
I chose to read Charlie’s review because the title interested me. When reading that there was a secret compartment in the Great Pyramid that we did not know about made me want to read more. Before reading the review, I had thought the pyramids had been fully searched. This article allowed me to realize how much we still do not know about the Great Pyramid.
Gigi Chrappa
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
November 7, 2017
Current Event Comment
Fleur, Nicholas St. "Inside Giza’s Great Pyramid, Scientists Discover a Void." The New York Times. The New York Times, 02 Nov. 2017. Web.
I read Charlie’s review of “Inside Giza’s Great Pyramid, Scientists Discover a Void”. I actually decided to read his article due to the interesting title; what exactly does this mean? His review was extremely informative and well thought out; the layout of his review is phenomenal. He clearly organizes the topics addressed in chronological order. This allows the audience to read with ease and this also creates a more organized tone overall. In addition to this, Charlie proposes theories about what this could mean for the future. Although this is a new advancement, Charlie, interestingly enough, hinted at how this could help us in the future. I find this extremely interesting as it allows for the audience to see the current importance of the topic. Sometimes when reading current events, one may ask, “well why does this matter” or “well how does this affect me”? But Charlie successfully relates a broad topic and demonstrates the importance in our lives today. This was done exceptionally well. Finally, in addition to writing a stellar review, Charlie successfully critiques the article. He does this in a professional way; not attacking the author nor stating what is ‘wrong’ with the article. Simply, he explains what may be improved upon or items that could be altered in the future.
Although Charlie wrote an incredible review, there were a few areas in which he could improve upon. For example, in the future, Charlie may want to explain better what a ‘void’ is and other terms mentioned throughout his review. He explained the term muons fabulously and this became increasingly helpful to my understanding throughout the review. It would be great to see more of this in future reviews. On the other hand, however, I found that Charlie chose wonderful quotations from his articles; ranging from supreme data to scientific explanations which helped to enhance the review overall. In addition to this, it might be interesting to see Charlie include several more quotations. I found that he did a wonderful job choosing the quotations that he had, and I would love to have read more of them. Lastly, if Charlie wanted to take his review to the next level, he could perform some outside research and look into these studies in greater depth. It might be interesting to see what else could be found out about the voids and exactly what that might mean.
In conclusion, Charlie wrote a wonderful review and addressed topics important to society. His layout was wonderful and the review was easy to follow. He did many things wonderfully and there were a few things he could improve on in the future. Overall, his review was a great read and I plan to read the article his review was based on soon.
Sarah Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio: Current Event Comment
15 November, 2017
Current Event #8
Fleur, Nicholas St. "Inside Giza’s Great Pyramid, Scientists Discover a Void." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 02 Nov. 2017. Web.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/science/pyramids-giza-void.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront
This week, I read Charlie’s review of The New York Times article “Inside Giza’s Great Pyramid, Scientists Discover a Void” by Nicholas St. Fleur. In his reflection, Charlie did a great job overall and I believe that there were three specific points that greatly furthered his piece. Firstly, Charlie uses quotes directly from the original article, which serves to establish his credibility as a critic. Next, Charlie did a great job of addressing the other side of the argument. He describes how it is very possible that these findings will, in fact, not be groundbreaking, as many scientists now believe. In doing so, Charlie does not include much bias when detailing the discoveries and successfully keeps his readers satisfied. Finally, he includes a well-written and thorough critique of the original article and its author, Nicholas St. Fleur. This allows Charlie’s readers to be well-informed before considering to read the original article.
Despite writing an outstanding review, Charlie can improve upon a few points for his next report. Firstly, he can try rereading his piece before submitting it, which would therefore allow him to fix his grammar and sentence structure. Charlie wrote, “The researchers from Nagoya University were the one’s who made the first measurements...This makes it clear that no one is clear…” Instead, he could have written “ones” and could have found a synonym for the word “clear.” By doing so, Charlie would have established himself as a more credible author. Lastly, Charlie could have included his own opinion on the topic, regarding if he believes the pyramid evidence is, or will be, groundbreaking or not groundbreaking, and he could have expanded upon where the researchers will go from here. If he had done so, Charlie would have provided his audience with more information on the subject at hand.
To conclude, I chose this article because I am very interested in Egyptian art and the mysteries that the pyramids hold. I believe that this article is relevant because it is important for our society to understand our past on Earth as a whole, so we are not only focused on American history. From this review, I learned about how Egyptologists are constantly discovering new information about our past. I also learned about how often they disagree on certain terms. Charlie’s review has changed my outlook on the importance of these findings and has shown me that even if this discovery in particular is not “groundbreaking”, it is still crucial to understanding history.