Those are the scientific errors that I found. In addition, to being scientifically incorrect, the following doesn't say what it means.Ivan Seeking said:For one, it won't be a million years before we see this happen again; just for this black hole.
Not all collapsing stars produce a GRB
The distance is off by a factor of a billion [miles].
Black holes are not invisible
This kind of behavior is different from what active black holes generally do, which is to suck in everything their vast gravity can pull in, even light. Most galaxies, including our Milky Way, are thought to harbor black holes in their hearts.
[PLAIN]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/16/us-space-blackhole-idUSTRE75F6W120110616[/PLAIN] said:As it did so, the black hole emitted powerful gamma ray jets from its center as bits of the dying star were turned into energy.
Jimmy Snyder said:Finally, there is something strange about this particular gamma-ray burst. It is long lasting. That is the crux of the story. That is probably why we won't see the likes of it for a million years, not because of the probability given in the story. I expect the entire story is boloxed up.
Gamma ray bursts are produced by some of the most energetic objects in the Universe, such as stars collapsing into supernovae. NASA's Swift observatory is designed to catch these rare events as they unfold, with hardware and software that detect sudden spikes in high-energy photons and respond by pointing the main hardware at their source. In March of this year, a somewhat unusual object set off the observatory's gamma ray trigger, and then did something that the scientists running the hardware called "unheard of"—it set it off three more times in less than 48 hours.
Normally, things catch the Swift's attention by exploding, which is a one-time-only event, so the multiple triggering was already unusual. But looking through previous sweeps of the region showed that the source, called Sw 1644+57, was already present several days before setting off the trigger, and the source continued to emit prodigious X-rays for more than two weeks afterward. Also unusual was the variability of the emissions; the X-ray flux varied by a factor of two on timescales as short as 100 seconds. Running the numbers on an unprecedented event
But the truly eye-popping figures came when researchers calculated the amount of energy released by Sw 1644+57. The brightest X-ray flare they detected pumped out over 1048ergs/second, and the total output during the first 11 days is estimated at over 1053ergs. For those of you not up on your ergs, that's over 1030 megatons or, as the authors put it, "equivalent to ~10% of the rest energy of the Sun."
No, it was different. It was about a grb that persisted for an unusually long period of time.rhody said:Is this the story you referring to with bad reporting ?
The purpose of the Reuters Report is to raise awareness about the prevalence of bad science in journalism and to provide guidance for journalists on how to identify and report on scientific studies accurately and ethically.
Bad science in journalism can mislead and misinform the public, leading to incorrect beliefs and decisions based on faulty information. It also undermines the credibility of science and can have serious consequences, such as public health risks or wasted resources.
Some common signs of bad science in journalism include sensationalized headlines, cherry-picked data, lack of peer-review or scientific consensus, and conflicts of interest, such as funding from biased sources.
Journalists can spot bad science by thoroughly researching and fact-checking their sources, seeking out multiple perspectives, and consulting with experts in the relevant field. They should also be skeptical of claims that seem too good to be true and avoid making broad generalizations based on a single study.
Readers can critically evaluate scientific journalism by checking the credibility and expertise of the journalist and their sources, fact-checking any claims or statistics, and seeking out additional sources to confirm the information. They should also be aware of their own biases and be open to changing their beliefs based on new evidence.