Cargo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 6:30 am
A non-science critique: If you call out a Fig that Fig should follow immediately after that para. Not several pages away.
...
I am not a Word professional, but that's what would look better to me.
Well, that's the thing. Nobody writes papers in Word.
It's all LaTeX since the 1990's.
Cargo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 6:57 am
I got twitch on this minor part: "If we assume that the plasma comes from the Sun"
That's an incorrect wording. Plasma is not a thing that comes, it's a state. It is the medium of Space. Or maybe the paper doesn't want to wade into the 'planet to planet' or 'moon/comet to planet' 'current' that would also come across the plasma. You know.
I also don't follow why CME's would be a factor to consider. They are at a much higher level then what is likely causing the cratering.
Based on the experiment alone, it's 100% clear that craters are/can/will be electrical in nature. Well done.
We've talked about this with Jacob. My argument (with which he agreed) was that it would require varying too many parameters and implying some very unlikely coincindences.
Basically, if we assume the craters are produced by close planetary encounters, then every celestial body (since they're all cratered, pretty much) has to be
very close or even
very close - like 10000 km or less close - to some other body to sustain any significant current between them.
And these extremely close (fantastically close) flybys have to happen repeatedly many times, so these currents could pepper the planets with craters more or less evenly on all sides.
I can't see a scenario (except for "magic") where that would be the case. Ockham's razor would imply it's some other sort of system-wide influence.
CME is the simplest answer, hence we stick to that.
One CME can easily cover 1/4 of the heliosphere and hit multiple planets at once, and a random succession of 10-15 randomly directed extremely strong CMEs could produce more or less even cratering on all sides on every body.