2 comments:
-
they said that it shows the emission of electromagnetic energy has the same cause, but didn’t explain what that cause is…
-
they said that magnetars don’t emit energy all the time, so we had to catch them when they did emit: that is false: we have to catch them when they’re emitting at us, which is a very-different frame-of-reference.
Also, if the things are neutron-stars, then how the hell can they even have any electromagnetic field?
Neutrons are neutral.
It must be a crust of non-neutron protons & electrons, or the plasma swirling in, or something, that’s producing the electromagnetic field…
No need to bother commenting on anything I say:
just random thoughs flitting through a deteriorating old brain…
My comment isn’t on your script, it is on paper-selection…
Please have several, orthogonal, selection-systems:
most-cited,
most trustworthy researchers
most unique area of research, or most unique question, or something
most central to new tech
most central to old tech
most undernoticed, big potential… ( things that should be big news, but the global novelty-addiction ignores it )
best fundamental science ( definitely include this category! )
best citizen-science
etc…
iow, the algorithm that most use, which is “paying attention to what others are paying attention to” is an algorithm we shouldn’t be assigning our viability to, you know?
Also, you may need to make a flexible-limit for dumbing-down, as some papers may have a higher limit and others a lower limit, so some could be easy for most to get the sense of, but some might be tricky … and it might well do more good to let them have their different thresholds, see?