Other than WASTING $$$$$, why would someone suddenly after 46 or 47 YEARS decide to review data about moonquakes?
Sounds like someone got a “new” mathematical model to PLAY WITH and had time to kill so they ran the numbers. I would assume the data was previously reviewed and the same conclusion was obtained.
The fact that this finding was published is VERY ODD.
As I’ve said before — we have technology that is far more sensitive than ever before. Worthless noise in the big picture. But keep spending us further into oblivion I guess.
> … why would someone suddenly after 46 or 47 YEARS decide to review data about moonquakes? <
In the academic world, it’s “publish or perish”. So you’ve got to continually find new things to research. That’s my guess as to what happened here.
I’d like to say more, but I’m working on a research project to show how all the hot air emitted by the ladies on “The View” affects the orbit of Mars.
If that doesn’t get me a physics professorship at Caltech, I don’t know what will.