science

I looked at the paper they’re talking about (which has not yet been peer reviewed), and I couldn’t find any past peer reviewed research from the author. The paper also doesn’t really explain any of its arguments past referencing sometimes unrelated stuff that “sounds scientific,” so I suspect it will be rejected from any reasonable journal. One example is the statement that the Van Allen belts protect earth, they are just belts of captured particles that could have been harmful to earth. There have been proposals to eliminate them to protect satellites (see https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1095699.pdf). Also I don’t like how they keep using their quoted van allen belt mass of 180 mg to make other numbers seem very large, what makes the Van Allen belts relevant is their electrons have a lot of energy (moving at >0.2 c), whereas the particulate from reentry is much lower energy. The paper doesn’t explain how lots of low energy particulate is related to a tiny amount of captured high energy radiation, so mass comparisons between them (“a billion times heavier”) don’t make sense.