It's more to do with the overall intensity of the anomaly. If you'd like to become thoroughly confused, I'd recommend looking up remnant magnetisation, which is the bane of my existence.
Speaking of which...I can't revert the edit because someone at the place I work got our IP banned from editing, but can someone remove that silly "see also" link that was added today?
It seems clear from articles in the past 10 years a meteor strike is very unlikely.
e.g. - if you look at the wiki reference [7] "The Bangui Magnetic Anomaly Revisited" they clearly say no with what seems like an air tight explanation.
I know wiki isn't a source of truth, but academia doesn't seem to be stepping up with solutions. Someone needs to say the meteor strike theory is very unlikely and needs more updated evidence or modelling to still be taken seriously.
15 comments
[ 6.3 ms ] story [ 42.9 ms ] threadI would guess the negative indicates that the field has reduced strength there.
"The thing's hollow - it goes on forever - and - oh my God! - it's full of stars!"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24915542
https://www.google.com/maps/place/S%C3%A3o+Tom%C3%A9+and+Pr%...
Are those links automatically generated or are they added manually by editors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangui_magnetic_a...
Added in the 12:39 edit and removed in the 14:41 (current, newest) edit
e.g. - if you look at the wiki reference [7] "The Bangui Magnetic Anomaly Revisited" they clearly say no with what seems like an air tight explanation.
I know wiki isn't a source of truth, but academia doesn't seem to be stepping up with solutions. Someone needs to say the meteor strike theory is very unlikely and needs more updated evidence or modelling to still be taken seriously.