What did you expect? You posted a comment complaining about scientists doing valid scientific research on something they found interesting. That is guaranteed to get downvotes.
Your comment was also inaccurate.
> Some wind moved some rocks
Well, no, not quite. The wind moved the ice, and the ice moved the rocks. The wind wasn't enough to move the rocks.
Your other comments mention films. The film of water isn't enough for the rocks to move, even if there are algal films reducing friction.
And it contains a bizarre bit of anti-science sentiment
> Where is this research going?
IvyMike has already given you a good example of where this research might be useful. But, actually, FUCK USEFUL. Science and math do not need to have useful purpose. It is still good that people pursue them.
It may be science, but its pretty soft. Clearly the only things at work here are wind and friction (discounting demons, crop circles etc). What's left could be an exercise left to the reader.
So ok, these guys are 'the reader' and do the legwork. Where can it go? Its not basic or fundamental research; its applicable only to 'rocks on a flat surface'; there aren't a whole lot of places where this will ever be reproduced.
That was what I was asking about: other than the novel circumstance what's to be gained? Got interpreted as anti-science.
Your comment was also inaccurate.
> Some wind moved some rocks
Well, no, not quite. The wind moved the ice, and the ice moved the rocks. The wind wasn't enough to move the rocks.
Your other comments mention films. The film of water isn't enough for the rocks to move, even if there are algal films reducing friction.
And it contains a bizarre bit of anti-science sentiment
> Where is this research going?
IvyMike has already given you a good example of where this research might be useful. But, actually, FUCK USEFUL. Science and math do not need to have useful purpose. It is still good that people pursue them.