Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


     Mikamar
           Publishing
 

Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
Articles
The Third Story
Features

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields
Relativity Theory

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Horus Journals TOC
Kronos Journals TOC
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors

 

KRONOS Vol IX, No. 1

THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF COMETS AND THE EVOLUTION OF CELESTIAL BODIES (PART I)

J. M. McCANNEY

Copyright (c) 1981 & 1983 by J. M. McCanney

ABSTRACT: This paper provides an alternate theory for comet behavior and shows comets to be planetary, lunar, and asteroidal bodies in their formative stages. It demonstrates that tail matter is attracted towards an asteroidal comet nucleus by strong electrical forces. Additionally, two charging mechanisms are identified, both of which produce a net negative charge on the comet nucleus. This is supported by data from recent space probes. Comet wandering, sunward spikes, a shrinkage of the coma as the comet approaches the Sun, curved tails, the gathering and maintenance of meteoroid streams, spiralling of tail material, and the rapid orbital circularization of large newly captured comets are also discussed.

Earlier papers(1, 2, 3) used similar concepts to predict the existence of strong electrical fields in the vicinity of Saturn, showing Saturn and its ring system to be analogous to the Sun and its zodiacal disk. The realization of the proton wind supported capacitors of Saturn and the Sun led to a number of unexpected theoretical considerations that included 1) the recognition of the charging process used by comets, 2) the postulation of an ion and dust cloud held back by solar wind pressure near the orbit of Jupiter(4) - which is one source of comet tail matter - and 3) a postulated electric dipole red-shift in photons leaving the central star. Still another theoretical result was the possibility of an electrically induced magnetic dynamo powered by a planet spinning inside the orbit of a slightly charged moon. Empirical correlation between moons and magnetic fields has been known for some time,(5) though the wandering of our Moon has remained an unsolved mystery.(6, 7)

An attempt is made to explain solar system formation from the time a newly formed twin star system leaves the galactic center(1) to when it develops its solar system by the capture of comets. The reader's knowledge of planetary encounter and N-body literature is assumed since it is basic to the paper but unreferenced. However, the text by T. J. J. See,(6) which develops the first capture theory for the origin of the solar system (OSS), is indispensable. A major result of this paper is also the quantization of Newtonian space. Finally, the link between planetary formation, geomagnetic reversals, and biological evolution is examined.

PREFACE

This paper was produced during the 1979-80, 1980-81 academic years while the author was a lecturer in the Physics and Mathematics Departments of Cornell University (Ithaca, N. Y.) Only minor grammatical changes have been made for publication and numerous footnotes have been added for clarification. The article is a condensed version of a 450 page manuscript (Origin of the Planets, Comet Capture Processes in the Formation of Solar Systems, also by the author) which further develops each aspect of the new comet theory. Although it was never intended, the theory explains Velikovsky's claims of Venus transforming from a comet into a planet and is supported by data from recent space probes.

Since 1982, with the analysis of data from the Pioneer 11/Voyager l/Voyager 2 missions to the outer planets and the Pioneer Venus/ Russian Venera probes, the trend even among established astrophysicists has markedly turned towards catastrophism based on celestial events (these have been mainly variations on the "colliding asteroid" theory). In spite of this trend and a wealth of new data on electromagnetic phenomena, mainstream astrophysicists continue to maintain that gravity is the only force in the cosmos and to support long standing theories such as the Big Bang, the nebular collapse theory for the origin of the solar system, the greenhouse effect, the ice ball comet model, and General Relativity (all of which are shown to contain theoretical inconsistencies in this paper).

As the data arrived from around the solar system, the author witnessed repeated efforts within the space science community (primarily NASA) to ignore the importance of electrical phenomena. If the data did not fit into the established theoretical picture, after-the-fact theories were contrived to force-fit the data, or the data were simply not dealt with at all. It should have been apparent that the data were unquestionably contradictory to any expectations of traditional theory and that a radically new set of self-consistent concepts would be needed.

Part I is the first of a three part series which develops a new theory for comet behavior and solar system evolution. Many may wonder why a new theory is necessary; thus Part I begins with a brief critique of presently "accepted" astronomical theory and is followed by an introduction to the new comet theory.

I. A BRIEF CRITIQUE OF THE ICE BALL COMET MODEL AND NEBULAR THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

Occasionally letters are published which disagree with the ice ball comet model (IBCM) and nebular collapse theory for the origin of the solar system (OSS).(8) Personal experience also indicates that there is a group of scientists and astronomers who do not accept either theory, but do not publish since they do not know what to publish. This has led to the popularized statement that there is universal acceptance of these theories. After the Voyager I Saturn encounter, many began to realize the inability of the nebular theory to explain the data, especially the electrical phenomena and large energy output of Saturn as compared to Jupiter.

All current literature on planet formation assumes the pre-existence of planetesimals which are then shown to agglomerate relatively quickly into planets.(9) The great difficulty with this has always been in showing how the proto-planets form, since only large magellanic clouds can achieve gravitational collapse in theory (in practice, no one has ever witnessed the collapse of any cloud, no matter how vast its size).(10) Also, if these small planetesimals are so difficult to explain, then how did the relatively small frozen comet nuclei form in the primordial nebula? It has always been assumed that this is how it must have been, as is the case with the Oort-cloud which currently is impossible to detect.

Other objections which cannot be ignored are the results of all four Pioneer-Venus probes(11) which detected "more energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters as sunlight", the faint glow at the surface and atmospheric lightning, not to mention the high concentration of argon-36,(12) among others. At this point science cannot be advanced by simply trying to modify previous theories which fall very far short of explaining these data or by refusing to look at new approaches to the problem.

The unexpected elevated temperature in Titan's clouds(13) has been explained as due to a temperature inversion, suggesting that the heat is generated by a greenhouse effect. But, Titan receives only about 1/40,000th the sunlight that reaches Venus, so few will believe in a greenhouse effect at this distance from the Sun.(14) Infrared data must be viewed skeptically as they have consistently given low temperatures in Earth-based data (i.e., Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn). Also, Pluto is now known to have gaseous methane in its atmosphere and therefore must have a considerable N2 atmosphere to hold this in place (as with Titan). With the recent determination of the low mass of Pluto (Pluto has non-trivial amounts of gaseous methane in its atmosphere yet is only l/400th the mass of Earth),(15) one can only ask how it has maintained this atmosphere for 4.5 billion years and how it maintains the elevated temperature necessary to have a gaseous atmosphere (as with Titan)?(16)

The current sheet of five million amps that flows constantly from Io to Jupiter was the first electrical discharge phenomenon recorded by Voyager in interplanetary space. It is generally stated(17) that the auroras on Jupiter arise from current flow from Io's torus. But, since auroral spots - one near each pole - also follow Io as it orbits Jupiter's dark side,(18) the current must be coming from Io itself. The visible auroral spots near Jupiter's poles following Io were mentioned in early news releases but no reference to them was found in the issues of Science (written by NASA space scientists) dealing with Voyager I and II's encounter with the Jovian system, i.e., 1 June 1979 and 23 November 1979.

Although a "magnetic" explanation was given for Io's current sheet, current cannot fIow unless a potential difference exists; therefore Io must maintain a net charge with respect to Jupiter. This paper will show that Io maintains a net electric charge, using the same charging process as comet nuclei orbiting the Sun. It will be shown that Jupiter's spinning inside the orbit of charged Io creates Jupiter's magnetic field, and not vice versa.(19)

The widely publicized tidal heating of Io to account for its great internal heat and volcanism has been questioned.(20) The tidal theory predicts the greatest heat to be at the north and south poles of Io,(21) but almost all volcanic activity is observed within 30 degrees of its equator. As with all "accepted" theories, it has been favored because it supports the a priori assumption that everything in the solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago. Internal heating will be discussed in detail and it will be shown that tidal heating has been overestimated. The heat is rising from Io's young interior through volcanism which is a result of quakes caused by the tidal action of Jupiter, Europa, and Ganymede.

Other important but often ignored anomalies are the wanderings of Neptune and Earth's Moon, the selective heavy cratering of the far side of the Earth's Moon,(22,23) and small halos around certain asteroids (24)

Most investigators strictly hold that electrically charged celestial bodies cannot exist because it would be observed in the planetary motions. The answer to this is that it is now known that the charge to mass ratios of celestial bodies vary greatly with size, with the most notable effects occurring only in the motions of the smallest bodies. This is discussed at length throughout the present paper and has been observed in Saturn's system.

Although much has been written and many calculations performed on the ice ball comet model, it is difficult to imagine that the miniscule amount of solar radiation falling upon this nucleus can cause comas 1.5 x 106 km in diameter and 100 million km in length.(25) Furthermore, the comet must continually fill this space as the tail folIows the comet in its orbit. Piecewise integration suggests that the comet would have to fill this volume at least 600 times during a single passage while inside the orbit of Mars and it is expected to do this on thousands of returns. Also, it is particularly hard to imagine a sungrazing ice ball passing through the 1 million degree solar corona, spending a number of hours grazing the solar atmosphere (not to mention passing through the solar Roche limit on a highly eccentric orbit), and passing to the outside again relatively unaffected.

If the icy volatiles were ejected by solar radiation bombardment, then the statistics of following such a molecule, given the mean free path as a constant, would show the comet coma luminosity to fade exponentially as the distance from the nucleus. On the contrary, the coma is well defined up to an edge and does not exist appreciably beyond this.

Observed anti-tails (sunward fan-shaped tails) have been explained as due to the rotating ice ball interacting with the solar wind.(26) Comet wandering is claimed to be due to the ejection of jets from the ice ball (27, 28)

The curved Type II tails as observed in Donati's comet and comet West follow the comet in its orbit. This would require a selective curvature in the solar wind or other such containment mechanism in the IBCM; however, it has been shown that neither solar wind nor solar radiation can provide such a containment mechanism.(29 30)

The IBCM is only valid for the region of space well within the orbit of Jupiter. The two largest comets in history (comet 1729 and 1927 IV) were recorded outside Jupiter's orbit (1927 IV was seen beyond the orbit of Saturn).(31)

Comets with sunward "spikes" are explained in the IBCM as a thin Type I tail which only "appears" to extend in the sunward direction. This explanation was first given when Comet Arend-Roland developed a sunward spike for seven days during its 1957 passage.(32) Comet Kohoutek deveIoped a similar spike as it passed near the Sun as seen by Sky-Lab astronauts.(33) Since then, other spiked comets have been observed, always occurring in the ecliptic near the Sun.(34) Pliny the Elder in his Second Book of Natural History speaks of comets that project horns, and there are many other ancient references to unusual comets. Data which must be included are the 6,000 year old American Indian rock paintings found near Green River, Utah.(35) The paintings are unmistakably those of a comet with a spike in the form of a helix. One shows the comet with a large nucleus, the other without. As the comet is drawn twice, it was the painter's intention to draw the sunward spike in the form of a helix. Spiralling of comet tail material is also commonly observed, reminiscent of ions moving in a magnetic field.

The new comet theory shows the sunward spike to be part of an electrical discharge, and the spiralling of the spike and tail matter a result of charged particles moving in a magnetic field supported by the charged comet nucleus. This is a marked difference in the theories and, therefore, provides one of the many Earth-based experiments that can decide between the two theories. If radio noise is detected during spike formation, then the IBCM cannot explain this since the thin Type I tail should be much less active than the larger Type II tail. A magnetically induced discharge in large Type I tails has been suggested(36) but this cannot be related to sunward spikes for the reason just given. Also, low level radio noise in comets has been accidentally detected during occultation of stars.(37) So detection of excessive radio noise in spiked comets should provide a definitive test for the alternative theories.(38)

The link between galactic and solar system formation is necessary for a complete understanding of celestial phenomena. The traditionally accepted density wave theory of spiral arm formation is consistent with the nebular theory of OSS in that it explains the origin of impulses believed necessary for stellar collapse and formation. There are difficulties which still remain with this model, however. The mechanism that begins the density wave remains unidentified as an interaction of galactic proportions is needed which is common to all galaxies. This is further complicated by the need for a symmetric interaction to explain fine detail such as star densities - irregularities in the spiral arm shape and the anti-symmetric warping of the galactic disk - all of which occur with great symmetry even though the arm pairs are separated by distances of hundreds of thousands of light years .

II. COMETS AND THE DISCHARGE OF THE SOLAR CAPACITOR

IIa) Galactic Formation, Saturn, and the Charging Processes Used by Comets

Two papers have preceded this one and must be read with their references to interpret the present paper properly.(1,2)

A new concept of galactic evolution has been proposed in one paper which is consistent with the new comet capture theory of OSS and is contradictory to both the density wave concept and nebular collapse theories of OSS. The new model's main result (as related to the present paper) is that twin star systems are formed near the galactic nucleus.(39) It also explains the cause of the high degree of symmetry found in galactic structure.

The twin star system is necessary for capture in celestial mechanics; thus the formation of binary stars that are observed in abundance in the sky is an essential part of OSS by capture processes. The dynamics of twin star formation in the spiral arm, as it leaves the galactic nucleus, also provides an important source for the asteroidal comet nuclei which can become captured by a twin star system. As the spray of condensing matter leaves the gravitational dominance of the galactic nucleus, the largest congIomerates will begin to control the volume of space around them, with the smaller objects assuming orbits in random planes with random eccentricities about the central more massive star. Within a short time, there will be a great number of encounters.

This leaves, in most cases, the two largest bodies to orbit one another with the smallest bodies being ejected from the system. These smaller bodies are observable as the dispersion of light that occurs around the spiral arm near the galactic nucleus as they move outwards for possible capture by twin star systems. It is a game of numbers; of the multitude of asteroidal planetary "seeds" ejected from this portion of the spiral arm, only a few will eventually become active members of a solar system. Here also it is seen that the planes of the solar systems formed will be randomly oriented as will the orbital directions of the smaller stars of the pairs.(40) Jupiter and the Sun were the original twin stars of our system, with the rest of the planets, moons, and asteroids being captured one by one at a later time, the selection rules being governed by chance.

Some may ask: "why cannot some planets have been part of the original system as it left the galactic nucleus?" If such 3 (or N) body systems were possible when given random initial conditions, then triple star systems (and higher order systems) would be more abundant. Only 0.1% of all stars are in higher order systems, and the known systems (e.g., the triple-star alpha-centauri) act much as a twin star, i.e., a cIosely spaced binary with a distant orbiting third star.

Comet captures are well understood and well documented, e.g., Lexell's comet 1770 and comet Brooks II, 1886. Also, the observation that 5000 asteroids lie within Jupiter's orbit with only a few beyond shows the organizing effect of capture by a twin star. Thus, with over 75% of the stars in double systems, and many single stars with unlit companions, deveIoping planetary systems should be found in all of these.

The second paper deals with the star-like nature of Saturn (and Jupiter). From the observed central high veIocity wind belt, the highly developed ring system (analogous to the zodiacal disk), the electric discharge phenomena in its vicinity and the proportionately larger thermal output when compared to Jupiter, it must be true that Saturn is much more active and therefore younger than Jupiter.(41)

A major result of the Saturn paper is the identification of two charging processes, both resulting in a net negative charge on a body moving in a hot plasma (either planetary radiation belts or the solar wind). The first has been detected and is induced as the body enters regions of varying electrical potential within the plasma.(2,42,43) A small space craft can quickly charge to a potential of 10,000 volts, so if size is assumed to be important, then a small asteroidal body could quickly charge to a substantial voltage.(44) This was observed when Pioneer-Saturn passed under the small asteroidal moon 1979-S2 and experienced a "great mass" with a large magnetic field. The great mass sensed by telemetry was the result of the induced electric dipole force on the metal space craft as discussed previously(2) (and the same force responsible for the gathering and maintenance of meteoroid streams by comets, to be discussed).

The second charging mechanism occurs during the discharge of the Sun's (or Saturn's) capacitor formed by an excess current of protons in its solar wind. The capacitor forms between the negatively charged central star and positively ionized nebular cIoud which surrounds the star in the shape of a donut. The discharge of this capacitor is triggered by the intrusion of an already charged asteroidal body(45) (charged initially by the first process). Current fIows in a line between the star and surrounding neutralizing ion cloud via the comet nucleus. Electrons flow outward from the negatively charged star (sometimes visible as the sunward spike) while positive ions flow inwards from the nebular ion cIoud (forming the comet tail). Due to the higher mobility of electrons, they arrive in greater numbers at the asteroidal comet nucleus, causing a build-up of negative charge on the nucleus. It is the combined electric fields of the Sun and comet nucleus which create the characteristic comet shape (to be discussed). Fan-shaped anti-tails are caused by ions and protons from the solar wind which also pour into the comet nucleus from the sunward side and fluoresce as they recombine with electrons.The first charging process depends on the size of the object, its velocity relative to the plasma, and the intensity of the radiation belts (or solar wind). The second charging process does not depend on the object as much as on the discharge itself. Once the second process begins, it is self-generating until the entire solar capacitor is drained. This can lead to enormous voltages on the comet nucleus. The greater this charge becomes, the greater the discharge becomes, and thus is self-generating. Although it appears that celestial objects in circular orbits have less charging than those in eccentric orbits, what terminates the charging process is still not well understood.(46)

The standard argument raised against the existence of electric fields in space is that "in the plasma environment of space, any charge accumulation would be quickly neutralized". This would be true if this plasma were not controlled by a powerful charge separating cell in its center (the Sun). The mobility of free space charge must be taken into account as it is the varying mobility of charged particles that causes the comet nucleus to charge. Thus the Sun acts as a Van de Graaff generator while the solar wind holds back a nebular ion cloud estimated to begin somewhere near the orbit of Jupiter.(47) This is one source of matter for the comet tail and will be seen to contain the light elements up to at least sulfur. The heavier elements will be seen to come from the other source of tail material, the zodiacal disk.

It has always been assumed that the solar wind contains equal currents of electrons and protons to maintain an electrically neutral solar system. But there is no reason for assuming this is so. It would be impossible to detect the overall current leaving the Sun at any given moment. The few points at which the solar wind has been monitored can in no way be extrapolated to say that there are equal currents of protons and electrons in the solar wind as has been done by theorists. External characteristics, e.g., comet phenomena and electrical phenomena in Saturn's rings, indicate that there must be an excess current of protons. In solar prominences are seen composite streamers of similarly charged particles moving in the local magnetic field, so there can be no doubt that the Sun has the ability to selectively eject composite streamers of similarly charged particles.(48)


[*!* Image] Figure 1. Computer plot of characteristic comet (q1/q2 = constant) for a comet following a parabolic orbit. The shrinking of the coma is predicted by theory, showing the CEF as related to the Sun-comet nucleus separation. [Labels: nucleus. Sun. circle of equal force.

[*!* Image] Figure 2. Dimensions of the CEF (q1 > q2).

[*!* Image] Figure 3. Comet shapes for varying values of q1/q2 = k.

a) k = 10 b) k = 100 c) k = 1000.


IIb) Comet Theory

Figure 1 shows the progression of characteristic comet shapes formed by the combined electric fields of the Sun (q1) and comet nucleus (q2), both with net negative charges (q1 > q2 ) as the comet orbits the Sun. The comet shape is defined by the area in which positive ions will be trapped by the comet nucleus due to the combined electric fields.(49) Due to its electrical charge, the comet nucleus becomes a singularity in space with a near infinite supply of tail material. The equations governing the size of the coma are given by:

b = l / (k - 1) (1)
c = 2l. SQRT(k) / (k - 1) (2)
d = l / (SQRT(k) + 1) (3)
e = l (1 + SQRT(k)) / (k - 1) (4)

where q1 >> q2, k =q1/q2, P is the Lagrange point of the electric field and L is the Sun-comet nucleus separation (Figure 2 ). The circle (diameter = c) called the circle of equal force (CEF) is where the acceleration on an ion towards the Sun is equal to that of the comet nucleus. It is easily shown that the vector sum of these forces always points towards the Lagrange point. The equation of the CEF, with q2 at (0,0) is:

x2 + y2 + (2 x l) / (1-k) = -L2/(1-k2)(5)

(for proofs and illustrations, see Appendix I and II). The shrinking of the coma as the comet approaches the Sun is accounted for in equation (3) which also provides a simple method for determining the value k from Earth-based measurements. This is one common characteristic of comets which must be explained in theory.(50) Figure 3 shows varying comet sizes for varying values of k. The stratification sometimes visible in comet tails(51) is caused by variable concentrations of dust and gases in the tail area as they folIow field lines into the comet nucleus.

The tail area extends to infinity theoretically but in practice it extends only to the neutralizing nebular ion cloud near the orbit of Jupiter.(52) Thus tails of extreme length (Type I) are seen as sunlight reflected from dust that drains in from the nebular cIoud during the electrical discharge of the solar capacitor. Time of flight of tail dust is negligible compared to the movement of the comet nucleus. Therefore, the static case is an excellent approximation to the real situation. The tail material causes a build-up and layering of the comet nucleus and is not melting away as hypothesized in the IBCM. Red shift data are available which are interpreted as indicating the velocities of volatiles moving away from the comet nucleus. Section IV of this paper will show why these data have been misinterpreted.

Electrodynamics in the solar system constitutes a widely misunderstood field of study among traditional astronomers. It is now apparent that charge-to-mass ratio is of great importance in celestial mechanics. This has been demonstrated in Saturn's system where the most noticeable effects occur in the smallest objects. The newly discovered rotating spokes in Saturn's rings have been explained(2) as due to the sweeping of small ring particles that are ionized during the discharge of Saturn's proton-wind-supported capacitor, the area swept out being the "shadow" of the comet tail. This is supported by the Iocation of a bright ringlet from which the spokes always emanate. This ringlet contains orbiting "charge centers" (either small moons or large ring particles) which act exactly like comet nuclei when inside the zodiacal disk of the Sun (a second source of comet tail material)*

* Cf. Earl R. Milton, "Saturn and Voyager", KRONOS VI:3 (1981), pp. 55-62 and M.Brandt and M. Bodner, "Electromagnetic-Gravitational Coupling Phenomena in the Saturn Ring System", KRONOS Vl:3, pp. 63-70. - LMG

The folIowing example illustrates the forces involved in tail production due to varying charge-to-mass ratios, comparing gravitational and electric effects. A comet nucleus (1015 kg) at 1 A.U. from the Sun develops a charge sufficient to cause a coma 50,000 km to form (measured in the sunward direction). This requires (by Equation 3) a charge ratio between the Sun and comet nucleus of q1 / q2 = k = 107 . The gravitational force of the Sun on the comet nucleus is approximately 2 x 107 newtons. Table 1 gives values of charge and mass for the Sun (ql, m1 ), comet nucleus (q2, m2) and a singly ionized CO molecule (q3, m3) assumed to be in the tail area of the comet. Note that the charge-to-mass ratio (q/m) ranges over 31 orders of magnitude.

TABLE 1

Mass (kg) Charge (Coul.) q/m (Coul./kg)
electron 9.1 x 10-31 -1.6 x 10-19 -1.76 x 1011
CO+ ion 4.7 x 10-26 +1.6 x 10-19 +3 3 x 106
comet nucleus 1015 -2.2 x 103 -2.2 x 10-12
Sun 2 x 1030 -2.2 x 1010 -1.1 x 10-20

An all too common remark among traditional astronomers is that, if electrically charged bodies existed in space, we would observe fantastic accelerations in these bodies and the Universal Gravitational Constant would be noticeably altered. The present example shows, however, that the resultant repulsive electrical force between the Sun and comet nucleus is only one part in 1012 of the attractive gravitational force. So the orbital perturbation on the comet nucleus will be negligible and the value of the gravitational constant altered by only one ten billionth of one percent. This is due to the low charge-to-mass ratios of the Sun and comet

Ions, however, have relatively high charge-to-mass ratios. The ratio of electrical force to gravitational force on a CO+ ion in the comet tail is given by:

[*!* Image]

The resultant attractive electrical force on the CO+ ion is at least 10 orders of magnitude larger than the gravitational force due to the mass of the Sun and comet nucleus.

The charged comet nucleus is capable of drawing in vast amounts of matter by powerful electrical forces. This occurs without an observable perturbation in the orbit of the comet nucleus. Later it will be shown that the observed "wandering" of comets from their orbits is caused by the drag of the tail on the comet nucleus, electrical perturbations being noticeable only over long periods of time.

Thus, a comet involved in the discharge of the solar capacitor will continue to grow in size and mass. This is why a good deal of radio noise should occur in a well developed comet whereas the IBCM would predict relatively little when compared with known sources such as Saturn's rings.

The criticism has been raised that if such a charge existed on the Sun, then extremely high energy particles would be commonplace in the inner solar system. This, however, again is analogous to the Van de Graaff generator in which the charge need only be sprayed off the central belt as it will assume its state of lowest potential and without excessively high energy particles involved. The discharge of the solar capacitor will involve very high energy particles, but not the charging of this capacitor.

There are numerous reasons for identifying the other source of tail matter as the zodiacal disk. This is reinforced by the analogy between Saturn's spokes and comet phenomena near the Sun. Curved tails, such as in Donati's comet when it neared the Sun, are a result of the matter in the rotating zodiacal disk falling into the comet nucleus which is viewed as a singularity in space. (Another cause for other Type II tails will be discussed later.) This is due to the relative motion of the comet nucleus with respect to the zodiacal disk. Donati's comet also exhibited a pair of thin Type I tails which must have arrived from the nebular ion cloud.

Comets begin to show heavy elements (such as nickel, potassium, iron, etc.) in the tail as they approach the Sun.(53) These come from the zodiacal disk (iron has been detected in Saturn's rings which is analogous). Thus, a fundamental aspect of planetary formation is the amount of time a comet spends inside the zodiacal disk (where heavy elements accumulate) as opposed to inside the nebular ion cloud which provides only lighter elements up to approximately sulfur, determined from observation of tail ions.(54) This fact may account for the abundance of low density celestial objects found past the orbit of Jupiter while still alIowing some of them to be of earth-like density. Layering of matter on the comet nucleus also shows that planets must have highly compact solid cores with radioactive elements and hydrocarbons distributed throughout (to be discussed in detail).

CONCLUSION TO PART I

Concerning the traditional astrophysical theories (the nebular collapse theory of OSS and the 4.5 billion-year-old age of the planets, the density wave concept of galactic evolution, the Big Bang, the ice ball comet model, and the greenhouse effect) this paper claims that none of these are valid in spite of decades of theoretical effort. Two historical developments are responsible for this: 1) these theories were developed and given "accepted" status before the past decade's expIoration of the solar system and 2) after excellent close range data were secured from space probes, the data were inevitably forced to fit the "accepted" theories by the advancement of hundreds of after-the-fact ad hoc explanations (the oldest being the greenhouse effect for Venus' high temperature). It was far easier to do this than to ponder the failure of traditional theory. If any scientists raised objections to this, they were quickly removed from the astronomical community and life went on as before.

This paper shows that comets are not ice balls melted by solar radiation, but are asteroidal bodies which become electrically charged within the Sun's sphere of influence and are attracting the dust and ions observed in the comet tail. (The nebular ion cloud which lies past the orbit of Pluto is one source of comet tail material.) This causes a buildup of material on the asteroidal comet nucleus. Parts II and III of this paper will show that comets eventually evolve into planets (Venus may well be only a few thousand years old), moons, and asteroids, and that the solar system is dynamic, undergoing radical changes when large comets are captured into the inner solar system.

. . . to be continued.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. J. M. McCanney, "Continuing Galactic Formation,"Astrophys. Space Sci., 74 (1981), pp.57-64.
2. J. M. McCanney, "Saturn's Sweeper Moons Predicted," The Moon, 24 (1981), pp. 349-53.
3. J. M McCanney, "Electrical Phenomena at Saturn," unpublished.
4. When this paper was written in 1981, the common belief among astronomers was that the intergalactic boundary of the Sun lay somewhere beyond Jupiter. Pioneer 11 has passed the orbit of Pluto but to date has not encountered the heliopause. Two factors affect the location of this boundary: 1) the Sun's magnetic field interacting with the intergalactic wind (commonly called the "bow shock"), and 2) the force of the solar wind holding back dust and gas particles from entering the inner solar system. [Cf. "The Sun's Magnetic Field", KRONOS 11:3 (1977), pp. 78-80. - LMG]
5. H. C. Houben, Tidal Dissipation in the Solar System and the Possibility of Tidally Driven Planetary Magnetic Dynamos, Cornell University thesis (Ithaca, 1978).
6. T. J. J. See, Researches on the Evolution of the Stellar Systems, Vol. 11 (Lynn, Mass, 1910), pp. 274-92.
7. R. A. Lyttleton, Moon and the Planets, 18 (1980), p. 13.
8. B. R. De, Astronom. Soc. of India, 3 (1975). (It is observed that De calls for the requirement of non-gravitational forces in any pseudo-"Laplacian" explanation of OSS. The traditionally accepted concept of the nebular collapse theory of OSS is based on Laplace's 18th century idea of a whirling cloud collapsing into a revolving solar system. In 1910 - based on the theoretical work by Newton and Darwin (no relation to Isaac; son of Charles) - T. J. J. See showed the classic flaws of the Laplacian theory, the primary difficulty being due to angular momentum considerations. He also proposed the first capture theory of OSS. See's work was ostracized and never promoted. All subsequent theoretical efforts have been attempts to account for the unexplainable in the Laplacian scenario. There is a great deal of speculation in today's "accepted" theory .)
9. B. A. Smith, Science, 204 (1979), p. 969.
10. In 1983 the Infrared Astronomy Satellite (IRAS) was launched and has since mapped infrared heat sources much more accurately and with greater sensitivity than could be done previously from mountain top infrared observatories. Almost immediately, wide publicity was generated stating that the birth of stars had been recorded. This is a great overstatement of the facts. It is true that new infrared sources have been recorded near magellanic clouds where traditional astrophysical theory would indicate and where none had previously been observed from mountain top observatories. However, to confirm the nebular collapse theory of stellar formation, two requirements are needed: 1) For IRAS to observe a new infrared source that had not previously been observed by IRAS within its experimental limits of accuracy, and 2) that it was in fact the collapse of gas clouds that formed the star.The second condition would be difficult to prove using IRAS alone.

It is possible, for example, that massive nova remnants could be highly instrumental in the secondary formation of stars in magellanic clouds and that stellar collapse may not be possible without such a nucleus. Great caution must be used in interpreting data and drawing far reaching conclusions.
11. R. A. Kerr, Science, 207 (1980), p. 292.
12. J. H. Hoffman, et al., Science, 203 (1979), p. 800.
13. R. Berry, Astronomy, 9, No. 2 (1981), p. 19.
14. As recently as 1981, greenhouse theorists claimed that Earth and Venus evolved differently since the greenhouse effect was viable on Venus (due to its proximity to the Sun) but that Earth was not affected (in spite of its early CO2 atmosphere) due to its greater distance from the Sun. Then the elevated temperature of Saturn's moon Titan was discovered. For lack of any explanation, the greenhouse effect was adopted to allow the data to conform to the 4.5 billion-year-age of the solar system which is basic to "accepted" theory.
15. D. Mulholland, Science 82 (Dec., 1982), pp. 64 -68.
16. A basic physics problem is to determine the length of time a planet of a certain size and mass can maintain an atmosphere. Both Titan and Pluto are well below the threshold that would alIow a permanent atmosphere.
17. B. R. Sandel, et al., Science, 206 (1979), pp. 962-966.
18. R.Gore,Nat. Geographic, 157,No. I (1980),p. 10.
19. The magnetic fields of Jupiter and Saturn newly discovered by Pioneer 11 have created an unmentioned dilemma in the astrophysics community. In short, magnetic fields do not self-generate and sustain themselves for billions of years. Maxwell's equations have been swept under the theoretical rug by traditional theorists who still maintain that gravity is the only force acting in the cosmos.

For magnetic fields to form, current must fIow. For current to flow, a potential difference must be maintained. Herein lies the downfall of traditional astrophysical theory which does not allow any form of electro-magnetic interaction.

When I pointed this out to a theorist in the physics department at Cornell University, he exclaimed that since both positively and negatively charged particles were moving in the recorded electric current between Io and Jupiter, no potential difference was required. This shows that too many scientists will say anything, no matter how absurd, to uphold traditional theory. Irrational behavior of this sort is found to be commonplace in astrophysics circles.
20. "Jupiter Pictorial," Astronomy (Aug.,1979), p.54.
21. S. J. Peale, Science, 203 (1979), p. 892.
22. F. Hoyle, Highlights in Astronomy (San Francisco,1975), pp. 39-49.
23. "Disappearing Mountains," OMNI (Jan., 1980), p. 38.
24. W. Ley, Watchers of the Skies (N. Y., 1966), pp. 334-8.
25. Venus Orbiter data have shed light on the interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere of Venus. The result is that, although Venus has no protective magnetic field, no "coma-like" activity is observed. An unspoken dilemma among ice ball theorists is that neither the solar wind nor electromagnetic radiation is sufficient to create comas of the size observed in comets.
26. Z. Sekanina, Icarus, 37 (1979), p.420.
27. F. Whipple, Scientific American, 242, No 3 (1980), p. 124.
28. Some IBCM theorists claim that wandering is due to ejection of highly volatile gases that exist in packets within a dirty ball of water ice. This, however, contradicts the claim of other theorists that all highly volatile frozen gases in the ice ball are routed out by solar radiation beyond the orbit of Jupiter and cause comets such as Kohoutek (1973) and Bowell (1981) to be observable beyond Jupiter and Saturn.
29. P. Koutchny, Astron. and Astrophys., 72 (1979), p. 45.
30. P. L. Lamy, Astron. and Astrophys., 72 (1979), p.50.
31. R. A. Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (Oxford, 1968), p. 116. This book remains an excellent source of food for thought.
32. Middlehurst and Kuiper, The Moon, Meteorites and Comets (Chicago, 1963), p. 602, plate 4.
33. P. Moore, Comets (N. Y., 1976), p. 96.
34. J. E. Bortle, Sky and Telescope, 61, No. 3 (1981), p. 212.
35. G. Smith,Nat. Geographic, 157, No. 1 (1980), pp.98-99.
36. W. H. Ip, Planetary and Space Sci., 27 (1979), p. 121.
37. L. C. Lee, Astrophys. J., 228, No. 1 (1979), p. 935.
38. The October, 1981, article by D. A. Mendis, et al. (Astrophysical Journal, 249, p. 787) on the charging of the comet nucleus, is quite different from the present paper. That paper assumes the ice ball comet model and claims charging to be a result of the solar wind and UV light impinging on the ice ball. It does not anticipate effects observable from Earth and does not alIow the existence of the nebular ion cloud which is proposed in this paper. In brief, there is no apparent common ground between the two papers. It is curious to note, however, that the Astrophysical Journal published that paper but refused even to comment on the present paper which takes exception to the ice ball comet model.
39. One of the prominent astronomical observations of 1982 related quasars to normal galaxy evolution, in which young stars were forming in a cloud at the visible surface of certain quasars (ref. Boroson and Oke of California Institute of Technology). This is radically different from the density wave model's expectation that clouds of galactic dimensions should encounter another galaxy to force the formation of the density wave. It also supports Dr. H. Arp's observations that quasars are not objects at the "edge of the universe" (as proposed by those who use the Red Shift and Hubble constant as a measure of astronomical distance). Arp has observed "strings" which visibly connect quasars to galaxies, indicating that the Red-Shift-Hubble concept (i.e., the Big Bang) is erroneous. He was threatened with loss of his telescope time by astronomers who disagreed. (Section IV of this paper discusses this in light of the newly proposed induced electric dipole red shift. For further reading, see N. Y. Times, section C (Oct. 19, 1979) and March, 1983 issue of Sky and Telescope.)
40. This is supported by the fact that only Jupiter spins about an axis parallel to the axis of the Sun.
41. Concerning the paper "Saturn's Sweeper Moons Predicted", it is now apparent from Voyager I and II data that the moons were not verified as predicted; however, the general concept of fusion in Saturn's atmosphere ignited by lightning (and the predicted side effects such as the rotating spokes) has been verified. Unfortunately, NASA scientists continue to maintain that all observed effects are "magnetic" in nature. Once again they erroneously assume that the magnetic fields simply exist, and that these in turn cause the observed electric effects (i.e., the alteration of charged particle counts near Saturn's small moons, the electrical discharge that occurs in Saturn's atmosphere every time Dione passes overhead, the current sheet flowing constantly between Dione and Saturn - announced in October, 1982, and similar to the Io-Jupiter current sheet - the giga-amp electrical discharges that snap regularly among Saturn's rings, the correlation between electrical discharges and the "rotating spokes", the non-Keplerian orbits of certain ring particles and small moons, and the twisted F-ring). To date, NASA has not offered any viable explanations for these observations, although some were discovered over two years ago.
42. W. Filius, et al., Science, 207 (1980), p. 428.
43. S. E. DeForst, J. Geophys. Res., 77 (1972), p.651.
44. In September, 1980 this was pointed out to the staff of ICARUS, which is edited at Cornell University. Their reply was that they did not know of, or believe in, such an effect on satellites. (They were not familiar with the DeForst paper or the fact that at least some members of the JPL imaging team observed charged particle measurements to be affected by an unidentified electric potential at the surface of the spacecraft studying Saturn as referenced by Filius, et al.) In 1982, during the first space walk by space shuttle astronauts. Observations were made and photos were taken of an aura-like gIow at the surface of the shuttle. NASA space scientists were asked to explain this and conjectured that it may be related to oxygen ions impinging on the surface (implying a net charge on the shuttle, although charging was never specifically mentioned) .
45. Similar to the discharge of a backyard electric bug killer which discharges when a bug enters the area between anode and cathode.
46. The capacitor that forms with the Sun in its center and nebular ion cloud surrounding it (past the orbit of Pluto) will have surfaces of electrical equipotential between cathode and anode. It is now known that the second charging process depends on the comet nucleus crossing the surfaces of equipotential. As the comet nucleus crosses the equipotential surfaces, it must continually adopt the potential of space that it enters.

This also aids in the electrical breakdown of the capacitor, initiating the discharge between Sun and nebular ion cloud which is observable as the comet tail and, occasionally, the sunward spike.

It is explained later in this paper that circularization of orbit is a by-product of the drag the comet tail exerts on the comet nucleus. As the comet achieves a circular orbit, it no longer will cross the surfaces of equipotential and will remain essentially at a single potential. This is a simplistic explanation but applies well in the inner solar system where the equipotential surfaces are nearly spherical (past Jupiter, the Sun's magnetic tail will distort these surfaces). [Cf. Chris S. Sherrerd, "The Electromagnetic Circularization of Planetary Orbits", KRONOS IV:4 (1979), pp. 55-58; Ragnar Forshufvud, "On the Circularization of the Orbit of Venus", KRONOS VII:2 (1982), pp. 3-28. - LMG]
47. Past the orbit of Pluto, known from Pioneer 11 data.
48. It is now apparent that the observation of the higher proton current in the solar wind should have been interpreted properly a long time ago; but, as with many other cases of interpretation of data, scientists make data fit their theories and not vice versa. It has been known for a long time that the velocities of protons in the solar wind are much greater than those of electrons; however, scientists have maintained equal currents of electrons and protons because of the a priori assumption that space is electrically neutral.

Since current = charge x velocity / L, there is an excess current of protons in the solar wind, leaving the Sun with a net negative charge. The separation of charge must be an essential aspect of fusion in stars.

The Sun cannot continuously expel an excess current of protons indefinitely, so there must be a current sheet of charge that fIows continually between the nebular ion cloud and the Sun. In 1982, Pioneer 11 data confirmed the existence of such a current sheet flowing lengthwise along the Sun's magnetic tail. This may possibly relate this paper to the work of Juergens (KRONOS VIII:1) who assumed that such a current was necessary for his tufted anode concept (although I disagree that this is the source of the Sun's energy).

The existence of the solar corona has always posed a problem to traditional astrophysics. This pure electron cloud with a temperature of millions of degrees is certainly not held in place by gravity and there is no apparent containment mechanism from without. The corona may act as a filter for the solar wind, accelerating protons while retarding electrons. This would account for the higher veIocities of protons observed in the solar wind. At any rate, what holds the corona in place remains an unsolved mystery. [However, evidence is accumulating that the Sun's magnetic field plays the fundamental role in heating and containing the corona. See The Sciences (Dec. 1981), pp. 15-18, 32;Natural History (Jan. 1983), pp. 74-79; and Scientific American (Feb. 1983), pp. 104-119. - CLE] 49. The combined l/r^2 electric fields of the Sun and comet nucleus define the characteristic shape around the comet nucleus as designated in Figure 1.
50. R. A. Lyttleton, Mysteries, p. 113. 51. Middlehurst, The Moon, Meteorites, p.602, plate 1C.
52. Past the orbit of Pluto (not Jupiter). 53. A. Dauvillier, Cosmic Dust (N. Y., 1964), pp. 56-7.
54. M. K . Wallis, Nature, 286 (1980), p. 207.

APPENDIX I

Proof No. 1

For all points on a circle of equal force, the resultant acceleration due to similar charges q1 and q2 is always in the direction of the Lagrange point (Figures A1-1 and A1-2).

[*!* Image] Figure A1-1

[*!* Image] Figure A1-2

From Coulomb's Law:

G q1 G q2 G q1 1/K
A1 = -, a2 = - =
R12 r22 r22

It is seen that a1 = a2 when r2 = SQRT(1/K).r1

Thus x1 = SQRT(K). X2 also.

Also, when a1 = a2, the vector sum of a[bar]1 + a[bar]2 will be the bisector of the angle [beta].

To prove that a[bar]1 + a[bar]2 points towardss the Lagrange point for all points that satisfy the relationship |a[bar]1| + |a[bar]2|; construct the following equilateral triangle (Figure A1-2).

Given: The two triangles R and S form an equilateral triangle, the construction is made

such that triangle T contains one right angle as shown

a + b = r1
r2 = 1/SQR(K). r1
b = r2

It is obvious from the figure that triangles T and S are similar. Thus

[*!* Image]

[*!* Image] Figure A2-1

[*!* Image] Figure A2-2

APPENDIX II

Proof No. 2.

Equations 1-5 in the text, which refer to Figure 2 of the text, are derived using Proof No. 2. Using Figure A2-1:

1. R12 = l2 + r22 - 2lr2 cos g law of cosines

2. kr22 = l2 +r22 - 2lr2 cos g (r1 = SQRTk. R2 from before)

l2 + r22 - kr22
3. cos g = = - cos q
2lr2
l2 + (1-k)r22
4. = 1/2 (T + (1-k) 1/T) = - cos q
2lr2

where T = l/r2

5). X = r2 cos q = r2 (-1/2 (T + (1-k) 1/T))

= (-1/2) (l + (1-k) (r2/l))

6) Using x2 + y2 = r22,

x = (-1/2) (l + (1-k) (x2 + y2)/l

7) l + (x2 + y2)/2. (1-k)/l. + x = 0

8) Adding l/(k-1) to each x term in the equation will give the above equation in terms of the point (l/(k-1), 0) giving the equation of a circle: x2 +y2 = (l2k)/(1-k)2 centered on the point (l/(k-1), 0).

The equations of the text are easily derived from this equation.

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665