Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


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

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
The Third Story

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. 3



Copyright (c) 1981 & 1984 by J. M. McCanney


Part I (KRONOS IX:1, Fall 1983, pp. 17-39) presented critiques of the ice ball comet model (IBCM) and nebular collapse theory of the origin of the solar system (OSS) and argued that these "accepted" theories fall short of explaining numerous observed phenomena. Part I also introduced a new theory for comet behavior and solar system evolution based on the capture of comets. Comets were postulated to be discharges of a solar capacitor, the capacitor forming with the negatively charged Sun surrounded by a doughnut shaped nebular cloud of ionized dust and gases lying past the orbit of Pluto. Cometary discharges could also occur between the Sun and ionized matter of the zodiacal disc which rings the Sun. The major theoretical result was that charged comet nuclei are attracting the dust and gases in the comet tail and are not melting away as proposed in the IBCM. That is, comets are evolving into the planets, moons, and asteroids of our solar system.

Part I further extended concepts introduced in an earlier paper(1) that Saturn and its ring system (and Jupiter to a lesser extent) exhibit star-like properties including electrical discharges between its rings and in its atmosphere. The star-like properties are necessarily a result of localized fusion reactions in the gas planets' atmospheres which are ignited by energetic lightning bolts (which have been detected by Voyagers I and II). The analogy was made between the Saturn-ring and Sun-zodiacal disc systems. Part I should be read with its footnotes and references to put Parts II and III (in press) into proper perspective.

Part II further develops the new comet capture theory for the origin of the solar system (OSS) and proposes mechanisms for observed phenomena which must be accounted for in any self consistent theory. Appendix I provides a sample calculation, showing that the "tail drag" on a comet can explain two phenomena: 1) the Oort effect and 2) the rapid orbital circularization of comets with extensive tails. Appendix II details the experimental results of upcoming comet probes to Halley's Comet which can confirm this theory.


Any alternate theory concerning comet behavior and the origin of the solar system (OSS) must re-explain many observed phenomena in a self-consistent context. These include the origin of comet nuclei and the reason for the observed "families" of comets arriving from many specific directions in space, comet wandering, sunward spikes, sunward fan tails, occasional separation of the tail from the nucleus, comet splitting, the cause of Type I, II, and III tails, the spiralling of tail material, the stratification in some tails, multiple tails, the shrinking of the coma as the comet approaches the Sun, and the maintenance of meteoroid streams.

In relating the above to the formation of planets, moons and asteroids, the theory must also explain the internal heat and radioactivity of the planets, the orientation of the rotational axes of the planets, the spacing of planetary and lunar orbits, the asteroid belt, the source of planetary atmospheres, the size distribution of celestial bodies, the cause of retrograde orbits of selected moons, and last, but not least, the magnetic fields of the planets. This must all be done in a context consistent with data (although not necessarily with uniformitarian theory) in other fields such as geology, biology, archaeology, anthropology, etc.

III a) Sources of Comet Nuclei

One source of comet nuclei has been identified as the dispersive spray of small conglomerates being ejected from the newly forming twin star systems at the base of the galactic arm.(2) Another possible source, which explains the existence of families of comets arriving from the same directions in space,(3) is the stellar nova. This is also the logical place to look for asteroidal type bodies which are ejected into interstellar space at high velocity.

The detectable remnants of a nova (identified as numerous point radio sources around the central nova star) indicate that large pieces of the solid stellar core remain in the vicinity of the explosion.(4) This strongly suggests that there must be many smaller fragments also. Two results of the new galaxy concept(2) are that the stellar core is not one of collapsed hydrogen, but is a solid planetary type core since all the celestial bodies are initially formed in the same way, and that the heavy isotopes - detected spectroscopically after a nova come from this core; they are not generated in the explosion as previously thought.

From momentum considerations comes the result: the smaller the fragment, the greater its ejection velocity with the largest pieces remaining in the vicinity of the explosion. From analysis of a solid core exploding into a random assortment of pieces, a second result shows that there will be great numbers of small fragments, with fewer fragments of increasingly larger size. The nova will spray neighboring twin star systems with these fragments which may then be captured to begin new lives as comet nuclei.(5) Once again, it is a game of numbers. As with biological reproduction, of the multitude of seeds scattered by a plant, only a few will grow. The family groups of long period comets coming from the same direction in space and arriving in relatively closely packed groups,(3) therefore, are coming from the site of a nova which occurred millions of years ago.

A major result is that all the celestial bodies (stars, gas planets, terrestrial planets, moons, asteroids, and comets) are catalogued in one common grouping which is conceptually satisfying (as opposed to the numerous special cases defined in the nebular theory of OSS). So the capture of a large comet nucleus by a solar system is possible but less likely than the capture of the small nuclei.

Our solar system bears this out with over 5,000 asteroids, 1,000 comets, 50 moons (of which only about 10 are large), 9 planets (of which only 4 are large), and one star. Even within the asteroid belt, studies have shown that the number of asteroids increases as a geometric progression with decreasing size.(6) For this reason, the few close encounters of comets with planets that have been observed in the past 300 years show only comets with small masses. This is a very short time astronomically and cannot be extrapolated to the age of the solar system or to all comets as has been done by astronomers. If large comet nuclei pass through our solar system, a single passage with no close planetary encounters would cause no observable perturbation in the orbits of the present members of the solar system and, therefore, their masses would remain undetected.(7) It should be expected that the Jupiter-Galileo orbiter (presently scheduled for launch in the spring of 1986) will see comet nuclei (e.g., small asteroidal bodies) as they enter Jupiter's radiation belts and detect the electromagnetic effects that must accompany such an encounter.

III b) Explanation of Observed Cometary Phenomena

There are three sources of planetary atmospheres. The primary source is the nebular ion cloud (explained in Part I, KRONOS IX:I) which contains the light elements up to approximately sulfur, as this is what is observed in comet tails of extreme length. That is, as the comet transforms into a hot young planet with a circularized orbit (to be discussed in detail), the original planetary atmosphere will already be present (Venus being a prime example).

Another source is the chance grazing of the Sun, as in the case of the comets of 1882 and 1887; some grazing comets are actually seen to fluoresce after leaving the Sun, indicating the possible presence of a newly acquired atmosphere. Isaac Newton in his Principia includes a description of the Great Comet of 1680 as it plunged through the solar atmosphere. Ironically, in the next sentence he describes a nova explosion which, unknown to him, will provide comet nuclei for future solar systems.(8)

It is generally claimed in the nebular theory that the atmospheres of Earth and Venus were released from their cooling interiors during volcanic activity. Gases are certainly released by volcanic activity even today, but this article contends that much of the original atmosphere was formed as part of the comet phase of planetary evolution. If Venus joined the planets of our solar system only a few thousand years ago then it already had a huge CO2 atmosphere amassed from its comet stage of development.(9)

Spiralling of tail material is sometimes observed in comets. Before 1950 a number of comet theories invoked magnetic fields(10) as the cause of spiralling. All assumed a priori that the tail material moved away from the comet nucleus. The politics of science, however, suppressed such notions of magnetic fields. This paper resurrects those ideas and provides a theoretical basis for them, but with one major difference: the tail material does not move away from, but is drawn towards the comet nucleus. The reader should note that Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven stands as one of the few investigators who has long recognized the influential nature of electromagnetic fields in the phenomena observed in comet tails.

From just observing the spiralling motion, it is impossible to tell whether the cometary magnetic field is caused by circulating charge on the comet nucleus or the current flow of the Sun's capacitor discharge, since the resultant magnetic force will be central in both cases for electrons in the spike and ions in the tail. Here the reader is referred to the American Indian rock paintings (Figure 1 ) and a similar drawing of the Great Comet of 1861 (Figure 2) and the spiked Comet Arend-Roland (Figure 3). These comets are not easily explained in the ice ball comet model (IBCM). (The topic of spiked comets will be discussed again.)

[*!* Image]

[*!* Image]

[*!* Image] Figures1, 2, 3 above illustrate comet with sunward spikes and plumes. Figure 1 is a prehistoric American Indian rock painting found near Greenriver, Utah (photo by Gary Smith, Winsinger Enterprises, Inc). Note the snake-like sunward spikes. Figure 2 shows the great comet of 1861 with its snake-like spike. Figure 3 is a comet Arend-Roland (1957) with its intense sunward spike. Iceball comet theorists claim that sunward spikes are only optical illusions.

Comet wandering was first noticed in Encke's comet in the 19th century, and it was Encke's original idea to account for this by the "secular action of a resisting medium". George H. Darwin and T. J. J. See used this to develop the first capture theory of OSS ( in the late 1800s)(8) showing two effects over very long time spans, on the order of millions of years for planet-sized objects: 1) elliptical orbits would be circularized and 2) circular orbits would slowly spiral sunwards. These are also known as eccentricity damping and energy disposal. A complete treatment of the celestial mechanics involved is also given by Smart.(11) The same effect occurs in the Poynting Robertson effect for micron-sized particles acted on by solar radiation.

Encke's assumption was that the cross sectional area of the comet nucleus would drag through the resisting medium with the density increasing near the Sun. But this concept was incomplete because it is now known that the solar wind effectively clears the inner solar system of this resisting medium (except for the zodiacal disk and newly discovered rings between Mars and Jupiter(12)) and, even if it existed, it would have to be quite dense to cause the observed perturbations of cometary orbits.(8,11,12) The new comet theory shows the same effect, but with the tail drag being millions of times greater than Encke's original suggestion since vast quantities of matter are drawn into the comet nucleus from the rotating zodiacal disk and/or stationary nebular ion cloud which lies past the orbit of Pluto. So a comet with a large tail can have its orbit circularized or may seem to lose a great deal of energy in a very short time astronomically (i.e., within 1,000 years). A sample calculation is provided in Appendix I to illustrate the effect of tail drag in circularizing the orbit of a comet as is suspected to have been the case with Venus only a few thousand years ago. Comet wandering is also caused by the variable tail drag as discussed previously. This is important in the development of the statistics governing orbital spacing and solar system formation (to be discussed).

The current theoretical efforts in the nebular theory of OSS explain the orientation of rotational axes of the planets and moons as an effect of localized magnetohydrodynamic phenomena early in the collapsing solar nebula.

The new comet theory explains this to be due to the non-symmetric vortex motion of infalling tail matter. Since the comet normally begins with a relatively small nucleus compared to the final planet or moon,(5) the final spin rate and orientation of the spin axis can take on random values which are governed by chance. Another factor that may cause the nucleus to rotate is an encounter with the solar atmosphere at high velocity during Sun grazing, but this must be rare compared to the primary cause of axial spin. Planetary precession is a very long term effect (to be discussed), but possibly tidal effects causing crustal shifting during comet capture can cause alterations in rotation rates and axis of spin.(13)

The maintenance of meteoroid streams is explained in the present paper by the short range induced electric dipole force which acts on electrical conductors (i.e., meteoroids containing metals). The importance of this force has been discussed in an earlier paper(1) and was observed when Pioneer-Saturn passed a short distance under the small charged moon 1979-S2. At short range, this force becomes much greater than gravitational forces. So a highly charged comet nucleus will give a very strong impulse to meteoroids in its vicinity, allowing them to remain gravitationally bound to the Sun when farther away from the comet nucleus, with the meteoroids assuming the same orbit as the comet. As meteoroid size decreases, the mass decreases as the cube of the radius. Therefore, smaller objects are affected more by the induced dipole force.(1) Also, since the force is proportional to the square of the net charge on the comet nucleus, the forces on a meteoroid would be much greater than the impulse experienced by Pioneer when near Saturn's small moon. The net effect is the gathering and maintenance of meteoroid streams which will then follow the same orbit as the comet. If, at a later date, the comet nucleus is perturbed into a new orbit, the meteoroid stream will remain in the original orbit of the comet nucleus. This accounts for the numerous meteroid streams which are observed to orbit the Sun. Spacecraft design must take the induced electric dipole force into account, as mentioned previously, when these craft are expected to approach highly charged celestial objects.

The Earth's ionosphere will act as a conducting sphere in the non-uniform electric field of the Sun, the charged Moon, or a nearby comet nucleus. Ionospheric charge will adjust constantly to maintain an electric field of zero to the inside. What effect this has on weather or other phenomena should be investigated, since a well known fact of meteorology is that "jet streams" in the upper atmosphere move the surface level weather systems. This implies that what are normally termed magnetic storms in the Sun have electrical counterparts which escape detection (other than in disruption of radio broadcasts) for this reason.(14)

It appears that there are two causes of Type II comet tails, although data are sparse. These smooth curved tails, e.g., Donati's comet, result from orbiting particles in the Sun's zodiacal disk being drawn into the comet nucleus.(15) If this is the case, then the curved tail may either lead or follow the comet depending on the relative angular velocity (prograde or retrograde) of the comet and zodiacal disk. A second type, such as seen in Comet West and Halley's Comet (1910),(15) shows striated structure which results from the movement of the comet nucleus and is most pronounced in comets near the Sun. It has been shown that this observed structure cannot be explained by gravitational or solar radiation pressure effects.(16) The present theory explains this as a result of the comet nucleus continually moving out from between the forming tail and the Sun, the tail material being first drawn inwards by strong electrical forces, then dispersed by the solar wind as the comet nucleus moves and is no longer properly aligned between the Sun and tail. Tail separation is also observed, occurring when the charge on the nucleus is suddenly neutralized, whereupon the tail, like the second Type II tail, is quickly dispersed by the solar wind.


IV a) Comet Capture Processes and the Formation of Solar Systems

Capture of long period comets by a twin star system is well documented and well understood. Energy transfers during close encounters with planets can either give energy to or take energy from the comet nucleus, so once a new comet nucleus is captured by the solar system, it will continue to encounter planets until it obtains a non-overlapping orbit or is expelled from the system. Lack of an exact solution to the N-body problem complicates the approach to understanding. Specific examples have been worked out,(17,18,19) but more work is needed to catalogue lunar capture routes.

One "calculated" result which I find hard to accept is that entire planets would be vaporized during close planetary encounters due to tidal friction. This has been used as an argument against lunar capture (especially retrograde).(20,21) This paper argues that tidal friction has been greatly overestimated by investigators such as MacDonald, Wise, and by current theorists who claim that the great internal heat of Jupiter's moon Io is caused by tidal friction. (This will be discussed again.)

The radiation belts of the planets with magnetic fields play a fundamental role in planetary and lunar capture. Comets will be seen to brighten greatly when they pass through Jupiter's radiation belts, e.g., Comet Brooks II ( 1889) underwent brightening as did Biela's Comet ( 1846) and the nucleus divided while in Jupiter's realm.(22,23) The brightening is a result of the sudden charging and influx of tail material as the asteroidal comet nuclei encounter the Jovian radiation belts at high velocity, implying that velocity relative to the plasma is a factor in the charging process. With the charging process begun, the nucleus will be assured of inducing the discharge of the solar capacitor as it enters the inner solar system and therefore assures the proper development of the comet.(24) This same process helps slow comet nuclei during lunar capture and thus gives planets with large magnetic fields an advantage in lunar capture. It is apparent that, as the forming moon or planet achieves a circular orbit, it becomes "immune" to the charging process. What terminates the charging process is discussed in footnote No. 46 of Part I of this paper (see KRONOS IX:1). The moons of Jupiter and Saturn which lie in circular orbits move in plasma rings (25) which evidently is related to this immunity.

The slightly elliptical orbit of Io seems to be in agreement with this as well. The 5 million amp current flowing from Io to Jupiter(26) indicates that Io maintains a potential difference with respect to Jupiter, but this is much less than what would be expected for a highly charged comet. The tail drag will continue to circularize the orbit, becoming less effective as the circular orbit is achieved and the charging reduced. Io shows that electrical discharges do occur between celestial bodies.(27)

The ring patterns found on Callisto had been explained in a previous paper(1) as due to the approach and impact of a small highly charged asteroidal body in the ferromagnetic dust that covers Callisto's surface. I now believe that it was the result of a large discharge between Callisto and a charged asteroidal body, and that the "crater" in the center of these rings was formed as the discharge burned the planetary surface. (See Figures 4, 5, and 6. ) If these rings were mechanical wave patterns on the lunar surface caused by an impacting object when Callisto was young and molten as suggested by NASA,(28) then many superimposed wave patterns should have occurred due to other nearby impact craters (there is no lack of impact basins on Callisto's surface). The nebular theory assumes that this cratering occurred early in the history of the solar system. If the rings resulted from the alignment of ferromagnetic dusts in the magnetic field of an electrical discharge (as proposed by the author), then all previous ring patterns in the vicinity would be destroyed,(29) leaving only one set of concentric rings, as is observed. This also gives support to the electrical discharge concept of the sunward spike of comets and the Venus to Earth discharges described by Velikovsky.

[*!* Image] Figure 4.

[*!* Image] Figure 5.

[*!* Image] Figure 6.

Figures 4, 5 and 6 above illustrate the "ring effect" caused by ferromagnetic dust in the presence of a strong electric current. Figure 4 is a photo by Voyager I of such a ring structure on Callisto. A similar but smaller pattern exists on Callisto's far side. Figure 6 shows a simple laboratory experiment, with iron filings forming rings around a current carrying wire.

In the case of Callisto, if the passing comet nucleus was very large (as is rarely the case), then it would have also gravitationally perturbed the moons of Jupiter and these must have then re-circularized their orbits, since their new elliptical orbits would have allowed them to charge again within Jupiter's proton wind supported capacitor.

Explaining the retrograde motion of certain moons has been one of the great difficulties of the nebular theory of the origin of the solar system (OSS). Capture or encounter phenomena are usually assumed to account for these special cases. This, however, seems out of place in the theory whose main objective is to show the planets and moons evolving in already circularized orbits.(30) In the comet capture theory of OSS, retrograde motion is possible, but its chances of survival are small. The direction of spin of the solar system is governed by Jupiter. (Comets which evolve into moons with retrograde motion may gain energy during planetary encounters and, therefore, have a higher probability of being ejected from the system.) In summary, a moon can be captured by 1) energy loss due to sudden charging and mass accretion (i.e., tail drag) as it enters a planet's radiation belts, or 2) energy loss associated with the gravitational encounter with the Sun-planet system, or 3) capture involving an energy transfer between the comet and a planet-moon system (similar to capture by a twin star system).

The asteroid belt is explained in the nebular theory of OSS as a region in which a planet never formed. According to the present theory, however, the asteroid belt is an area in which a planet could reside. Since none has been captured, it is available for asteroids to accumulate.

In the context of the present theory, the asteroid belt provides a remarkable statistical experiment, as it contains a random sampling of celestial bodies which have been captured continually since the beginning of the solar system. The importance of studying the asteroids, some of which exhibit halos, is apparent. The asteroidal orbits indicate statistically the possible orbits which result from capture processes by Jupiter and to a lesser extent by the other planets. The two asteroidal moons of Mars, and those of Jupiter, Saturn, etc. are undoubtedly captured wanderers of the asteroid belt. This also corresponds with the observation of the groups of comets associated with Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune which are the results of many captures. It is impossible to make a distinction between short period comet orbits and the orbits of many asteroids,(31) suggesting that the comet nuclei are indeed evolving into the asteroids. The Earth-Moon system is a likely candidate for capture of a new asteroidal moon and, if this occurred, would give an excellent chance to view lunar capture at close range.

Comet wandering is well documented and is explained in the IBCM as due to the ejection of vapor jets from the ice ball.(32) The present theory explains wandering to be the result of variable tail drag, the same effect which causes the circularization of orbit. The interaction of the charges of the Sun and comet nucleus may possibly be significant in highly charged comets with small nuclei, but Part I (KRONOS IX:1) shows by way of a calculation that electrical effects are noticeable only over very long periods of time compared to the dominant effect (e.g., tail drag).(33)

IV b) The Statistics of Solar System Formation

The evolution of N-body systems has been studied extensively in celestial mechanics, using both mathematical derivations and computer simulations of orbits.(34) For systems like our own solar system in which the orbits lie more or less in one plane,(35) a stable system will evolve in which the larger bodies (the planets) are spaced apart from each other in non-overlapping orbits. The reason that the system evolves toward this type of stability is as follows: If two bodies have orbits that lie more or less in the same plane and their orbits are over lapping (or are in certain types of resonance), encounters or perturbations will occur between the two bodies, changing one or both orbits. If no two major bodies are in overlapping or resonant orbits, then no further encounters or secular perturbations will occur; the system is stable. The rapid circularization of orbit caused by comet tail drag assures a rapid relaxation time for the system once a non-overlapping orbit is achieved by a newly captured member (e.g., Venus). This is the cause of orbital spacing in planetary and lunar systems, the asteroid belt being a prime example of the possible orbits attainable by capture. Our solar system is at present quite stable and well ordered. Systems with very large twin stars in highly eccentric orbits are common and will form an interesting branch of study in the capture theory of OSS. It has been noticed(36) that the Sun-Mars-asteroid belt-Jupiter system is spaced almost identically as the Saturn-Rhea-G ring-Titan system and that the masses are in a similar ratio. With the already stated analogy between the Sun and Saturn, it seems plausible that Saturn's G ring is a ring of small meteoroids captured by this system. Extrapolating the argument for the size distribution of the planets, there should be millions of small particles in the G ring. Oddly enough, T. J. J. See predicts this phenomenon(37) as he states: "Similar zones of asteroids . . . may be supposed to exist in other planetary systems having large planets such as Jupiter."

The Moon rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts have been dated at 4-4.6 billion years and this is interpreted by some as the age of the Earth-Moon system. The rock and dust on the Moon's surface, however, is just a random sampling of debris floating in space. The age of these rocks corresponds well with dates of meteorites found on Earth, as they are the same. With the enormous meteor streams that have been recorded on Earth,(38,39, 40, 41) one cannot expect the original lunar surface to be showing, especially since there is no erosion or wind to move this debris. So to date the Moon, one would have to dig to sample the original lunar surface. The Moon rock data suggest, however, that 4.5 billion years is the average age of matter in the vicinity of the Sun and, therefore, is the best estimate of the age of the Sun-Jupiter pair. The oldest known Earth rocks are somewhat younger than this.(42,43) Their ages give the true date for the Earth's transformation from a comet into a planet.

IV c) Internal Energy Sources

Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, and the Sun all have internal heat sources (if the data are interpreted literally), since all radiate more energy than they receive from external sources. As already mentioned, all four Pioneer-Venus probes measured more radiation rising from the planetary surface than entered as sunlight. The Earth's internal heat is known to be caused largely by radioactive decay, so it would not be presumptuous to assume that the same is true of some of the other planets, especially since they were all formed by the same process. Since the comet is the ultimate high energy accelerator,(44) an abundance of heavy radioisotopes is expected in the forming planetary interior which will guarantee an internal heat source for millions of years. The initial heat of formation must be very great and this must take some time to cool down. On such matters, future experimental measurements must provide the needed cooling data.(45)

Voyager I has shown that Saturn produces more internal heat for its size than does Jupiter (indicating its younger age as is expected from the comet capture theory) and has been shown to be a small star with ongoing fusion in its atmosphere.(1) In Saturn, both fusion (in the atmosphere) and radioactive decay of heavy isotopes (in the core)(4) occur which suggests that this must also be the case for the Sun. A major result of a previous paper(1) and subsequent Voyager data suggest that Saturn's, Jupiter's, and, therefore, the Sun's fusion is ignited and controlled by electrical discharges in their atmospheres. This conjecture must be true since both Jupiter and Saturn exhibit star-like characteristics(46) but have insufficient mass at present to support fusion deep in their cores by the commonly accepted mechanism.

Therefore, the state of a planet or star is seen to be not so much one of size, but age as related to size (as is apparent from bright comets that pass very near the Sun). A hot newly-formed planet may burn hydrogen for some time before it cools. The new planet passes through a super hot radioactive phase, followed by a chemical stage (Venus is presently in transition between these stages) allowing the free combination of elements, after which comes the cascade of biological evolution at temperatures below 200 deg. F. and evidently from a perfectly sterile medium. Thus, all planets begin with approximately the same chemicals in the same proportions and one should expect biological systems to reflect this.

Some scientists claim that the effects of tidal friction are heating Io, whose surface is volcanically active. As already mentioned, however, the volcanic activity occurs near the equator and not near the poles as predicted by the tidal theory. The six distinct theories of heating for the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Earth, Titan, and Io developed by nebular theorists reflect the a priori assumption that all these bodies formed 4.5 billion years ago, and therefore separate theories are needed for each. (These are: fusion in the Sun, primordial heat in Jupiter, belated helium collapse in Saturn, greenhouse effect for Venus and Titan, radioactive decay in Earth, and tidal heating for Io.) This is not to say that there are not six or more separate processes, but compared to the comet capture concept which develops a unified concept for internal heating, it is less satisfying.

An unmistakable high altitude wind pattern is visible on all the "hot" planets, with the wind belts slowly migrating from the equator to the poles (47, 48, 49, 50, 51) Venus' belts migrate completely in a few days, whereas the migration of the Sun's belts takes 11 years. Also, Saturn's broad high velocity equatorial wind belt corresponds to the Sun's differential rotation (33 days at the poles and 25 days at the equator), showing that Saturn is more star-like than Jupiter which has less differential rotation.(46) The migrating wind belts must be the result of heat rising from the cores of these bodies. A complete simulation of circulation patterns caused by heat rising from the core of a planet containing excessive internal heat has been done by F. Besse(52) showing poleward migration of high altitude atmosphe and shears resulting in wind belts. (It has been suggested by some that the solar migration is due to "magnetic effects"; however, Venus has no magnetic field but exhibits similar properties.)

Venera and Pioneer detected lightning in Venus' atmosphere similar to that found in the atmospheres of the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn, sometimes called "whistlers",(53, 54, 55, 56, 57) implying that these result from dynamic storm systems in a turbulent atmosphere. By the present analysis, Venus, Saturn, Io, Titan, and Pluto must all be relatively young bodies. Until alternate dating techniques are developed, exact ages cannot be given except possibly in the case of the planet Venus for which there is apparent historical information concerning its formation as a planet. All have internal heat sources in their cores (as does Earth) due to long term decay of heavy radioisotopes formed during the comet stage of development, and some exhibit high latent heat from recent formation. Also, the gas planets support fusion in their atmospheres. Tidal effects of Jupiter, Europa, and Ganymede do affect Io but this is not the major source of Io's heat. The gravitational tugging only assures constant agitation allowing the internal heat which is already present to escape rapidly to the surface by volcanism.

At numerous points this paper has referred to the formation of heavy radioisotopes in the comet nucleus from high energy particle bombardment during the discharge of the solar capacitor. This arises from the need to explain the known presence of radioactive elements in the Earth and Moon, and the realization that very high energy electrons, protons, and ions will be impinging on the comet nucleus in the highly active comet. (Low activity comets will only experience compaction and chemical bonding due to infalling particles; e.g., chemical bonds form in energy ranges from 2 to 10 eV.)

Nuclear alterations begin to occur at particle energies as low as 200 keV (transmutation from 5Be11 to 4Be8); however, the majority of nuclear transformations occur in the energy range from 20 to 50 MeV (million electron volts). Internal reactions of atomic nuclei occur at energies as high as 7.5 MeV in the unstable very heavy isotopes such as Californium, Fermium, etc.;(58) however, it is the Coulomb barrier which must be overcome by particles bombarding the atomic nucleus. These generally range from 15 to 45 MeV for various atomic nuclei, requiring incident particle energies of 20 to 50 MeV to produce a wide variety of nuclear transmutations in the highly active comet.

A previous paper(1) noted that measurements have been made as early as 1970 showing that satellites can charge quickly to voltages as high as 10,000 volts(59) while moving in the plasma which surrounds Earth. That article(1) showed by way of a calculation that surface potentials in excess of 1.0 MeV were easily obtainable by small moons in Saturn's radiation belts, and that this was noticed by Pioneer 11 as it passed the moon 1979-S2. Voyagers I and II later confirmed the alteration of charged particle counts near all of Jupiter's and Saturn's moons. This charging was explained by the same mechanism used to create the observed spokes in Saturn's rings and the same charging mechanism used by comets.(1)

It is therefore expected that electrical charges and, therefore, particle energies in highly active comets will be found in excess of 20 MeV. This theory predicts that the particle energies found in highly active comet nuclei will far exceed the energies available in accelerators built for nuclear study on Earth, and may provide for free the ultimate particle accelerator. The abundance of heavy radioisotopes found in the interiors of Earth, the Moon, and expected to be found in other celestial bodies is a result of formation from a comet, which is a discharge of the solar capacitor.

Note that Appendix II lists the predicted results of experiments of the four Halley's Comet probes which are expected to confirm the expectations of the present theory of comet behavior and solar system evolution.


Part II further developed the new comet theory to provide self-consistent explanations for: the sources of comet nuclei, observed cometary phenomena, the formation of solar systems by comet capture, the process by which comets evolve into planets with circular/ non-overlapping orbits in astronomically short times, and the internal heating of the planets and moons of the solar system.

Part III will introduce the induced electric dipole red-shift concept(60) and show how it accounts for the anomalous red-shift data that currently are under controversy in the astronomical community. It will also discuss a theory for geomagnetic field formation with the dynamo powered by a planet spinning inside a slightly charged moon, and show a correlation between magnetic field reversals and the external effects of a highly charged comet passing close to the planet. It will further discuss biological evolution and celestial catastrophism, and the collective fear of Velikovsky that has permeated the scientific community for the past 35 years.

. . . to be concluded.


1. J. M. McCanney, The Moon and the Planets, 24 (1981), pp. 349-53.
2. J. M. McGanney, "Continuing Galactic Formation,"Astrophys. Spa. Sci., 74 (1981), pp. 57-64.
3. R. A. Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (Oxford,1981), pp. 135-38. (Numerous scientific papers have also appeared recently on this subject.)
4. In a footnote in a previous article by the author (see ref. No. 1 above, p. 350), it was stated that the Sun, Saturn, and Jupiter must have solid planetary cores as implied by the galaxy paper (ref. No. 2 above). It also predicted at that time that Saturn (and Jupiter to a lesser extent) would exhibit star-like properties similar to the Sun. Since then, Voyagers I and II data have convinced many other scientists of the same.

The June 23, 1983 New Scientist (p. 856) reported that Carl Rouse arrived at the same conclusion as a result of theoretical work on the solar neutrino problem. This problem was discussed earlier by E. Milton in KRONOS V:1 ("The Not So Stable Sun"). The papers by the author suggest a different explanation for the "lack of solar neutrinos". The gravitational collapse theory of stellar formation suggests that neutrino production should be high because the bulk of thermonuclear reaction is said to take place deep in the Sun's interior where pressures are greatest. In this paper and previous papers, the author claims that fusion in the Sun (and also in Jupiter and Saturn) is ignited by highly energetic lightning bolts in their atmospheres. This would relax the requirement of fusion occurring deep in the stellar interior, and allow for the solid core and isodense atmosphere which would fit solar oscillation data (see Milton's paper).
5. From seismographic data of the Earth, it is well known that the density of Earth's interior is quite constant, but has a small, very dense central core. This core is the original "planetary seed" of Earth which was the original comet nucleus. It is interesting to note how large the Earth is compared to the original seed nucleus. As mentioned in Part I (KRONOS IX: 1), comet development depends more on the discharge of the solar capacitor than on the size of the comet nucleus.
6. A. Dauvillier, Cosmic Dust (N.Y.,1964), pp. 26-7.
7. The scientific papers and popularized book by S. V. M. Clube and W. M. Napier [Nature, 282 (29 November, 1979), p. 455; Q. Jl. Astr. Soc. (1982),23, pp. 45-66; and The Cosmic Serpent (London and New York,1982)] deserve comment in light of the present paper. Their statement to the astronomical community that Velikovsky was at least "close to correct" and that comets (and in particular a body named Venus) did play important roles in early civilizations is long overdue. They also recognize the "irrational" behavior with which "scientists confronted Velikovsky", and the overwhelming data pointing towards worldwide catastrophism caused by comets.
     I maintain, however, that Clube and Napier's findings support the present paper more precisely than their own theory of terrestrial catastrophism. Both papers agree that comets are of interstellar origin, and that the primordial Oort cloud concept does not explain the observed comet flux in the solar system. They support the ice ball comet model, however, and modify the original Oort cloud concept to say that it is periodically replenished. This paper claims an entirely new concept for cometary phenomena and infers that comet nuclei are asteroidal bodies (not ice balls) that arrive at our solar system in closely packed groups from past novas of neighboring stars (also, occasionally, comet nuclei may reach planetary dimensions).
     We agree that the data clearly show that new comets arrive sporadically, but there are underlying differences. Clube and Napier say that a period of approximately 50 million years is evident and caused by our solar system passing through galactic arms (their second article departs from the density wave model of galactic formation and suggests that other models need further consideration). Table 4 (page 458) of their Nature article lists the following ages of worldwide catastrophic events corresponding to mass extinctions (ages given in millions of years) = 1, 13, 25, 35,58, 63, 135, 181, 230, 280, 345, and 405. Note that by taking the difference between successive events, a regular period of 50 million years is not obtained, but it suggests a random distribution (differences in millions of years) = 12, 12, 11, 22, 5, 72, 46, 49, 50, 65, 60. Only 3 of the 11 epochs are close to their 50 million year period. The present paper says that such events are governed strictly by chance. Their data bear this out dramatically.
     Their work and this paper agree that short period comet orbits cannot be distinguished from orbits of the asteroid belt and Apollo (near Earth) asteroids. We both claim (although by different mechanisms) that comets are evolving into these asteroids. This paper goes on to claim that comets can also evolve into planets and moons (the Velikovsky connection).
     Both papers agree that comets have been the cause of worldwide catastrophes and change. Clube and Napier depend on direct collisions only, whereas this paper allows that a few comet nuclei can become very large, and that close encounters can also cause major damage to Earth by gravitational effects and electrical discharge effects (in support of Velikovsky).
     Finally, Clube and Napier do not support a priori the nebular collapse theory of OSS (p.59 of Astr. Soc. article) as do most astronomers. We both agree that, today, at least one comet poses a potential threat to Earth and that history will repeat itself as surely as there are stars in the sky.
     The solar system is a dynamic place and its true history is becoming clear. When Athens' great statesman Solon visited Egypt in 572 B.C. to inquire about their knowledge of the flood, the Egyptian historians told him of the Great Deluge, the destruction of Atlantis, and five different catastrophes which had plagued their development in the previous 10,000 years. There is a scientific basis now for believing that statement.
8. T. J. J. See, Researches on the Evolution of the Stellar Systems, Vol. II (Lynn, Mass., 1910). (Pages 134-5 discuss Isaac Newton's observations; however, this entire text should be consulted concernmg the first capture theory of OSS.)
9. The entire subject of Venus and the interpretation of atmospheric data have been inordinately clouded by NASA's dominance of the press in the U.S. In light of the present paper, Venus is without doubt a young, highly active planet. NASA space scientists have insisted on creating, after-the-fact, ad hoc theories to explain almost all of the data (i.e., the greenhouse effect, the "exaggerated" greenhouse effect, the colliding asteroid theory, etc.). The fact is that the Russians have gathered much data on Venus and had recognized many years ago the volcanic nature of Venus. (NASA only recently announced similar results.)
     Historically, NASA scientists have pooh-poohed the Russian scientists and belittled them with the arrogance commonly found in U. S. astrophysics-astronomy circles (for an example, see OMNI (January,1980), p. 38, "Disappearing Mountains") thus hindering dialogue between the two groups. Note that some scientists disagree that the greenhouse effect is the sole cause of the high surface temperature of Venus (L. Greenberg, KRONOS IV: 4; and Dr. Suomi, Science News, Nov. 3, 1979, p. 308). This entire issue is still under debate.
     As recent as 1983, investigations of atmospheric aftereffects of the eruption of the Mexican volcano El Chichon by satellites, atmospheric probes, and Earth ground stations, have confirmed a number of suspicions of the author (see "The Atmospheric Effects of El Chichon", ScientificAmerican, Vol. 250, Jan. 1984). Extensive aerosol clouds of sulfur based gases circled the globe for months after the three-day eruption. Detailed measurements showed a conclusive cooling effect as the cloud moved westward. This is in diametric opposition to the expectations of the greenhouse effect theory which would claim an increase in temperature due to trapped infrared radiation. The article concludes that: "Devine and Sigurdsson have found a good correlation between their estimates of the amount of sulfur gases volcanoes have released and decreases in mean hemispheric temperature." The authors, Rampino and Seff, found the same result for El Chichon. The sulfuric acid and other volatiles found in Venus' huge atmosphere are exactly what one would expect according to the present theory. (Note: if an asteroid collided with Venus with enough energy to drive off its oceans, as proposed by some space scientists then how could Venus retain its atmosphere, complete with such gases as carbon dioxide and argon-36?) The planet's surface is clearly the result of recent volcanic activity, with some of the major volcanoes being still active.
10. A. Dauvillier, Cosmic Dust, p. 66.
11. W. M. Smart, Celestial Mechanics (N.Y., 1953), pp. 23246. The paper by Forshufvud (KRONOS VII: 2) proposes a nebular cloud, now dissipated, that he speculates may have originated from Saturn and claims that it may have aided in circularizing the orbit of the Venus Comet.
12. 1980-83 must be remembered in astronomical history as the years of the discovery of rings. Rings of matter have been discovered around numerous stars and stellar objects, while previous knowledge of the zodiacal disk and planetary nebulae (faint doughnut shaped rings long known to circle certain stars) has not received attention in the popular media. Newly discovered rings are found in two forms: the first is the doughnut shaped nebular clouds found around Jupiter, Saturn, and as many as 50 nearby stars; the second is the Saturn type ring. The flat Saturn type rings have been found around Jupiter and Uranus in addition to new rings discovered around Saturn. The Sun is now known to have similar rings between 900,000 and 1,500,000 miles above its surface (see DISCOVER, (December, 1983), p. 14) and also between Mars and Jupiter (see Minneapolis Star (November 10, 1983), p. 3A) are found three stable rings. This paper contends that these rings are a normal attribute of stellar-like objects and that these rings constitute the sources for comet tail material during the discharge of the solar capacitor.
13. On the subject of precession, crustal shifting, and migration of the poles of the spinning planetary mantle, it is informative to spin a hard boiled egg and then spin a fresh egg. The hard boiled egg will continue to spin at the initial rate, whereas the fresh egg will quickly reduce its rotational rate since the interior is not bound to the shell and remained almost stationary during the initial spin, although the shell could initially spin. Viscosity quickly brings the shell and fluid interior into an equilibrium rotational rate. The Earth is similar to the fresh egg. Its mantle may be moved considerably by an external torque, but it will quickly resume spinning at the original rate even though the original poles had migrated to a new location.
14. In 1981, Cornell University astrophysicists, using the Arecibo (Puerto Rico) antenna, measured rapid and unexpected fluctuations in electron densities in the Earth's ionosphere.
     In 1981, the space shuttle Columbia was observed to have an aura-like glow surrounding it as it orbited Earth in the upper ionosphere. In light of the present paper, this unexpected aura can be explained as due to the shuttle passing into zones of varying electrical potential. The spacecraft will adopt the potential of the surrounding medium. Ions will impinge on the craft and fluoresce, being attracted by the electrical charge on the craft. (See also footnote 44 of Part I of this paper KRONOS IX:1, p. 34.)
15. See, op. cit., p. 210+, Plate VI.
16. P. L. Lamy, Astron. and Astrophys., 72 (1979), p. 54.
17. J. K. Cline, Celes. Mech., 19 (1979), p. 405.
18. H. Affven and G. Arrhenius, The Moon, 5 (1972), p. 230.
19. J. M. Bailey, J. of Geophys. Res., 76 (1971), p. 7827
20. S. F. Singer, The Moon, 5 (1972), p. 207.
21. D. U. Wise, J. Geophys. Res., 74 ( 1969), p. 6034.
22. B. N. Middlehurst and G. Kuiper, The Moon, Meteorites and Comets (Chicago, 1963), pp. 569-71. (This reference discussed comet splitting and variable brightness of comets.)
23. R. A. Lyttleton, Mysteries, p. 121.
24. E.g, the electrical discharge between the Sun and its nebular ion cloud which lies beyond Pluto.
25. R. Berry, Astronomy, 9 (March, 1980), p. 18.
26. N. F. Ness, et al., Science, 204 (1979), p. 982.
27. Recent announcements of Voyager I and II data have shown that Dione of Saturn and the rings themselves also exhibit similar discharges. (E g., Minneapolis Star, 8/30/81.)
28. B. A. Smith, Science 206 (1979), p. 946.
29. D. Halliday and R. Resnick, Physics, Part II (2nd ed.),(N.Y., 1965),p. 753. (Figure 34-2.) This figure shows a current-carrying wire passing perpendicularly through a table top on which iron filings had been sprinkled. The iron filings align in concentric circles around the wire indicating the lines of magnetic flux. Note that a clear space exists around the wire. This is exactly the form of the concentric rings observed on Callisto's surface with a "crater" in its center. Callisto has a second srnaller ring pattern on its opposite side.
30. Note that there is very little hope of ever verifying the nebular collapse theory of OSS by observation. An observational test of the present theory may be provided within a few years by the 1985-6 comet missions of the USA, France, Russia, Japan, and the ESA.
31. A Dauvillier, Cosmic Dust, pp. 23-30.
32. F. Whipple, Sci. American, 242 (March 1980), p. 124.
33. Electric fields have been ignored completely in NASA space probes because scientists did not expect to find such fields (an attitude which persists today). Most unfortunately, neither NASA, nor the European Space Agency could be convinced of the need for electric field sensing probes on comet fly-by satellites They plan on verifying the ice ball comet model, and seem uninterested in any other suggestions.
34. (See for example, Dermott, Szebehely, Bass, and Ovenden.) A good deal of work has also been done on verifying the so-called "Bodes Law" of planetary spacing. [Also see M. M. Nieto C. J. Ransom, and I. Michelson on "Bodes Law" in Pensee IVR VIII (1974), pp. 5-7, 44, 45. - LMG] Investigators generally assume the nebular collapse hypothesis and try to show why the nebular cloud left planetary space as observed today. A review of their work is beyond the scope of this paper; however, a few references can be cited: A. E. Roy, Orbital Motion (2nd ed., 1982); G. W. Wetherill, Sci. American, 244 No. 6 (June, 1981). Note that the Wetherill article discusses a computer simulation of planet formation from planetesimals assuming the nebular theory. Essentially, he restates Laplace's original nebular hypothesis and completely ignores its fatal flaws (discussed in footnote No. 8 of Part I of this paper, KRONOS IX: 1). It is obvious that he has a starting point (a set of orbiting protoplanets) and an end point (a solar system similar to ours) and at many points during the simulation, he "helps it along" by introducing "simplifying assumptions". He ignores many facts of celestial mechanics such as the inability of bodies to collide which are in similar orbits such as Saturn's two dancing moons. (Extensive computer calculations by S. F. Dermott of Cornell have shown that, in fact, such bodies will never collide, but will always dance around one another.) The reference to Safranov's 1961 simulations has been superseded by Szebehely's 1974 computer analysis which shows that, rather than coalescing, N-body systems that are given random initial conditions will eject the smallest bodies of the system, leaving only 2 bodies to orbit one another. He doesn't explain why the asteroid belt never formed a planet nor does he address the angular momentum problem of the Sun (why was the spinning, contracting Sun left with so little angular momentum?). Other completely ignored problems are the orientation of spin axes and spin rates of the planets, retrograde moons, the source of short and long lived radioactive elements in planetary cores, and the magnetic fields. But cf. the paper by E. Everhart, "Close Encounters of Comets and Planets", Astron. J., 74 (June, 1969), pp. 735-750.
35. This is made possible because the system will constantly work to pull itself into the plane of total angular momentum, e.g., Jupiter pulls down on bodies above its orbital plane and up on those below until all lie in the same plane at time equal to infinity. Statistical data on comets reflect this. Over 75% of comets orbit the Sun within 35 deg. of the ecliptic, with over 50% within 10 deg., the majority moving in prograde orbits.
36. R. A. Kerr, Science, 206 (1979), p. 40.
37. T. J. J. See, Researches, p. 193.
38. R. A. Lyttleton, The Moon and the Planets, 23 (1980), p. 35.
39. "Disappearing Mountains", OMNI (January,1980), p. 35.
40. F. Hoyle, Highlights in Astronomy (San Francisco, 1975), p. 46.
41. B. Mason, The Lunar Rocks (N.Y., 1970) .
42. D. O. Froude, et al., Nature, 304 (1983), pp. 616-618.
43. "Oldest Known Rocks Found in Australia", Science News, 123 (1983), p. 389.
44. Very high energy particles will be found impinging on the comet nucleus during the discharge of the solar capacitor in highly active comets. 45. See also G. Talbott, KRONOS IV:2, pp. 3-25.
46. The following star-like characteristics attest to the fact that both Jupiter and Saturn are small stellar objects, with Saturn being much more active than Jupiter. This is a result of ongoing fusion triggered by energetic lightning bolts in their atmospheres.

Rings: All three have stable flat rings (see footnote 12 above). The Sun has at least four such rings and its zodiacal disk; Jupiter has only one thin ring, whereas Saturn exhibits an extensive ring system with energetic electrical discharges between the rings and from the rings to the planet (observed as auroral belts).

Interplanetary electrical discharges: the Io to Jupiter current sheet of 5 million amps has been detected; Dione of Saturn (as well as Saturn's rings) maintains a similar discharge, and comets which approach the Sun within the zodiacal disk form visible sunward electrical discharges (the sunward spike).

Energetic particles: Surrounding Saturn is a plasma with particle energies higher than those found in the interior of the Sun. No known mechanism other than fusion could produce particles with such energies.

Differential rotation: Saturn's and Jupiter's high velocity equatorial wind belts correspond to the differential rotation observed in the Sun's atmosphere, the wind speeds in Saturn being over three times those observed at Jupiter.

High temperatures: Pioneer-Saturn measured the temperatures in Saturn's ionosphere to be 1250 deg.K. "This high temperature requires an extensive energy source other than the Sun. This phenomena was also observed at Jupiter." (Quote from 1980 NASA news release Science Highlights.) See also M. Shimizu's paper in The Moon and the Planets, 22 (June, 1980).

Exothermic radiation: Both Jupiter and Saturn appear very bright at certain wavelengths, radiating two to three times the energy they receive from the Sun. Saturn emits more excess radiation for its size than Jupiter.

Atmospheric conditions and lightning: The atmospheric circulation patterns of stellar objects are similar, with the violent storms producing energetic lightning bolts detectable as radio noise. The lightning bolts in Saturn's rings and in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn are estimated to be millions of times more powerful than lightning bolts on Earth (see cover photo this issue).

Footnote No. 41 of Part I (KRONOS IX:1) further discusses electrical phenomena at Saturn.
47. R. A. Kerr, Science, 207 (1980), p. 292.
48. Astro News, Astronomy, 9 (March, 1981), p. 58.
49. W. Sullivan, New York Times (July 1, 1980), p. C1.
50. "Jupiter and Saturn", Sci. American (December, 1981), pp. 90-108 (A. P. Ingersoll).
51. "The Atmosphere of Venus", Sci. American (July, 1981), p. 66 (G. Schubert & C. Covey)
52. R. A. Kerr, Science, 209 ( 1980), p. 1219.
53. R. A. Kerr, Science, 207 ( 1980), p. 289.
54. R. Berry, Astronomy, 9 (March, 1980), p. 18.
55. B. Smith, Science, 204 (1979), p. 955.
56. M. L. Kaiser, Science, 209 (1980), p. 1238.
57. M. M. Waldrop, Science, 210 (1980), p. 1107.
58. For a complete list of all radioactive isotopes and the energies of formation from other elements, refer to a Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (look in the index under "Radioactive Elements"). Note that energies of particles necessary to initiate nuclear reactions in atomic nuclei depend more on the Coulomb barrier of the atomic nucleus rather than spedfic properties of the nuclei. At particle energies in excess of 20 MeV, however, a great variety of nuclear transmutations will occur.
59. S. E. DeForest, J. Geophys. Res, 77 ( 1972), p. 651.
60. In short, the induced electric dipole red-shift concept amounts to the following: A non-uniform electric field exists between a central star undergoing fusion (quasar, or other star-like object) and a surrounding nebular ion cloud (held back by proton wind pressure) as discussed in Parts I and II of this paper. Secondly, a gamma ray photon may divide in the strong non-uniform electric field of an atomic nucleus during electron-positron pair production. The photon energy is converted into the rest mass of the particles, but due to conservation of charge, the positive and negative charges must have existed in the photon prior to pair production. It is the induced electric dipole force that forces pair production in the gamma ray photon when near the atomic nucleus. By the same reasoning, all photons must contain charge pairs which will separate slightly when moving through a non-uniform electric field, causing an attractive (the induced electric dipole force is always attractive) force on the photon. Thus, photons leaving a central star's electric field (or passing by) will experience a slight central force which will reduce slightly the photon energy (or bend it towards the central star). This concept can be verified experimentally and will be presented in detail in Part III of this paper (in press).

* * *


A Sample Calculation For The Circularization Of An Orbit

A number of assumptions are made and a simple calculation is performed to illustrate the rapid orbital circularization that is possible due to the "tail drag" on a comet nucleus.

This appendix shows two results depending on the intensity of the electrical discharge between Sun and nebular ion-cloud, and on whether the discharge is "localized" or forms a complete breakdown of the solar capacitor. The first result provides an explanation for the clustering of comet orbits near the calculated position of the Oort cloud. The second result illustrates the rapid orbital circularization of comets which completely break down the solar capacitor.

Before presenting any formulas, a brief verbal explanation can be given: Laplace and Euler were early investigators of the effects of the "secular action of the resisting medium". Also, Encke suggested that such effects may cause comet wandering. These investigators showed that a resisting medium surrounding the Sun (becoming denser as one neared the Sun) would account for a spiralling sunward of any orbiting object and, secondly, would account for a reduction in the eccentricity of the orbit (the orbit became circularized). If the resisting medium were denser with increasing distance from the Sun, the inward spiralling would still occur; however, the eccentricity of orbit would increase.

After the discovery of the solar wind in the 1960s, scientists claimed that the resisting medium was an impossibility, since the wind of electrons, protons, and ions emanating from the Sun would quickly (within a matter of days) disperse such a cloud into the far reaches of the solar system. It was this discovery which firmly entrenched the ice ball comet model in the astrophysics journals. The assumption of an electrically neutral solar system also prevented scientists from realizing that there is, in fact, an excess current of positive charge in the solar wind (as presented in this paper).

Now it is known from observation that many rings of matter orbit the Sun, defying previously held theories, but also providing a source for comet tail matter as described in this paper. One ring lies very near the Sun while three others lie in the region between Mars and Jupiter. Possibly, other faint rings lie in the outer regions of the solar system. This paper also predicts that our Sun, like approximately 50 stars recently studied by the IRAS satellite, will have a doughnut shaped nebular cloud surrounding it past the orbit of Pluto. All of these rings are sources of comet tail material and, as mentioned, discharges may occur locally when comet nuclei enter these regions (similar to the discharges detected between the rings of Saturn) or a complete discharge (between the Sun and ring) may occur. The localized discharges have the effect of increasing comet orbital eccentricities whereas the complete discharge tends to decrease orbital eccentricity.

A) The "Oort effect": The nebular doughnut cloud estimated to lie past Pluto will be involved in localized discharges as comet nuclei enter this region of space around the Sun. The net effect will be to draw the comet orbital semi-major axis to the doughnut nebula. This is a direct result of Laplace's mathematical findings in his classic text Mecanique Ce'leste. We are not inter- ested particularly in the time scales required to reach the final clustering of many comets around the doughnut nebula (such an analysis is far beyond the scope of this paper).

B) It is of greater importance to illustrate the possibility of rapid orbital circularization by the new comet theory, since this is paramount for those interested in Velikovsky's scenario of Venus becoming a planet from a comet, and having its orbit circularized in a very short time astronomically.

For this analysis, we assume: 1) the cometary discharge was complete (from Sun to nebular cloud or ring), 2) that the discharge became more intense while the comet nucleus was closer to the Sun, and became less intense at greater distances from the Sun, and 3) that the majority of the mass of Venus was accumulated after its capture into the inner solar system by Jupiter (or Saturn).

These assumptions allow us to use the same basic formulas as used by Laplace and Encke. However, rather than the comet nucleus simply passing through a sparse resisting medium, large quantities of matter fall into the comet nucleus by powerful electrical forces as the comet discharges the solar capacitor.

The general results taken from Smart's Celestial Mechanics(11) are:

4 p c e
De = -  

4 p c a 1 + e2
De = -  .
h 1 - e2

c/h = 0.0007958 in this example


  • De = change in eccentricity during one orbital period
  • Da = change in semi-major axis during one orbital period
  • c and h are parameters related to the tail drag
  • e and a are the eccentricity and semi-major axis during one orbital period.

These results assume a resistive force of the form

R = cV/r2


  • R = resistive force
  • v = velocity of comet nucleus relative to the source of tail material
  • r = Sun-comet nucleus separation

The following initial conditions are used, producing the final results in only 669 years as shown in the table below. Aphelion of the initial comet orbit lies near the orbit of Jupiter. The final aphelion lies at the present location of the planet Venus (encounters with Earth and Mars are not included since this example is only meant to illustrate the principles of orbital circularization.).

e location compared to present solar system
0 .74900 .68444 .0450 (comet near Jupiter)
570 .24306 .23584 .0151 (comet nears Mars)
635 .16243 .15918 .0101 (comet nears Earth)
669 .10873 .10727 .0068 (Venus' present orbit)

Due to the assumption of a constant rate of mass accumulation, (e.g.,comet development depends on the solar discharge, not cometary mass) the majority of circularization occurs early in the 669 year simulation. Note that the increase in planetary radius in the final stages of evolution of this example is about one meter per hour.


Experiments Which Will Verify The Presently Proposed Theory For Comet Behavior

The four upcoming satellite fly-by missions (one to Comet Giacobini- Zenner and three to Halley's Comet) can verify the theory presented in this paper by noting a number of distinctive effects that will occur as the spacecraft approach the comets. These are predicted by the present theory and are totally inconsistent with any results of the ice ball comet model (unfortunately many space scientists have become adept at rationalizing almost any data to claim support for previously "accepted" theory by generating after-the-fact explanations. The author proposes at this time that the amount of after-the-fact explaining required by a theory be used as a measure of its incorrectness).

The U. S. probe (the International Sun-Earth Explorer 3) was diverted from environmental studies of the Sun in Earth's vicinity to an orbit that will pass through the tail of Comet Giacobini-Zenner in September, 1985. It carries an X-ray telescope, magnetometer, and particle detectors as well as a number of antennas. The other three probes of Japan, France-Russia, and the European Space Agency will all approach Halley's Comet in 1986.

A number of unusual results are predicted by the theory proposed in this paper and are not compatible with the ice ball comet model. They are as follows:

1) Tail material (positive ions and positively charged dust particles) will be detected by direct observation to move towards the comet nucleus. (Previously, Earth-based red shift measurements have been used to suggest that tail material moves away from the comet nucleus; Part III of this paper shows why these data have been misinterpreted.)

2) Spacecraft telemetry will begin to sense an acceleration towards the comet nucleus - far in excess of any expected gravitational field of a small "ice ball". (This is the result of the induced electric dipole force on the metal spacecraft.) This will also make it difficult to maintain spacecraft orientation while in the tail area.

3) This acceleration will cause an unexpected perturbation in the orbit of the satellite as it emerges from the comet tail. (In contrast, a negligible perturbation would be expected from a near-massless ice ball.)

4) If the satellites pass too close to the comet nucleus, they may be uncontrollably pulled into the comet nucleus for the same reasons.

5) The most conclusive evidence would come if one of the spacecraft would be diverted to pass between the comet nucleus and the Sun. The ice ball comet model would not anticipate any alteration in the solar wind in this area, since the ice ball is seen only to melt away in the tail direction. The present theory, however, would expect the following as the satellite approached a point between the Sun and nucleus in the region of the comet nucleus. First, an intensified proton wind would be detected, followed by a substantial current of electrons (the electrons moving towards the comet nucleus) at the point between Sun and comet nucleus. This would be followed again by an intensified proton wind. This would substantiate the electrical discharge nature of comets as opposed to an ice ball melted by solar radiation.

6) Even if the spacecraft are not diverted into the region between the Sun and comet nucleus, the current sheets just mentioned should be detected as the spacecraft approach the comets.

7) X-ray activity may be detectable in the vicinity of the comet nucleus.

8) If the cometary discharges become intense enough in the comets being studied, both cosmic rays and X-rays (and possibly gamma rays) may be detected by the ISEE-3 satellite. None of these phenomena have been studied by Earth-based investigators since comets were believed to be melting ice. The author cannot overstress the complexity of reactions, both chemical and nuclear, that must occur in a highly active comet in which particle energies rise in excess of 20-30 MeV.

Note that both comet theories seem to explain data as observed from Earth, but it will be the effects listed above, which are only detectable by a spacecraft in the vicinity of the comet nucleus, which will establish the correctness of one theory or the other.

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