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 X, No. 2



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


Parts I and II of this paper (KRONOS IX:1, Fall 1983 & KRONOS IX:3, Summer 1984) introduced new concepts describing cometary behavior and solar system evolution. A number of basic theoretical results followed from the realization that there is an excess current of positive charge in the solar wind which emanates from the Sun. These included:

1) the formation of a "stellar capacitor" around stellar objects undergoing nuclear fusion in their atmospheres (the negatively charged stellar object is surrounded by rings and a doughnut shaped nebular cloud of ionized dust, molecules, and ions, forming an electrical capacitor which may discharge under certain conditions).

2) comets are asteroidal bodies (not ice balls) which discharge this stellar capacitor, developing a net negative electrical charge. The comet nucleus attracts quantities of dust and ions, forming the visible comet tail. The physics of these processes and the myriad of observed cometary phenomena are explained in Part I of this paper.

3) comet nuclei are captured by the solar system at random time intervals and evolve into the planets, moons and asteroids. Comets are accumulating matter and are not melting away as suggested by the ice ball comet model (IBCM). Only rarely do comet nuclei reach planetary dimensions. The members of the solar system have varying ages.

4) gravitational encounters with members of the solar system and the "tail drag'' are the primary effects which move newly captured comets into stable non overlapping orbits. The solar system is a dynamic ever evolving system.

5) the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn and possibly, Uranus and Neptune) maintain fusion in their atmospheres. The fusion is ignited by energetic lightning bolts in their turbulent atmospheres, implying that the Sun does the same. Observations of Jupiter and Saturn by Voyagers I and II show the same electrical phenomena as observed around the Sun. Jupiter and the Sun were the original twin stars of our solar system, other bodies being captured one by one at later dates.*

[* Cf. H. Tresman and B. O'Gheogan, "The Primordial Light?", SISR II:2 (Dec. 1977), pp. 35ff.; I. Velikovsky, "On Saturn and the Flood", KRONOS V: 1 (Fall 1979), p. 3. - LMG]

6) gravity is not the sole force governing the cosmos. Electrical effects generally produce only subtle effects, but occasionally they may dominate the workings of the solar system.

7) major Earth altering events (caused by gravitational and electrical effects) may occur when large comets pass nearby.

Part II (APPENDIX II) proposed numerous experimental results of upcoming comet fly by missions which will prove or disprove the concepts of this paper. The author would wish, as opposed to previous practices, that NASA and other space agencies make public all raw data, and not simply their interpretations of selected data.

The present paper (Part III) discusses two final concepts which follow from the presence of a solar capacitor. The first proposes a new source of red-shift in photons leaving a central star (the "Induced Electric Dipole Red-Shift" - IEDRS). Numerous in-lab experiments exist which can prove its validity. The other is the source of magnetic dynamos in stars and planets (and also magnetic reversals). Discussed briefly are biological evolution and the "Collective Fear of Velikovsky" that has permeated the scientific community for the past 35 years.


The search for an alternative cause of red-shifted photons in stellar spectral lines is not new. Many investigators have noted(1) that certain red-shift data are not explained by Special or General Relativity and some have attempted to search for new gravitational effects, none of which have successfully accounted for available data.(2)

The Hubble constant, which is used in conjunction with the special relativistic red-shift as a measure of distances to luminous stellar objects, has been questioned by many. It has been deeply engrained in the papers and interpretations of data found in the astrophysics journals for over a half century. Unfortunately, this is one of the primary reasons for its continued acceptance and the reluctance by some scientists to ponder its possible incorrectness. The Hubble constant is unlike other physical constants. It cannot be measured under laboratory conditions, but depends on a circular argument (red shifted stellar spectral lines predominated, which some interpreted as indicating an expanding universe. As the expanding universe concept grew in acceptance, this led to further acceptance of the Hubble constant's use).

It is proposed here that small induced dipole forces acting on photons can account for both the red-shift and bending of light around stellar objects (celestial bodies with ongoing fusion in their atmospheres). This follows from known observations of macroscopic and subatomic phenomena.

In atomic physics, gamma rays are known to split (electron positron pair production) while in the intense central electric fields of atomic nuclei and charged subatomic particles. The photon energy is converted to mass and kinetic energy, but due to the law of conservation of charge, the (-,+) charge pair must have been contained within the photon prior to pair production. It must be the induced electric dipole force that forces the charge pair to separate.

Less energetic photons do not have sufficient energy for pair production ( 1.02 MeV is the minimum energy required), but they must similarly contain a (-,+) charge pair. This pair will separate slightly while in any non-uniform electric field, causing an attractive force (the induced electric dipole force is always attractive). This small force acting on photons as they travel over astronomical distances will reduce photon energy (the red-shift) and cause a bending of light in photons passing by a stellar object.

The IEDRS concept can explain the anomalous red-shift of photons observed at the Sun's edge and resolves two other mysteries.(3) One is the differing red-shifts of galaxies and certain quasars which appear to be associated visually with the nearby galaxies (suggesting that the red-shift cannot be used as a measure of astronomical distance).(4)

The second is the existence of planetary nebulae (ring clouds long known to circle certain stars). According to traditional astronomy,(5) these appear to be many light years from the central star because the red-shift is interpreted to give a great distance to the star from Earth. But if the red-shift is due to the IEDRS, then these stars may be much closer than previously thought, and the nebular clouds much closer to the central stars. Interestingly enough, the IRAS satellite recently found over 50 nearby stars with similar surrounding clouds, and this paper suggests that this is a common property of all stars (including the Sun). It is apparent from present knowledge of Pioneer 10 data, that the Sun's nebular cloud is far beyond the orbit of Pluto.

Another conclusion is that quasars are not superluminous objects at the edge of the universe, but are much closer than proposed by the use of the Hubble constant. With the previous paper's results,(6) it is apparent that quasars are the initial formative stages of normal galaxies (see footnote No. 39 of Part I, KRONOS IX:1) .

This implies that the bizarre theoretical extrapolations of General Relativity and the Big Bang Theory, such as "black holes", non Euclidean space, and the "expanding universe" are no more than elements of some scientists' imaginations. Einstein himself was openly critical of General Relativity as "it did not include the total field (electric and magnetic)".(7) It is apparent that this was related to his interest in Velikovsky's work, although neither lived long enough to resolve the issue. Einstein's life-long search for a field unification theory also showed that he realized the importance of substantiating the famous "elevator analogy" with a rigorous theory. To date, no progress has been made by theorists to unify gravity with the electromagnetic equations of Maxwell; and the Principal of Equivalence remains without theoretical basis.(8)

Highly charged comet nuclei will also exhibit a red-shift in spectral lines regardless of the position or velocity with respect to the observer. Red-shift data exist for comets, but have always been interpreted as giving the velocities of tail ions as scientists have assumed that tail ions move away from the comet nucleus. "Tremendous tail accelerations" have posed an unsolved dilemma in interpreting this data. The IEDRS reconciles a new theory with this data, suggesting that the cometary red-shift is not a measure of tail ion velocities, but is a measure of electrical charge on the comet nucleus.(9)

The precession of Mercury must now be explained in a new context if General Relativity is incorrect. Note that other celestial bodies also "wander" from the orbits predicted by Newtonian Mechanics. The Moon has been known to wander since the later 1800's when exact data were first analyzed.(10) For this reason, exacting long term data on lunar wandering is needed for Io of Jupiter and Dione of Saturn (these are now known to interact electrically) and other smaller moons of the gas planets (i.e., moon 1979-S2 of Saturn) which have given evidence of being highly charged. Larmor's Theorem of Celestial Mechanics(11) provides for a slow precession of orbit for masses possessing charges. Additionally, Parts I and II of this paper suggest that mass accumulation (tail drag) will also affect the orbits of charged bodies.


The standard explanation for planetary magnetic fields claims that electrical currents and resulting magnetic fields self generate in the interiors of stellar and planetary cores.(12) These "internal dynamo" theories, however, break down on two theoretical points: 1) they claim that purely mechanical processes produce electromagnetic effects, and 2) that fields can self-generate with no external mechanism to initialize or maintain this speculated process.

This paper proposes that the celestial magnetic dynamos are powered from outside by electrical interactions between charged orbiting bodies and both the stellar (or planetary) interior and upper atmosphere.

The empirical correlation between moons and planetary magnetic fields has been known for some time(13) and is unmistakably accurate, especially in light of recent Voyager I and II data. The original concept of Houben and Dermott provided for a gravitationally induced current flow caused by tidal action of the moon on the planet's fluid core.

With the realization that charged bodies exist in space, and that the Moon, Mercury and other celestial bodies wander from Keplerian orbits, the following generalizations can be stated. The basic assumption is that the magnetic fields are induced by the star or planet spinning inside a slightly charged orbiting body (note: comets generally exhibit side effects which suggest that they are highly charged compared to bodies in circular orbits. Therefore, the effects of a highly charged comet, passing by a star or planet, will be to greatly increase and/or alter the magnetic field of the star or planet. This is discussed also in Parts I and II of the paper).

In support of the externally generated dynamo theory, the Sun's magnetic field is controlled by Mercury and, considering the former's size in comparison to Saturn and Jupiter, is relatively small.(14) Also, the Sun rotates relatively slowly (again compared to Jupiter and Saturn).

Mercury rotates only once per orbital revolution and has no moon, so it has a negligible magnetic field.

Venus similarly has no moon, essentially no rotational spin, and no magnetic field.

Earth, however, has a large magnetic field for its size as it spins on its axis every 24 hours inside a large moon. Furthermore, the Moon's orbit lies outside Earth's protective radiation belts (the Van Allen Belts) and is exposed directly to the solar wind. This implies that it will charge, since its orbit takes it to varying positions within the solar capacitor.

The Moon rotates on its axis only once every 27 days, and thus it has no magnetic field.

Mars rotates rapidly as does Earth, but only has two insignificant asteroidal moons and therefore has a negligible magnetic field.

There may be certain asteroids which possess strong permanent magnetic fields, as they must have cooled past the curie temperatures of constituent materials while in strong external magnetic fields.

Jupiter has a large magnetic field as it spins once in approximately 10 hours inside the orbit of electrically charged Io.

Saturn's field is not nearly as strong as that of Jupiter even though its spin rate is approximately equal to that of Jupiter. This is because Dione is responsible for Saturn's field. Dione does not exhibit the same level of electrical discharge to Saturn as Io does to Jupiter. Saturn's field is well aligned with its spin axis because Dione's orbit lies exactly in Saturn's equatorial plane.

Using this information, the properties of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune may be anticipated. Uranus, even if it exhibits high levels of fusion in its atmosphere, will have a small field, probably well aligned with its spin axis.(15)

The internal dynamo theories, however, have poor empirical correlation. For example, Venus and Io have very active interiors, yet have no magnetic fields compared to Earth which is relatively cold and inactive, but which has a large magnetic field.

The externally generated dynamo proposal is enhanced when biological fossil records and magnetic reversal data are seen to coincide. The fossil record shows that a significant percentage of plant and animal species have died out concurrently with magnetic reversals, and that this is accompanied by periods of extensive volcanic activity, rapid stratification in lake beds, and crustal fracturing of the Earth's mantle. An excellent compilation of related references is available.(16) Any theory must account for all of these factors, which have occurred simultaneously on several occasions in Earth's history. Many of the theories proposed by scientists who have recently "discovered" celestial catastrophism only account for a subset of these factors.

Also, the recent highly acclaimed paper by Kopper and Papamarinopoulos(17) found a statistically significant correlation between human evolutionary changes and magnetic reversals.

With the proposed Earth altering event of 65 million years ago that ended the reign of the dinosaurs, there was associated an immense shower of meteoric material. This associates the event with an asteroid or comet. The associated magnetic reversals which occur in conjunction with rapid evolutionary changes indicate that this was not due to an asteroid colliding with Earth as suggested by Alvarez and others.(18) Although they have claimed that an asteroidal collision would force a geomagnetic reversal, no mechanism has been proposed which links a mechanical collision with electro-magnetic field generation.(19)

This paper suggests that the close passage of a highly charged comet with an associated meteor stream can explain both the worldwide presence of iridium in soil layers and the associated geomagnetic reversal. A simple test of the externally generated dynamo theory is to observe either solar (or other) magnetic field disturbances by comets passing close to the Sun. A passing ice ball would not be expected to affect a celestial magnetic field using the internal dynamo theories. Such effects would confirm both the electrical nature of comets and the externally generated magnetic dynamo concept. The Galileo Orbiter of Jupiter will be expected to detect such effects around Jupiter.

The MAGSAT satellite, which in 1981 ended an eight month examination of Earth's magnetic field, showed that the field had decreased by a small amount during that time. MAGSAT scientists extrapolated this trend(20) and predicted a geomagnetic reversal in 1200 years. It appears, however, that this is only the result of variable lunar charging in the solar wind.

The controversy in evolutionary biology(21,22,23,24) revolves around the interpretation of the fossil record. Either the data are interpreted literally (that short periods of devastation and genetic change preceded and followed long periods of genetic stability . . . the catastrophist argument), or, they are claimed to suggest that gaps in the fossil record exist because of lost data (the missing link hypothesis).

In genetic engineering, the genetic chemistry must be altered by external agents, as these molecular structures are inherently very stable over long periods of time compared to the life span of an individual member of the species. So, when a high percentage (i.e., 75%) of all species on both land and in the sea perish at one time, accompanied by a geomagnetic reversal, an influx of meteoric material, renewed volcanic activity, mountain building, and genetic change in the remaining species, most scientists agree that the Earth did not do this by itself.

The author agrees with Alvarez, Whipple, Clube, Napier, and others in that asteroids must have collided with Earth and caused extensive damage. This paper further suggests that many of the Earth altering events, including the 20 short epochs of mountain building(25) are attributable to a common cause . . . the occasional chance encounter between Earth and a comet which has been perturbed into the inner solar system. This adds to the colliding asteroid hypothesis, an "action at a distance" alteration of Earth. This paper differs from the colliding asteroid theories by claiming that comets are not ice balls, but are electrically charged asteroidal bodies which may rarely reach planetary dimensions. These few large comets may interact with the planets by gravitation, electrical discharge, and magnetic coupling (see also footnote 7, p. 76 of Part II, KRONOS IX:3).

This shows nature's plan of radical change through violence as with floods, forest fires, etc., and must be her way of assuring the continual mixing of the elements by random events allowing life to flourish and change.


Unfortunately, the development of theoretical explanations of space probe data in certain circles has become a game of "keep Velikovsky from being right" and "preserve the accepted theories at all costs". An amazingly unscientific letter appeared in Science magazine following the Pioneer-Venus landing mission.(26) Editor Richard Kerr stated that, in spite of the fact that Pioneer-Venus data is far from explained by present theory, "few converts to the fringe are likely" and "the number of converts is probably the best measure of the power of the catastrophists' arguments". (By Kerr's own standards, catastrophism has found many "converts to the fringe".) This implies that the correctness of theory depends on a popular vote and not the objective analysis of data. It also warns astronomers that they will be singled out and ridiculed by strong peer pressures if they mention support for Velikovsky.

There is a high degree of correlation between Velikovsky's writings and the comet theory presented in Parts I, II, and III of this paper. The correlation is even more striking when one realizes that Velikovsky wrote his books before 1955 with only pre-1955 knowledge of what a comet really was. If he had written them after later discoveries regarding the true nature of comets, some might say that he was biased in interpreting his historical and geological findings. But this is not the case.

Quite recently, moreover, Newell(27) has published a review of data from Venus space probes which indicates that Venus may be at least 3 billion years younger than Earth. He also mentions, as have many other scientists, that the much heralded greenhouse effect cannot account for the molten planetary surface and that it contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics (heat cannot be pumped from the cooler clouds to the warmer planetary surface).

Theories in other fields such as plate tectonics, Darwinian evolution (gradualism), etc., have followed the lead of astronomical theory which has claimed that the solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago and that the order of the inner planets has since remained unchanged. What we are now seeing is that the wall that was built when "scientists confronted Velikovsky" a decade ago is crumbling badly. Scientists can no longer fall back on their view that "Velikovsky has been proven wrong".

The theory proposed in this paper is based on sound physics and the most recent space probe data. It now supports the contention that Venus may have been "born of Jupiter" and that the ancients did indeed witness the fetus of birth.(28) Venus, however, was not projected from Jupiter's interior as Velikovsky speculated, but was captured and tossed into the inner solar system by a mechanism commonly known in Celestial Mechanics. Velikovsky's realization of historic descriptions of this event will someday be recognized as one of the great discoveries of the 20th century.

From glaciation data and the fossil and faunal records, it appears that the pre-Venus north pole of Earth was somewhere in the middle of the Canadian Northwest Territories as the "glaciers" of the last "ice age" never extended into Siberia, which was apparently more temperate at the time. (See also footnote 13 of Part II, KRONOS IX:3.)

The "red hand of death" spoken of in ancient legends may have been auroras caused by the current sheet between the comet Venus and Earth, just as Io's current sheet causes visible auroras as it passes over Jupiter's dark side; or, it may have been the visual effects of flaming hydrocarbons (oils and tars) as they rained into Earth's atmosphere from Venus' huge cometary tail.

The columns of smoke extending into the clouds that sounded as tremendous drumming(29) occurred when the comet to Earth discharge became a single beam snaking between comet and Earth (see cover photo and photos 1 to 6 (pp. 64 and 69), KRONOS IX:3). Numerous other historically observed phenomena have been correlated to the present theory, and will be the topics of further papers.

Questions still remain concerning a recent birth for Venus. But, there is mounting evidence suggesting that Venus is indeed a youthful planet; and it could very well have been the comet of the ancients that Velikovsky identified and discussed in Worlds in Collision.

Since Scientists Confront Velikovsky(30) and the 1974 AAAS Velikovsky trial, more cosmological data has been gathered than had been accumulated in the previous 300 years. A catastrophic band wagon has been formed in astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology, and related fields, but with no credit given to Velikovsky. Has data and observation pointed towards an electrical universe, epochs of celestial catastrophes affecting Earth, etc.? Let the reader decide. Velikovsky's main difficulty was that of a man far ahead of his time in a world of academic elitism. He disagreed with the "experts" who used their resources to label him a crackpot. In discrediting Velikovsky, Sagan, et al. simply restated "traditional" theories and it became apparent that catastrophism did not fit. As stated by Carl Sagan: ". . . of the ten tests of Velikovsky's work . . ., there is not one case where his ideas are . . . consistent with simple physical theory and observation."(31) The present paper illustrates why Venus the comet was not consistent with the physical theories of 1974. Venus the comet is compatible with physical theory in 1984 and, furthermore, with general trends in all associated fields. Time will tell whether data from upcoming comet probes will support the ice ball comet model (IBCM) or the present theory, and whether the data will be interpreted by NASA and related groups only in light of the IBCM. Fortunately, numerous other international agencies will also have comet probes, and they do not fall under the spell of NASA's protectionism of data and theory.


A new self-consistent theory of comet behavior and solar system evolution has been put forth. Recent data from space probes have been correlated to the theory and further experiments have been defined to prove or disprove the competing comet theories. Many of these experiments are Earth-based, but as space probes have repeatedly shown, there is no substitute for close range data.


1. H. C. Arp, Astrophys Letters, 9 (1971), p. 1; and J. W. Sulentic, Astrophys. J. {Letters), 265 (1983), pp. L49-L53; and H. C. Arp, private communication.
2. A little understood fact is that Einstein's General Relativity was a political football in the astronomical community and was railroaded into prominence to maintain the belief that gravity could explain all observations in the cosmos. [See H. C. Dudley, "The Personal Tragedy of Albert Einstein," KRONOS I:4 (Winter 1976), pp. 55-67. - HAH] Einstein was never satisfied because electromagnetic fields were not included. I believe that the leap of intuition found in the principle of equivalence (i.e., the famous elevator example) is incorrect. Einstein spent the last years of his life looking for the unification of gravitational and electromagnetic fields (the long sought unification of fields). This unification if found, would necessarily result in equations relating gravity to Maxwell's four equations. No such relationship has ever been found (either experimentally or theoretically). (See DISCOVER magazine, December, 1983, pp.44-53.) In this respect, the necessary cornerstone of General Relativity has never been found. This was why Einstein was so interested in the electrical findings of Velikovsky. I believe that more data can be explained by the IEDRS concept than by General Relativity or the Hubble constant.

1982 saw the emergence of scientists questioning the validity of Einstein's calculations concerning Mercury. Although a tremendous amount of theoretical work has been done on General Relativity (and over publicized), very little experimental work has been successfully performed in the past 50 years. The greatest topic of discussion among experimentalists concerns the correction factors that make the data fit theory. In most cases, data are simply irreproducible and remain unpublished. Unlike Special Relativity, General Relativity lacks experimental verification.

In 1981, I attended a colloquium at Cornell University which dealt with scientists tracking radio signals from satellites in well known orbits around the Sun (to measure the bending of light rays around the Sun). Their data showed only irreproducible results. The meeting turned into a discussion of what "correction" factors could be added to the data to make them fit theory. Unfortunately, irreproducible data is never published.

Dr. H. Arp's findings (that some quasars are visually associated with galaxies that exhibit substantially different red-shifts) has cast doubt on the validity of the use of Hubble's constant as a measure of astronomical distance. Using the induced electric dipole red-shift concept, the large red-shifts found in quasars can be explained as due to enormous proton winds emanating from the quasar which in turn causes large red-shifts in photons leaving the quasar. Quasars are not at the edge of the universe nor are they receding at near the speed of light.
3. M. W. Browne, "Cosmic Yardstick: Is the Yardstick in Error?", New York Times (Oct. 15, 1979), p. C1; and W. Sullivan, "Cosmic Bridges Suggest Quasars are Nearer Earth", New York Times (March 22, 1983), p. C1.
4. J. W. Sulentic, op. cit, p. L49.
5. S. A. Kaplan, The Physics of Stars (N.Y., 1982), p. 149.
6. J. M. McCanney, "Continuing Galactic Formation,"Astrophys. Spa. Sci., 74 (1981), pp.57-64.
7. A. Einstein, Out of My Later Years (N.Y., 1950), p. 48.
8. G. Taubes, DISCOVER (Dec., 1983), pp.44-53.
9. The Venus Orbiter spacecraft will be repositioned by the NASA Ames Research Center team when Halley's comet is near perihelion. It will measure both light intensity and wavelength. From the information available at time of writing, it is not clear whether the comet will pass to the inside of Venus' orbit. If it does, this will provide a definitive test for both the electric comet concept and the IEDRS concept.

If comets are ice balls with tail ions moving away from the Sun, then the Venus Orbiter should detect a blue-shift due to the doppler shift of light from approaching tail ions. If, however, the present paper is correct, then a red-shift will occur for two reasons, 1) the doppler shift of light from receding tail ions and 2) the induced electric dipole red-shift due to the charged comet nucleus. The correct position of the comet (i.e., between the Sun and observer) is crucial to the experiment. If an observer attempts to determine doppler shift with the comet on the opposite side as the Sun, the IEDRS will be misinterpreted as giving the velocities of receding tail ions as assumed by the ice ball comet model (such data already exists and has indeed been misinterpreted by astronomers).
10. T. J. J. See, Researches on the Evolution of the Stellar Systems, Vol.II (Lynn, Mass., 1910), pp. 274-92.
11. Symon, Mechanics (Reading, Mass., 1964), p. 283.
12. E. N. Parker, "Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos", Scientific American (August, 1983), pp. 44-55.
13. H. C. Houben, "Tidal Dissipation in the Solar System and the Possibility of Tidally Driven Planetary Magnetic Dynamos", Cornell University thesis (Ithaca,1978).
14. A subtlety here is that, although Mercury is the smallest planet (next to Pluto), it maintains the largest total energy of all the planets including that of Jupiter. This is because the equation for total energy in celestial mechanics for an orbiting body only depends on the inverse of the orbital radius. [Also cf. "The Sun's Magnetic Field," KRONOS II:3 (Feb. 1977), pp. 7840. - LMG]
15. In October, 1982, Voyagers I and II data were released showing an electrical discharge flowing between Dione and Saturn, similar to the discharge between Io and Jupiter. The same mechanism that electrically charges comet nuclei orbiting the Sun is at work around the giant gas planets (as they too have ongoing fusion in their atmospheres and proton wind supported capacitors). There are constant discharges of their capacitors by way of Dione and Io, resulting in net negative charges on these moons (as with Mercury and comets orbiting the Sun). These electrical effects drive the magnetic fields of Jupiter and Saturn. It will be expected that Uranus and Neptune will follow suit.

It appears that their magnetic fields depend on: 1) the quantity of solidified iron in their mantles, 2) the magnitude of charging of their moons and the levels of discharge from moon to planet, and 3) the magnitude of their stellar capacitors.
16. P. Warlow, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 11 (1978), pp. 2107-2130; P. Warlow, The Reversing Earth (London, 1982).
17. J. S. Kopper, and S. Papamarinopoulos, J. of Field Archaeology, 5 (1978), p. 443.
18. It has been suggested by Alvarez and F. Whipple that a large asteroid collided with Earth and melted as it sprayed an iridium laden dust cloud to hang in Earth's atmosphere for years afterwards. (C. Sagan used similar assumptions to promote his world-wide winter following a nuclear war.) These have been criticized by many scientists, since it is now known that dust clouds from volcanoes do not remain in the atmosphere for more than a few days. Only molecular aerosol clouds remain to circle the globe. (See: C. Pellegrino, Astronomy, 9:4 (1981), p. 66 and, "The Atmospheric Effects of El Chichon," Scientific American, Vol. 250, Jan., 1984.)
19. Geomagnetic reversal due to a close gravitational encounter with a second celestial body has been suggested (See: Velikovsky Reconsidered (N.Y., 1977), p. 172 and P. Warlow, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 11 (1978), p. 2107). The suggestions are that the Earth is "flipped" by precession of the rotating Earth in the gravitational field of a second body. This effect, however, has been greatly overestimated. Calculation shows that for an Earth-sized object stationed at two Earth radii from Earth, it would take at least 28 years to cause a 50 deg precession. This is far too long for a passing celestial body to remain in Earth's vicinity.
20. K. J. Rose, OMNI (March, 1981), p. 18.
21. See KRONOS VII:4 (Summer 1982) on "Evolution, Extinction, and Catastrophism".
22. J. Davis, Astronomy, 9:4 (1981), p. 6.
23. R.Lewin, Science, 210(1980),p.883.
24. J. O'Keefe, Nature, 285 (1980), p. 309. (Since 1981 the reference list of articles and books on the evolution debate has grown extensively.)
25. R. A. Lyttleton, Moon and the Planets, 18 (1980), p. 13.
26. R. A. Kerr, Science, 207 (1980), p. 293 (also read the previous pages of the "Research News" article on which Kerr is commenting).
27. R. E. Newell, Speculations in Science and Technology, 7:1 (1984), pp. 51-57.
28. Cardona has been making a case (see KRONOS VII:1, pp. 56-67, VII:2, pp. 29-40, VII:3, pp. 3-14, VIII:4, pp. 1-16) from historical data that Venus may have been a "child" of Saturn, not Jupiter. For our purposes, this makes no difference in terms of Celestial Mechanics, since all the gas planets are known to capture comets into the solar system, and each has associated "families" of comets. [Also see the article "Ejections, etc." by Cardona elsewhere in this issue. - LMG]
29. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Vol. II-III (Philadelphia, 1910).
30. C. Sagan, et al., Scientists Confront Velikovsky (Ithaca, 1974).
31. Ibid, p. 89.

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