by James M. McCanney


from TheMilleniumGroup Website







This paper provides an alternate theory for comet behavior and shows comets to be planetary, lunar, and asteroidal bodies in their formative stages.


It demonstrates that tail matter is attracted towards an asteroidal comet nucleus by strong electrical forces. Additionally, two charging mechanisms are identified, both of which produce a net negative charge on the comet nucleus. This is supported by data from recent space probes. Comet wandering, sunward spikes, a shrinkage of the coma as the comet approaches the Sun, curved tails, the gathering and maintenance of meteoroid streams, spiraling of tail material, and the rapid orbital circularization of large newly captured comets are also discussed.

Earlier papers (1,2,3) used similar concepts to predict the existence of strong electrical fields in the vicinity of Saturn, showing Saturn and its ring system to be analogous to the Sun and its zodiacal disk.


The realization of the proton wind-supported capacitors of Saturn and the Sun led to a number of unexpected theoretical considerations that included,

  1. the recognition of the charging process used by comets

  2. the postulation of an ion and dust cloud held back by solar wind pressure near the orbit of Jupiter (4) - which is one source of comet tail matter

  3. a postulated electric dipole red-shift in photons leaving the central star. Still another theoretical result was the possibility of an electrically induced magnetic dynamo powered by a planet spinning inside the orbit of a slightly charged moon. Empirical correlation between moons and magnetic fields has been known for some time,(5) though the wandering of out Moon has remained an unsolved mystery.(6, 7)

An attempt is made to explain solar system formation from the time a newly formed twin star system leaves the galactic center (l) to when it develops its solar system by the capture of comets.


The reader's knowledge of planetary encounter and N-body literature is assumed since it is basic to the paper but unreferenced. However, the text by T.J.J. See,(6) which develops the first capture theory for the origin of the solar system (OSS), is indispensable.


A major result of this paper is also the quantization of Newtonian space. Finally, the link between planetary formation, geomagnetic reversals, and biological evolution is examined.



This paper was produced during the 1979-80, 1980-81 academic years while the author was a lecturer in the Physics and Mathematics Departments of Comell University (Ithaca, N. Y.) Only minor grammatical changes have been made for publication and numerous footnotes have been added for clarification.


The article is a condensed version of a 450 page manuscript (Origin of the Planets, Comet Capture Processes in the Formation of Solar Systems, also by the author) which further develops each aspect of the new comet theory. Although it was never intended, the theory explains Velikovsky's claims of Venus transforming from a comet into a planet and is supported by data from recent space probes.

Since 1982, with the analysis of data from the Pioneer II/Voyager I/Voyager II missions to the outer planets and the Pioneer Venus/ Russian Venera probes, the trend even among established astrophysicists has markedly turned towards catastrophism based on celestial events (these have been mainly variations on the "colliding asteroid" theory).


In spite of this trend and a wealth of new data on electromagnetic phenomena, mainstream astrophysicists continue to maintain that gravity is the only force in the cosmos and to support long standing theories such as the Big Bang, the nebular collapse theory for the origin of the solar system, the greenhouse effect, the ice ball comet model, and General Relativity (all of which are shown to contain theoretical inconsistencies in this paper).

As the data arrived from around the solar system, the author witnessed repeated efforts within the space science community (primarily NASA) to ignore the importance of electrical phenomena.


If the data did not fit into the established theoretical picture, after-the-fact theories were contrived to force-fit the data, or the data were simply not dealt with at all. It should have been apparent that the data were unquestionably contradictory to any expectations of traditional theory and that a radically new set of self-consistent concepts would be needed. Part I is the first of a three part series which develops a new theory for comet behavior and solar system evolution.


Many may wonder why a new theory is necessary; thus Part I begins with a brief critique of presently "accepted" astronomical theory and is followed by an introduction to the new comet theory.




Occasionally letters are published which disagree with the ice ball comet model (IBCM) and nebular collapse theory for the origin of the solar system (OSS).(8)


Personal experience also indicates that there is a group of scientists and astronomers who do not accept either theory, but do not publish since they do not know what to publish. This has led to the popularized statement that there is universal acceptance of these theories.


After the Voyager I Saturn encounter, many began to realize the inability of the nebular theory to explain the data, especially the electrical phenomena and large energy output of Saturn as compared to Jupiter.

All current literature on planet formation assumes the preexistence of planetesimals which are then shown to agglomerate relatively quickly into planets.(9) The great difficulty with this has always been in showing how the proto-planets form, since only large Magellanic clouds can achieve gravitational collapse in theory (in practice, no one has ever witnessed the collapse of any cloud, no matter how vast its size).(10)


Also, if these small planetesimals are so difficult to explain, then how did the relatively small frozen comet' nuclei form in the primordial nebula?


It has always been assumed that this is how it must have been, as is the case with the Oort-cloud which currently is impossible to detect. Other objections which cannot be ignored are the results of all four Pioneer-Venus probes (11) which detected "more energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters as sunlight", the faint glow at the surface and atmospheric lightning, not to mention the high concentration of argon-36,(12) among others.


At this point science cannot be advanced by simply trying to modify previous theories which fall very far short of explaining these data or by refusing to look at new approaches to the problem.

The unexpected elevated temperature in Titan's clouds (13) has been explained as due to a temperature inversion, suggesting that the heat is generated by a greenhouse effect. But, Titan receives only about 1/40,000th the sunlight that reaches Venus, so few will believe in a greenhouse effect at this distance from the Sun. (14)  


Infrared data must be viewed skeptically as they have consistently given low temperatures in Earth-based data (i.e., Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn).


Also, Pluto is now known to have gaseous methane in its atmosphere and therefore must have a considerable N2 atmosphere to hold this in place (as with Titan). With the recent determination of the low mass of Pluto (Pluto has non-trivial amounts of gaseous methane in its atmosphere yet is only 1/400th the mass of Earth),(15) one can only ask how it has maintained this atmosphere for 4.5 billion years and how it maintains the elevated temperature necessary to have a gaseous atmosphere (as with Titan)? (16)

The current sheet of five million amps that flows constantly from lo to Jupiter was the first electrical discharge phenomenon recorded by Voyager in interplanetary space. It is generally stated (17) that the auroras on Jupiter arise from current flow from lo's torus. But, since auroral spots - one near each pole - also follow lo as it orbits Jupiter's dark side,(18) the current must be coming from lo itself.


The visible auroral spots near Jupiter's poles following Io were mentioned in early news releases but no reference to them was found in the issues of Science (written by NASA space scientists) dealing with Voyager I and III's encounter with the Jovian system, i.e., 1 June 1979 and 23 November 1979.

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

The widely publicized tidal heating of lo to account for its great internal heat and volcanism has been questioned.(20)


The tidal theory predicts the greatest heat to be at the north and south poles of lo,(21) but almost all volcanic activity is observed within 30degrees of its equator. As with all "accepted" theories, it has been favored because it supports the a priori assumption that everything in the solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago. Internal heating will be discussed in detail and it will be shown that tidal heating has been overestimated.


The heat is rising from lo's young interior through volcanism which is a result of quakes caused by the tidal action of Jupiter, Europa, and Ganymede.

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

Most investigators strictly hold that electrically charged celestial bodies cannot exist because it would be observed in the planetary motions. The answer to this is that it is now known that the charge to mass ratios of celestial bodies vary greatly with size, with the most notable effects occurring only in the motions of the smallest bodies. This is discussed at length throughout the present paper and has been 20 observed in Saturn's system.

Although much has been written and many calculations performed on the ice ball comet model, it is difficult to imagine that the miniscule amount of solar radiation falling upon this nucleus can cause comas 1.5 x 10^6 km in diameter and 100 million km in length.(25)


Furthermore, the comet must continually fill this space as the tail follows the comet in its orbit. Piecewise integration suggests that the comet would have to fill this volume at least 600 times during a single passage while inside the orbit of Mars and it is expected to do this on thousands of returns. Also, it is particularly hard to imagine a sungrazing ice ball passing through the 1 million degree solar corona, spending a number of hours grazing the solar atmosphere (not to mention passing through the solar Roche limit on a highly eccentric orbit), and passing to the outside again relatively unaffected.

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

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

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

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

Comets with sunward "spikes" are explained in the IBCM as a thin Type I tail which only "appears" to extend in the sunward direction. This explanation was first given when Comet Arend-Roland developed a sunward spike for seven days during its 1957 passage.(32) Comet Kohoutek developed a similar spike as it passed near the Sun as seen by Sky-Lab astronauts.(33)


Since then, other spiked comets have been observed, always occurring in the ecliptic near the Sun.(34) Pliny the Elder in his Second Book of Natural History speaks of comets that project horns, and there are many other ancient references to unusual comets. Data which must be included are the 6,000 year old American Indian rock paintings found near Green River, Utah.(35)


The paintings are unmistakably those of a comet with a spike in the form of a helix. One shows the comet with a large nucleus, the other without. As the comet is drawn twice, it was the painter's intention to draw the sunward spike in the form of a helix. Spiraling of comet tail material is also commonly observed, reminiscent of ions moving in a magnetic field.

The new comet theory shows the sunward spike to be part of an electrical discharge, and the spiraling of the spike and tail matter a result of charged particles moving in a magnetic field supported by the charged comet nucleus. This is a marked difference in the theories and, therefore, provides one of the many Earth-based experiments that can decide between the two theories.


If radio noise is detected during spike formation, then the IBCM cannot explain this since the thin Type I tail should be much less active than the larger Type II tail. A magnetically induced discharge in large Type I tails has been suggested (36) but this cannot be related to sunward spikes for the reason just given. Also, low level radio noise in comets has been accidentally detected during occultation of stars.(37)


So detection of excessive radio noise in spiked comets should provide a definitive test for the alternative theories. (38)

The link between galactic and solar system formation is necessary for a complete understanding of celestial phenomena. The traditionally accepted density wave theory of spiral arm formation is consistent with the nebular theory of OSS in that it explains the origin of impulses believed necessary for stellar collapse and formation. There are difficulties which still remain with this model, however.


The mechanism that begins the density wave remains unidentified as an interaction of galactic proportions is needed which is common to all galaxies.


This is further complicated by the need for a symmetric interaction to explain fine detail such as star densities - irregularities in the spiral arm shape and the anti-symmetric warping of the galactic disk - all of which occur with great symmetry even though the arm pairs are separated by distances of hundreds of thousands of light years.




IIa) Galactic Formation, Saturn. and the Charging Processes Used by Comets
Two Papers have preceded this one and must be read with their references to interpret the present paper properly. (1,2)

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


It also explains the cause of the high degree of symmetry found in galactic structure.

The twin star system is necessary for capture in celestial mechanics; thus the formation of binary stars that are observed in abundance in the sky is an essential part of OSS by capture processes. The dynamics of twin star formation in the spiral arm, as it leaves the galactic nucleus, also provides an important source for the asteroidal comet nuclei which can become captured by a twin star system.


As the spray of condensing matter leaves the gravitational dominance of the galactic nucleus, the largest conglomerates will begin to control the volume of space around them, with the smaller objects assuming orbits in random planes with random eccentricities about the central more massive star.


Within a short time, there will be a great number of encounters.

This leaves, in most cases, the two largest bodies to orbit one another with the smallest bodies being ejected from the system. These smaller bodies are observable as the dispersion of light that occurs around the spiral arm near the galactic nucleus as they move outwards for possible capture by twin star systems. It is a game of numbers; of the multitude of asteroidal planetary "seeds" ejected from this portion of the spiral arm, only a few will eventually become active members of a solar system.


Here also it is seen that the planes of the solar systems formed will be randomly oriented as will the (40) orbital directions of the smaller stars of the pairs. Jupiter and the Sun were the original twin stars of our system, with the rest of the planets, moons, and asteroids being captured one by one at a later time, the selection rules being governed by chance.

Some may ask:

"why cannot some planets have been part of the original system as it left the galactic nucleus?"

If such 3 (or N) body systems were possible when given random initial conditions, then triple star systems (and higher order systems) would be more abundant.


Only 0.1% of all stars are in higher order systems, and the known systems (e.g., the triple-star alpha-centauri) act much as a twin star. i.e., a closely spaced binary with a distant orbiting third star.

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

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

A major result of the Saturn paper is the identification of two charging processes, both resulting in a net negative charge on a body moving in a hot plasma (either planetary radiation belts or the solar wind). The first has been detected and is induced as the body enters regions of varying electrical potential within the plasma.(2,42,43)


A small space craft can quickly charge to a potential of 10,000 volts, so if size is assumed to be important, then a small asteroidal body could quickly charge to a substantial voltage.(44)


This was observed when Pioneer-Saturn passed under the small asteroidal moon 1979-S2 and experienced a "great mass" with a large magnetic field. The great mass sensed by telemetry was the result of the induced electric dipole force on the metal space craft as discussed previously (2) (and the same force responsible for the gathering and maintenance of meteoroid streams by comets, to be discussed).

The second charging mechanism occurs during the discharge of the Sun's (or Saturn's) capacitor formed by an excess current of protons in its solar wind.


The capacitor forms between the negatively charged central star and positively ionized nebular cloud which surrounds the star in the shape of a donut. The discharge of this capacitor is triggered by the intrusion of an already charged asteroidal body (45) (charged initially by the first process). Current flows in a line between the star and surrounding neutralizing ion cloud via the comet nucleus. Electrons flow outward from the negatively charged star (sometimes visible as the sunward spike) while positive ions flow inwards the nebular ion cloud (forming the comet tail).


Due to the higher mobility of electrons, they arrive in greater numbers at the asteroidal comet nucleus, causing a build-up of negative charge on the nucleus. It is the combined electric fields of the Sun and comet nucleus which create the characteristic comet shape (to be discussed).


Fan-shaped anti-tails are caused by ions and protons from the solar wind which also pour into the comet nucleus from the sunward side and fluoresce as they recombine with electrons.


The first charging process depends on the size of the object, its velocity relative to the plasma, and the intensity of the radiation belts (or solar wind). The second charging process does not depend on the object as much as on the discharge itself. Once the second process begins, it is self generating until the entire solar capacitor is drained.


This can lead to enormous voltages on the comet nucleus. The greater this charge becomes, the greater the discharge becomes, and thus is self-generating. Although it appears that celestial objects in circular orbits have less charging than those in eccentric orbits, what terminates the charging process is still not well understood.(46)

The standard argument raised against the existence of electric fields in space is that "in the plasma environment of space, any charge accumulation would be quickly neutralized". This would be true if this plasma were not controlled by a powerful charge separating cell in its center (the Sun). The mobility of free space charge must be taken into account as it is the varying mobility of charged particles that causes the comet nucleus to charge.


Thus the Sun acts as a Van de Graaff generator while the solar wind holds back a nebular ion cloud estimated to begin somewhere near the orbit of Jupiter.(47)


This is one source of matter for the comet tail and will be seen to contain the light elements up to at least sulfur. The heavier elements will be seen to come from the other source of tail material, the zodiacal disk.

It has always been assumed that the solar wind contains equal currents of electrons and protons to maintain an electrically neutral solar system. But there is no reason for assuming this is so. It would be impossible to detect the overall current leaving the Sun at any given moment.


The few points at which the solar wind has been monitored can in no way be extrapolated to say that there are equal currents of protons and electrons in the solar wind as has been done by theorists. External characteristics, e.g., comet phenomena and electrical phenomena in Saturn's rings, indicate that there must be an excess current of protons.


In solar prominences are seen composite streamers of similarly charged particles moving in the local magnetic field, so there can be no doubt that the Sun has the ability to selectively eject composite streamers of similarly charged particles.(48)

IIb) Comet Theory
Figure I shows the progression of characteristic comet shapes formed by the combined electric fields of the Sun (q1) and comet nucleus (q2), both with net negative charges (q1 > q2 ) as the comet orbits the Sun. The comet shape is defined by the area in which positive ions will be trapped by the comet nucleus due to the combined electric fields.(49 )


Due to its electrical charge, the comet nucleus becomes a singularity in space with a near infinite supply of tail material.

Figure 1

Computer plot of characteristic comet shapes (q1/q2=constant) for a comet following a parabolic orbit.

The shrinking of the coma is predicted by theory, showing the CEF as related to the Sun-comet nucleus separation.


Figure 2

Dimensions of the CEF (q1>q2).




Figure 3

Comet shapes for varying values of q1/q2 = k.
a) k = 10
b) k = 100
c) k = 1000

The equations governing the size of the coma are given by:

b = l/(k-1) (1)
c = 2l x Square root of k/ (k-1) (2)
d = l/square root of k + 1 (3)
e = l(1 + square root of k)/k-1 (4)

where q1> q2, k = q1/q2, P is the Lagrange point of the electric field and l is the Sun-comet nucleus separation (Figure 2).


The circle (diameter = c) called the circle of equal force (CEF) is where the acceleration on an ion towards the Sun is equal to that of the comet nucleus. It is easily shown that the vector sum of these forces always points towards the Lagrange point.


The equation of the CEF, with q2 at (0, 0) is:

x^2 + y^2 + 2 x l/1 - k = -l^2 / 1 - k^2 (5)

(for proofs and illustrations, see Appendix I and H).


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

The tail area extends to infinity theoretically but in practice it extends only to the neutralizing nebular ion cloud near the orbit of Jupiter.(52)


Thus tails of extreme length (Type 1) are seen as sunlight reflected from dust that drains in from the nebular cloud during the electrical discharge of the solar capacitor. Time of flight of tail dust is negligible compared to the movement of the comet nucleus.


Therefore, the static case is an excellent approximation to the real situation. The tail material causes a build-up and layering of the comet nucleus and is not melting away as hypothesized in the IBCM. Red shift data are available which are interpreted as indicating the velocities of volatiles moving away from the comet nucleus. Section IV of this paper will show why these data have been misinterpreted.

Electrodynamics in the solar system constitutes a widely misunderstood field of study among traditional astronomers. It is now apparent that charge-to-mass ratio is of great importance in celestial mechanics. This has been demonstrated in Saturn's system where the most noticeable effects occur in the smallest objects.


The newly discovered rotating spokes in Saturn's rings have been explained (2) as due to the sweeping of small ring particles that are ionized during the discharge of Saturn's proton-wind-supported capacitor, the area swept out being the "shadow" of the comet tail.


This is supported by the location of a bright ringlet from which the spokes always emanate. This ringlet contains orbiting "charge centers" (either small moons or large ring particles) which act exactly like comet nuclei when inside the zodiacal disk of the Sun (a second source of comet tail material).

The following example illustrates the forces involved in tail production due to varying charge-to-mass ratios, comparing gravitational and electric effects. A comet nucleus (10^15kg) at 1 A.U. from the Sun develops a charge sufficient to cause a coma 50,000 km to form (measured in the sunward direction).


This requires (by Equation 3) a charge ratio between the Sun and comet nucleus of q1 /q2 = k = 10^7. The gravitational force of the Sun on the comet nucleus is approximately 2 x 10^7nt. Table I gives values of charge and mass for the Sun (q1, m1), comet nucleus (q2, m2) and a singly ionized CO molecule (q3, m3) assumed to be in the tail area of the comet.


Note that the charge-to-mass ratio (q/m) ranges over 31 orders of magnitude.



Mass (kg)

Charge (Coul.)

q/m (Coul./kg)


9.1 x 10^-31

-1.6 x 10^-19

-1.76 x 10^11

CO+ ion

4.7 x 10^-26

+1.6 x 10^19

+3.3 x 10^6

comet nucleus


-2.2 x 10^3

-2.2 x 10^-12


2 x 10^30

-2.2 x 10^10

-1.1 x 10^-20


An all too common remark among traditional astronomers is that, if electrically charged bodies existed in space, we would observe fantastic accelerations in these bodies and the Universal Gravitational Constant would be noticeably altered.


The present example shows, however, that the resultant repulsive electrical force between the Sun and comet nucleus is only one part in 10^12 of the attractive gravitational force. So the Orbital perturbation on the comet nucleus will be negligible and the value of the gravitational constant altered by only one ten billionth of one percent. This is due to the low charge-to-mass ratios of the Sun and comet nucleus.

Ions, however, have relatively high charge-to-mass ratios.


The ratio of electrical force to gravitational force on a CO+ ion in the comet tail is given by:


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

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

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

The criticism has been raised that if such a charge existed on the Sun, then extremely high energy particles would be commonplace in the inner solar system. This, however, again is analogous to the Van de Graaff generator in which the charge need only be sprayed off the central belt as it will assume its state of lowest potential and without excessively high energy particles involved.


The discharge of the solar capacitor will involve very high energy particles, but not the charging of this capacitor.

There are numerous reasons for identifying the other source of tail matter as the zodiacal disk. This is reinforced by the analogy between Saturn's spokes and comet phenomena near the Sun. Curved tails, such as in Donati's comet when it neared the Sun, are a result of the matter in the rotating zodiacal disk falling into the cornet nucleus which is viewed as a singularity in space. (Another cause for other Type II tails will be discussed later.)


This is due to the relative motion of the comet nucleus with respect to the zodiacal disk. Donati's comet also exhibited a pair of thin Type I tails which must have arrived from the nebular ion cloud.

Comets begin to show heavy elements (such as nickel, potassium, iron, etc.) in the tail as they approach the Sun.(53)


These come from the zodiacal disk (iron has been detected in Saturn's rings which is analogous). Thus, a fundamental aspect of planetary formation is the amount of time a comet spends inside the zodiacal disk (where heavy elements accumulate) as opposed to inside the nebular ion cloud which provides only lighter elements up to approximately sulfur, determined from observation of tail ions.(54) This fact may account for the abundance of low density celestial objects found past the orbit of Jupiter while still allowing some of them to be of earth-like density.


Layering of matter on the comet nucleus also shows that planets must have highly compact solid cores with radioactive elements and hydrocarbons distributed throughout (to be discussed in detail).




Concerning the traditional astrophysical theories (the nebular collapse theory of OSS and the 4.5 billion-year-old age of the planets, the density wave concept of galactic evolution, the Big Bang, the ice ball comet model, and the greenhouse effect) this paper claims that none of these are valid in spite of decades of theoretical effort.


Two historical developments are responsible for this:

  1. these theories were developed and given "accepted" status before the past decade's exploration of the solar system

  2. after excellent close range data were secured from space Probes, the data were inevitably forced to fit the "accepted" theories by the advancement of hundreds of after the-fact ad-hoc explanations (the oldest being the greenhouse effect for Venus' high temperature).

It was far easier to do this than to ponder the failure of traditional theory. If any scientists raised objections to this, they were quickly removed from the astronomical community and life went on as before.

This paper shows that comets are not ice balls melted by solar radiation, but are asteroidal bodies which become electrically charged within the Sun's sphere of influence and are attracting the dust and ions observed in the comet tail. (The nebular ion cloud which lies past the orbit of Pluto is one source of comet tail material.)


This causes a build up of material on the asteroidal comet nucleus.


Parts II and III of this paper will show that comets eventually evolve into planets (Venus may well be only a few thousand years old), moons, and asteroids, and that the solar system is dynamic, undergoing radical changes when large comets are captured into the, inner solar system.




1. J. M. McCanney, "Continuing Galactic Formation," Astrophys.Space Sci., 74 (1981), pp. 57-64.
2. J. M. McCanney, "Saturn's Sweeper Moons Predicted," The Moon, 24 (1981), pp. 349-53.
3. J. M. McCanney, "Electrical Phenomena at Saturn," unpublished.
4. When this paper was written in 1981, the common belief among astronomers was that the intergalactic boundary of the Sun lay somewhere beyond Jupiter. Pioneer II has passed the orbit of Pluto but to date has not encountered the heliopause. Two factors affect the location of this boundary: 1) the Sun's magnetic field interacting with the intergalactic wind (commonly called the "bow shock'), and 2) the force of the solar wind holding back dust and gas particles from entering the inner solar system. [Cf. "The Sun's Magnetic Field", KRONOS 11:3 (1977), pp. 78-80. - LMG]
5. H. C. Houben, Tidal Dissipation in the Solar System and the Possibility of tidally Driven Planetary Magnetic Dynamos, Cornell University thesis (Ithaca, 1978).
6. T. J. J. See, Researches on the Evolution of the Stellar System, Vol. II (Lynn, Mass., 19 1 0), pp. 274-92.
7. R. A. Lyttleton, Moon and the Planets, 18 (1980), P. 13.
8. B. R. De, Astmnom. Soc. of India, 3 (1975). (it is observed that De calls for the requirement of non-gravitational forces in any pseudo."Laplacian" explanation of OSS. The traditionally accepted concept of the nebular collapse theory of OSS is based on Laplace's 18th century idea of a whirling cloud collapsing into a revolving solar system. In 1910 - based on the theoretical work by Newton and Darwin (no relation to [use; son of Charles) - T. J. J. See showed the classic flaws of the Laplacian theory, the primary difficulty being due to angular momentum considerations, He also proposed the first capture theory of OSS. See's work was ostracized and never promoted. All subsequent theoretical efforts have been attempts to account for the unexplainable in the Laplacian scenario. There is a great deal of speculation in today's "accepted" theory,)
9. B. A. Smith, Science. 204 (19 79), P. 969.
10. In 1983 the Infrared Astronomy Satellite (IRAs) was launched and has since mapped infrared heat sources much more accurately and with greater sensitivity than could be done previously from mountain top infrared observatories. Almost immediately, wide publicity was generated stating that the birth of arms had been recorded. This is a gnat overstatement of the facts. It is true that new infrared sources have been recorded near Magellanic clouds Where traditional astrophysical theory would indicate and where none had pre..Ously been observed from mountain top observatories. However, to confirm the nebular collapse theory of stellar formation, two requirements are needed: 1) For IRAs to observe a new infrared source that had not previously been observed by IRAs 32 within its experimental limits of accuracy, and 2) that it was in fact the collapse of gas clouds that formed the star. The second condition would be difficult to prove using IRAS alone. It is possible, for example, that massive nova remnants could be highly instrumental in the secondary formation of stars in Magellanic clouds and that stellar collapse may not be possible without such a nucleus. Great motion must be used in interpreting data and drawing far reaching conclusions.
11. R. A. Keff, Science, 207 (1980), P. 292.
12. J. H. Hoffman, el al., Science, 203 (1979), P. 800.
13. R. Berry, Astronomy, 9, No. 2 (198 1), P. 19.
14. As recently as 1981, greenhouse theorists claimed that Earth and Venus evolved differently since the greenhouse effect was viable on Venus (due to its proximity to the Sun) but that Earth was not affected (in spite of its early C02 atmosphere) due to its greater distance from the Sun. Then the elevated temperature of Saturn's moon Titan was discovered- For lack of any explanation, the greenhouse effect was adopted to allow the data to conform to the 4.5 billion-yew-age of the solar system which is basic to "accepted" theory.
15. D. Mulholland, Science 82 (Dec., 1982), pp. 64-68.
16. A basic physics problem is to determine the length of time a planar of a certain size and mass can maintain an atmosphere. Both Titan and Pluto are well below the threshold that would allow a permanent atmosphere.
17. B. R. Sandel, et al., Science, 206 (1979), pp. 962-966.
18. R. Gore, Nat. Geographic, 15 7, No. 1 (1980), P. 10.
19. The magnetic fields of Jupiter and Saturn newly discovered by Pioneer II have created an unmentioned dilemma in the astrophysics community. In short, magnetic fields do not selflenerate and sustain themselves for billions of years. Maxwell's equations have been wept under the theoretical mg by traditional theorists who still maintain that gravity is the only force acting in the cosmos.
For magnetic fields to form, current must flow. For current to flow, a potential difference must be maintained. Herein lies the downfall of traditional astrophysical theory which does not allow any form of electromagnetic interaction.
When I pointed this out to a theorist in the physics department at Cornell University, he exclaimed that since both positively and negatively charged particles were moving in the recorded electric current between lo and Jupiter, no potential difference was required. This shows that too many scientists will say anything, no matter how absurd, to uphold traditional theory. Irrational behavior of this sort is found to be commonplace in astrophysics circles.
20, "Jupiter Pictorial," Astronomy (Aug., 1979), P. 54.
21. S. J. Peale, Science, 203 (1979), P. 892.
22. F. Hoyle, Highlights in Astronomy (San Francisco, 1975), pp. 39-49.
23. "Disappearing Mountains," OMNI (Jan., 1980), P. 38.
24. W. Ley, Watchers of the Skies (N. Y., 1966), pp. 334-8.
25. Venus Orbiter data have shed light on the interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere of Venus. The result is that, although Venus has no protective magnetic field, no "coma-Uke" activity is observed. An unspoken dilemma among ice ball theorists is that neither the solar wind nor electromagnetic radiation is sufficient to create comas of the size observed in comets.
26. Z. Sekanina, Icarus, 37 (1979), P. 420.
27. F. Whipple, Scientific A merican, 242, No 3 (1980), P. 124.
28. Some IBCM theorists claim that wandering is due to ejection of highly volatile gases that exist in packets within a ditty ball of water ice. This, however, contradicts the claim of other theorists that all highly volatile frozen gases in the ice ball are routed out by solar radiation beyond the orbit of Jupiter and cause comets such as Kohoutek (1973) and Bowel] (1981) to be observable beyond Jupiter and Saturn. 33
29. P,Koutchny,Astron. and Astrophys., 72(a979),p.45,
30. P. L. Lamy, Astron. and Astrophys., 72 (1979),p. 50.
31. R. A. Lyttleton. Mysteries of the Solar System (Oxford, 1968),p. 116. This book remains an excellent source of food for thought.
32. Middlahwst and Kuiper, The Moon, Meteorites and Comets (Chicago, 1963). P. 602, plate 4.
33. P. Moore, Comets (N. Y., 1976), P. 96.
34. J. E. Battle, Sky and Telescope, 6 1, No. 3 (198 1), P. 212.
35. G. Smith, Nat. Geographic, 157, No@ 1 (1980), pp. 98-99.
36. W. H. lp, Planetary and Space Sci., 27 (1979). P. 12 1.
37. L. C. Lee, Astrophys. J., 228, No. 1 (1979), p. 935.
38. The October, 1981, article by D. A. Mendis, et al. (Astrophys. J, 249, p. 787) on the charging of the comet nucleus, is quite different from the present paper. That paper assumes the ice ball comet model and claims charging to be a result of the solar wind and UV light impinging on the ice ball, It does not anticipate effects observable from Earth and does not allow the existence of the nebular ion cloud which is proposed in this paper. In brief, there is no apparent common ground between the two papers. It is curious to note, however, that the Astrophysical Journal published that paper but refused even to comment on the present paper which takes exception to the ice ball comet model.
39. One of the prominent astronomical observations of 1982 related quasars to normal galaxy evolution, in which young stars were forming in a cloud at the visible surface of certain quasars (ref. Boroson and Oke of California Institute of Technology). This is radically different from the density wave model's expectation that clouds of galactic dimensions should encounter another galaxy to force the formation of the density wave. It also supports Dr. H. Arp's observations that quanta are not objects at the "edge of the universe " (as proposed by those who use the Red Shift and Hubble constant as a measure of astronomical distance). Arp has observed "strings" which visibly connect quanta to galaxies, indicating that the Red-Shift-Hubble concept (ie., the Big Bang) is erroneous. He was threatened with loss of his telescope time by astronomers who disagreed. (Section IV of this paper discusses this in light of the newly proposed induced electric dipole red shift. For further reading, see N.Y. Times, section C (Oct. 19,1979) and March, 1983 issue of Sky and Telescope.)
40. This is supported by the fact that only Jupiter spins about an axis parallel to the axis of the Sun.
41. Concerning the paper "Saturn's Sweeper Moons Predicted", it is now apparent from Voyager I and II data that the moons were not verified as predicted; however, the general concept of fusion in Saturn's atmosphere ignited by lightning (and the predicted side effects such as the rotating spokes) has been verified. Unfortunately, NASA scientists continue to maintain that all observed effects are "magnetic" in nature. Once again they erroneously assume that the magnetic fields simply exist. and that thew in turn cause the observed electric effects (i.e., the alteration Of Charged particle counts new Saturn's small moons, the electrical discharge that occurs in Saturn's atmosphere every time Dione passes overhead, the current sheet flowing constantly between Dione and Saturn - announced in October, 1982, and similar to the lo-Jupiter current sheet - the giga-amp electrical discharges that map regularly among Saturn's rings, the correlation between electrical discharges and the "rotating spokes", the non-Keplerian orbits of certain ring particles and small moons, and the twisted F-ring). To date, NASA has not offered any viable explanations for these observations, although some were discovered over two years ago.
42. W. Filius, et aL, Science, 207 (1980), P. 429.
43. S. E. DeForst, J. Geophys. Res., 77 (1972), p. 65 1.
44. In September, 1980, this was pointed out to the staff of ICARUS, which is edited at Cornell Uhiversity. Their reply was that they did not know of, or believe in, such an effect on satellites. (They were not familiar with the DeForst paper or the fact that at least some members of the JPL imaging team obw"ed charged particle measurements to be affected by an unidentified electric potential at the surface of the space craft studying Saturn as referenced by Filius, et al.) In 1982, during the first space walk by space shuttle astronauts. Observations were made and photos were taken of an aura-like glow at the surface of the shuttle. NASA space scientists were asked to explain this and conjectured that it may be related to oxygen ions impinging on the surface (implying a net charge on the shuttle, although charging was never specifically mentioned).
45. Similar to the discharge of a backyard electric bug killer which discharges when a bug enters the area between anode and cathode.
46. The capacitor that forms with the Sun in its center and nebular ion cloud surrounding it (past the orbit of Pluto) will haw surfaces of electrical equipotential between cathode and mode. It is now known that the second charging process depends on the comet nucleus crossing the surfaces of equipotential. As the comet nucleus crosses the equipotential surfaces, it must continually adopt the potential of space that it enters.
This also aids in the electrical breakdown of the capacitor, initiating the discharge between Sun and nebular ion cloud which is observable as the comet tail and, occasionally, the sunward spike. It is explained later in this paper that circularization of orbit is a by-product of the drag the comet tail exerts on the comet nucleus. As the comet achieves a circular orbit, it no longer will cross the Surfaces of equipotential and will remain essentially at a single potential. This is a simplistic explanation but applies well in the innersolar system where the equipotential surfaces are nearly spherical (past Jupiter, the Sun's magnetic tail will distort these surfaces). [Cf. Chris S. Sherrerd, "The Electromagnetic Circularization of Planetary Orbits", KRONOS IV:4 (1979), pp. 55-58; Ragnar Forshufvud, "On the Circularization of the Orbit of Venus", KRONOS VII:2 (1982), pp. 3-28. - LMG]
47. Past the orbit of Pluto, known from Pioneer II data.
48. It is now apparent that the observation of the higher proton current in the solar wind should have been interpreted property a long time ago; but, as with many other cases of interpretation of data, scientists make data fit their theories and not vice versa. It has been known for a long time that the velocities of protons in the solar wind are much greater than those of electrons; however, scientists have maintained equal currents of electrons and protons because of the a priori assumption that space is electrically neutral.
Since current = charge x wlocity / l, there is an excess current of protons in the solar wind, leaving the Sun with a net negative charge. The separation of charge must be an essential aspect of fusion in stars. The Sun cannot continuously expel an excess current of protons indefinitely, so there must be a current sheet of charge that flows continually between the nebular ion cloud and the Sun. In 1982, Pioneer II data confirmed the existence of such a current sheet flowing lengthwise along the Sun's magnetic tail. This may possibly relate this paper to the work of Juergens (KRONOS Vill: 1) who assumed that such a current was necessary for his tufted anode concept (although I disagree that this is the source of the Sun's energy). The existence of the solar corona has always posed a problem to traditional astrophysics. This pure electron cloud with a temperature of millions of degrees is certainly not held in place by gravity and there is no apparent containment mechanism from without. The corona may act as a filter for the solar wind, accelerating protons while retarding electrons. This would account for the higher velocities of protons observed in the solar wind. At any rate, what holds the corona in place remains an unsolvedmystery. [However,evidence is accumutating that the Sun's magnetic field plays the fundamental role in heating and containing the corona. See The Sciences (Dec. 198 1), pp. 15-18, 32;Natural History (Jan. 1983), pp. 74-79; and Scientific American (Feb. 1983), pp. 104-119, - CLE]
49. The combined l/r2 electric fields of the Sun and comet nucleus define the characteristic shape around the comet nucleus as designated in Figure 1.
50. R. A. Lyttleton, Mysteries, P. 11 3.
51. Middlehurst, The Moon, Meteorites, P. 602, plate IC.
52. Past the orbit of Pluto (not Jupiter).
53. A. DauviUier, Cosmic Dust (N. Y., 1964), pp. 56-7.
54. M. K. Wallis, Nature. 286 (1980), P. 207.





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-fire 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

  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 spiraling 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 the ejection velocity with the largest pieces remaining in the vicinity of the explosion.


From analysis of a solid core exploding into 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 and, therefore, their masses would remain undetected.(7)


It should be expected that the Jupiter-Galileo orbiter (presently scheduled for 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) Explaination 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:1) 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 circulized orbit (to be discussed in detail), the original planetary atmosphere will already be present (Venus being a prime example).

Another source is the chance grazining 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)

Spiraling of tail material is sometimes observed in comets. Before 1950 a number of comet theories invoked magnetic fields (10) as the cause of spiraling. 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 bases for them, but with one major difference: the tail material does not move away from, but is drawn toward 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 electro-magnetic fields in the phenomena observed in comet tails.

From just observing the spiraling motion, it is impossible to tell whether the cometary magnetic filed 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 and a similar drawing of the great comet of 1861 and the spiked Comet Arend-Roland.


These comets are not easily explained in the ice ball comet model (IBCM). (The topic of spiked comets will be discussed again.)

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

  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 (ie., 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 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 meteoroid 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.

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

  2. energy loss associated with the gravitational encounter with the Sun-planet system

  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 overlapping (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,(39,39,40,41) 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) 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 chamcteristics(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 plane 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 200F 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 lo 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 lo.)


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 atmosphere 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, lo, 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 lo but this is not the major source of lo'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.; (59) 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 as10,000 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 II as it passed the moon 1979 -S2. Voyagers I and ll 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.




1 .J. M. McCanney, The Moon and the Planets, 24 (1981), pp. 349-53.
2. J. M. McCanney, "Continuing Galactic Formation," Astrophys. Spa. Sci., 74 (1981), pp. 57-64,
3. R.A. Lytticton, 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. 35O), 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 11 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 remit of theoretical work on the solar neutrino problem. This problem was dismissed earlier by E. Milton in KRONOS V: I ("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 isadense 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 orignal 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. 45S; Q. JI. Asir. 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 bails) 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. Clubs 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 minor 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 thew 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 collision 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 Volikovsky). Finally, Clube and Napier do not support a priori the nebula 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 us 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 concerning the fust 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 (ie., 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. 309). 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", Scientiflc American, 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 Self, 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., 195 3), 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 circulurizing 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 how 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 frist is the doughnut shaped nebular clouds found around Jupiter, Saturn, and as many as 5O 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 1,5OO,000 miles above its surface (see DISCOVER, (December, 1983). P. 14) and also between Mars and Jupiter (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 those 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, Comell 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 auralike 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.)
I5. 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. Alfvin and G. Arrhenius, The Moon, 5 (1972), P. 230.
19. J. M. Ballay,J. of Geophys. Rex, 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. 569-7 1. (This reference discussed comet splitting and variable brightness of comets.)
23. R. A. Lyttleton, Mysteries, P. 121.
24. Eg., the electrical discharge between the Son 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 datat 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, PartII(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 Calisto's in surface with a "crater" in its center. Calisto has a second smaller ring pattern on its opposite side.
30. Note that there is very little hope of ever verifying ths 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. Dauviller, Cosmic Dust, pp. 23-30.
32. F. Whipple, Sci. American, 242 (Match 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 flyby 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 "Bode's 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] lnvestigators 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 Watherill 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 his 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 noe does he address the angular momentum problem of the Sun (why was the spinning, contracting Sun left with so little angular momentum?). Other 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 degrees of the ecliptic, with over 50% within 10 degrees, 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. 0. Froude, et al., Nature, 304 (1983), pp. 616-618.
43. "Oldest Known Rocks Found in Australia", ScienceNews, 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. Tatbott, KRONOS IV:2, pp. 3-25.





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.

  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 cyclic 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 1, 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 bv 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 lo 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 (tag 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 11 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 sinan.(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 approximately10 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 electromagnetic 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 budding, 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 Keff 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 Keff'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 Vellkovsky 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 I 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 fail 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. I; and J. W.Sulentic,Astrophys. J. letters), 265 (1983), pp. LA9-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 field were not included. I believe that the leap of intuition found in the principle of equivalence (ie., the famous elevator example) is incorrect. Eintstein 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. (See DISCOVER magazine, December, 1993, pp. 44-53.) In this respect, the necessary cornerstone of General Relativity has never been found. This was why Einstein was so interested in 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 the theory. In most cases, data are simply irreproducible and remain unpublished. Unlike Special Relativity, General Relativity lacks experimental experimentation. 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 beading 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 us 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-shift 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. Browns, "Cosmic Yardstick: Is the Yardstick in Exrror?", New York Times (OCL 15, 19M, p. Cl; and W. Sullivan, "Cosmic Bridges Suggest Quasars Are Nearer Earth", New York Times (March 22,1983), p. Cl.
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 (ie., 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),99.274-92.
11. Symon, Mechanics (Reading, Mass, 1964), V. 283.
12. E. N. Parker, "Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos", Scientfic American (August, 1983), pp. 44-55.
13. H. C. Houben, "Tidal Dissipation in the Solar System and the Possibility of Tidally Driven Monetary 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. 78-80. - LMG]
15. In October, 1982, Voyagers I and II data were released showing in 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 dri the giant ps pwwts (as I wind supported capacito Dione and lo, rouddag is comets orbiting the Sun) and Saturn. It will be ex It appears that than f their mandes, 2) the real from nioon to pbmt, an
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 lrage asteroid collided with Earth and melted as it sprayed an irridium 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 nucleur 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. Pelligrino, 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, JPhys.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 the 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 degree 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. Koff, 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(Philladelphia,1910).
30. C. Sagan. et aL.,Scientists Confront Velikovsky (Ithica,1974).
31. lbid, p. 89.