by James M. McCanney
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,
the recognition of the charging
process used by comets
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
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
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
As the data arrived from around the solar system, the author
witnessed repeated efforts within the space science community
(primarily NASA) to ignore the importance of electrical phenomena.
If the data did not fit into the
established theoretical picture, after-the-fact theories were
contrived to force-fit the data, or the data were simply not dealt
with at all. It should have been apparent that the data were
unquestionably contradictory to any expectations of traditional
theory and that a radically new set of self-consistent concepts
would be needed. Part I is the first of a three part series which
develops a new theory for comet behavior and solar system evolution.
Many may wonder why a new theory is
necessary; thus Part I begins with a brief critique of presently
"accepted" astronomical theory and is followed by an introduction to
the new comet theory.
I. A BRIEF CRITIQUE
OF THE ICE BALL COMET MODEL AND NEBULAR THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE
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
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
The heat is rising from lo's young
interior through volcanism which is a result of quakes caused by the
tidal action of Jupiter,
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
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
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
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
The mechanism that begins the density
wave remains unidentified as an interaction of galactic proportions
is needed which is common to all galaxies.
This is further complicated by the need
for a symmetric interaction to explain fine detail such as star
densities - irregularities in the spiral arm shape and the
anti-symmetric warping of the galactic disk - all of which occur
with great symmetry even though the arm pairs are separated by
distances of hundreds of thousands of light years.
II. COMETS AND THE
DISCHARGE OF THE SOLAR CAPACITOR
IIa) Galactic Formation, Saturn. and the
Charging Processes Used by Comets
Two Papers have preceded this
one and must be read with their references to interpret the
present paper properly. (1,2)
A new concept of galactic evolution has been proposed in one
paper which is consistent with the new comet capture theory of
OSS and is contradictory to both the density wave concept and
nebular collapse theories of OSS. The new model's main result
(as related to the present paper) is that twin star systems are
formed near the galactic nucleus.(39)
It also explains the cause of the
high degree of symmetry found in galactic structure.
The twin star system is necessary for capture in celestial
mechanics; thus the formation of binary stars that are observed
in abundance in the sky is an essential part of OSS by capture
processes. The dynamics of twin star formation in the spiral
arm, as it leaves the galactic nucleus, also provides an
important source for the asteroidal comet nuclei which can
become captured by a twin star system.
As the spray of condensing matter
leaves the gravitational dominance of the galactic nucleus, the
largest 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
Dimensions of the
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
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
Note that the charge-to-mass ratio
(q/m) ranges over 31 orders of magnitude.
9.1 x 10^-31
-1.6 x 10^-19
-1.76 x 10^11
4.7 x 10^-26
+1.6 x 10^19
+3.3 x 10^6
-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
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
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
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
The discharge of the solar capacitor
will involve very high energy particles, but not the charging of
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).
CONCLUSION TO PART I
Concerning the traditional astrophysical theories (the nebular
collapse theory of OSS and the 4.5 billion-year-old age of the
planets, the density wave concept of galactic evolution, the Big
Bang, the ice ball comet model, and the greenhouse effect) this
paper claims that none of these are valid in spite of decades of
Two historical developments are
responsible for this:
these theories were developed
and given "accepted" status before the past decade's
exploration of the solar system
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
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,"
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
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
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.
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
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
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
45. Similar to the discharge of a backyard electric bug killer
which discharges when a bug enters the area between anode and
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
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
the Oort effect
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
EXPLANATIONS OF OBSERVED PHENOMENA
Any alternate theory concerning comet behavior and the origin of the
solar system (OSS) must re-explain many observed phenomena in a
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
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,
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
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
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
If large comet nuclei pass through
our solar system and, therefore, their masses would remain
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
There are three sources of
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
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
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
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
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
elliptical orbits would be
circular orbits would slowly
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
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
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
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
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
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
energy loss due to sudden
charging and mass accretion (i.e., tail drag) as it
enters a planet's radiation belts
energy loss associated with
the gravitational encounter with the Sun-planet system
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
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
IV b) The Statistics of Solar System
The evolution of N-body
systems has been studied extensively in celestial mechanics,
using both mathematical derivations and computer simulations of
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
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
It has been noticed (36) that the
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
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
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 200°F and
evidently from a perfectly sterile medium.
Thus, all planets begin with
approximately the same chemicals in the same proportions and one
should expect biological systems to reflect this.
Some scientists claim that the effects of tidal friction are
heating Io, whose surface is volcanically active. As already
mentioned, however, the volcanic activity occurs near the
equator and not near the poles as predicted by the tidal theory.
The six distinct theories of heating
for the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Earth, Titan, and 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
Discussed briefly are biological
evolution and the "Collective Fear of Velikovsky" that has permeated
the scientific community for the past 35 years.
V. THE INDUCED
ELECTRIC DIPOLE RED-SHIFT (IEDRS)
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
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
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
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
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
Additionally, Parts I and II of this
paper suggest that mass accumulation (tag drag) will also affect the
orbits of charged bodies.
VI. STELLAR AND
PLANETARY MAGNETIC DYNAMOS
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
COLLECTIVE FEAR OF VELIKOVSKY
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
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
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
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
Velikovsky identified and
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
As stated by
"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.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
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
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,
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
20. K. J. Rose, OMNI (March,1981),p.18.
21. See KRONOS VII:4 (Summer 1982) on "Evolution, Extinction,
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
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
27. R. E. Newell,Speculations in Science and
28. Cardona has been making a case (see KRONOS
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,
30. C. Sagan. et aL.,Scientists Confront Velikovsky
31. lbid, p. 89.