"According to the model, comets are not inert balls of ice and rocky dust particles aggregated into a 'dirty iceball' as standard comet theory holds. Instead, they are solid, asteroid-like rocks, containing little ice. Negatively charged with electricity, their motion through the positively charged solar wind triggers electrical discharges. These, not vaporized ice, produce the characteristic comet glow and tail."
I think the "Electric Universe" gang's insistence that electrical phenomena produce the distinctive tails of comets is ridiculous. But I'm willing to hear them out regarding cometary composition, as their idea inadvertantly supports Tom Van Flandern's hypothesis that comets are shards of an exploded planet that once orbited between Mars and Jupiter. If comets are indeed rocky and asteroid-like (and as of this writing it's still too early to confidently assess the Deep Impact mission results), our understanding of our solar system's formation is frighteningly incomplete.
3 comments:
Mac -
Even if our theory about comets is bang-on, our understanding of our solar system's formation REMAINS "frighteningly incomplete".
List off the planets and their moons...and the other flotsam and jetsam out there...and you raise many more questions than answers.
Jupiter's Red Spot, Saturn's rings, Europa, Titan, Iaepetus, comets, Mars, Venus, Pluto, our own Moon...on and on...harbor lots of questions and very few real answers.
And that doesn't even really touch the surface of "our solar system's formation".
Best,
Kyle
UFOreflections.blogspot.com
Point well-taken! I guess what I was trying to say is that everyone at least seems to think we're on the right track. But if someone like Van Flandern is right, then a lot of what we've "learned" goes out the window.
Quite worthwhile material, thank you for the post.
Post a Comment