Comet Borrelly rocks core scientific beliefs

holoscience.com /wp/comet-borrelly-rocks-core-scientific-beliefs/

By Wal Thornhill October 18, 2001

[The blockquoted text in brown is from an original news story.

The highlighted text is a statement of the core beliefs held by astronomers.
The regular text is my commentary with short quotations in brown.]

The above headline accompanied the news item in the Sydney Morning Herald of 9/27. Comet Borrelly has been
visited by the aging Deep Space 1 (DS1) spacecraft and the clearest pictures to date of a comet nucleus
returned. It was a tremendous engineering feat to nurse the spacecraft to this rendezvous. However, despite the
headline it seems certain that the core scientific beliefs of NASA scientists will not be disturbed. The reason is
that core beliefs are often so ingrained that they are unrecognized.

Comets are perhaps at once the most spectacular and the least well understood members of the solar system.
Marcia Neugebauer, JPL

Comet Borrelly. Inset are the jets and a crater on the terminator.
Image credit: NASA/JPL

Astronomers are already saying that the pictures of the 10-kilometre- (6-mile-) wide core of Comet
Borrelly will revolutionise our understanding of these frozen wanderers. DS1 passed within 2,000
kilometres (1,200 miles) of the comets rocky, icy heart late on Saturday September 22 GMT.

Here is the first core belief to remain unquestioned a comet has been held over in deep freeze beyond the
solar system since the time the planets were formed. Then, after billions of years, somehow it has been
deflected into the inner solar system.

1/7
Comets are believed to enter the inner solar system when
disturbed from an invisible cloud of icy objects located about
1000 times the distance of Pluto, a good fraction of the way
to the nearest star. The disturbance is thought to be due to a
passing star or the movement of the Sun above and below
the galactic plane. But many astronomers have pointed to
the lack of evidence for sporadic comet showers that such
disturbances should unleash and concluded that such
events could only account for about one-fifth of the comets
we see. The astronomer, Tom Van Flandern, has devised a
scale model that demonstrates the silliness of this theory. If
the Earths orbit were represented by the period at the end of
this sentence and Plutos orbit by a circle of one centimetre
diameter, then the nearest star is 41 metres away. The Oort
cloud of comets would orbit near a sphere 6 metres in
diameter containing one comet per cubic millimetre. The
comets would move at about 3 millimetres per 1000 years.
They are effectively motionless. Passing stars on rare
occasions whiz past at a metre per 1000 years and stir up the nearby comets. Less than 1 in 10,000 disturbed
comets will be knocked onto a path that will target the 1 millimetre or so sphere surrounding the Sun where a
comet might be seen from the Earth. Having visualized this, Van Flandern makes the point that the true size of a
sphere encompassing Plutos orbit is so vast that all of the 200 billion stars in our galaxy would fit with room to
spare in that volume. He writes, But the volume enclosed by the comet cloud is a billion times greater yet. It
truly is unimaginably large, surviving as a plausible idea in large part because our intuitions fail so miserably to
comprehend the vastness of this volume. One serious observational difficulty with the model is the total lack of
comets on hyperbolic orbits. And like other examples in astronomy it is a theory based on invisible matter.

The Oort-shell, has become widely regarded as a firmly established triumph of modern cometary theory
when in fact, it is a piece of trash heralded as one of the corner-stones of cometary science. Journey to the
Centre of Uncertainty, Prof. R A Lyttleton, Speculations in Science & Technology, Vol. 8, No. 5 p. 343.

DS1 sent back black-and-white photos, as well as data on gases and infrared waves around the
comet, and how the gases interact with the solar wind (the process that drives a comets
characteristic tail).

Here is the second core belief that will not be questioned the solar wind is merely a wind that blows the gases
from a comet away from the Sun to form a tail. The tail should disperse like smoke in a strong wind. This
highlights the third and fundamental core belief that all objects in the universe are electrically neutral.

In May, 1996, the Ulysses spacecraft, which is studying the Sun, surprised scientists when it encountered the ion
tail of Comet Hyakutake. The comet was then 360 million miles from the spacecraft! That is four times the
distance of the Earth from the Sun. To remain intact over that distance the tail of a comet must carry electrical
current to prevent its dispersal. That is because an electric current in space takes the form of a twisted filament
known as a Birkeland current, rather like an invisible braided copper wire. When the current is strong enough
such filaments are visible. They can be seen when comets are close to the Sun and they are ubiquitous in
images from deep space. They may stretch, in the former case, over interplanetary distances and in deep space
over intergalactic distances. The notion that all objects in the universe are at the same electrical potential zero,
has kept astrophysics firmly in the seventeenth century, with Isaac Newton. The solar wind does not drive a
comets tail mechanically. Observations show that a comet is highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun.
It behaves like a classical cold cathode in a vacuum.

Comets exhibit odd orbital behaviour due to what is euphemistically known as a non-gravitational force. The
obvious suggestion was made that cometary jets act upon the nucleus to modify its orbit. However, it is natural
2/7
for a charged body to experience an electrical acceleration in the Suns weak radial electric field. It is also natural
for spacecraft, which become electrically charged and do not have jets to experience a non-gravitational
acceleration. That is precisely what has been observed. Cometary jets are not required to cause the anomalous
acceleration of comets.

Deep Space 1 plunged into the heart of Comet Borrelly and has lived to tell every detail of its
spine-tingling adventure, said project manager Dr Marc Rayman. The images are even better
than the impressive images of Comet Halley taken by Europes Giotto spacecraft in 1986. Up to
Saturday night, we had only one example of a comets nucleus. Now, we have another one, and
with it a much better understanding of comets, said Dr Don Yeomans, of the American space
agencys (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, at a press conference to unveil the images. Its
mind-boggling and stupendous, said Dr Laurence Soderblom, the leader of DS1s imaging team.
These pictures have told us that comet nuclei are far more complex than we ever imagined. They
have rugged terrain, smooth rolling plains, deep fractures and very, very dark material.

A fourth core belief is that comets are merely inert, dirty snowballs evaporating in the heat of the Sun.

The dirty snowball model of comets was proposed by Fred Whipple in 1950 and has
since become dogma. His words are inscribed on a microchip riding on the Stardust
spacecraft, on its way to a rendezvous with Comet Wild-2 in 2004: Today we know that
comets are black and cold, consisting of ices and dust that coalesced from an interstellar
cloud as it collapsed to form the solar system. Actually, as argued above, we know no
such thing. The ices were required to explain why comets formed huge comas and tails
as they neared the Sun. But it was obvious that something was wrong with such a simple
heating model when in 1991 Comet Halley flared up between the orbits of Saturn and
Uranus fourteen times further from the Sun than the Earth. The images showed that Fred Whipple. Photo
the 15 kilometre nucleus had ejected a cloud of dust that stretched more than 300,000 Smithsonian
Astrophysical
kilometres. Cometary scientists were baffled by the outburst because the usual Observatory, courtesy
explanation of solar heating of ices cannot work at that distance. The comet is effectively Dr. Whipple
in deep freeze. However, the electrical explanation fits the observation that the Sun was
very active at the time. The negatively charged comet acts as a focus for the bursts of
protons in the solar wind. The result is electrical erosion of its surface and the formation of a coma.

Ices are not required to drive the comet jets. Ices cannot explain the narrow jets nor the corkscrew shape they
sometimes take. Comet Hale-Bopp emitted more dust than could be explained by subliming ices. Further
evidence that a comet is a cathode and emits electrons came from the puzzling discovery of negatively charged
atoms in the inner coma of comet Halley. The problem for the inert comet model is that these ions are easily
destroyed by solar radiation and therefore require an efficient production mechanism that is not available from
solar heating. In the electrical model there is a high density of emitted electrons and neutral atoms available
near the nucleus to form negative ions. Negative ions may form the sunward spike seen occasionally from
comets.

The low density calculated for some comets seems, at first glance, to support the dirty snowball model of
comets. However, there is no difference between the appearance of a comet nucleus and an asteroid. One
schizoid object, Chiron, has been called both an asteroid and a comet at different times. Yet asteroids are
thought to be much more evolved bodies than comets. The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE proposes that their origin is
identical and that a cometary display is due entirely to highly eccentric motion of a charged body in the radial
electric field of the Sun. And if gravity is a dipolar electrical effect in matter then G is not a constant and it is
possible that the mass of a highly negatively charged body will measure less than that of the same body when
uncharged. As a result the calculated density will be low and it will not reflect the true composition of the comet
(or asteroid, moon, planet, etc).

Comet Borrellys surface darkening may result from the effects of the electrical discharge on surface material
3/7
just as we see on Jupiters moon, Io, at the base of its electrical jets. On the other hand, the bright areas seem to
be where the active jets originate. That brightness may not simply be reflected light but instead a gleam from St.
Elmos fire type surface discharging. The puzzling star-like appearance of some comet nuclei can be explained
by surface arcing.

The Comet Borrelly images have thrown up several surprises. As DS1 flew through the coma, the
cloud of dust and gas surrounding the nucleus, scientists had expected that the solar wind would
flow symmetrically around the cloud, with the nucleus in the centre. But they found that although
the solar wind was indeed flowing symmetrically around the cloud, the nucleus was off to one
side, shooting out a great jet of material. The shock wave is in the wrong place, said Dr
Rayman. We have to understand that. Dr David Young, of the University of Michigan, added:
The formation of the coma is not the simple process we once thought it was. Most of the charged
particles are formed to one side, which is not what we expected at all. One commentator said that
it was like finding the shock-wave from a supersonic jet in the wrong place a mile to the side of
the aircraft!

A fifth belief is that a comet is simply a supersonic object moving through the solar wind. And a sixth belief is that
ices on the surface of a comet nucleus sublime in the Suns warmth to form a huge enveloping cloud of gas.

Scientists were surprised when Giotto images of Comet Halley showed that
the dust and gas was being emitted from just a few small craters on the
sunlit nucleus. Comet Borrelly showed the same behaviour. It has been said
that the human facility for self delusion is the most highly developed of all.
One of the finest examples is when scientists explain the pencil thin jets from
a comet as the sublimation of ices from the bottoms of craters. The presence
of neatly circular craters on a comet nucleus is oddity enough, if gas is
merely blowing off bits of a dirty crust. The craters would need to be more
like gun barrels than pits to form thin jets. There is also the problem of
concentrating the heat of the Sun at the bottoms of holes that are not
pointing at the Sun. To make it more difficult, the dark, heat absorbing
regions are not where the jets are issuing from. As for the off-center coma, in
1985 the International Cometary Explorer (ICE) spacecraft found that
cometary effects were asymmetric around comet Giacobini-Zinner. So it
seems symptomatic of rigid scientific beliefs that NASA scientists were
caught again by surprise in 2001!

The answer to all of these conundrums is simple if a comet is highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun.
As the comet accelerates toward the Sun electrons begin to be stripped from the nucleus like a cold-cathode. It
develops a visible glow discharge and Birkeland current tail. These electrical effects we call a comet. At some
point, more powerful arcs strike on the comet nucleus and give rise to cathode-jets which move about and burn
circular craters. The electrical discharges to a cometary cathode will follow the magnetic field lines in the vicinity
of the comet. So it will be interesting to compare the jet directions with the solar wind field direction which,
because it spirals out from the Sun, does not coincide with the comet-Sun line. There is no shock wave to be
understood in the usual sense. A charged body in the plasma of space will form a sheath to protect itself from its
electrical environment. The boundary of the comets coma defines the virtual anode region of a plasma glow
discharge. Electrons are accelerated outward and positive ions inward across the sheath. Strong X-rays are
generated where these particles recombine.

4/7
No one expected comet Hyakutake to be a powerful
source of x-rays. Astronomers using ROSAT (the
European Space Agencys Roentgen satellite)
decided to look at Hyakutake and they were
shocked by what they saw. ROSAT images revealed
a crescent-shaped region of x-ray emission around
the comet 1,000 times more intense than anyone
had predicted. Dr. Michael J. Mumma wrote, We
had no clear expectation that comets [would] shine
in X-rays. Some astronomers wondered why they
would bother pointing an x-ray telescope at a comet.
The x-rays were as intense as those ROSAT usually
picks up from bright x-ray stars and they flickered
like a fluorescent-tube on a time scale of hours.
Flickering effects in plasma discharges are normal
because of the non-linearity in its current carrying
ability. Meanwhile another ad hoc proposal had to be
dreamt up to explain the x-rays. So the Sun was
made entirely responsible for the x-rays by
suggesting that highly ionized atoms from the solar
wind were scavenging electrons from the cometary atmosphere and the energy available from that
recombination was sufficient to generate the observed x-rays. But that constitutes an electric current into the
comet which is unsustainable if a comet is supposed to be electrically neutral.

Deep Space 1 took measurements with its plasma instruments between 90,000 kilometers
(56,000 miles) and 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) away. These data show that the flow of ions
around the comets rocky, icy nucleus is not centered on the comets nucleus as scientists
expected before the Borrelly flyby. Ions in the turbulent flow are heated to about 1 million Kelvin (2
million degrees Fahrenheit).

Turbulent flow in supersonic shocks has become the catch-all for astrophysicists when confronted with energetic
processes away from stars in deep space. The extreme temperature calculated for the ions is based on the
assumption that their motion is random, in other words, thermal. If the motion is not random but is accelerated in
an electric field, the notion of temperature is entirely misleading and inappropriate. The detection of a forbidden
oxygen line at 1128 in cometary comas is consistent with the presence of an intense electric field. At comet
Giacobini-Zinner ICE detected ions around the spacecraft in very highly collimated beams (electric currents)
coming from the direction of the Sun. The shape of the comets coma is determined principally by the electrical
stresses near the comet and the resulting active discharges, or cathode jets. It is not simply a supersonic shock
front. It is also obvious that a tiny piece of rock cannot have significant gravitational influence on a coma of gas
that may be up to several million kilometres in diameter and entrain more mass than the comet nucleus. Far
more powerful electrical influences provide a simple answer.

The highest-resolution image of the nucleus of Comet Borrelly shows a variety of terrain, including
mountains and fault structures. Darkened material is visible over the surface.

The surface complexity of the comet nucleus is due to electrical arc erosion. The fault structures are chains of
cathode arc craters. The negatively charged comet nucleus behaves as a cold cathode, which has electrons
stripped from high points on its surface by the strong electric field near the nucleus. When first seen, comets are
in the glow discharge mode. As it closes on the Sun, the comet discharge switches to the arc mode. This
results in a number of high current density, bright cathode spots, which burn a circular pit or crater into the
5/7
comets surface. Each spot is associated with a cathode jet. The narrow jet electrically accelerates the
evaporated material into space. Cathode spots tend to jump around on the cathode surface, giving a flickering
effect and forming crater chains. Comet Borrelly seems to be covered in such pits and crater chains. As the
comet nucleus rotates, spots will switch off and on because the electric field is strongest on the sunward side.
This behaviour has fueled the story of ices subliming in the sunlight.

Phobos has been described as a captured asteroid.

If the electrical model is correct, comet and asteroid
origins are the same. So the surfaces should be
directly comparable. Here can be seen crater chains
and larger circular craters. Particularly striking is the
crater chain to the right of center which curves
sharply and terminates on a larger crater. Note the
similar morphology to Schrters Valley. Crater
chains are routinely misinterpreted by geologists as
indicative of sub-surface faults. Neither impacts nor
faults explain this feature.

Comet Borrelly was 200 million kilometres

from the Sun at the end of September 2001.

In 1871 Professor W. Stanley Jevons, noted author of The Principles of Science (1874), wrote that several of his
colleagues asserted that comets owe many of their peculiar phenomena to electrical action. That was in the
days before modern scientific beliefs disallowed such speculation. Today, astrophysicists are spooked by
calculations of the energy required to separate bulk positive charge from negative charge. So more than a
century later they treat all astronomical objects as electrically neutral despite the obvious signatures of electrical
discharge shown by comets and larger bodies. The adherence to this core belief has crippled astrophysics.
The result has been a plethora of science-fiction stories about neutron stars, dark matter and black holes. They
are only required by the mathematics when the almost infinitesimal force of gravity is used as the chief driving
force of the cosmos. On the other hand, a good theory is one that coherently explains all of the observed
phenomena and predicts outcomes of better observations and experiment. The surprise upon each new
discovery shows that our modern story of comets is a poor fable. A revolution in our understanding of comets
will only occur when the unconscious core beliefs are questioned.

In future: There is a plan for a comet mission called Deep Impact. Scheduled for July 2005, Deep
Impacts spacecraft will arrive at comet Tempel 1 and become the first mission to impact the
surface of a comet. A 350-kg (770-lb) copper mass impactor will create a spectacular football
field-sized crater, seven stories deep on a comet 6-km (approximately 4 miles) in diameter. This is
the first attempt to peer beneath the surface of a comet to its freshly exposed material for clues to
the early formation of the solar system.

Given the erroneous standard model of comets it is an interesting exercise to imagine what surprises are in store
for astronomers if the plan is successful. The electrical model suggests the likelihood of an electrical discharge
between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile, particularly if the comet is actively flaring at the time. The
projectile will approach too quickly for a slow electrical discharge to occur. So the energetic effects of the
encounter should exceed that of a simple physical impact, in the same way that was seen with comet
Shoemaker-Levy 9 at Jupiter. Changes to the appearance of the jets may be seen before impact. The signature
of an electrical discharge would be a high-energy burst of electrical noise across a wide spectrum, a flash from
infra-red to ultraviolet and the enhanced emission of x-rays from the vicinity of the projectile. The energy of a
mechanical impact is not sufficient to generate x-rays.

6/7
If the arc vaporizes the copper projectile before impact the comet will not form the crater expected. On the other
hand, any copper metal reaching the surface of the comet will act as a focus for an arc. And copper can sustain
a much higher current density than rock or ice. There would then be the likelihood of an intense arc, with possibly
a single jet, until the copper is electrically machined from the comets surface. Copper atoms ionized to a
surprisingly high degree should be detectable from Earth-based telescopes. Electrical discharges through the
body of a poor conductor can be disruptive and are probably responsible for the breakup of comets. It is not
necessary for them to be poorly consolidated dust and ice and to simply fall apart. So there is some small
chance that astronomers will be surprised to see the comet split apart, if the projectile reaches the surface of the
comet and results in an intense arc.

The Deep Impact mission seems rather pointless when the cathode arcs are doing the job of exposing the
comets subsurface. However, if comets are an electrical phenomenon and have nothing to do with the formation
of the solar system then astronomers are bound to be baffled once more. And that could be worth every dollar
NASA spends on Deep Impact.

Print this page

7/7