James McCanney's theory states that the electric fields and plasmas cause the comets to accumulate material and high voltage fusion in the tail creates the heavier element.
The opposing electric universe people say the electric fields and discharges are etching away the comets.
I wonder if both processes could actually happen? Anyone with more knowledgable insite able to explain?
Since the data is not all in, why should we assume that one of the electric comet theories simply must be correct?
It seems to be a pretty radical idea here on SOTT. But what if neither of them are, and instead, the view held by most mainstream planetary scientists at NASA is correct?
My first thoughts are
1.) where exactly do these 'comets' get thier high negative electrical potential?
2.) What is the nature of the substance they are composed of before discharge? (Antimatter??)
3.) Do the big darkened holes on Jupiter, left by Levy-Shoemaker 9, have any bearing on the nature of the composition of 'comets'? btw...I observed them through a 17.5" Odyssey II scope on the night they struck. That is, I observed the results 3 hours after the impact sites rotated in view.
4.) Does the observed result of Solar Flare (prior?? concurrent??) to impact of 'sungrazing comets' on the Solar Surface/Coronal shed any light on the compostion of 'comets'.
This is astounding, and I confess I have not given this as much thought as it clearly deserves.
We don't know what the nature of these things are, we only know how they behave and have collected the debris which forms after they discharge. Plasma jets and X-ray emissions...OMG!
One thing is for certain: You ain't gonna send a lander to them and Neil and Buzz are not going for a stroll either.
A sobering thought just occured to me:
We should think twice about plans to launch nukes at Earth grazing 'asteroids', not knowing what they might turn out to be.
"Since the data is not all in, why should we assume that one of the electric comet theories simply must be correct?
It seems to be a pretty radical idea here on SOTT. But what if neither of them are, and instead, the view held by most mainstream planetary scientists at NASA is correct?"
I find McCanney to be top notch on science. Have read his Planet X, and prime number book. Also read Velikovsky years ago.
I find there is a lot to the electric component of the solar system theory.
Personally on further reflection I have being wondering if whether material is being desposited or etched off would that be due to ion denstiy in the space region the comet is passing through?
Observation says there is something wrong with mainstream comet theory.
It also failed a direct test.
Failure of theory by direct test IS disqualifying. It means the mainstream theory is no longer valid.
Now, as to the opposing electric comet theories, there is no failure from the test probe observation. They may both be wrong, but the mainstream theory cannot be revived. That would mean 3 wrong theories.
The two competing electric comet theories cannot be falsified without a test.
Contrary to what is assumed to be an automatic stigma (a negative) of a failed test and theory, what really happens is that something is learned.
What did we learn? That mainstream theory is wrong, and that there is serious power in comets. Consider the following:
A perimeter is fenced around a power station. Reason being that one can be killed simply standing inside of it when it is powered, due to the intense energy field.
James McCanney's theory states that the electric fields and plasmas cause the comets to accumulate material and high voltage fusion in the tail creates the heavier element.
The opposing electric universe people say the electric fields and discharges are etching away the comets.
I wonder if both processes could actually happen? Anyone with more knowledgable insite able to explain?