The first charging process depends on the size of the object, its velocity relative to the plasma, and the intensity of the radiation belts (or solar wind). The second charging process does not depend on the object as much as on the discharge itself. Once the second process begins, it is self generating until the entire solar capacitor is drained. This can lead to enormous voltages on the comet nucleus. The greater this charge becomes, the greater the discharge becomes, and thus is self-generating. Although it appears that celestial objects in circular orbits have less charging than those in eccentric orbits, what terminates the charging process is still not well understood.(46)

The standard argument raised against the existence of electric fields in space is that "in the plasma environment of space, any charge accumulation would be quickly neutralized". This would be true if this plasma were not controlled by a powerful charge separating cell in its center (the Sun). The mobility of free space charge must be taken into account as it is the varying mobility of charged particles that causes the comet nucleus to charge. Thus the Sun acts as a Van de Graaff generator while the solar wind holds back a nebular ion cloud estimated to begin somewhere near the orbit of Jupiter.(47 ) This is one source of matter for the comet tail and will be seen to contain the light elements up to at least sulfur. The heavier elements will be seen to come from the other source of tail material, the zodiacal disk.

It has always been assumed that the solar wind contains equal cutrents of electrons and protons to maintain an electrically neutral solar system. But there is no reason for assuming this is so. It would be impossible to detect the overall current leaving the Sun at any given moment. The few points at which the solar wind has been monitored can in no way be extrapolated to say that there are equal currents of protons and electrons in the solar wind as has been done by theorists. External characteristics, e.g., comet phenomena and electrical phenomena in Saturn's rings, indicate that there must be an excess current of protons. In solar prominences are seen composite streamers of similarly charged particles moving in the local magnetic field, so there can be no doubt that the Sun has the ability to selectively eject composite streamers of similarly charged particles.(48)

IIb) Comet Theory

Figure I shows the progression of characteristic comet shapes formed by the combined electric fields of the Sun (q1) and comet nucleus (q2), both with net negative charges (q1 > q2 ) as the comet orbits the Sun. The comet shape is defined by the area in which positive ions will be trapped by the comet nucleus due to the combined electric fields.(49 ) Due to its electrical charge, the comet nucleus becomes a singularity in space with a near infinite supply of tail material.

Figure 1: Computer plot of characteristic comet shapes (q1/q2=constant) for a comet following a parabolic orbit. The shrinking of the coma is predicted by theory, showing the CEF as related to the Sun-comet nucleus separation.
Figure 2: Dimensions of the CEF (q1>q2).
Figure 3: Comet shapes for varying values of q1/q2 = k.
a) k = 10
b) k = 100
c) k = 1000
 The equations governing the size of the coma are given by:

                                                                  b = l/(k-1)                                                    (1)

                                                                  c = 2l x Sqaure 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 ta;ls 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 Satum's system where the most noticeable effects occur in the smallest objects. The newly discovered rotating spokes in Satum's rings have been explained(2) as due to the sweeping of small ring particles that are ionized during the discharge of Satum'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 = 1O^7. The gravitational force of the Sun on the comet nucleus is approximately 2 x 10^7nt. Table I gives values of charge and mass for the Sun (q1, m1), comet nucleus (q2, m2) and a singly ionized CO molecule (q3, m3) assumed to be in the tail area of the comet. Note that the charge-to-mass ratio (q/m) ranges over 31 orders of magnitude.

  Mass (kg) Charge (Coul.) q/m (Coul./kg)
electron 9.1 x 10^-31 -1.6 x 10^-19 -1.76 x 10^11
CO+ ion 4.7 x 10^-26 +1.6 x 10^19 +3.3 x 10^6
comet nucleus 10^15 -2.2 x 10^3 -2.2 x 10^-12
Sun 2 x 10^30 -2.2 x 10^10 -1.1 x 10^-20

An all too common remark among traditional astronomers is that, if electrically charged bodies existed in space, we would observe fantastic accelerations in these bodies and the Universal Gravitational Constant would be noticeably altered. The present example shows, however, that the resultant repulsive electrical force between the Sun and comet nucleus is only one part in 10^12 of the attractive gravitational force. So the Orbital perturbation on the comet nucleus will be negligible and the value of the gravitational constant altered by only one ten billionth of one percent. This is due to the low charge-to-mass ratios of the Sun and comet nucleus.

Ions, however, have relatively high charge-to-mass ratios. The ratio of electrical force to gravitational force on a CO+ ion in the comet tail is given by:

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

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

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

The criticism has been raised that if such a charge existed on the Sun, then extremely high energy particles would be commonplace in the inner solar system. This, however, again is analogous to the Van de Graaff generator in which the charge need only be sprayed off the central belt as it will assume its state of lowest potential and without excessively high energy particles involved. The discharge of the solar capacitor will involve very high energy particles, but not the charging of this capacitor.

There are numerous reasons for identifying the other source of tail matter as the zodiacal disk. This is reinforced by the analogy between Satum'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 Satum's rings which is analogous). Thus, a fundamental aspect of planetary formation is the amount of time a comet spends inside the zodiacal disk (where heavy elements accumulate) as opposed to inside the nebular ion cloud which provides only lighter elements up to approximately sulfur, determined from observation of tail ions.(54) This fact may account for the abundance of low density celestial objects found past the orbit of Jupiter while still allowing some of them to be of earth-like density. Layering of matter on the comet nucleus also shows that planets must have highly compact solid cores with radioactive elements and hydrocarbons distributed throughout (to be discussed in detail).


Concerning the traditional astrophysical theories (the nebular collapse theory of OSS and the 4.5 billion-year-old age of the planets, the density wave concept of galactic evolution, the Big Bang, the ice ball comet model, and the greenhouse effect) this paper claims that none of these are valid in spite of decades of theoretical effort. Two historical developments are responsible for this: 1) these theories were developed and given "accepted" status before the past decade's exploration of the solar system and 2) after excellent close range data were secured from space Probes, the data were inevitably forced to fit the "accepted" theories by the advancement of hundreds of afterthe-fact ad-hoc explanations (the oldest being the greenhouse effect for Venus' high temperature). It was far easier to do this than to ponder the failure of traditional theory. If any scientists raised objections to this, they were quickly removed from the astronomical community and life went on as before.

This paper shows that comets are not ice balls melted by solar radiation, but are asteroidal bodies which become electrically charged within the Sun's sphere of influence and are attracting the dust and ions observed in the comet tail. (The nebular ion cloud which lies past the orbit of Pluto is one source of comet tail material.) This causes a build up of material on the asteroidal comet nucleus. Parts II and III of this paper will show that comets eventually evolve into planets (Venus may well be only a few thousand years old), moons, and asteroids, and that the solar system is dynamic, undergoing radical changes when large comets are captured into the, inner solar system.


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

NEXT                   PREVIOUS