IV b) The Statistics of Solar System Formation
The evolution of N-body systems has been studied extensively in celestial mechanics, using both mathematical derivations and computer simulations of orbits.(34) 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 orbits. 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 (eg., 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 of OSS.
It has been noticed(36) that the Sun-Mars-asteroid belt-Jupiter 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 particles in 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, isjust 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 the Sun. A major result of a previous paper(1) and subsequent Voyager data suggest that Satum'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 4of 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 turbulent atmosphere. 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 capacitor. 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 as 200 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(l) 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 accelerator. 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 selfconsistent 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 astronomical community. 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 35 years.
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 capacitor.
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 the ESA.
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 socalled "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 genarally 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 orbits.
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. 46.
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.