16/04/2020 Comets are NOT ice dirtballs

Comets are NOT ice dirtballs

Updated: Mar 21

COMETS, ASTEROIDS, MOON AND PLANETS.

DEFINITIONS
Who started this message chain was Fred Whipple. His hypothesis about ‘dirty snowballs’ ended up drifting, after the
first space probes that approached these bodies, into ‘balls of icy dirt’. Water (snow or ice) sells, especially if it is
extra-terrestrial. Newton described the comets as compact and durable solid bodies that moved in oblique orbit, and
their tails as fine streams of vapour emitted by their nuclei, ignited or heated by the Sun. In 1950, Whipple could not
assume the extravagant compositions of these bodies. Only the visionary I. Velikovsky, dared to study the ancient
stories of mythology and comment approaches, which caused the population to fear. Most of these celestial bodies
describe elliptical orbits of great eccentricity, which produces their approach to the Sun with a considerable period.
Unlike asteroids, comets are solid bodies composed of materials that sublimate in the vicinity of the Sun. At a great
distance (from 5-10 AU) they develop an atmosphere that envelops the nucleus, called the coma or hair, which is
formed by gas and dust. As the comet approaches the Sun, the solar wind whips the coma and the characteristic tail is
generated, which is formed by dust and the gas of the ionised coma. There are comets of short period (orbit the Sun
in less than 200 years) and long period (greater). To summarise, comets were attributed an origin parallel to that of the
solar system itself (which is really quite unknown) and were placed in the, still hypothetical, Oort cloud.

For others, size seems to matter. Comets are usually considered the smallest while asteroids are the largest. The
moons or satellites are even larger and finally there is the category of planets. In the meantime, the category of
planetoid has been created in modern times. Regarding the composition, the consensus of astronomers believes that
asteroids are rocky bodies and comets are ice nuclei with several additions. The asteroids are found in the belt
between Mars and Jupiter, and have sizes from 1 to 1000 km.

PROBES AND EXPLORING

The diversity of materials detected, together with the high temperatures necessary for the formation of some minerals,
implies that comets could not be formed in the initial stages of the solar system. In addition, the presence of sulphites
and Fe-Ni alloys (liquid H2O is required ), suggest a planetary formation. Cubanite (abundant on Earth and Mars)
was found in Martian meteors in Antarctica. Phobos was expelled from Mars, not captured . The temperatures
necessary for the formation of some minerals may require electric shocks, which would explain their origin.

One of the first space age comets to be observed was 46 / P Wirtanen, which split in two in 1957, when it was
beyond Saturn's orbit (little heat from the Sun). One of the best documented cases of this fragmentation is that of the
Biela-Lambert comet (associated with the Leonids, remains of small particles that cause shooting stars), who was
associated by some to the fires that Chicago suffered in 1871, which caused fires, deaths and electrical phenomena!
Comet West was split into four pieces , when its perihelion (its closest distance to the Sun) was 86 million km. Comet
Linear, exploded in the year 2000 when it was about 100 million km, and it was a great debate among astronomers .
Other comets, such as Lovejoy, have passed much closer to the Sun (penetrating the solar corona), even at 140,000
km, without having split into pieces . The reason why some of these small comets do not volatilize and survive the
encounter is officially debated, although several inconclusive studies have been done . Ikeya-Saki, for example, broke
into three parts at 450,000 km . And the oddities don’t end in the cause of “the explosions” of these comets but that
speed of fragments reached 20% of that of the comet. The prestigious astronomer Brian G. Marsden, discoverer of
many and author of dozens of scientific papers drew attention in 1967, to comets that shepherd the Sun (pass very
close to it) . Many other studies have been carried out on the subject, but orthodox science does not cease to give
remote and eccentric possibilities : tidal and rotational forces (some hundreds of AUs away?), thermal stress, internal
gas pressure (only near), and impacts (of course). Since the time of C. Sagan, it is a mystery not fully clarified, so
new roles continue to appear. A new study led by Purdue University and the University of Colorado at Boulder
indicates that the bodies of some comets can be regularly divided into two, and then meet on the other side of the road
.

BRIGHTNESS EXPLOSIONS
The aforementioned Marsden said that the comets had many non-gravitational effects and "erratic movements" not
explained , although he attributed it to physical-chemical causes in the nucleus. The stories about internal pressure of
gases sublimating inside the nucleus as a cause of the sudden “explosions of brightness” are being replaced by
https://archibaldvelicrates.wixsite.com/theelectricorigins/post/comets-are-not-ice-dirtballs 1/8
16/04/2020 Comets are NOT ice dirtballs

“landslides” , in small bodies of some tens of km, as strange as it sounds. The Rosetta probe has allowed the
appearance of a study of such brightness increases in 67/P Gerasimenko . This recognises the change in the electrical
gradient and the existence of a plasma ionosphere in the comet. Comet Linear suffered one of those sudden increases
in brightness , but it could be explained why it was relatively close to the Sun. Comet Holmes's coma became, in
October 2007, larger than the Sun, and visible to the naked eye, with an increase of more than a million times in its
brightness in just 24 hours. The most interesting thing is that it happened more than 3 AU, and moving away from the
Sun (cooling, in theory) , and its coma went from 20,000 km to 1.4 million km .

Regardless of its length (several million km) , how could a small object
like that hold such a comma by gravity? And if it was really an
explosion, as some scientists argue, why is it so homogeneous and
produced such a ‘dust’, rather than several heterogeneous pieces? Why
did it did not disperse in a short time, and its increase in brightness
persisted for months?

In 1996, comet Hale-Bopp experienced one of those increases in brightness, from which up to 7 jets ejected from the
nucleus appeared . However, this is a long period comet, whose aphelion is more than 300 AU (six times farther from
the Kuiper belt -50 AU-, which some consider the solar system boundary). Its core was estimated at approximately
60 km (it is more than the Halley or 67P / Churyumov – Gerasimenko), but its tail measured 30º of arc (about 2
million km). It can still be photographed with a long hair when it has exceeded the orbit of Saturn and Neptune.

This leads us to an interesting question, if at that distance solar

radiation can melt the ice, why are the icy moons of Saturn and Jupiter
mere rocky bodies?

In 2007, while the Ulysses probe travelled to investigate the poles of the Sun, it crossed the ion tail of McNaught
comet, 300 million km. It was discovered that the comet's tail had slowed the solar wind that passed through it, at half
its speed . The mission director, the theoretical physicist M. Combi, had no explanation of how such a small object
could exert such influence.

To conclude with ‘brightness outbursts’, what else that the most famous of all comets: the Halley. It is said that it
could be affected by a solar super-eruption , which is known to have occurred at that time, when it was orbiting
Uranus. It showed a brutal increase in organic compounds . There is a clear and strong correlation between the
coronal mass ejections of the Sun (CME), and solar activity in general (flares), and the brightness increases of many
comets . Astronomer Subhon Ibadov believes that cometary nuclei respond to solar events (‘flares’).

Comet C / 2010 X1 Elenin, discovered in 2010, and only 3-4 kilometres in size, was associated with apocalyptic
cataclysms of all kinds, mainly due to the proximity of 2012. The curious thing is that in August 2011, after a proven
solar storm, the comet began to disintegrate until it disappeared completely, so according to the explanation of the
defenders of the electric model it was the ejection of the solar corona that exploded the opposite charge of Elenin as if
it were a capacitor.

Other comets have exploded (Schwasmann-Wachmann , Shoemaker-Levy disintegrated into Jupiter's atmosphere...)
and there is no known mechanism that could explain that a snowball explodes by heating the Sun (Levy is attributed
to gravitational forces from Jupiter). Halley comet itself, suffered a sudden increase in brightness that made him about
1000 times brighter when he was near to Jupiter in February 1981 (5 years before reaching his perihelion on his last
visit), coinciding with the stronger solar storms in decades (January) , which were calculated should have reached
Jupiter within a month. In October-2007 the same thing happened with the small comet C17P Holmes that increased
its brightness a million times . Comet West was another such case, in 1976, with at least six increases in brightness
before exploding. In their novel 'Comet', Carl Sagan and Anne Druyan declare: “We still don't know why comets
explode to pieces. The problem is not yet resolved.” While Linear43 C1999 / S4, whose peculiarity is that its orbit
was very eccentric and inclined, which maximized the change in electrical polarity, burst very rapidly; contrasts with
the Schwasmann that was very slow. In none of the cases mentioned, quantities of water vapour were observed
among the remains of dust or fragments.

COMPOSITION
https://archibaldvelicrates.wixsite.com/theelectricorigins/post/comets-are-not-ice-dirtballs 2/8
16/04/2020 Comets are NOT ice dirtballs

When the Stardust spacecraft met Comet Wild2, the first surprise was that the samples collected were larger and with
a more complex composition than previously assumed . The particles were visible in the aero-gel. Elaborate
crystalline structures were found (pigeonite, olivine...) that may not have formed at high temperatures (more than 400
K, these rocks indicate a rapid crystallisation of magma). The analysed spectrum of Hale-Bopp comet revealed
crystalline silicate structures. Science had to improvise the explanation that the original Sun heated the cometary
materials in its formation by subsequently expelling them to the limits of the solar system. But as samples were
collected in laboratories it was observed that the samples were too large in size and complex in composition to be
explained by rapid warming in the sun's childhood, as recognised by Donald Brownlee , director of the Stardust
mission. One surprise was followed by another: the water that was supposed to be a basic component of active
comets was not found on the surface of the Wild2 or in the well preserved remains of its tail. However, its core
contained sulphides and ferric minerals (pyrrotite) that can only be formed in the presence of liquid water! , in
addition to needing temperatures of 200º C. This, by itself, is sufficient to dismantle the theory of snowballs, but also
presents paradoxes such as the presence of olivines that need high temperatures and whose mineralogical structure is
broken in the presence of water, and ferric sulphides such as cubanite that cannot be formed above 210º C. Other
materials such as fosterite (a magnesium silicate, olivine form) were formed by heating them to more than 1,000º C
and like olivines they are common components of terrestrial volcanism, but it can also be formed with the impact of
lightning on siliceous rocks.

Many of these things are contradictory, sphalerite or blenda (zinc

sulphide) requires high temperatures that the cubanite does not support,
olivine is not compatible with water, which also cannot exist in a
vacuum in a liquid state. Everything seems to point out that these
comets could only be formed in the inner zone of the solar system
where such conditions were applicable.

Every day more and more scientists assume that it is possible that the origin of the materials that make up the comets
are rocks , so that their origin from inner planets would be more than plausible, but the issue of their rapid degradation
would imply that the comets are relatively young, and they are not remains of the creation of the solar system -
protoplanetary disk -); being necessary to implement a process that explained their training. It is necessary to apply
electrical phenomena such as lightning, in order to explain the necessary high temperatures. The Cuban is common
on Earth and Mars (in fact it has been found in meteors coming from there ). If cometary materials really come from
here, theories about the formation of the solar system should be reviewed.

HIGH FREQUENCY EM RADIATION

Additionally, important UV and X-ray emissions have been detected in many comets (Hyakutake, Lunin...) that
could only be attributed to electrical phenomena. Some scientists showed their astonishment by knowing that, 3 AU
away, comets emitted x-rays ; some tried to explain it as dispersion of sunlight by supposed particles of attograms (10-
18 grams) of mass. In July 2005, the Deep Impact probe was intended to launch a sub-probe (a section of the ship
called Impactor) against the comet Temple 1. Those who consider the electrical phenomena in the comets predicted
an increase in brightness or flash prior to the impact of the probe . In images 7 and 8 of NASA you can see this
increase prior to impact. The SWIFT satellite that observes the UV and X-ray emission showed that there was an
increase in radiation prior to the encounter demonstrating that the impact was against a solid hard and not a soft
snowball. The temperature calculated in the flash, reached saturation levels (means that it could have been higher) to
about 1,000 K [some attribute 3,000 or more but I have not been able to corroborate such extremes].

Models have been proposed to explain the redistribution of electric charge in the coma of active comets due to
discharges due to some interaction or impact on the nucleus . Rosetta has detected charged ubiquitous cosmic dust
nanoparticles in 67/P Churuymov-Gerasimenko. La Palma Observatory the Canary Islands detected the formation of
new jets or ejections of charged particles in Temple 1, hours and even a couple of days after the impact of the probe
as planned by researcher W. Thornhill.

If the comets were dirty snowballs composed of watery ice that sublimates when approaching the perihelion, its
surface should be smooth and even; on the contrary, plateaus, craters and deep valleys have been observed that do not
agree with such hypotheses (I recommend reading the article ‘Comets make fun of gravity’). The region known as
Imhotep, in 67P Gerasimenko, changed as Rosetta took pictures (small luminous dots). If we look at the image to the
right, we realize the various geological structures such as strata, peaks and valleys, and plateaus. And these things
cannot be formed on a floating rock twenty or thirty kilometres in space.
https://archibaldvelicrates.wixsite.com/theelectricorigins/post/comets-are-not-ice-dirtballs 3/8
16/04/2020 Comets are NOT ice dirtballs

SHAPE AND VOLATILE

CHEMICAL
Stardust spacecraft, after its encounter with Wild2,
was renamed Next and directed to study Temple 1. Its
images were decisive to establish the strange
morphology of the surface of comets. Its crater-filled
floors are highly unlikely in an environment of
meteoric collisions; the possibilities of bodies of hundreds of meters impacting bodies of a few kilometres in a
spherical area of 200,000 U.A. (3.6 light years) are remote. Even if there can be impacts of small bodies, such
surfaces should be eroded quickly in their respective approaches to the Sun. According to Stardust-Next mission
director Michael A'Hearn, there must be another process that produces these patterns on the surface, because the heat
of the Sun sublimates half a meter deep in each orbit (they calculate). In laboratory experiments it has been proven
that such structures can be produced by applying electric arcs to negatively charged surfaces .

Actually, we do not have physical samples of any nucleus or any part of the surface of any comet, the closest thing
are the samples captured by the Stardust aero-gel catchers in their approach in flight 200 km from Wild2, the images
and spectroscopic analysis of Chury surface areas (67P Gerasimenko) by Rosetta, Temple 1 by Deep Impact, and
some more recent ones.

Again, Deep Impact probe, after its mission in Temple 1, was directed to observe comet Hartley2 and renamed
Epoxy. This comet stands out for its strange peanut appearance, with two thickening at its ends joined by a narrow
central body. Of course it is difficult to explain his figure by the typical accretion methods. But the strangest thing was
that one of its lobes was very active and the other was barely, its composition also seemed to be different . It is
believed that the origin of each part was different and joined in some way to form the body we now see. Although
the classic model has no explanation for the fusion of two small bodies in remote regions of space, in an electric
model it can be explained by a phenomenon known as electroplating that is used in spray paint. The jets detected
could not be explained (although they are supposed to be leaks of the sublimation of the supposed ice of the core
through supposed cracks, wells or fractures on the surface), but it is known that they take place in all directions and
not only in the side pointing to the Sun. There was also an anomaly in the production of cyanide gas (CN), which
was not accompanied as would be normal for an increase in dust (only the gaseous tail was increased, the dust tail
remained the same), and although certain bright spots on the surface were detected, they did not appear to come from
any ventilation channel (or ejection) from which an alleged gas enclosed could come.

Californian biochemist Franklin Anariba points out that electrochemical processes can explain numerous
characteristics of comets, including the generation of plasma in the coma, clouds of H2 gas surrounding the
coma, the production of gases in the commas and the formation of powder tails and plasma ionized tails. For
the production of CN, for example, only the confirmed presence of ammonium (NH3) and methane (CH4) is
necessary, we add an electric potential difference and the result is CN gas.

In many of the investigations clear signs of electromagnetic interaction in comets have appeared. We have already
talked about UV and X-ray emissions in Temple 1, but supra-thermal electrons (very energetic ions) have also been
detected in 67P Gerasimenko . In the same comet, Rosetta probe detected non-magnetic bubbles [also in Halley's
comet], and a series of diamagnetic (repulsive) cavities . Even asteroids, like Psyche, have a small magnetic field . In
Vesta, one was also found ; and even in two small rocks called Gaspra e Ida. Comets and asteroids suffer from
non-gravitational forces due to loss of anisotropic mass that makes it difficult to trace their trajectory. NASA
itself recognises that electricity exists in space (Bravo!, step by step).

In the article, they explain that “in airless objects such as moons and
asteroids, sunlight emits negatively charged electrons from matter,
giving the sunlit areas a strong positive electrical charge. Solar wind is
an electrically conductive gas called plasma, where matter has been
divided into electrons, which are relatively light, and positively charged
ions, which are thousands of times more massive. While areas with
sunlight can be positively charged, the areas in the shade receive a

https://archibaldvelicrates.wixsite.com/theelectricorigins/post/comets-are-not-ice-dirtballs 4/8
16/04/2020 Comets are NOT ice dirtballs

strong negative charge when electrons in the solar wind rush past the
heaviest ions to fill the voids created as the solar wind pass".

NASA-sponsored researchers, funded by the Virtual Institute of Solar System Exploration (SSERVI) (formerly the
Lunar Science Institute of NASA (NLSI)), have developed a new computer model that can predict and visualise the
interaction between the solar wind, solar radiation and the surface of asteroids in unprecedented detail.

WATER, SNOW AND ICE

The issue of water (in the form of ice on the surface of the nucleus or steam in the coma or tail) is another particularly
conflicting issue. The official version given in the news is that, as expected, the spectra of the hair or commas offer a
large amount of water (80%) but what they really find are signs of OH- (hydroxyl) ions . Incidentally, another
recurring theme in the news (I would say sensationalists) is whether comets or asteroids were the ones who
contributed most of the water that our planet enjoys today, but there is still no agreement between orthodox scientists
themselves . The Deep Space probe passed by comet 19P/ Borelly without detecting water or ice in its rocky core ;
Stardust did the same with Wild2, the same happened in the disintegration of the Shoemaker-Levy, Linear and Elenin
where only traces (tiny percentages) were found. However, in the proximity sightings of the probes, spectroscopic
analysis detected in Borelly’s coma a significant amount of OH + (57% of the total aqueous group), H2O + (29%), O
+ (13%), CH3 + (5 %), and CH2 + (4%) and a small amount of H3O + (<9%). Heterodox scientists hold that comets
have an electrical origin and that the OH- ion spectra of the commas is produced when photons hit H2O molecules
releasing H+ and OH- ions. They argue that Japanese scientists studying comet Tago-Sato-Kosaka TSK and comet
Benett determined that the H/OH ratio (QH / QOH = 3.3) was too high to come from decomposition of H2O. It is
true that they say so, but in his conclusions they say that water ice is a fundamental component of the nuclei (which
we will experimentally see that has not been found).

It is true that there are numerous interpretations of spectra and images (no real samples) that are sold as facts. In
Nature, it was published that scientists already knew that coma was dominated by water molecules, and that water ice
is one of the main components of the nucleus. But until then, traces of water ice on the surface of comets had been
difficult to detect.

"First, not finding ice was a surprise; now, finding it is a surprise," says
a planetary scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "The surface of
comet 67P, like most comets, is mainly covered by dark organic
materials that look almost black. This is because comets fly towards
the sun and are exposed to warm temperatures that cause volatile ones
such as water ice on their surface to sublimate, or pass directly from
solids to gaseous solids. What remains in the crust is what is known as
refractory materials. These include silicates similar to rocks, sand, soil
and carbonaceous materials. Because these materials do not sublimate,
the surface of the comet becomes increasingly organic and rich in
silicates over time".

Surface water ice on comet 67P Churyumov-Gerasimenko was discovered in two places (arrows) several tens of
meters in diameter, in a region known as Imhotep, at the bottom of the comet's main lobe. It was found using the
VIRTIS infrared instrument, which scanned the area for signs of water ice spectra shortly after the Rosetta orbiter
reached 67P in the fall of 2014. In both cases, the ice appeared on the walls of the cliffs and appeared as
remarkably bright spots in visible light. Despite statements from the mission team, other scientists argued that
observations of cometary nuclei have revealed a very limited amount of surface water ice, which is insufficient to
explain the observed degassing of water . This was clearly demonstrated in comet 9P / Tempel 1, where dust jets
(driven by volatile) only partially correlated with exposed ice regions. The observations of 67P / Churyumov-
Gerasimenko have revealed that the activity has a diurnal variation in the intensity that arises from the changing
conditions of sunstroke. Previously, it was concluded that water vapour was generated in ice-rich sub-surface layers
with a transport mechanism linked to solar lighting, but which until now has not been observed. Periodic
condensations of water vapour were suggested very near or above the surface to explain the short-lived bursts seen
near dawn on comet Tempel 1. In the previous study, they report observations of water ice on the surface of comet
https://archibaldvelicrates.wixsite.com/theelectricorigins/post/comets-are-not-ice-dirtballs 5/8
16/04/2020 Comets are NOT ice dirtballs

67P Gerasimenko, They appear and disappear in a cyclic pattern that follows local lighting conditions, providing a
localised source of activity. This water cycle seems to be an important process in the evolution of the comet, which
leads to the cyclic modification of the relative abundance of water ice on its surface.

Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven discovered that proton-bombarded silicates (H+) yielded atoms of H and O (OH-),
which in scientific journals has been sold as there could be a lot of water ice in the universe.

In a study that appears on the NASA website, it is shown that bombing

with material protons such as those in the cometary nuclei (olivines,
albite, anorthite, fosterite...) produces OH⁻ which is what is found in
the commas (and in this case in the spectrum of those cliffs! [How do
cliffs form on a comet?]).

In 1986, the Giotto spacecraft approached Halley's Comet and detected negative ions in the inner coma, highlighting
those in charge of the mission that, since these ions are easily destroyed at distances of 1 AU, there is no ion
production method that explains ion density found .

The ROSINA detector of the ESO Rosetta spacecraft (European Space Agency) caught in 10 of 11 comets (both
long and short periods) differences in the D/H ratio . This ratio was up to 3 times higher . It was simply sold as that
Earth's water could not come from comets. In the impact on Temple 1, no changes were detected in possible
underground ejection chambers (ventilation) that expel the sublimated water vapour that according to NASA
produces the OH⁻ of the comma. No logical mechanism is offered that explains the energy of the observed jets.
Paradoxically it was sold as the first water sighting, although it was recognised that the water was in small quantities
on the surface, and that most of it would be in the subsoil.

The electric comet model provides some ideas such as protons from the Sun (anode) react with surface silicates
(cathode) releasing negative ions or O-anions that would combine with H+ to form steam or OH- ions observed in
the hair . Later, part of the vapour formed could condense and freeze on the surface causing patches and traces of ice
that are detected in some comets. The mainstream scientists argue, after studying the phenomenon in the Kohoutek
comet, that possibly (means that even NASA doesn’t know ) the dissociated water is the origin of the OH- ions when
attacked by the solar wind. The electrochemical formation of H2O in the coma was simulated in 2015 with success .

An infrared study of Lovejoy , referring to water supposedly emitted by the comet's coma, calculated a D/H ratio of
1.94 times the average Vienna ratio (a standard measure of water isotopes) when the comet had crossed perihelion
(moving away). Comparing with measurements taken in its approximation of only 0.89 times, it totalizes a difference
between the measurements of 2.2 with respect to the average. In another study, laboratory experiments on the
formation of H2DO+ cations [deuterated water] via the addition of electrical energy are related. Similar studies were
carried out with two other comets (LINEAR and C/2004 Q2). The important thing is that many physicists and
chemists are realizing that certain reactions that would explain the formation of many of the mysterious compounds
may have occurred in the absence of solar radiation and high temperatures (only with electricity). Then, said
"deuterated water" would be dynamically formed when comets approach the Sun through the intervention of electric
currents. These studies continue to assume that cometary nuclei are composed of water ice and are surrounded by
refractory outer layers. To validate a condensation/sublimation model, it is essential to correlate the supposed presence
of water in the cores with the so-called jets through which the supposed water vapour exits. If possible, also identify
the ‘vents’ through which the supposed underground chambers expel the sublimated water . Even more strange is that
Lovejoy releases organic compounds (molecules with more than 6 atoms), such as ethyl alcohol and sugars .

The abundance of CO2 in the Hartley 2 comet makes it necessary to rethink comets formation models. The jets seem
to emanate (as in Tempel 1) from erosive areas such as cliffs, so they can be attributed electrical cause (EDM, see
paper on ‘Electrical Origin of craters’). Those jets seem driven, not by water vapour, but by carbon dioxide.

F. Anariba suggests that the models should contain mechanisms to

account for the sublimation of volatile nuclei ("if they exist"), the
formation of water on the surface of the refractory material by
'proton implantation' (solar wind), and water formation (deuterated
or not) through the electric force. That would imply recognising the
existence of electric charges in space, electric fields, potential
differences and ion concentration.
https://archibaldvelicrates.wixsite.com/theelectricorigins/post/comets-are-not-ice-dirtballs 6/8
16/04/2020 Comets are NOT ice dirtballs

A very recent study on the mysterious jets states that these are activated instantly when the sun rises over a certain
area of the comet, which voids the thesis that Sun warming, produces sublimation of the nucleus. Now it is in a
position to take into account other possible reasons for them, such as a photoelectric effect , by which sunlight
extracts electrons from surface rocks. Then there is, still, the problem of collimation of the jets, since no opening has
been discovered by which the supposed gases and dust are grouped in parallel. It is trying to complicate matters,
when it is suggested that the rock structures, with their wells and caverns, concentrate the gas like a lens. It is possible
that all of those dust ’discoveries are electrostatically transported as NASA itself acknowledges in a publication.
Perhaps, as in the case of Hale-Bopp, everything is due to a photoelectric effect known a century ago, and it is not
necessary to resort to mechanical extravagances that arise from considering gravity as the only active force in space.

HYPATIA STONE
As for the composition, I have not talked before about the alleged ‘oldest finding of a cometary nucleus on Earth’, the
so-called ‘Hypatia Stone’, found in Libya, and dating back 28 million years. Non-metallic meteorites are called
chondrites and, from the point of view of the composition, they closely resemble Earth, with a small amount of
carbon and a large amount of silicon. Hypatia is quite the opposite, a lot of carbon and almost no silicon. It contains
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which is part of the interstellar dust and is supposed to exist already before the
formation of the Sun . Part of this became micro-diamonds (perhaps due to the impact explosion or electric shocks?).
Aluminium was found in its purest form, a unique thing in the solar system. The same is true for silicon carbide,
called ‘moissanite’, a diamond (which did not come from any other type of meteor) and very pure. Another element
never found anywhere else, was the silver phospho-iodide. Of course, this defies the conventional theory of solar
system formation. But it is an event too strange to take into account and I will not take it into consideration, with the
rest of comets. Remember that nearby in Libya, the famous zirconium crystals were found, that some claim to come
from a meteoric impact .

CONCLUSION
With regard to the presence of water (terrestrial, heavy or deuterated) there seems to be no consensus in sight. The
existence of at least water-derived components (OH-, HDO or H2DO+) could be the cause of the formation of water
vapour in the coma, and jets or a sub-surface sublimation, a dynamic effect of bombardment with solar wind protons.

As for the composition of the rock (both detected by optical instruments, and samples obtained by probes such as
Stardust or Philae), it seems to clearly challenge conventional models, and that these objects are different from
asteroids. It is also an unequivocal signal that theories (hypotheses) on the origin of the solar system (especially
the issue of zone composition) should be reconsidered. Although some of these compounds may have been
dynamically formed (by electric shocks - lightning -) it is impossible that all these “space mountains” have been
constituted in this way.

Sudden bursts of brightness are irrefutable indications of electrical activity over long distances from the Sun. X-ray
and ultraviolet emission subscribes it. Reinforcement comes from the detection of magnetic fields. The conclusion is
clear: comets and asteroids are planetary fragments (without discerning whether they come from stabilised
planets or in a formative process), and their operation is electrical and not mechanical. The presence of water is
debatable (probably in small quantities and different from ours), but in no case does the Earth's water come from
comets [in any case it would be the opposite].

References (papers with hundreds of links to scientific journals):

Del origen y funcionamiento eléctrico de los cometas (castellano)
On the origin and functioning of comets (english)

https://archibaldvelicrates.wixsite.com/theelectricorigins/post/comets-are-not-ice-dirtballs 7/8
16/04/2020 Comets are NOT ice dirtballs

Sciences

13 views

https://archibaldvelicrates.wixsite.com/theelectricorigins/post/comets-are-not-ice-dirtballs 8/8