Are We Closer to Understanding the Mystery of Comets?
Written by Edsel Chromie
Scientists have long been puzzled by comets. Retired science writer, Edsel Chromie, who has studied the subject in a long career, shares his unique insight on this tantalizing mystery of outer space.
In 1985 I wrote to NASA explaining my unique concept of comets. I received a reply dated Nov. 21, 1985 from Stephen Maran, Senior Staff Scientist. He wrote: “Thank you for your letter of Nov. 7th concerning your concept for explaining the nature of comets. Along with most other astronomers who have investigated the subject, I favor the dirty ice ball model. However, rather than debate the subject with those such as yourself who are proposing other theories, I’m just planning to wait for the results of the space probe visits to Halley’s Comet, which will show us whether there is an ice ball or not.”
Over 30 years later NASA is still sending probes to comets trying to determine what is causing the bizarre activity. Now, they say they will examine the interior of comets to see if something in the interior is creating these effects.
In 1985 the International Cometary Explorer flew right through the tail of the Giacobini-Zinner Comet and Flight Director Robert Farquhar said: “With the ship well into the tail, we haven’t seen any dust at all. I’m very surprised.” In 1986 the scientists on the Imaging Team in Darmstadt, Germany reviewing the data from Halley’s Comet said: “Vega 1 showed that Halley’s Comet was cleaner than the clean rooms manufacturers use to assemble spacecraft. The surface is blacker than black coal. The blackest, least reflective paint we manufacture on Earth reflects more light.” Then NASA reported that the Vega 1 spacecraft was “zapped by an electrical charge” which destroyed the camera.
On April 5, 1986, NASA reported they were surprised because Comet Hyakutake was emitting X-ray energy at a rate 100 times higher than it should.” Then on April 27, 1996, it was reported: “Researchers are in a quandary. They are trying to figure out whether X-rays are coming from the Comet Hyakutake or if the solar wind is blowing X-rays from the Sun into the comets atmosphere.”
On April 4, 1985 the Copley Radio News Service issued a “Flash News” to the radio station talk show hosts who subscribe to their service. It stated: “Are scientists flakes for explaining that the brilliant tail of Halley’s Comet is a snowball of dust and frozen gas? The reasoning goes that as the Sun heats the snowball, it sheds molecules and dust that are pushed into two separate tails by sunlight and solar wind. But retired San Diego inventor and amateur astronomer Edsel Chromie says that’s a bunch of malarkey.
First of all, he says sunlight striking a mass of dust and frozen gas wouldn’t light up the sky the way Halley’s Comet does. Instead, Chromie’s theory is based on the concept of static electricity. He says Halley’s Comet has a weak static electricity charge. When the comet breaks the magnetic lines of the Sun’s force at high speed, it stimulates the molecules of gases already in the path of the comet to a visible glow. Chromie says it’s not much different than the natural forces that cause lightning or the phenomenon known as aurora borealis or ‘Northern Lights.”
In the early 1950’s the scientists sent a specially equipped high altitude airplane right through the aurora borealis with the specific purpose of collecting some of the particles in order to examine them to determine what is creating the glow. Their specially designed collector did not capture even one particle. However, the pilot reported that he encountered an abnormally intense patch of magnetic field current. This has been completely ignored because it does not conform to their belief at that time that it was particles from the Sun slamming into particles in the Earth’s atmosphere knocking loose photons of light.
In a May, 2006 “Science” program the narrator, John Ralston, said: “Although the aurora is nearer to giving up its last few secrets, for now it defies complete comprehension. The first big mystery is how the particles coming from the Sun are accelerated so quickly into the upper atmosphere to form the aurora, What is firing them downward? The second question is: What causes the complex, beautiful cuts, vortices and filaments inside the aurora? Answering these questions will unlock the secrets of the aurora and at the same time, help us to understand the workings of the cosmos. If you guys can figure this out, there is a Nobel Prize.”
On March 6, 1991 NASA reported Halley’s Comet “Sprouted a shiny dust cloud 180,000 miles across” when it was 1.3 billion miles from the Sun – where the ambient temperature is 346 degrees F. below zero. This is inconsistent with the belief that “the heat of the Sun sublimates water from the nucleus to create the coma and tail because the comet created a coma only 50,000 miles in diameter when the comet was only 50,000 miles from the Sun. If the heat of the Sun caused the nucleus to sublimate water ice to form its coma and tail, it should have created a much larger coma closer to the Sun instead of 30 times farther from the Sun.
In June 1985, the Pentagon formed a panel made up of scientists from 15 universities and laboratories to investigate “A phenomenon that causes the space shuttle to give off an infrared glow”. Obviously, the space shuttle is not a flaky snowball. If the shuttle were the size of a comet nucleus and traveled as fast as a comet, it would generate a visible light glow.
On Nov. 30, 1996, Cable station broadcast a program titled “Meteorites, asteroids and comets” in which Dr. Donald K. Yeomans, Senior Research Scientist at JPL, said: “The two surprises when the Shoemaker-Levy Comet impacted on Jupiter in 1994 were that sulfur was identified and water wasn’t. The problem is, if this thing is a comet and is mostly water ice, why don’t we see water from the comet itself, even if it didn’t get down to the water level of Jupiter”? Then, another scientist speculated that the comet lost all of its water through eons of traveling through space.”
All of this data conforms to my concept that it is the speed of a comet traveling 100 times faster than the muzzle velocity of a 45 caliber bullet that generates a charge of static electricity in the comet nucleus. It is this static electricity charge that stimulates the atoms of invisible gases surrounding the nucleus to a glowing, visible state of excitement. Then, as the radiated magnetic field current from the Sun passes through this abnormal static electricity around the nucleus, it is increased in intensity via the natural electrical induction process so that the radiated magnetic field from the Sun also stimulates the atoms of invisible gases past the nucleus to a glowing state of excitement until the excess energy is dissipated.
Now, NASA is proposing more space probes to examine the interior of a comet to determine what is causing the bizarre anomalies the spacecraft are discovering. All of these anomalies conform perfectly to my concept of static electricity explaining that it is static electricity generated by speed through a magnetic field that causes the magnetic field around the nucleus – not the interior – that is creating the bizarre visible glows, not the interior of a comet.
In 1993 I explained my concept of a comet and the bizarre 180,000 mile “shiny cloud” to the late Dr. Brian Marsden, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. In a snail mail letter dated Feb. 19, 1993 he wrote: “I do not wish to get into an extensive fruitless correspondence over the matter, but static electricity is certainly a well-known phenomenon, but I doubt that you could develop a complete theory that uses it to explain everything we have observed about comets. I see no conflict between 50,000 miles near the Sun and 180,000 miles far away. Inside the asteroid belt, cometary activity is almost exclusively governed by water-ice vaporization. Beyond that distance, where comets are normally less active, the water ice is frozen solid, and any activity can be expected to be due to vaporization of more volatile hydrogen-carbon-nitrogen-
How many more billions of dollars should NASA be allowed to waste trying to prove the concept of a flaky snowball when nothing so far has indicated that there is any dust or ice crystals reflecting sunlight? I cannot understand the stubborn, block headed persistence in the flaky snowball belief when every space probe has failed to detect any evidence of a flaky snowball while providing exceptional evidence of static electricity?
Edsel Chromie is a retired science writer and World War Two Navy veteran with expertise in electric systems. While in the service of his country he applied his knowledge of magnetic field currents through a wire to determine electrical damage in US Navy torpedoes. He has four approved patents on solar energy and Sun tracking systems. Over several decades Chromie has applied his unique insight into interpreting various natural phenomena.
Today Edsel writes for Principia Scientific International about this unique set of life experiences which has guided his scientific understanding. His insights, unrecognised by the scientific community, may provide answers to yet unexplained phenomena. You can write to Ed Chromie at this address: firstname.lastname@example.org