A Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe - New

As mentioned previously, comet Holmes’ core (its rocky nucleus) was estimated only to be 3.4 kilometres
in size. (The white dot you see in the middle of this picture is the star Mirfak shining through and not comet
Holmes’ nucleus.) Think about the numbers involved here, and I will say it again, what utter nonsense for
NASA and astro-scientists to persist in attributing observations such as this to dust and gas being thrown off the
surface of a tiny fragment of ice – really!
To divert for a moment. Comets have always brought wonder, amazement and sometimes fear, especially for
people in ancient times who only had limited experience to draw on when they interpreted them as harbingers of
dreadful events when they traversed the heavens. This situation appears in sharp contrast with what we are able
to say about comets today due to all the fine equipment we have available. It is unfortunate, however, that astroscience
has produced a blinkered and confused description of comets from the vast resources it has, and this
leads me to consider in a new light the simple and honest motivation of people in ancient times who told stories
of comet visitations. Perhaps some of those stories involving comets that described battles in the skies between
their gods and heroes and great destruction being wrought on Earth were their only way of relating what they
thought was really going on. The ancient view of comets is a fascinating and revealing area to look into.
There are times when we jump to a conclusion against our better judgement and without restraint let everyone
know what our thoughts are, then immediately regret we did. For whatever reason, some of us then stick to the
original line in the naïve hope that the storm can be ridden out, unscathed, and that our bad judgement will not
be exposed. Well, I liken this to the situation where we have the terminally-tunnel-visioned-tenacity of astroscientists
who hold on to the dirty snowball theory of comets. Any good evidence that strongly supports their
model is absent, totally. In the past, the only evidence they put forward worth listening to is that the ‘chemical
signature’ of water (H 2 O) has been found in comet tails. There is now other strong evidence that this discovery
has been a mistake in their interpretation of what is being found. To determine this they use a process that
examines the properties of light that comes from comet tails. This is where they seem to have mistakenly
interpreted the detection of OH [6-45] as being the H 2 O they were actually hoping to find. (OH is one oxygen atom
plus one hydrogen atom - this is not water; it is a negatively charged molecule known as a hydroxyl radical
that has an extra electron.) The process used to facilitate this interpretation ignores completely, any possibility
of electrical forces being involved. This is especially frustrating as it is known that OH can be produced in the
laboratory through experiments that mimic the positive solar wind’s interaction with a rocky comet’s negatively
charged surface material. There, negative oxygen ions are produced and expelled by the electrical action that
takes place on the comet’s surface; these ions then combine with in-coming positive protons (hydrogen nuclei)
from the solar wind to produce OH. Despite strong evidence that their analysis is wrong, they still seem to
prefer the interpretation of OH as H 2 O! I admit to taking everything on faith here, because I have no personal
qualifications in chemistry. However, I do take seriously the detailed observations and analyses of notable
scientists in their assessment of this and other bloomers that have been and are still being made.
12 | The Electric Universe answers I see