A Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe - New

What if this powerful process based on the electrical removal of material from the surface of a body was scaled
up by nature and applied to the surface of a comet? Could that process, in a vast electric environment, possibly
be the explanation for the creation of the sharply defined features we see on comet surfaces? Keep in mind that
what we know has already gone on in space over eons is restricted to a period of only a measly hundred years.
The temperature of some comets has also been measured to be hot, not cold, as you may have expected. Areas
of the surface on some comets have also been found to be very black indeed and to display behaviour just like
that of the exceptionally fine black soot produced by a short-circuit that causes electrical burning in a domestic
situation. Many comets have also been found to give off extremely high-energy radiation that could never in
a month of Sundays be accounted for by the dirty snowball idea. Moreover, heavy elements (minerals) have
been found in the gas and dust expelled from comets, where the production of these is impossible to achieve
with the temperatures and compositions involved in the icy comet model. Now that we can get up close and
personal with comets by way of the probes sent out to inspect them, we are justified in believing that they hold
a tantalising and imminent promise of disproving, once and for all, the tired old dirty snowball model.
We can see Craters on the surface of every body in the solar system, except, of course, for the Sun and the
gas planets. To account for the rocks of various sizes and compositions that are supposed to be responsible via
impact events for creating these craters, we are provided with a variety of explanations as to their origin. The
most popular of these is where planets and moons have collided and broken up in the dim and distant past and
where big rocks like asteroids have smashed into the surfaces of planets and moons with enough force to eject
great amounts of smaller debris into space. Whatever origin is claimed for this menagerie of various sized solid
projectiles, in the minds of today’s astro-scientists, these objects prowl our solar system till they find, through
gravitational connection, bodies to collide with and leave on their surface the ‘signature impressions’ referred
to as impact craters. The energy supposedly delivered in producing those craters is known in engineering as
‘kinetic energy’. This is the class of energy released when a body travelling at speed hits another body. On the
surface of it, this explanation seems to fit, but as I said before, have we really thought much about these?
I must mention also that in terms of the gravity model, the formation of planets and moons is given to us as
being based on the idea that countless numbers of floating rocks gradually collected and fused together under
the influence of gravity. If we ignore the certain lack of required kinetic energy to make this happen, the
predictable debris left over from such a process would seem to support the previous explanation of flying rocks
being responsible for creating craters. However, I would ask you to consider that these two explanations have
become linked through a form of lazy convenience, and I do not mean a deliberate act. It is a fact, however, that
if this convenient association between cratering and planet formation were disrupted, it would be another very
unwelcome turn of events for supporters of the gravity model. Well, this is what we are about to do, because
the majority of craters have nothing at all to do with flying rocks. Moreover, we will see later that planets and
moons were not born from vast collections of pilotless, relatively slow moving pieces of rubble.
45 | We are waiting for answers to these questions