Not sure if what I’ve posted below is new to you or not but it is new to me. Maybe mainsteam theory on comets will come back to what is was over a hundred years ago – Comets are electrical phenomena.
NASA are now saying CO2 (carbon dioxide) power the jets on comets. No water ice has been found on any other comets surface. See comet
Borrelly and comet
Wild 2
The nucleus of a comet is a ball of ice and rocky dust particles that resembles a dirty snowball. The ice consists mainly of frozen water but may include other frozen substances, such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/comet_worldbook.html
"Previously it was thought that water vapor from water ice was the propulsive force behind jets of material coming off of the body, or nucleus, of the comet," said University of Maryland Astronomy Professor Jessica Sunshine, who is deputy principal investigator for the EPOXI mission. "We now have unambiguous evidence that solar heating of subsurface frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice), directly to a gas, a process known as sublimation,
http://epoxi.umd.edu/7press/news/20101110.shtml
Comets: The Loose Thread
Comets are giving accepted comet theory a hard time. Close-up images of comet nuclei from spacecraft have contradicted about every expectation of theory. (“Expectation” is a euphemism for “prediction”; a disappointed expectation is practically the same thing as a failed prediction, except with the former you don’t expect you’ll have to discard the theory.) “If astronomy were a science,” as one astronomer put it, theoreticians would admit that the theory had been falsified, and they would start over with an eye to the evidence. Instead, they hang on to the theory with ever more stubbornness and hope a little tinkering and adjusting will bring the facts into line.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050923comets.htm
From English Mechanic & World of Science, 11 Aug 1882, pp. 516-7.
COMET'S TAILS"...There seems to be a rapidly growing feeling amongst physicists that both the self-light of comets and the phenomena of their tails belong to the order of electrical phenomena."
From Nature, No. 1370, Vol. 53, Jan 30, 1896, p. 306.
Theory of Comet's Tails "It has long been imagined that the phenomenon of comet's tails are in some way due to a solar electrical repulsion, and additional light is thrown on this subject by recent physical researches.
... Prof. Fessenden suggests that negatively charged particles are emitted from that side of a comet which is turned towards the sun..." (Astrophysical Journal, vol. iii. No. 1)
Science at the end of the 19th century was closer to the truth about comets than we are now!
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=uf4ty065
Movies taken by Deep Impact's flyby spacecraft shows the flash that occurred when comet Tempel 1 ran over the spacecraft's probe
http://www.nasa.gov/mov/121520main_HRI-Movie.mov
http://www.nasa.gov/mov/121527main_MRI_impact.mov
http://deepimpact.umd.edu/gallery/animation.html#pre-enc
Comets - Remember, debating facts is a thought crime.
Comets are not made out of water and ice; they are made out of rock.
They discharge a plasma coma due to the rapidly changing electrical field they are moving through.
Since they spend most of their time in the outer solar system, they acquire a charge relative to that environment. As it approaches the Sun’s electrical field, it has to equalize its charge rapidly which causes the discharging we see as comet tails.
(my
video covering the facts presented on this page)
The deep impact mission, which sent a probe out to impact comet Tempel 1, found the following:
1. The copper impactor generated such an energetic explosion that the primary mission sensors were swamped and the primary mission of photographing the crater was unable to be carried out. (Such a flash would be expected with a metal object approaching a highly charged object)
"We didn't expect the success of one part of the mission (bright dust cloud) to affect a second part (seeing the resultant crater). But that is part of the fun of science, to meet with the unexpected. "
Physicist Wal Thornhill commenting:
"It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the scale of the energetic outburst. These scientists understood the kinetics of impact, and they all agreed that the explosion would be equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT. That’s a good-sized bomb, but not even close to what occurred."
http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/the-editor-s-musings/comets
However, I'm sure you'd be among the first to agree that the criteria for success of any such theory or hypotheses must begin with quantitative agreement with all the relevant objective observations. Can you honestly say that any of the material you have read on any TB or HS website meets this criterion?
: You do seem ignorant, gullible or deluded enough to ignore the facts about comets just like Sol88.
!
.
