You have a poor knowledge of the history of science.
In 1962, Science' magazine published a letter from Prof. Valentine Bargmann and Lloyd Motz "On the Recent Discoveries Concerning Jupiter and Venus": acknowledging Velikovsky's predictions on radio noises from Jupiter, and the heat of Venus.
In 1963, Professor H. H. Hess, then Chairman of the Space Board of the National Academy of Science, wrote to Velikovsky:
"I am not about to be converted to your form of reasoning though it certainly has had successes. You have after all predicted that Jupiter would be a source of radio noise, that Venus would have a high surface temperature, that the sun and bodies of the solar system would have large electrical charges and several other such predictions. Some of these predictions were said to be impossible when you made them. All of them were predicted long before proof that they were correct came to hand. Conversely I do not know of any specific prediction you made that has since been proven to be false. I suspect the merit lies in that you have a good basic background in the natural sciences and you are quite uninhibited by the prejudices and probability taboos which confine the thinking of most of us.
"Whether you are right or wrong I believe you deserve a fair hearing."
K. Vshekhsviatsky was the leading expert in comet astrophysics as his works clearly demonstrate this.
Two months after the discovery of the ring around Jupiter, the Soviet Union claimed joint credit for the discovery, contending that Vsekhsviatskii had predicted the ring’s existence as early as 1960 in a journal called Izvestia of the Armenian Academy of Sciences. The passage from the relevant paper is as follows:
‘The existence of active ejection processes in the Jupiter system, demonstrated by comet astronomy, gives grounds for assuming that Jupiter is encircled by comet and meteorite material in the form of a ring similar to the ring of Saturn.’
Despite the fact of his priority, Vsekhsviatskii’s name has remained conspicuously absent from the scientific literature pertaining to comets and planetary rings.He did demonstrate that the capture theory is completely wrong.
On page 107 he estimates with great accuracy the age of the Halley comet:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1962PASP...74..106V/0000107.000.htmlComets, Small Bodies, and Problems of the Solar System, full article
K. Vshekhsviatsky, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Vol. 74 (1962)
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1958SvA.....2..433V&classic=YESON THE CAPTURE HYPOTHESIS OF SHORT PERIOD COMETS
His demonstration stands correct to this day.
All the comets do come from planets, read his papers.
His expulsion theory of comets was considered to be too advanced for the scientific period of the 60s, and was put on hold, until a better understanding the subject was to be gained.
But today we have the electric comet theory: Comets are the result of electrical discharge machining of planetary bodies that occurs in the catastrophic evolution of planetary orbits. It is far too simplistic to assume that the planets were formed along with the Sun and remained in their present orbits ever since.
Now finally his expulsion theory can be explained.
"Comets are perhaps at once the most spectacular and the least well understood members of the solar system."
M. Neugebauer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
The metaphor of a “dirty snowball” does not fit what we know about comets in the space age. A vast library of data now contradicts the standard assumption of an electrically neutral comet in an electrically neutral solar system. It is no longer useful to ignore the electrical properties of plasma.http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#CometsThe thunderbolts website is anti-NASA for the following simple reason:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">How the Apollo mission was faked in a miserable way: a photograph cut-out was pasted onto the window to make it look like Earth in space
And there are plenty more videos, including the faking of the Soviet space missions.
COMET WILD 2
Electricity, not heat, is at work on the surface of Wild 2.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040805electric-comet.htmThe frequent erratic motions of comets—in apparent violation of gravitational laws—have long been attributed to the “jets” seen erupting from the nucleus. The distinguished astronomer Fred Whipple first suggested that jets from comets could account for unpredictable motions. As summarized by Francis Reddy in an obituary the day after Whipple’s death in 2004, the astronomer believed that “The jets supply a force that can either speed or slow a comet, depending on the way it rotates — a force unaccounted for in the astronomical calculations used in predicting comet returns”
The coma of comet Holmes after it's outbusrt is only vaguely spherical which is the shape it ought to be and no, it isn't being constrained in size gravitationally, you are the only person who suggested that it was. Why is that? If it is being constrained in size at all, which I'm dubious about, perhaps there's an electrostatic component? Then, if there is an electrostatic component, the accepted theory of attractive gravity flies out of the window.
But it is spherical in shape, as the following photographs do prove it.
November 17, 2007
November 9, 2007
October 31, 2007
COMET HOLMES 17P CLOUD SPHERICAL IN SHAPE
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2007/11/is-comet-holmes-bigger-than-sun.htmlhttp://www.racingshadow.com/CometMet/17P_Holmes/17P_Holmes.htmlThe photographs above do show that the Holmes P17 comet's cloud of gas did keep its spherical shape for several days at a time.
How does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform, spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter?
In an explosion, as the particles rush outward from the central region, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another; certainly the spherical shape documented above, 7 million kilometers in diameter, could not be kept at all given the size of the Holmes P17 comet. A clear defiance of attractive gravity.
But, as can be readily seen from the photographs, the spherical size of the comet's cloud of gas WAS MAINTAINED FOR WEEKS.
If Holmes' flare-up was the result of a collapse or explosion (as some scientists speculated) why was the ejected material not asymmetrical (as one would anticipate from an explosion)? Why did the claimed explosion not produce a variety of fragmentary sizes instead of the extremely fine dust that was actually observed?