Re:Electric Comet model - anything but science!? (Score 1)

As an eclectic consumer of science news and theories I happen to be well acquainted with the Electric Comet (EU) theory and from personal, first hand experience can heartily disagree with your objections. Fact of the matter is that the conditions of an EU can and has been demonstrated in the lab. The theory of comets being rocky bodies throwing of OH radicals due to electrical arching is also a matter of laboratory fact.. Many moons ago the OH radicals were ASSUMED to represent the sublimation of H2O from comets into space. That the electrical possibility for the creation of such radicals has not been considered in the mainstream is purely a function of prior assumption (that space is electrically neutral and cannot carry charge). I find this post re recent "surprises" in finding that the comet is in fact an asteroid very telling. In all their wranglings no one on the mainstream side has bothered to try and explain why and/or how this asteroid produces a cometary tail. The grade-school understanding of what differentiates a comet from an asteroid is that the latter has sublimated all its ice into space leaving only its rocky parts behind which leaves them void of visible tails. In this most regrettable turn of events they (mainstream scientists) are trying to have it both ways in asserting that this body formed in one place and was thrust to another causing our confusion. The fact is that no one has yet to explain why this newly dubbed asteroid produces such a spectacular tail. EU theorists present the perfectly plausible solution of electrical machining of the surface of the obviously rocky body (deemed such from photos and stardust samples) to explain how a rock in space could have a brilliant tail. Like it or not, Wal Thornhill correctly predicted what would happen with the Stardust mission. You assert you will one day return with support for your numerous objections to EU theory. One would think that if you were so right on in your position the evidence would be readily on hand. Since it is not it is clear you object without basis outside your own personal biases for which you can only hope to find credible support. May I suggest you hold your tongue until you can back yourself up? You sew confusion where clarity is finally coming forward.