Edsel Chromie and the “Flaky Snowball” Comet Hypothesis
Below is the latest in a series of articles about the work of veteran science writer, Edsel Chromie, who has championed pioneering work on electromagnetism and planetary phenomena. In this article we look at the “flaky snowball” hypothesis for comets and how this flawed idea is still being simplistically depicted by the Science Channel (broadcast Sept. 30, 2016) in a film titled “Secret Life of Comets.”
In the film the narrator pointedly says:
“In the past three decades there have been over a dozen missions to comets and everyone have been a revelation. In 1994 21 fragments of a comet called Shoemaker-Levy 9 [pictured] smashed into Jupiter’s atmosphere and each impact released more energy than all of the world’s nuclear arsenal combined. The event rocked the scientific community.”
Despite the film admitting there was huge impact from the new empirical evidence from those named space missions the film nonetheless holds true to the increasingly shaky concept that comets are generally comprised like “flaky snowballs.” But advocates of electromagnetism argue theirs is a more plausible explanation. Among those supportive of this new approach is retired science writer and former US Navy engineer, Edsel Chromie. But to Chromie the idea is not so “new.”
Chromie has battled for more than 30 years against a stubborn mainstream science consensus that insists electromagnetic explanations are far-fetched. But as we have shown in previous articles, cosmologists are steadily retreating in their hostility as the weight of evidence being sent back to earth by such probes as Cassini lends credence to the Electric Universe fraternity.
This is not only important regarding comets but is critical in resolving many other mysterious phenomena. In the ‘Secret Life of a Comet’ the narrator continued:
“Scientists thought comets were white, like a snowball. That idea was first challenged in 1986 when the Giotto space probe beamed back telling images of Halley’s Comet. Halley is no snowball. A thick layer of black dust covered its surface. There were cliffs and hills and valleys nine miles long, far bigger than anyone expected.”
Recalling a snail mail letter dated November 21, 1985 Chromie wrote to Stephen P. Maran on the subject, Edsel explains that Maran replied:
“Thanks for your letter of November 7, explaining your concept for explaining comets. Along with most other astronomers who have investigated the subject, I favor the dirty ice ball model. However, rather than debate the subject with those such as yourself who are proposing other theories, I’m just planning to wait for the results of the space probe to Halley’s Comet, which will show us whether there is no ice ball or not.”
Among his other numerous efforts to engage space scientists in discussions included a letter to Dr. Mutch at NASA dated April 25, 1996, Dr. Henry Brinton, Director of Research Program Management Division at NASA in July 1996, the late Dr. Brian Marsden on Feb. 19, 1993 and Jan. 10, 1996 And Dr. Stephen Edberg at JPL many times in 1985 and 1986.
“These were all scientists particularly involved with research on comets. If they conducted their responsibility in evaluating alternative explanations of comets as they were obligated to do under the normal procedures of science they would have realized decades ago that comets were not flaky snowballs and tried to understand the true nature of comets,” bemoans Chromie.
As Edsel laments, “Over 100 years of trying to resolve the mystery of comets with the flaky snowball belief without success should be equivalent to being hit in the head with a 2X4 to get the attention of even the most block-headed scientist advocate of the Standard Model.”
Intransigent group think persists. Chromie reports that this lack of open-mindedness was typified in a letter of February 19, 1993 from Dr. Brian G. Marsden.
Marsden wrote:
“Static electricity is certainly a well-known phenomenon, but I doubt that you can develop a complete theory that uses it to explain everything we have observed about comets. The Whipple icy-conglomerate model is obviously not correct in all its details, but it has in very large measure stood the test of time since it was proposed in 1950, and it has provided an excellent starting point for further study. The model explains why cometary spectra behave the way they do and why the motions of comets should be subject to significant effects over and above the gravitational attractions of the planets. The Giotti and Vega observations, which came after your 1985 news story, proved that Halley’s Comet has a nucleus. This is something you obviously accept, so why don’t you go a little further and accept that the nucleus, by its very nature, contributes to the formation of a coma and tail? Otherwise, you would be dealing with an asteroid, and your theory would have to explain why some objects are consistently asteroids and others are consistently comets”
Marsden was certainly unpersuaded by Chromie’s efforts. It seems that while scientists learn much from their predecessors by reading their texts, they do not have the imagination to apply their education to the new phenomena the spacecraft are recording.
Meanwhile, another letter on the issue from Dr. Stephen J. Edberg at JPL shows Edberg declaring:
“The structure and variability of cometary gas and dust tails is easily explained by modern physics. The invention of a new and unmeasurable phenomenon ‘magnetic field currents’ is not necessary. Until you can provide predictions of new phenomena that cannot be explained by physics as presently understood your ideas will not be incorporated into the body of physical knowledge.”
Further proof of the fixed-mindedness in cosmology comes from Dr. Carolyn Porco, an American planetary scientist known for her work in the exploration of the outer solar system, beginning with her imaging work on the Voyager missions to Jupiter. Porco recently said: “It is not the lack of thought that is the problem. It is the lack of imagination that is the problem.”
After over 100 years of trying to explain comets with the flaky snowball theory and deplorable failure, Chromie says he better explains all of the details of a comet “with my concept of static electricity. And, the difference between an asteroid and a comet is that an asteroid does not travel at high velocity against the radiated magnetic field current flowing from the Sun.”
Edsel Chromie suggests that” The resulting explosion was the result of a static electricity discharge as I have stated in my article in Salem News.”
Chromie adds that the only way such energy can be created is by:
“the fragments generating an abnormal charge of static electricity while traveling at high speed through the intense magnetic field of the Sun and Jupiter and then discharging this intense energy when it nears the electrical conducting mass of Jupiter.”
As a result of the 2005 Tempel 1 deep impact probe that slammed a projectile into its surface, the explosion dug out a crater 150 yards across. Dr. Michelle Thaller (astronomer), said: “We found things like rubies and peridot, gemstones and little things inside the comet and we found all kinds of organic molecules, the very sort of things that we are made of.”
Even now after close up views do not show dust particles coming from the nucleus the scientists still insist on particles coming from the nucleus. A frustrated Chromie insists:
“It is time to recognize the possibility that the solar wind acts like the Hadron Collider and propels invisible electromagnetic energy at high velocity toward the comet nucleus target where it both stimulates atoms of invisible gases to a glowing, visible state of excitement.”
It seems feasible that the solar winds propel atoms of invisible gases and causes the fusion of atoms of gases to the particles in its wake. It is the resistance of the irregular surface of a comet that creates an abnormal charge of static electricity and stimulates atoms of invisible gases to a visible glow that resembles particles reflecting sunlight, asserts Chromie.
He further adds:
“The demonstration I have offered is to rub an ordinary plastic store bag briskly for ten seconds and creating a charge of static electricity and using the magnetic field surrounding the static electricity. This stimulates the atoms of invisible gases in a fluorescent tube to a glowing, visible state of excitement. It proves without any doubt that a magnetic field will positively stimulate atoms of invisible gases surrounding a comet nucleus to a glowing, visible state of excitement.”
In turn, continues Chromie, the solar wind flowing through the abnormally intense magnetic field surrounding the nucleus will increase in intensity via the natural electrical induction process. This stimulates the invisible atoms of gases already in its path past the nucleus to a glowing state of excitement to create the glowing tail sweeping around the Sun like the spoke of a wheel.
As we see herein, it should be evident to even the most dedicated “snowball” believer that the body of new evidence being amassed by space probes tells us that the new magnetic field currents viewpoint should be accepted into the body of physical knowledge. Chromie is noted for having written extensively about comets during his career as a science writer. Among those published by ‘The Daily Californian” (Dec. 26, 1985) is http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november292013/comet-ison-ec.php
Other additional related articles regarding comets featured in the Salem News:
http://salem-news.com/articles/february202012/comets-ec-php
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march242013/still-optimistic-ec.php
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april112014/tempel-scientists-ec.php
******
Read other PSI articles in the series about Edsel Chromie using this link.
******
Edsel Chromie is a retired science writer and World War Two Navy veteran with expertise in electric systems. While in the service of his country he applied his knowledge of magnetic field currents through a wire to determine electrical damage in US Navy torpedoes. He has four approved patents on solar energy and Sun 
tracking systems. Over several decades Chromie has applied his unique insight into interpreting various natural phenomena.
Today Edsel writes for Principia Scientific International about this unique set of life experiences which has guided his scientific understanding. His insights, unrecognised by the scientific community, may provide answers to yet unexplained phenomena. You can write to Ed Chromie at this address:[email protected]
Trackback from your site.