Originally Posted by mhgaffney
OK. I read Plait's critique of McCanney's comet model. I got two sentences into it -- before I encountered his first error.
Plait mis states the model. He obviously does not understand what McCanney is saying.
According to Plait, McCanney is saying that large comets gain mass "by having small particles slam into it as it plows through the solar wind and other material."
Wrong. This is not McCanney's model. If it were I would agree with Plait. But it isn't.
McCanney's model is indeed that comets gain mass.
Until that error is fixed, everything else he says is wrong.
Do you have some sort of contractual agreement with McCanney?
In his article, "The Nature of and Origins of Comets and the Evolution of Celestial Bodies (Part 1), Kronos, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 1983, McCanney writes, "...a comet involved in the discharge of the solar capacitor will continue to grow in size and mass...."
"Curved tails, such as in Donati's comet, when it neared the Sun, are a result of the matter in the Zodiacal disk falling into the comet nucleus...."
"This causes a buildup of material on the asteroidal comet nucleus....Comets eventually evolve into planets...."
You're lying, gaffe. Lying through your teeth.