Backwards. Water was observed in cometary spectra; that's why theory said they contain water. Water (certainly OH radicals, et al) has been observed on every comet mission. How much water, and how it is integrated in the comet structure, is still being learned.

But this doesn't stop the Electric Universe people from mis-reading, mis-interpreting, taking out of context, and just plain lying about any mainstream report they think they can twist to support their idea that comets are dry.

I don't actually understand why a dry comet is so essential to the Electric Universe theory. I have no idea why their absurd notions of planetary formation require dry comets (I mean...do they think there are no volatiles on Jupiter? On Saturn?) Perhaps it would help if they could actually come up with a quantified mathematical statement of their ideas that could actually be tested as a theory.

Instead of, you know, standing around saying "Currents this" and "forces that" and "mainstream science doesn't understand plasma physics" (err...Io flux tube, anyone? Solar wind, anyone? I defy anyone to show that mainstream astronomy doesn't see electromagnetism as a significant player in the structure of the observed universe).



One thing is certain about Electric Universe supporters. They may not have a theory they understand (or that they can explain to anyone else) but they are damned sure going to butt in on any discussion they think they can put a foot in. That's why even a whiff of Electric Universe around many science forums will get you ignored quickly. They've seen it too often.