> In reply to Mauro Lacy's message of Sun, 15 May 2011 19:02:45 -0300: > Hi, > [snip] >>On 05/15/2011 06:14 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> In reply to Mauro Lacy's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 15:49:13 -0300: >>> Hi, >>> [snip] >>> >>>> Most probably, the reason is comets are charged bodies. The electric >>>> field of the comet interacts with the electric field of the Sun, and a >>>> CME occurs. The electric interaction is also the reason for cometary >>>> tails, by the way. >>>> The level of denial the academic community is in regard to this, is >>>> simply astounding. >>>> >>> This feels intuitively wrong. If the charge were high enough to cause >>> such >>> havoc, and were repulsive (as the direction of the tail would imply), >>> then the >>> whole comet should never get anywhere near the Sun. >>> >> >>If gravitational attraction is greater than electrical repulsion, the >>overall effect will still be attraction. >>An attractive inverse square law plus another (smaller) repulsive >>inverse square law, will still be an attractive inverse square law. > > ...but the tail blows away from the Sun, implying that it is carrying the > charge. As it blows away it should leave the rest of the comet neutral > (the > comets charge should be on it's surface). Especially as it gets really > close to > the Sun where the surface is heated enough to evaporate easily. > IOW the charge should all boil off, on the first pass, leaving none for > subsequent passes.
Not if the comet charges itself again in its next excursion to the cold and distant reaches of the solar system. > > I wonder if you get solar flares with every cometary impact, or only with > some of them? I wonder the same. And what about asteroids (so called sungrazers) impacts? This is a very interesting subject. Look at this movie, by example: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/CME_May11_zoom.mpg Taken from http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/ By the way, according to what is said there the academics seem to be changing their discourse. They morphed it from "no connection" to "unknown connection". This is logical: scientists only want to talk about what they know. They also don't like to be seen saying silly, too speculative, or outright erroneous things. Take into account also that in the previous page it's said: "In fact, analysis of this CME using images from the Solar Dynamics Observatory shows that the CME erupted before the comet came close enough to the solar surface to interact with strong magnetic fields." This seems to rule out Horace's "kinetic energy" explanation. And by the way, also an electric/electromagnetic explanation? Not so fast, William. Here's a possible mechanism for cometary caused CMEs: - The solar surface is in a state of very unstable equilibrium. - CMEs are the rupture of that equilibrium for some area of the surface. Sunspots are the opposite to CMEs, by the way, a rupure of the equilibrium but in the opposite direction. - When the comet is close, its *gravitational* field attracts parts of the solar surface, which separates from the rest. When these parts are elevated in relation to the surface, they enter the zone of the solar corona where the solar wind is formed, and they are quickly absorbed and dispersed by the coronal process, and ejected then as part of the solar wind. The high temperatures of the solar corona are a mystery too, and they can probably be explained taking into account phenomena of electrical nature. The sun is at the same time a gravitational sink, and an electromagnetic emitter embedded in an electric field. The solar surface represents the zone of equilibrium between those two modes. Any small disturbance caused a restoring of equilibrium, in the form of a CME if the equilibrium is disturbed preponderantly outwards, or in the form of a sunspot, if it's disturbed preponderantely inwards. There you have it. The power of group mind? > (BTW I don't think I should have entered into this discussion at all.) > Regards, Why not? fringe science gets you the chills?
