Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 17/03/2015 23:41:33
-
What makes lightning?
-
What makes lightning?
Air currents moving adjacent to each other and over the ground produce static electricity. When the potential reaches enough voltage, the lightning will ark between the earth and cloud or at times, even between different clouds.
-
if an electron hits an atom, its impact force will make the atom ring like a bell. if the force strong enough, the atom rings 4 t0 8 x 10^14 time per second, you see light.
from lighting to piezoelectric spark, same principle.
-
if an electron hits an atom, its impact force will make the atom ring like a bell.
It is true that at "room temperature" (around 25°C), molecules can have various vibrational modes, depending on the number of atoms and the shape of the molecules. As the molecules zip around at roughly the speed of sound, they bump into each other and into walls, changing these vibrational modes, and often releasing or absorbing photons in the infra-red band. It would be fairly accurate to say that these molecules "ring like a bell". However, the frequency of the photons released is related to the energy change in the molecule, rather than the vibrational frequency of the molecule before, during or after the colission.
In contrast to the air molecules around you now, during a lightning storm, electric fields can exceed 1 Million volts per meter. At these voltages, any free electrons or ions in the air will be accelerated to high velocities, with energies of tens of electron volts. When they strike an atom or molecule, the energy of the impact is enough to rip an electron off the atom. Now you have 3 ions, which are all accelerated and crash into other atoms.
This process where the insulating air suddenly turns into a conductive arc is called electrical breakdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_breakdown#Mechanism).
In this case, you cannot say that the atom rings like a bell; the atoms and molecules are actually torn apart, separating the outer electrons from the nucleus.
The power dissipated in the arc (Power =Voltage x Current) results in a rapid increase in temperature, to as much as 30,000°C (much hotter than the Sun's feeble 5,500°C). This high temperature radiates considerable energy as light, keeping the arc from going to even higher temperatures. The Stefan-Boltzman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law) law says that the power radiated is proportional to the (Temperature)4. This means that lightning radiates almost 900 times more electromagnetic radiation than the same amount of matter at the temperature of the Sun.
if the atom rings 4 to 8 x 10^14 time per second, you see light.
Matter at 30,000C does not consist of atoms, but of charged fragments, forming a plasma. The plasma emits a broad spectrum of "black-body radiation", with most of the energy in the ultraviolet, and a minority in the visible range.
When the electric charge is spent, the arc stops, and electrons are attracted to positive ions and recombine. The release of electric potential energy results in the emission of light, producing a line spectrum which is characteristic of the energy levels of each atom (mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen in Earth's atmosphere).
-
Thank you for the replies although there seems to be a difference of opinion.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Can you just say in normal language what happens inside the cloud at point zero where the lightning starts from?
example language use - the lightning positive energy centripetal gathers and is contained by the negative energy around it until the positive energy repels itself and breaks confinement in a burst.
something explained that sort of way please.
-
when a positive lighting cloud meets a negative lighting cloud, if 1 is hot enough, the other 1 will jumps over with energy burst following a long tail of lighting.
the tails of the lighting spread out like a tree branch.
-
now you see why during a strom you should not standing under a tree?
-
when a positive lighting cloud meets a negative lighting cloud, if 1 is hot enough, the other 1 will jumps over with energy burst following a long tail of lighting.
the tails of the lighting spread out like a tree branch.
What is a negative lightning cloud?
And which stream of ground lightning is the positive, the one that leaves the ground or the one that leaves the sky ?
Both streams the leader and tail both emit light, are they both not a positive?
-
it all depends on the condition.
wind speed, temperature of the cloud etc.
-
it all depends on the condition.
wind speed, temperature of the cloud etc.
Both streams the leader and tail both emit light, are they both not a positive?
step leader and streamer to you guys.
-
the leader maybe is photoshoped.
-
the leader maybe is photoshoped.
I have seen many documentaries and pictures on the internet showing the streamer. The step leader is what falls from the sky, the streamer is the coupling emitted from the ground.
I think I understand lightning now thank you.
Does lightning actually always come from the ground and does this?
The central ball thing on the left being the Earths core, the central ball thing on the right being the Sun,
The glass and space in the glass being a magnetic field.
This being a shadow of our own planet or other planet or even the shadow of a black hole.
My question still is about the negative or positive of the step leader and streamer.
You got to admire Tesla.
Sorry my mind has ran wild again and left me with a rather strange thought about a cluster of positive charged particles, the cluster particles would want to repel each other and tear the cluster of positive particles apart, positive attracts negative so a surrounding cluster of negative must surround a positive cluster to hold the positive cluster together until the positive cluster gains enough energy to explode out of its virtual confinement of a negative cluster.(lightning balls)
-
did tesla showed you the mechanism of lightning?
-
did tesla showed you the mechanism of lightning?
Of cause not Tesla is not alive. I say what I see trying to view it from which ever scientists perspective I am considering and ask questions about what I see.
My thoughts are reckless today,
Is positive energy anti-matter? on the assumption that positive energy repels positive.
-
Thank you for the replies although there seems to be a difference of opinion.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Can you just say in normal language what happens inside the cloud at point zero where the lightning starts from?
The apparent difference of opinion is because jccc is like yourself and likes to provide his own interpretation of reality. The rest of us agree, but you might get different ways of saying things.
Normal language? I assume you have not read the links I gave you.
In theory you should read all of volume 1 before going here http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html
But if you look at section 9.3 it gives a good idea of what is happening.
Try to understand reality before you invent your own - that goes for you too jccc [:D]
Come back if you have any questions, but remember this part of the forum is for normal physics, not new theories.
-
Thank you for the replies although there seems to be a difference of opinion.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Can you just say in normal language what happens inside the cloud at point zero where the lightning starts from?
The apparent difference of opinion is because jccc is like yourself and likes to provide his own interpretation of reality. The rest of us agree, but you might get different ways of saying things.
Normal language? I assume you have not read the links I gave you.
In theory you should read all of volume 1 before going here http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html
But if you look at section 9.3 it gives a good idea of what is happening.
Try to understand reality before you invent your own - that goes for you too jccc [:D]
Come back if you have any questions, but remember this part of the forum is for normal physics, not new theories.
I am asking normal questions, I asked about the leader and trailer , are they both positive?
I understand there is electrical energy in the air and in space from your link. I have no problem visualising a neutralised energy with no net charge.
-
Can you just say in normal language what happens inside the cloud at point zero where the lightning starts from?
example language use - the lightning positive energy centripetal gathers and is contained by the negative energy around it until the positive energy repels itself and breaks confinement in a burst.
something explained that sort of way please.
The problem I have talking to you is shown by the 'example language use' . It doesn't make sense to me. Why is centripetal in there?
Both streams the leader and tail both emit light, are they both not a positive?
Sorry, didn't see that question in the midst of the jccc stuff.
The thing to remember about electricity, both static and the stuff in wires, is that it is all relative. It is the potential difference between 2 surfaces that is the important thing to consider. So we can have 2 surfaces both negative, but if one is more negative than the other we have a difference of electrical potential ( a potential difference). If this difference is great enough the charges will be able to overcome the resistance of the air in between and equalise - in a discharge. The greater the difference, the greater the discharge. As the discharge passes through the air, the energy released excites the atoms in the air molecules by pushing the electrons to a higher energy level, as they 'fall' back they release light. It matters not if it is a positive or negative discharge.
Does that help?
-
by pushing the electrons to a higher energy level, as they 'fall' back they release light.
what is energy level? are you sure there is such thing? do you have the mechanism?
a hydrogen atom has 1 proton and 1 electron as science said, what force keeps them apart? isn't they should attract each other with 10^39 g force?
-
What makes lightning?
There's a fair bit of poppcock in the replies above, and not a lot of physics. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase the question: are you interested in how clouds acquire an electric charge, how the lightning discharge initiates, or why we see it?
-
what is energy level? are you sure there is such thing? do you have the mechanism?
Dear jccc
Can I suggest you take the cover off your computer, take a hammer and chisel, pride apart the main processor and count the number of 0s and 1s you can see.
Children, don't try this at home!
-
Does lightning actually always come from the ground?
No. In the tropics, most lightning is between clouds (the positive and negative clouds that jccc talked about).
Some lightning strikes extend upwards from the clouds up to the edge of space.
And which stream of ground lightning is the positive, the one that leaves the ground or the one that leaves the sky ?
Normally, in "negative lightning", the cloud is negative and the ground is positive.
Relatively recently, it was discovered that anvil clouds can be charged positively, and the ground negative, leading to very powerful events called "positive lightning".
Both streams the leader and tail both emit light, are they both not a positive?
Any flow of ions (positive or negative) is able to excite the electrons, or even rip the electrons right off the atom. Both cases will emit light.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Types
-
what is energy level? are you sure there is such thing? do you have the mechanism?
Dear jccc
Can I suggest you take the cover off your computer, take a hammer and chisel, pride apart the main processor and count the number of 0s and 1s you can see.
Children, don't try this at home!
1. i don't have my own pc.
2. i have hard time counting anything over 365.
3. what if those 1 and 0 jump over my head making an arc?
-
What makes lightning?
There's a fair bit of poppcock in the replies above, and not a lot of physics. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase the question: are you interested in how clouds acquire an electric charge, how the lightning discharge initiates, or why we see it?
I am interested in point zero,how the lightning discharge initiates, the initial point in a cloud where lightning starts its short journey.
I am confused how something that is light can be a negative?
I am interested in why the ground emits a streamer.
-
What makes lightning?
There's a fair bit of poppcock in the replies above, and not a lot of physics. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase the question: are you interested in how clouds acquire an electric charge, how the lightning discharge initiates, or why we see it?
Alan, the specific question I was trying to answer with my piece of poppycock was:
Both streams the leader and tail both emit light, are they both not a positive?
-
i guess tesla is some how joined the this thread.
look all the 3 parts comments.
it is odd.
-
Lightning isn't light - that may be the cause of your confusion. What you see is the light emitted by the hot plasma formed when an electrical current flows through the air.
Negative and positive refer to the electrostatic charges of the two objects (usually cloud and ground respectively) between which the discharge current flows.
The ground "streamer" is again the light emitted by the hot plasma at the start of the discharge. It is as likely that the discharge will initiate from the ground as from the cloud - in fact probably more likely as there are sharp features on the ground and the electric field gradient around a charged object is greatest where the radius of curvature is least.
Whilst the ground streamer usually has a distinct origin, there probably isn't a definite "point zero" in the cloud - several discharge paths may begin but they usually coalsece into a single apparent origin where the current density is sufficient to produce a hot plasma.
-
What makes lightning?
There's a fair bit of poppcock in the replies above, and not a lot of physics. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase the question: are you interested in how clouds acquire an electric charge, how the lightning discharge initiates, or why we see it?
Alan, the specific question I was trying to answer with my piece of poppycock......
Exonerated! it turns out that the poppycock all seemes to emanate from Brain Zero, alias jccc.
-
Lightning isn't light - that may be the cause of your confusion. What you see is the light emitted by the hot plasma formed when an electrical current flows through the air.
Negative and positive refer to the electrostatic charges of the two objects (usually cloud and ground respectively) between which the discharge current flows.
The ground "streamer" is again the light emitted by the hot plasma at the start of the discharge. It is as likely that the discharge will initiate from the ground as from the cloud - in fact probably more likely as there are sharp features on the ground and the electric field gradient around a charged object is greatest where the radius of curvature is least.
Whilst the ground streamer usually has a distinct origin, there probably isn't a definite "point zero" in the cloud - several discharge paths may begin but they usually coalsece into a single apparent origin where the current density is sufficient to produce a hot plasma.
I do understand lightning is a plasma and do I understand plasma containment.
You say- ''Negative and positive refer to the electrostatic charges of the two objects (usually cloud and ground respectively) between which the discharge current flows.''
So lets say the ground in this instance is the negative, how does the negative ground emit a positive plasma streamer?
What goes up and what comes down is the same stuff right?
Is the space between the clouds and the ground the negative?
-
Why "say the ground is negative" if it's actually positive, as you can see from the streamer charge, and as I said in my explanation?
"What goes up" is then positive charge, and "what comes down" is negative charge. The (mostly neutral) air in between just gets cooked because it's in the way.
-
Why "say the ground is negative" if it's actually positive, as you can see from the streamer charge, and as I said in my explanation?
"What goes up" is then positive charge, and "what comes down" is negative charge. The (mostly neutral) air in between just gets cooked because it's in the way.
What comes down is the same has what goes up, neither can be negative?
I get the cloud is a negative mass, that extracts a positive from the air , the ground and also the sun.
A firstly unseen action, and when the cloud can not absorb any more energy the cloud surges and sends back through itself of an unseen stream, a backwards surge giving the effect of seen lightning?
I am going fishing soon for 24 hrs so it i will be friday night before I respond.
If you could have a mass of solely negative charge, and surrounding that mass was a positive charged atmosphere, the positive charge would do its best to centripetal find and attract to the center of mass of the negative object where the object is it's most density?
-
It's a imbalance, corrected by the lightening we observe, possibly :)
Or it is 'forces' doing battle?
Or it is the Gods will :)
Or it is http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/estatics/Lesson-4/Lightning
-
Hope you had a relaxing and successful fishing trip. I hope you're not going to bait us too much on your return [;)]
With the notable exception of jccc, we are trying to give you explanation appropriate to a forum. That means the answers are short ones rather than textbook size and so make some assumptions about your general knowledge. Physics is a collection of separate but interrelated areas of knowledge and it's not possible to explain every interrelationship in a forum.
However, if someone is a genuine seeker of knowledge we will do our best, but as we have said before you need to do more background reading and study.
You often say that you understand things, like plasma, charge, discharge, interference, etc but then you ask questions or make statements which indicate you don't.
A firstly unseen action, and when the cloud can not absorb any more energy the cloud surges and sends back through itself of an unseen stream, a backwards surge giving the effect of seen lightning?
The cloud does not surge or send anything through itself. It is the charged particles and electrons that do the moving.
If you could have a mass of solely negative charge, and surrounding that mass was a positive charged atmosphere, the positive charge would do its best to centripetal find and attract to the center of mass of the negative object where the object is it's most density?
Why do you use the word centripetal again? What curved path are you thinking about?
Ignoring centripetal. Both the +ve and -ve charged areas (avoid using mass in this context - see PS at end) would attract each other. Where they meet equalisation of charge (which is discharge) will occur. Which one does the moving depends on how fixed the objects or zones of charge are and which are free to move. Where both are fixed, charge can move through intermediaries such as ions or charged particles - dust, water droplets, etc.
It is not correct to talk about the centre of mass of a charged object as electrostatic charges do not work like gravity. Similarly charge density does not work like the density of mass. It is much better to think of charge on the surface of an object.
I suggest you study how charge accumulates through transfer of electrons. Then look at ions. Then think through how charge transfers from one area to another either through direct transfer of electrons or via intermediate ions and charged particles.
Any specific questions we'll try to answer.
Edit:PS added - although we speak of a mass of things, meaning a large collection, it is easy to become confused between the mass of an object, it's density, and the effect of gravity, compared to electrostatic attraction and charge density - they are not directly comparable.
-
TheBox, i hope you don't mind, i was kidding about the tree branches, because you think my language is hard to understand.
the rest people's answers are all correct, trust me.
-
Why "say the ground is negative" if it's actually positive, as you can see from the streamer charge, and as I said in my explanation?
"What goes up" is then positive charge, and "what comes down" is negative charge. The (mostly neutral) air in between just gets cooked because it's in the way.
What comes down is the same has what goes up, neither can be negative?
NO! I just said that what goes up is the opposite of what comes down!!!
I get the cloud is a negative mass, that extracts a positive from the air , the ground and also the sun.
I don't know where you "get" that from. Convection within the cloud separates charges (like a VandeGraaf generator) so that the bottom of the cloud acquires a negative charge and the top acquires a positive charge. The positive charge rarely discharges to ground because a good thundercloud can be 30,000 feet high, with the base only 2- 3000 ft above ground.
A firstly unseen action, and when the cloud can not absorb any more energy the cloud surges and sends back through itself of an unseen stream, a backwards surge giving the effect of seen lightning?
Intra-cloud discharge can occur but most of what is observed is cloud-to-ground discharge.
I am going fishing soon for 24 hrs so it i will be friday night before I respond.
Good luck! I'm off to spend a day in an operating theatre - look forward to catching up with you later.
If you could have a mass of solely negative charge, and surrounding that mass was a positive charged atmosphere, the positive charge would do its best to centripetal find and attract to the center of mass of the negative object where the object is it's most density?
I think you mean that opposite charges attract. I'd agree
-
I am interested in.. how the lightning discharge initiates, the initial point in a cloud where lightning starts its short journey.
a cluster of positive charged particles, the cluster particles would want to repel each other
The cloud has an electric charge, which repels like charges. It is surrounded by a volume of air which does not have the same charge. So the initial tree-like structure of discharges effectively reaches every part of the surrounding air, equalising the cloud's charge with the charge in the nearby volume of air. This process is most effective where the electric field gradient is strongest, which is near the source of the charge (the cloud, or a lightning rod on the Earth).
To initiate a conductive path from cloud to ground, it has been suggested that (at least in some cases), cosmic rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Role_in_lightning) from outer space strike the Earth's atmosphere, shattering the atoms in the atmosphere, and creating a variety of ionised paths through the cloud to ground. The charge in the cloud (and surrounding air) then follows this conductive path, further ionising it, and turning it into the familiar lightning bolt.
Centripetal
I think that you are using "Centripetal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal)" here quite literally and accurately as a "force towards the center".
However, physicists normally use it only in the context of a body rotating around another body, like a stone whirled on a string, or a planet circling a star (at least, English-speaking physicists). We would not use it to describe static charges surrounding a cloud being attracted to a cloud.
(Of course, there is probably a way that you could use centripetal in the context of a spinning tornado, but lightning still happens without a tornado..)
-
What goes up and what comes down is the same stuff right?
Yes, electron flow through ionized air and water vapor. When there's a surplus in the clouds, the flow goes to the ground. When there's a surplus in the ground, the flow goes to the clouds.
-
I am interested in.. how the lightning discharge initiates, the initial point in a cloud where lightning starts its short journey.
a cluster of positive charged particles, the cluster particles would want to repel each other
The cloud has an electric charge, which repels like charges. It is surrounded by a volume of air which does not have the same charge. So the initial tree-like structure of discharges effectively reaches every part of the surrounding air, equalising the cloud's charge with the charge in the nearby volume of air. This process is most effective where the electric field gradient is strongest, which is near the source of the charge (the cloud, or a lightning rod on the Earth).
To initiate a conductive path from cloud to ground, it has been suggested that (at least in some cases), cosmic rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Role_in_lightning) from outer space strike the Earth's atmosphere, shattering the atoms in the atmosphere, and creating a variety of ionised paths through the cloud to ground. The charge in the cloud (and surrounding air) then follows this conductive path, further ionising it, and turning it into the familiar lightning bolt.
Centripetal
I think that you are using "Centripetal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal)" here quite literally and accurately as a "force towards the center".
However, physicists normally use it only in the context of a body rotating around another body, like a stone whirled on a string, or a planet circling a star (at least, English-speaking physicists). We would not use it to describe static charges surrounding a cloud being attracted to a cloud.
(Of course, there is probably a way that you could use centripetal in the context of a spinning tornado, but lightning still happens without a tornado..)
Yes, indeed I use centripetal literally, If I personally was referring to centripetal in the context of a bodies orbit of another body I would of referred to that as centripetal acceleration.
I returned early from fishing after sitting in a beautiful mornings eclipse to again put my mind back into science after an eclipse that had apparent effect on brain function, I personally sort of the felt the eclipse in my head and a few other people had said to me while it was happening there was also strange happenings in their head.
Electrical frequency is what we are and how we live by.
So moving on and looking over several points that have been said, I relate lightning to the mechanism of gravity.
I do know that science does not associate lightning with gravity but I suggest that it is cause and mechanism of gravity, not has lightning of cause, but of process.
The density at the bottom of a cloud being gravity dependent and of collected carbon etc that the content is effected by gravity grouping in greater density than the top of the cloud which is less dense because all of the negativeness of the uncharged negative man made waste gases etc, being expended of energy making negative atoms that are attracting back to the greater positive of the earths core.
An equilibrium of energy displacement by a critical balanced system of energy equal to the balance of force.
Saying gravity is ions effect.
What do you think?
-
Why "say the ground is negative" if it's actually positive, as you can see from the streamer charge, and as I said in my explanation?
"What goes up" is then positive charge, and "what comes down" is negative charge. The (mostly neutral) air in between just gets cooked because it's in the way.
What comes down is the same has what goes up, neither can be negative?
NO! I just said that what goes up is the opposite of what comes down!!!
I get the cloud is a negative mass, that extracts a positive from the air , the ground and also the sun.
I don't know where you "get" that from. Convection within the cloud separates charges (like a VandeGraaf generator) so that the bottom of the cloud acquires a negative charge and the top acquires a positive charge. The positive charge rarely discharges to ground because a good thundercloud can be 30,000 feet high, with the base only 2- 3000 ft above ground.
A firstly unseen action, and when the cloud can not absorb any more energy the cloud surges and sends back through itself of an unseen stream, a backwards surge giving the effect of seen lightning?
Intra-cloud discharge can occur but most of what is observed is cloud-to-ground discharge.
I am going fishing soon for 24 hrs so it i will be friday night before I respond.
Good luck! I'm off to spend a day in an operating theatre - look forward to catching up with you later.
If you could have a mass of solely negative charge, and surrounding that mass was a positive charged atmosphere, the positive charge would do its best to centripetal find and attract to the center of mass of the negative object where the object is it's most density?
I think you mean that opposite charges attract. I'd agree
How can what goes up be the opposite of what comes down, they are both a plasma and both emit light suggesting both are a positive in energy.
How can a negative possibly emit light?
-
Hope you had a relaxing and successful fishing trip. I hope you're not going to bait us too much on your return [;)]
With the notable exception of jccc, we are trying to give you explanation appropriate to a forum. That means the answers are short ones rather than textbook size and so make some assumptions about your general knowledge. Physics is a collection of separate but interrelated areas of knowledge and it's not possible to explain every interrelationship in a forum.
However, if someone is a genuine seeker of knowledge we will do our best, but as we have said before you need to do more background reading and study.
You often say that you understand things, like plasma, charge, discharge, interference, etc but then you ask questions or make statements which indicate you don't.
A firstly unseen action, and when the cloud can not absorb any more energy the cloud surges and sends back through itself of an unseen stream, a backwards surge giving the effect of seen lightning?
The cloud does not surge or send anything through itself. It is the charged particles and electrons that do the moving.
If you could have a mass of solely negative charge, and surrounding that mass was a positive charged atmosphere, the positive charge would do its best to centripetal find and attract to the center of mass of the negative object where the object is it's most density?
Why do you use the word centripetal again? What curved path are you thinking about?
Ignoring centripetal. Both the +ve and -ve charged areas (avoid using mass in this context - see PS at end) would attract each other. Where they meet equalisation of charge (which is discharge) will occur. Which one does the moving depends on how fixed the objects or zones of charge are and which are free to move. Where both are fixed, charge can move through intermediaries such as ions or charged particles - dust, water droplets, etc.
It is not correct to talk about the centre of mass of a charged object as electrostatic charges do not work like gravity. Similarly charge density does not work like the density of mass. It is much better to think of charge on the surface of an object.
I suggest you study how charge accumulates through transfer of electrons. Then look at ions. Then think through how charge transfers from one area to another either through direct transfer of electrons or via intermediate ions and charged particles.
Any specific questions we'll try to answer.
Edit:PS added - although we speak of a mass of things, meaning a large collection, it is easy to become confused between the mass of an object, it's density, and the effect of gravity, compared to electrostatic attraction and charge density - they are not directly comparable.
+ve and -ve charged areas , a +ve area, what gives a +ve area such has a sprite the ability to not tear itself apart by a charged ions repelling each other?
Is it the enclosure of the negative ions being attracted to the +ve group?
-
What goes up and what comes down is the same stuff right?
Yes, electron flow through ionized air and water vapor. When there's a surplus in the clouds, the flow goes to the ground. When there's a surplus in the ground, the flow goes to the clouds.
The electron is positive right and the Proton is really negative and history got this backwards and it was never changed just to confuse everyone right??
A proton is not attracted to a proton unless + 1 ve and the attracting force remained 0 ve?
Helium and Hydrogen are + ions naturally and are repelled by the + ions earths core?
Air is naturally, - ions and is attracted centripetally to the + ionised core?
Air becomes a positive ion when energy is added to the air and then becomes repelled from the core + ions and rises?
The ground is + ions and negative ions receptive to a change of equilibrium by energy added or removed?
Water is mainly negative ions with a charged + ion thermoclide layer, and also evaporation caused by + ionisation where the water turns into + ions then cools in the uper layers to become - ions again. Ice is neutralised + and - to give a buoyancy effect being attracted to the + core and the - air at the same time?
Clouds are pockets of energy different energy to the constant surrounding of the space?
Why do clouds float when they are denser than air
P.s No I have not gone off subject.
-
The electron is positive right and the Proton is really negative and history got this backwards and it was never changed just to confuse everyone right??
No, an electron is defined as negative. Are you are thinking of the convention for current flow in electrical circuits which is opposite to electron flow - it is still correct however, because it is only a convention.
+ve and -ve charged areas , a +ve area, what gives a +ve area such has a sprite the ability to not tear itself apart by a charged ions repelling each other?
Is it the enclosure of the negative ions being attracted to the +ve group?
In an area of charged ions, let's say +ve, they will try to push themselves apart. That is why I suggested you consider charge to be on the surface of an area.
If you enclose a -ve area within the +ve area the 2 will attract each other keeping the +ve in, but the 2 will also begin to discharge.
This might be a reason for the ball discharge seen,but I can think of other mechanisms such as differences in air temperature causing local pockets of inversion which might hold the charge together, or moisture. I don't know what the current theories are, so they might be open to speculation and you might post your theories in New Theories.
Just a suggestion. Don't mention gravity.
Also take care with words like centripetal and interference, they have very specific technical meanings and you risk being misunderstood if you misuse them in a science forum, but then that might be your objective!
-
The electron is positive right and the Proton is really negative and history got this backwards and it was never changed just to confuse everyone right??
You're confusing the arbitrary signs we give particles with the balance between opposite charges. Consider the following thought experiment. We have two cylinders connected by a small tube or pipe with a valve in between. In one cylinder, we have air compressed to 5 atmospheres and in the other, we have just one atmosphere. What happens when we open the valve? The pressure will flow from the pressurized cylinder to the less pressurized one. It's similar with the situation we have regarding the electrical potential between the earth and clouds.
Consider the thought experiment we just talked about. We don't need to give a positive or negative sign to the air in the cylinders, all we need to know is which cylinder has the greater pressure. The signs we give to elementary particles is an arbitrary value and only represents the opposite spin they possess.
So even though the cloud may have a surplus of electrons relative to the ground, this fact does not make the electron a positive particle. It's called a negative particle simply because it's opposite that of the proton.
-
The electron is positive right and the Proton is really negative and history got this backwards and it was never changed just to confuse everyone right??
No, an electron is defined as negative. Are you are thinking of the convention for current flow in electrical circuits which is opposite to electron flow - it is still correct however, because it is only a convention.
+ve and -ve charged areas , a +ve area, what gives a +ve area such has a sprite the ability to not tear itself apart by a charged ions repelling each other?
Is it the enclosure of the negative ions being attracted to the +ve group?
In an area of charged ions, let's say +ve, they will try to push themselves apart. That is why I suggested you consider charge to be on the surface of an area.
If you enclose a -ve area within the +ve area the 2 will attract each other keeping the +ve in, but the 2 will also begin to discharge.
This might be a reason for the ball discharge seen,but I can think of other mechanisms such as differences in air temperature causing local pockets of inversion which might hold the charge together, or moisture. I don't know what the current theories are, so they might be open to speculation and you might post your theories in New Theories.
Just a suggestion. Don't mention gravity.
Also take care with words like centripetal and interference, they have very specific technical meanings and you risk being misunderstood if you misuse them in a science forum, but then that might be your objective!
I was told on other forums that history labelled the Proton a positive although it is a negative?
I am considering 2 surfaces! but not a solid surface like you are considering or like Einstein's Photo electrical effect, I am considering two invisible surfaces or transparent without Physical body surfaces but have presence.
I am visualising + and - energy, I have an empty void with just + and - invisible clouds, I am visualising the effect and how positive would always repel positive and how negative would be a binding of the positives.
In searching to unify everything , gravity mechanism is important, it may be seen has off track to my questions, but it is relevant to unity and what I am trying to discuss and ask about lightning.
-
The electron is positive right and the Proton is really negative and history got this backwards and it was never changed just to confuse everyone right??
You're confusing the arbitrary signs we give particles with the balance between opposite charges. Consider the following thought experiment. We have two cylinders connected by a small tube or pipe with a valve in between. In one cylinder, we have air compressed to 5 atmospheres and in the other, we have just one atmosphere. What happens when we open the valve? The pressure will flow from the pressurized cylinder to the less pressurized one. It's similar with the situation we have regarding the electrical potential between the earth and clouds.
Consider the thought experiment we just talked about. We don't need to give a positive or negative sign to the air in the cylinders, all we need to know is which cylinder has the greater pressure. The signs we give to elementary particles is an arbitrary value and only represents the opposite spin they possess.
So even though the cloud may have a surplus of electrons relative to the ground, this fact does not make the electron a positive particle. It's called a negative particle simply because it's opposite that of the proton.
It is called an entropy of an isolated system different to that of a transparent system.
A cylinder like you suggest does not represent natural process, the Universe is open plan , all actions have an explanation, most actions can have maths fitted to explain the process on a quantifiable level.
Pressure of air on the earth is thermodynamics and ion flux?
I am never complacent the information as to be in full and not part information.
-
Pressure of air on the earth is thermodynamics and ion flux?
I am never complacent the information as to be in full and not part information.
My example was an attempt to explain the similarity between these two scenarios, and was not to suggest they are the same. You're not listening very well to the information we're trying to convey.
The electron has been given a negative sign because it's opposite that of the proton. It really makes no difference which sign we give either particle, only that they are opposite. Just because there may be a surplus of electrons in the cloud does not make the electron positive.
-
Pressure of air on the earth is thermodynamics and ion flux?
I am never complacent the information as to be in full and not part information.
My example was an attempt to explain the similarity between these two scenarios, and was not to suggest they are the same. You're not listening very well to the information we're trying to convey.
The electron has been given a negative sign because it's opposite that of the proton. It really makes no difference which sign we give either particle, only that they are opposite. Just because there may be a surplus of electrons in the cloud does not make the electron positive.
But the electron regardless of a negative sign is a positive energy right?
A cloud full of electrons is differential to the surrounding no cloud enclosure of transparent space right?
The cloud surface enclosed by the space surface?
A cloud is the epoch of recombination?
-
But the electron regardless of a negative sign is a positive energy right?
No..........The electron has the attribute of energy and is not considered energy per se. The same can be said for the proton, it has energy but can't be called energy. Both the electron and proton contain energy, the basic difference between them is the direction of their spin "charge" and their mass.
-
But the electron regardless of a negative sign is a positive energy right?
No..........The electron has the attribute of energy and is not considered energy per say. The same can be said for the proton, it has energy but can't be called energy. Both the electron and proton contain energy, the basic difference between them is the direction of their spin "charge" and their mass.
Ok thank you, I think I get how science see's it to be now rather different to how I see it.
If you can not see atoms, you obviously can not see Protons, you say Protons and electrons are the same thing, they both have energy attributes except they are of opposite polarities, if you can not see an atom, how do you know all this?
How do you know that the Proton does not emit an electrical field such as an electromagnetic field made of electrons, and the electron being a product of the proton rather than an attachment?
Does air have Neutrons?
Are neutrons attracted to protons?
-
Ok thank you, I think I get how science see's it to be now rather different to how I see it.
Scientific experiment has evidence for these facts and just because you don't see it does not make your interpretation right.
I'll offer you one last comment and then I'm out of this conversation.
The 'electron and the proton' both contain energy. It's called electromagnetic energy. The only negative energy I know of is gravitational energy.
Please try to spend some time studying about this before you make statements that can't be verified. I've tried to explain these facts, but now it's up to you to search out whether you or I are correct. I base my understanding upon the research and evidence which greater minds than you or I have obtained throughout history.
Good luck with your research...........................
-
Ok thank you, I think I get how science see's it to be now rather different to how I see it.
Scientific experiment has evidence for these facts and just because you don't see it does not make your interpretation right.
I'll offer you one last comment and then I'm out of this conversation.
The 'electron and the proton' contain "positive energy". It's called electromagnetic energy. The only negative energy I know of is gravitational energy.
Please try to spend some time studying about this before you make statements that can't be verified. I've tried to explain these facts, but now it's up to you to search out whether you or I am correct. I base my understanding upon the research and evidence which greater minds than you or I have obtained throughout history.
Good luck with your research...........................
I am asking questions not stating anything. Your main evidence is electron micro scope where electrons are seen on the surface of the object by bombarding the object with electrons, kind of ironic, the same as a recent light experiment and electron use showed light waves on a surface .
By interference and manually exciting the atoms, what says the excitement is not proton released?
What part does the neutron play?
what allows the neutron to be attracted and part of an atom?
what part does the neutron have in lightning?
Does the neutron absorb energy?
-
TheBox, try this 1,
http://www.sciforums.com
-
I am considering 2 surfaces! but not a solid surface like you are considering .....
No, I'm not considering solid surfaces.
We were discussing lightning. If you have a cloud, or a volume of air, carrying a charge, the outer edge of that volume is the surface I was talking about. It could also be an invisible volume of air.
I'll make one other comment although it's not part of my reply
Your main evidence is electron micro scope ........
That statement is incorrect.
By interference and manually exciting the atoms, what says the excitement is not proton released?
Mass
Do some more reading as advised. That last answer should have been obvious if you had.
I'm out of this thread until you do.
-
TheBox, try this 1,
http://www.sciforums.com
Been there, wore the shirt, got banned, they claimed I could not write, was disillusioned etc and they had no idea what i was saying.
-
I am considering 2 surfaces! but not a solid surface like you are considering .....
No, I'm not considering solid surfaces.
We were discussing lightning. If you have a cloud, or a volume of air, carrying a charge, the outer edge of that volume is the surface I was talking about. It could also be an invisible volume of air.
I'll make one other comment although it's not part of my reply
Your main evidence is electron micro scope ........
That statement is incorrect.
By interference and manually exciting the atoms, what says the excitement is not proton released?
Mass
Do some more reading as advised. That last answer should have been obvious if you had.
I'm out of this thread until you do.
Apart from maths, is there anything I can really read that I can not think for myself about and question it?
My questions have not been answered, people avoid them.
what allows the neutron to be attracted and part of an atom?
what part does the neutron have in lightning?
Does the neutron absorb energy?
Is positive energy anti-matter?
added ? - Deuterium is negative?
-
My questions have not been answered, people avoid them.
No, you avoid listening!
what allows the neutron to be attracted and part of an atom?
The strong nuclear force.
what part does the neutron have in lightning?
It's just a part of the molecule that becomes ionized providing a path for the current to flow.
Does the neutron absorb energy?
I haven't looked into this very deeply but I'd say yes because all matter particles can acquire varying degrees of energy. But absorb is not the correct word to use here. Acquire might be more appropriate.
Is positive energy anti-matter?
Matter nor antimatter can be classed as energy. Energy is a separate and distinct attribute that matter has and can acquire.
added ? - Deuterium is negative?
Deuterium is the hydrogen atom with an added neutron within it's nucleus. Deuterium is a neutral atom because all the charges cancel out leaving zero charge.
All of this information is readily available at Wikipedia and I recommend that you explore the possibilities and opportunities registered there.
-
Apart from maths, is there anything I can really read that I can not think for myself about and question it?
That is a very arrogant viewpoint, it's basically saying there is nothing you can learn!
My questions have not been answered, people avoid them.
Rubbish, arrogance, stupidity.
I'm irritated, very
-
My questions have not been answered, people avoid them.
No, you avoid listening!
what allows the neutron to be attracted and part of an atom?
The strong nuclear force.
what part does the neutron have in lightning?
It's just a part of the molecule that becomes ionized providing a path for the current to flow.
Does the neutron absorb energy?
I haven't looked into this very deeply but I'd say yes because all matter particles can acquire varying degrees of energy. But absorb is not the correct word to use here. Acquire might be more appropriate.
Is positive energy anti-matter?
Matter nor antimatter can be classed as energy. Energy is a separate and distinct attribute that matter has and can acquire.
added ? - Deuterium is negative?
Deuterium is the hydrogen atom with an added neutron within it's nucleus. Deuterium is a neutral atom because all the charges cancel out leaving zero charge.
All of this information is readily available at Wikipedia and I recommend that you explore the possibilities and opportunities registered there.
You say the strong Nuclear force is why a Neutron is attracted and apart of the atom, that answer seems a bit narrow, can you expand the answer and explain how a Neutral can be attracted to anything?
You say ''Matter nor antimatter can be classed as energy. Energy is a separate and distinct attribute that matter has and can acquire.''
That was not my question, I asked if positive energy was anti matter as positive energy can not bind to itself of itself, where as a negative will not repel a negative, and matter both positive and negative is needed to form matter.
-
Apart from maths, is there anything I can really read that I can not think for myself about and question it?
That is a very arrogant viewpoint, it's basically saying there is nothing you can learn!
My questions have not been answered, people avoid them.
Rubbish, arrogance, stupidity.
I'm irritated, very
I am an amateur and have spent 4 years reading , I am not being arrogant , I have just done enough reading and I am discussing the reading, I will never be a scientist. If you do not wish to discuss science then why post in the first place?
You all answered my earlier questions and now I am talking complex and asking why is not this way or that way you seemingly shy away.
That is why we have question marks
Maybe I should start on something simple, what is happening in and of the ground before the streamer is emitted?
interaction learning is best
-
when a positive lighting cloud meets a negative lighting cloud, if 1 is hot enough, the other 1 will jumps over with energy burst following a long tail of lighting.
the tails of the lighting spread out like a tree branch.
A cloud can be a positive only, is that possible?
-
How can what goes up be the opposite of what comes down, they are both a plasma and both emit light suggesting both are a positive in energy.
How can a negative possibly emit light?
Simply appropriating scientific terms and stringing them into a sentence does not generate meaning. Adding a questionmark doesn't help. As you seem to have an idiosyncratic concept of positive, negative and energy, I don't think you are going to find yourself taken seriously in the company of scientists, for whom such words are currency.
-
How can what goes up be the opposite of what comes down, they are both a plasma and both emit light suggesting both are a positive in energy.
How can a negative possibly emit light?
Simply appropriating scientific terms and stringing them into a sentence does not generate meaning. Adding a questionmark doesn't help. As you seem to have an idiosyncratic concept of positive, negative and energy, I don't think you are going to find yourself taken seriously in the company of scientists, for whom such words are currency.
In reply
Mechanism is not the process like the hands on a clock but rather the internal workings that makes the process. We all know that we have a gravity calculation based on mass that defines orbital actions and an acceleration that an object will fall at too the Earth from the sky. This is process and actions rather than a mechanism, a comparison to owning a car and knowing it can move but not knowing what an engine is that drives the actions. It is also said that everything in the Universe of a matter or mediums form is made up of atoms, atoms consist of 3 Quarks that make up a Proton and also there is a Neutron that makes up the Nucleus of the atom and an electron of a outer electron shell , although some elements of the Universe made of atoms are without Neutrons. It is also explained that all matter or a medium has mass, mass being essential to the equations of the gravity calculation and Newtons force. Mass of an object is defined normally in kilograms, not to be mistaken for a weight which is Newtons of force calculated by an objects mass. In explanation of Gravity it is also said that all mass is attracted to mass, meaning any object of matter or mediums such as air are attracted to each other by Gravity of each others mass.
Atoms are bound together by a strong nuclear force and have the ability to become excited by gaining positive charge or becoming dormant when negative charged known in science as positive or negative charged ions. A positive ion will repel an equally positive ion where as a negative ion is attracted to a positive ion, a negative ion has no effect on a negative ion. In context referring to the actions of atmospheric gases and a said buoyancy , I would like to mention what I consider an ion flux and the ion flux being the magic and mechanism of gravity.
It is a well known fact that Helium and Hydrogen are buoyant gases and air is buoyancy dependant on energy in the air in the form of heat, hot air rises. However , where as Hydrogen and Helium will rise and remain rising, air has a differential in the characteristics of behaviour, when the air cools down as it rises the air eventually will fall back down to the Earth, a sort of yoyo action by thermodynamic increase or decrease. Air being made of atoms that becomes positively charged and rises opposing the effects of gravity and effectively decreasing in Newtons. A consequence of actions of being a positive more than a negative being repelled by the positive ion's Earth's core, from once it returns to its equilibrium state and loses the charge when the air is cooled as it rises creating a negative effect that then is attracted back down to the positive ion core.
Thanks for reading.
I will complete it tomorrow and link it to lightning.
-
How can what goes up be the opposite of what comes down, they are both a plasma and both emit light suggesting both are a positive in energy.
How can a negative possibly emit light?
Simply appropriating scientific terms and stringing them into a sentence does not generate meaning. Adding a questionmark doesn't help. As you seem to have an idiosyncratic concept of positive, negative and energy, I don't think you are going to find yourself taken seriously in the company of scientists, for whom such words are currency.
In reply
Mechanism is not the process like the hands on a clock but rather the internal workings that makes the process. We all know that we have a gravity calculation based on mass that defines orbital actions and an acceleration that an object will fall at too the Earth from the sky. This is process and actions rather than a mechanism, a comparison to owning a car and knowing it can move but not knowing what an engine is that drives the actions. It is also said that everything in the Universe of a matter or mediums form is made up of atoms, atoms consist of 3 Quarks that make up a Proton and also there is a Neutron that makes up the Nucleus of the atom and an electron of a outer electron shell , although some elements of the Universe made of atoms are without Neutrons. It is also explained that all matter or a medium has mass, mass being essential to the equations of the gravity calculation and Newtons force. Mass of an object is defined normally in kilograms, not to be mistaken for a weight which is Newtons of force calculated by an objects mass. In explanation of Gravity it is also said that all mass is attracted to mass, meaning any object of matter or mediums such as air are attracted to each other by Gravity of each others mass.
Atoms are bound together by a strong nuclear force and have the ability to become excited by gaining positive charge or becoming dormant when negative charged known in science as positive or negative charged ions. A positive ion will repel an equally positive ion where as a negative ion is attracted to a positive ion, a negative ion has no effect on a negative ion. In context referring to the actions of atmospheric gases and a said buoyancy , I would like to mention what I consider an ion flux and the ion flux being the magic and mechanism of gravity.
It is a well known fact that Helium and Hydrogen are buoyant gases and air is buoyancy dependant on energy in the air in the form of heat, hot air rises. However , where as Hydrogen and Helium will rise and remain rising, air has a differential in the characteristics of behaviour, when the air cools down as it rises the air eventually will fall back down to the Earth, a sort of yoyo action by thermodynamic increase or decrease. Air being made of atoms that becomes positively charged and rises opposing the effects of gravity and effectively decreasing in Newtons. A consequence of actions of being a positive more than a negative being repelled by the positive ion's Earth's core, from once it returns to its equilibrium state and loses the charge when the air is cooled as it rises creating a negative effect that then is attracted back down to the positive ion core.
Thanks for reading.
I will complete it tomorrow and link it to lightning.
I find myself in total agreement with you Alan.......................
-
At The Box. You say you have a desire to learn. This is a very positive thing. Some forum members, respecting that desire, have attempted to help you to learn, by answering your questions, pointing out errors in your thinking and providing links that go into greater depth.
Unfortunately, you do not appear to be willing to take advantage of any of this well intentioned help. Now that "appearance" may simply be a result of how you go about learning. Before I invest any time in helping you learn I would welcome an answer to these questions:
Do you accept that, for the most part, science has been able to provide detailed and well validated explanations for many aspects of "reality"?
If the answer is no,then why not?
-
At The Box. You say you have a desire to learn. This is a very positive thing. Some forum members, respecting that desire, have attempted to help you to learn, by answering your questions, pointing out errors in your thinking and providing links that go into greater depth.
Unfortunately, you do not appear to be willing to take advantage of any of this well intentioned help. Now that "appearance" may simply be a result of how you go about learning. Before I invest any time in helping you learn I would welcome an answer to these questions:
Do you accept that, for the most part, science has been able to provide detailed and well validated explanations for many aspects of "reality"?
If the answer is no,then why not?
I accept that the most part of science is correct. Who says I am not learning?
I am not accepting without questioning what I learn, a big difference.
I am not a ten year old who is scared to tell the teacher I think that is not quite right in fear of failure .
If something is logical it is good, if it not quite logical then I need to know why, I do not just want to know what an engine is, I want to know how the insides work.
I understand I present some difficult questions, but in discussion WE should be able to answer those questions , especially the questions with no answers yet such has gravity mechanism or lightning.
-
Continued questioning?
Continuing in my quest in search of full answers and not partial answers I considered the various effects of gravity on various elements. This lead me to the clouds and also a consideration for the mechanism of lightning. Clouds are the epoch of recombination of vaporised water molecules and a gathering of dust particles,smoke, Co2 etc.. The bottom of the cloud can be observed of becoming more dense allowing the bottom of the cloud to have a greater thermodynamic absorption in the occupied space. A density created by gravity pulling at the clouds elements, elements that are firstly more negative than positive but gradually becomes a more positive charge.
The top of the cloud does not propagate light has much as the bottom of the cloud where the greater density creates a cluster of positive ions, that are repelled by the positive ions of the planet and also repelled by the ionisation upper atmosphere layer to remain in a steady orbit above the ground but within our atmosphere suspended between the two positives I mentioned of the ionising core and ionising upper layer of the atmosphere.
A white cloud will reflect more light and allow more light to pass through than a dark cloud, space underneath a dark cloud becoming more negative than the space above the cloud. The cloud being a thermal and electrical barrier between the spaces that gains charge, a process by Kinetic action of the exited clouds atom’s being positive ion’s that is implemented by thermodynamic increase by light propagation by the density of the clouds lower layer implemented by gravity.
A process that which by positive ion’s become compressed centripetally into a cluster by the surrounding attracted negative ion’s with greater volume and the positive ion’s of the earth’s core and the upper layer positive ions forcing the positive ion’s of the cloud to be in a suspended equilibrium making a virtual containment that causes the positive ion’s of the cloud that have to repel each other to build up an energy pressure that eventually tears itself apart in an instant creating a directed burst of energy through a negative containment pathway of negative ion trails, creating a rift through the fabric of atmosphere.
In the ground there is a similar process and the ground gains a positive charge that in general comparison is spread out like water poured onto a flat surface and being a puddle. Then once the cloud releases its energy in the form of lightning , at that very instance the point zero of the clouds energy starting point becomes a negative that then sucks like a straw to that point the energy from the ground.
https://wordpress.com/read/post/id/65645687/271/
-
I accept that the most part of science is correct. Who says I am not learning?
I am not accepting without questioning what I learn, a big difference.
Very good. However, the manner in which you question creates the definite impression that you are not accepting, or perhaps not understanding the answers that are given to you.
Asking, both for clarity and in order to achieve a deeper understanding is welcome and desirable. But I would ask you to consider this. When I ask questions on forums I do so in the expectation that at least some of the answers will come from individuals who are more knowledgeable than I. I have hopes of receiving the "correct" answer. My starting assumption is that there is a good chance that this is possible. So far I have rarely been disappointed.
However, your questions create the impression that your starting assumption is that the answers you receive will be wrong. Further than that, there is an implication that you have about as good an idea of the answer as anyone involved in the discussion.
Now, this impression - created by your posts - is not only my impression, but seems to be the impression formed other members in this thread. If that was not your intent then you need to find a way of modifying your posting style.
Your comments on these thoughts would be most welcome.
-
I accept that the most part of science is correct. Who says I am not learning?
I am not accepting without questioning what I learn, a big difference.
Very good. However, the manner in which you question creates the definite impression that you are not accepting, or perhaps not understanding the answers that are given to you.
Asking, both for clarity and in order to achieve a deeper understanding is welcome and desirable. But I would ask you to consider this. When I ask questions on forums I do so in the expectation that at least some of the answers will come from individuals who are more knowledgeable than I. I have hopes of receiving the "correct" answer. My starting assumption is that there is a good chance that this is possible. So far I have rarely been disappointed.
1.However, your questions create the impression that your starting assumption is that the answers you receive will be wrong. Further than that, there is 2.an implication that you have about as good an idea of the answer as anyone involved in the discussion.
Now, this impression - created by your posts - is not only my impression, but seems to be the impression formed other members in this thread. If that was not your intent then you need to find a way of modifying your posting style.
Your comments on these thoughts would be most welcome.
1. An assumption that the answers I am given may be incomplete.
2. I can think for myself , I know enough basics about forces and work and energies to make a reasonable assumption , if my questions or thoughts coincide with anything that is present information that is coincidence and my guess work being a good approximation of the process.
(of cause I already have some knowledge)
I do not consider the Universe and process is that complex or hard to visualise.
-
The bottom of the cloud can be observed of becoming more dense .... A density created by gravity pulling at the clouds elements
The reason that clouds float in the sky is because they are slightly less dense than the atmospheric layers below them. Because clouds are buoyant, they are almost weightless, and you can almost ignore gravity, even in the absence of electric fields.
I considered the various effects of gravity on various elements [of lightning]
Gravity is an extremely weak force. If there are strong electrical fields around (such as you have with lightning in clouds), you can ignore gravity.
A white cloud will reflect more light and allow more light to pass through than a dark cloud
If you have been in an airplane over a storm, you will know that from the top, the dark clouds are also very white.
The reason heavy rainclouds are darker underneath is because they are thicker than light fluffy clouds, and the depth of the clouds scatters more light away from reaching the ground.
Thunderclouds are very efficient at transferring energy between layers within the atmosphere, with fast-moving updrafts and downdrafts which generate the lightning (static electricity) by friction. These thunderclouds tower thousands of feet high, and not much light gets through.
So the lightning is an effect of the rapid updrafts and downdrafts reaching high altitudes. And the dark base of the cloud is also an effect of the rapid updrafts and downdrafts reaching high altitudes.
But it would be wrong to say that light causes the lightning - after all, violent and spectacular thunderstorms can happen at night.
thermodynamic absorption...thermodynamic increase
Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(classical_thermodynamics)#Introduction) does suggest that large energy differences between different layers of the atmosphere will tend to dissipate or equalize over time.
The measure of thermodynamics is "entropy". Is this referring to entropy increasing?
I don't understand the terms "thermodynamic absorption" and "thermodynamic increase". Can you explain them, or try a different term?
-
The bottom of the cloud can be observed of becoming more dense .... A density created by gravity pulling at the clouds elements
The reason that clouds float in the sky is because they are slightly less dense than the atmospheric layers below them. Because clouds are buoyant, they are almost weightless, and you can almost ignore gravity, even in the absence of electric fields.
I considered the various effects of gravity on various elements [of lightning]
Gravity is an extremely weak force. If there are strong electrical fields around (such as you have with lightning in clouds), you can ignore gravity.
A white cloud will reflect more light and allow more light to pass through than a dark cloud
If you have been in an airplane over a storm, you will know that from the top, the dark clouds are also very white.
The reason heavy rainclouds are darker underneath is because they are thicker than light fluffy clouds, and the depth of the clouds scatters more light away from reaching the ground.
Thunderclouds are very efficient at transferring energy between layers within the atmosphere, with fast-moving updrafts and downdrafts which generate the lightning (static electricity) by friction. These thunderclouds tower thousands of feet high, and not much light gets through.
So the lightning is an effect of the rapid updrafts and downdrafts reaching high altitudes. And the dark base of the cloud is also an effect of the rapid updrafts and downdrafts reaching high altitudes.
But it would be wrong to say that light causes the lightning - after all, violent and spectacular thunderstorms can happen at night.
thermodynamic absorption...thermodynamic increase
Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(classical_thermodynamics)#Introduction) does suggest that large energy differences between different layers of the atmosphere will tend to dissipate or equalize over time.
The measure of thermodynamics is "entropy". Is this referring to entropy increasing?
I don't understand the terms "thermodynamic absorption" and "thermodynamic increase". Can you explain them, or try a different term?
I am amazed I have not heard that a cloud is Buoyant before being sarcastic.
A boat is Buoyant, air is not.
I am not sure I want to explain any more I am sick of being insulted by certain members, I am just a crackpot so does it really matter?
I give my time freely to science, about 4 years of it, to get mocked and ridiculed, it is like being in kinder garden.
thermodynamic absorption-intake of heat/energy /radiation
thermodynamic increase - an increase in temperature and kinetic action
thermodynamic release - the energy emitted often in the form of heat ,light or an energy burst such as a solar flare.
Entropy - the above 3 , the collective for the subsets.
added - Thermodynamic coupling
Because is a glass half empty or is a glass half full, it is neither the glass is always full, half of one substance and half of another substance.
I never see half a glass of anything.
There are two types of theoretical scientists, there is the first type that see only the water in the glass, a quantitative measurement, then there is the second type of scientist who agrees completely there is water in the glass, but visualises the unseen substance and process in the ''empty'' half of glass.
-
Just a few notes
In reply
Mechanism is not the process like the hands on a clockhands are mechanism. movement of hands is process.
but rather the internal workings that makes the process. We all know that we have a gravity calculation based on mass that defines orbital actions and an acceleration that an object will fall at too the Earth from the sky. This is process and actions rather than a mechanism, a comparison to owning a car and knowing it can move but not knowing what an engine is that drives the actions. It is also said that everything in the Universe of a matter or mediums form is made up of atoms, atoms consist of 3 Quarks that make up a Proton and also there is a Neutron also made of quarks
that makes up the Nucleus of the atom and an electron of a outer electron shell , although some elements of the Universe made of atoms are without Neutrons. It is also explained that all matter or a medium can you distinguish between matter and medium, please?
has mass, mass being essential to the equations of the gravity calculation and Newtons force. Mass of an object is defined normally in kilograms, not to be mistaken for a weight which is Newtons of force calculated by an objects massnot only mass but also local gravitational field. Indeed I think the assertion is inverted: we normally calculate mass from a comparision of weights in a given field
. In explanation of Gravity it is also said that all mass is attracted to mass, meaning any object of matter or mediums such as air are attracted to each other by Gravity of each others mass.
Atoms are bound together by a strong nuclear force not atoms, nuclei
and have the ability to become excited by gaining positive charge or becoming dormant when negative no, a negative ion is just as "active" as a positive ion
charged known in science as positive or negative charged ions. A positive ion will repel an equally positive ion where as a negative ion is attracted to a positive ion, a negative ion has no effect on a negative ionon the contrary, negative ions repel one another too
. In context referring to the actions of atmospheric gases and a said buoyancy , I would like to mention what I consider an ion flux and the ion flux being the magic and mechanism of gravityyou may consider it so, but it isn't an ion flux may be affected by gravity but gravity does not require the transfer of ions
.
It is a well known fact that Helium and Hydrogen are buoyant gases only compared with more dense gases. In a vacuum, they sink
and air is buoyancy dependant on energy in the air in the form of heat, hot air rises. However , where as Hydrogen and Helium will rise and remain risingnot true. all gases convect
, air has a differential in the characteristics of behaviour, when the air cools down as it rises the air eventually will fall back down to the Earth, a sort of yoyo action by thermodynamic increase or decreasetry using "temperature", which is what you mean, rather than thermodynamic, which isn't
. Air being made of atoms that becomes positively charged and rises opposing the effects of gravity and effectively decreasing in Newtonsnot ture. The gravitational force on a mass of air is independent of the temperature or charge of that mass
. A consequence of actions of being a positive more than a negative being repelled by the positive ion's Earth's core, both positive and negative ions may be attracted towards the surface
from once it returns to its equilibrium state and loses the charge when the air is cooled no, charge is not affected by altitude or temperature
as it rises creating a negative effect that then is attracted back down to the positive ion core.
Thanks for reading.
I will complete it tomorrow and link it to lightning.
-
Just a few notes
In reply
Mechanism is not the process like the hands on a clockhands are mechanism. movement of hands is process.
but rather the internal workings that makes the process. We all know that we have a gravity calculation based on mass that defines orbital actions and an acceleration that an object will fall at too the Earth from the sky. This is process and actions rather than a mechanism, a comparison to owning a car and knowing it can move but not knowing what an engine is that drives the actions. It is also said that everything in the Universe of a matter or mediums form is made up of atoms, atoms consist of 3 Quarks that make up a Proton and also there is a Neutron also made of quarks
that makes up the Nucleus of the atom and an electron of a outer electron shell , although some elements of the Universe made of atoms are without Neutrons. It is also explained that all matter or a medium can you distinguish between matter and medium, please?
has mass, mass being essential to the equations of the gravity calculation and Newtons force. Mass of an object is defined normally in kilograms, not to be mistaken for a weight which is Newtons of force calculated by an objects massnot only mass but also local gravitational field. Indeed I think the assertion is inverted: we normally calculate mass from a comparision of weights in a given field
. In explanation of Gravity it is also said that all mass is attracted to mass, meaning any object of matter or mediums such as air are attracted to each other by Gravity of each others mass.
Atoms are bound together by a strong nuclear force not atoms, nuclei
and have the ability to become excited by gaining positive charge or becoming dormant when negative no, a negative ion is just as "active" as a positive ion
charged known in science as positive or negative charged ions. A positive ion will repel an equally positive ion where as a negative ion is attracted to a positive ion, a negative ion has no effect on a negative ionon the contrary, negative ions repel one another too
. In context referring to the actions of atmospheric gases and a said buoyancy , I would like to mention what I consider an ion flux and the ion flux being the magic and mechanism of gravityyou may consider it so, but it isn't an ion flux may be affected by gravity but gravity does not require the transfer of ions
.
It is a well known fact that Helium and Hydrogen are buoyant gases only compared with more dense gases. In a vacuum, they sink
and air is buoyancy dependant on energy in the air in the form of heat, hot air rises. However , where as Hydrogen and Helium will rise and remain risingnot true. all gases convect
, air has a differential in the characteristics of behaviour, when the air cools down as it rises the air eventually will fall back down to the Earth, a sort of yoyo action by thermodynamic increase or decreasetry using "temperature", which is what you mean, rather than thermodynamic, which isn't
. Air being made of atoms that becomes positively charged and rises opposing the effects of gravity and effectively decreasing in Newtonsnot ture. The gravitational force on a mass of air is independent of the temperature or charge of that mass
. A consequence of actions of being a positive more than a negative being repelled by the positive ion's Earth's core, both positive and negative ions may be attracted towards the surface
from once it returns to its equilibrium state and loses the charge when the air is cooled no, charge is not affected by altitude or temperature
as it rises creating a negative effect that then is attracted back down to the positive ion core.
Thanks for reading.
I will complete it tomorrow and link it to lightning.
Are you saying Neutrons are also made of Quarks?
Matter - dust or objects
medium - air, a gas, an electrical medium,
I did mean nuclie, sorry wording badly.
How can a negative energy repel a negative energy, how can there be a negative energy?
''you may consider it so, but it isn't an ion flux may be affected by gravity but gravity does not require the transfer of ions''
Not a transfer of ions, an equilibrium offset of ions, a fluctuation in positive or negative hence the up and down of air.
In a vacuum Hydrogen sinks because there is no intake of energy only loss.
''both positive and negative ions may be attracted towards the surface''
Yes , gravity, the surface is both positive and negative depending on charge,
-
Yes, neutrons are also made of quarks.
Air and gases are also matter (so are electrons and other subatomic particles.)
Gravity and charge (electrostatic attraction or repulsion) are different sets of forces. Neither one require the other.
Air and clouds can definitely be buoyant--an air-filled balloon floats in water for the exact same reason a hydrogen-filled balloon floats in air, and a water-filled balloon floats on mercury (the metal).
I don't know how you're coming up with these definitions, but you are using different definitions from what everyone else uses for pretty much every word... (buoyancy, thermodynamic, negative/positive, entropy, matter, medium, time, dimension) They all have agreed-upon and specific meanings that you are not intending when you use these words (and others) this is partly why people get so confused in discussion with you.
-
Yes, neutrons are also made of quarks.
Air and gases are also matter (so are electrons and other subatomic particles.)
Gravity and charge (electrostatic attraction or repulsion) are different sets of forces. Neither one require the other.
Air and clouds can definitely be buoyant--an air-filled balloon floats in water for the exact same reason a hydrogen-filled balloon floats in air, and a water-filled balloon floats on mercury (the metal).
I don't know how you're coming up with these definitions, but you are using different definitions from what everyone else uses for pretty much every word... (buoyancy, thermodynamic, negative/positive, entropy, matter, medium, time, dimension) They all have agreed-upon and specific meanings that you are not intending when you use these words (and others) this is partly why people get so confused in discussion with you.
Ok lets try it a different way, I will change my approach of how I write things.
Air is heavier on the ground when it has sunk, air is lighter when it rises , why?
If air on the ground is attracted by a force what makes air un-attractive to the force, that what makes the air rise up from the ground?
My answer would be that the air attracted to the ground is not the same energy level as the air that rises, the air that rises having more energy by some sort of gain, a gain that is then released as it rises allowing the force of the ground to pull its less energy state back down to the ground.
When the air gains this energy and rises becoming opposed to the force from the ground , an anti and opposite reaction is observed to the force from the ground.
Air floats on air is what science is saying.
Imagine if you were high in the sky and in each hand you had an un-charged air atom, you drop both atoms at the same time, both atoms fall through the other air atoms of the atmosphere, why? because they are heavy.
Now imagine we repeat the experiment with two charged air atoms, the atoms would just float on release.
-
Ok lets try it a different way, I will change my approach of how I write things.A good idea. Asserting untruths is the job of priests, politicians and philosophers, not physicists.
Air is heavier on the ground when it has sunk, air is lighter when it rises , why?Cart before horse. Warm air is less dense than cold air at the same pressure, so bubbles of warm air will rise through cold air. Archimedes.
If air on the ground is attracted by a force what makes air un-attractive to the forceNothing. Gravity strill applies
, that what makes the air rise up from the ground?Archimedes
My answer would be that the air attracted to the ground is not the same energy level as the air that rises, the air that rises having more energy by some sort of gain, a gain that is then released as it rises allowing the force of the ground to pull its less energy state back down to the ground.The light may be dawning here. Read about "adiabatic lapse rate" and the Gas Laws
When the air gains this energy and rises becoming opposed to the force from the ground , an anti and opposite reaction is observed to the force from the ground.Convection
Air floats on air is what science is saying.yes, indeed, though the mechanism of convection is a lot simpler that your description
Imagine if you were high in the sky and in each hand you had an un-charged air atom, you drop both atoms at the same time, both atoms fall through the other air atoms of the atmosphere, why? because they are heavy.How would you know? They are indistinguishable from other air molecules (air is a mixture of molecules rather than atoms) It is true that there is slightly more oxygen and carbon dioxide at low level but it would take a very long time (years) for one CO2 molecule to diffuse its way to the ground from 30,000 ft, whereas a thundercloud can form, discharge and disperse in an hour
Now imagine we repeat the experiment with two charged air atoms, the atoms would just float on release.Untrue. You can ionise a molecule by adding or subtracting one electron, which would alter the mass of an oxygen molecule by about 1 part in 60,000 - hardly enough to reverse its buoyancy, as nitrogen is about 10% less dense.
-
Ok lets try it a different way, I will change my approach of how I write things.A good idea. Asserting untruths is the job of priests, politicians and philosophers, not physicists.
Air is heavier on the ground when it has sunk, air is lighter when it rises , why?Cart before horse. Warm air is less dense than cold air at the same pressure, so bubbles of warm air will rise through cold air. Archimedes.
If air on the ground is attracted by a force what makes air un-attractive to the forceNothing. Gravity strill applies
, that what makes the air rise up from the ground?Archimedes
My answer would be that the air attracted to the ground is not the same energy level as the air that rises, the air that rises having more energy by some sort of gain, a gain that is then released as it rises allowing the force of the ground to pull its less energy state back down to the ground.The light may be dawning here. Read about "adiabatic lapse rate" and the Gas Laws
When the air gains this energy and rises becoming opposed to the force from the ground , an anti and opposite reaction is observed to the force from the ground.Convection
Air floats on air is what science is saying.yes, indeed, though the mechanism of convection is a lot simpler that your description
Imagine if you were high in the sky and in each hand you had an un-charged air atom, you drop both atoms at the same time, both atoms fall through the other air atoms of the atmosphere, why? because they are heavy.How would you know? They are indistinguishable from other air molecules (air is a mixture of molecules rather than atoms) It is true that there is slightly more oxygen and carbon dioxide at low level but it would take a very long time (years) for one CO2 molecule to diffuse its way to the ground from 30,000 ft, whereas a thundercloud can form, discharge and disperse in an hour
Now imagine we repeat the experiment with two charged air atoms, the atoms would just float on release.Untrue. You can ionise a molecule by adding or subtracting one electron, which would alter the mass of an oxygen molecule by about 1 part in 60,000 - hardly enough to reverse its buoyancy, as nitrogen is about 10% less dense.
I feel that science is missing the entire point, what goes up comes back down through itself. If I dropped a drip of water into a glass of water, would the water drip sink?
If i was to add about 50,000 volts to wire surrounding an aluminium structure and it rises of the ground would you not consider that anti-gravity?
I am still considering lightning, just down a different path than a normal person would take.
''See'' this please, air is not buoyant when it is sinking......
Imagine two separate clusters of air molecules at ground level, let's say 10 molecules per cluster and 10 atoms per molecule.
Cluster (a) we start to add energy, the cluster then starts to expand, so per cubic mm, the density becomes less, in effect being lighter than cluster (b).
Lighter meaning less Newtons of force.
Lets say (a) and (b) start off at 1kg. 0.981n of force and both clusters are only 1 inch cubed.
and both clusters have 100 atoms total volume.
Cluster (a) expands making now 50 atoms per cubic inch compared to 100 atoms a cubic inch of (b).
Less dense making less weight, newtons of force.
This still does not explain why it rises opposing gravity,
neither does it account for that when the air is expanding it opposes itself.
Cluster (a) is held together by gravity, cluster (a) expands, cluster (a) opposes its own gravity when charged.
If you can imagine a positive charged invisible sphere, the sphere will always want to rip itself apart.
I am sure you have seen one of these video before.
The energy from the explosion expanding making a temporal energy vacuum in the water , as the water pressurises and the explosion force radius weakens, the vacuum then implodes forcing the explosion upwards, upwards being the less dense and less pressure.
Now at the very instance of the explosion the starting point(s), I call this zero point space,
This is what I want to know about lightning, the zero point space.
I have centripetally pressurised positive ion's clusters that then gain charge and explode at point zero.
The negative ion's absorb the charge and then collapse into point zero forcing an implode and then an escape seen as lightning.
A similarity to the underwater link without the water.
What magnetic bottling holds the sun together?
-
I feel that science is missing the entire point, what goes up comes back down through itself. If I dropped a drip of water into a glass of water, would the water drip sink?
No, you are missing the entire point. Buoyancy has to do with the density of the object and the fluid (liquid or gas) that it will ultimately sink or float in. It's trickier to talk about objects that can mix with or dissolve in the fluid that they are sinking or floating in. If the object is denser than the fluid, it will sink because it displaces a volume of liquid equal to its own volume. Say a 1 cm3 cube of gold, having a weight of approximately 19 g is placed on the surface some water (approximately 1 g/cm3). For every cm that the gold sinks, you can think of one cm3 of water moving up one cm. This only works because the gold weighs 19 times as much. Essentially the 19 gram weight pushes the 1 gram obstacle up, out of its way so it can continue to fall.
Similarly, if we were to put a 1 cm3 plastic cube (approximately 0.8 grams) at the bottom of a glass of water, the heavier water will fall down, pushing the plastic cube up.
As I said, it's harder to think about objects that will mix/dissolve in the fluid, but if we look at timescales shorter than mixing time we can still see the same picture: If the drip of water has the same density as the water in the glass (same temperature) then it will not sink or float, but merely mix into the water that is there. If it is denser it will sink before ultimately reaching the same temperature and mixing perfectly.
If i was to add about 50,000 volts to wire surrounding an aluminium structure and it rises of the ground would you not consider that anti-gravity?
I have already said that electrostatic forces and gravity are totally different. They can oppose each other, but neither is "anti" the other. You also would not be able to lift an aluminum structure with 50,000 volts (negative or positive). If it were a flexible structure, it might distort to maximize the distance between same charges (like strings on a van de graff generator), but it will not rise off the ground.
''See'' this please, air is not buoyant when it is sinking......
Imagine two separate clusters of air molecules at ground level, let's say 10 molecules per cluster and 10 atoms per molecule.
Most molecules in the air have 2 or 3 atoms. For a gas, the density is directly related to how many atoms are in the molecule (actually the mass of each molecule).
Lets say (a) and (b) start off at 1kg. 0.981n of force and both clusters are only 1 inch cubed.
and both clusters have 100 atoms total volume.
Cluster (a) expands making now 50 atoms per cubic inch compared to 100 atoms a cubic inch of (b).
Less dense making less weight, newtons of force.
100 atoms, one kg? You're off by two dozen orders of magnitude (a factor of 1000000000000000000000000)!!!
This still does not explain why it rises opposing gravity,
neither does it account for that when the air is expanding it opposes itself.
Cluster (a) is held together by gravity, cluster (a) expands, cluster (a) opposes its own gravity when charged.
If you can imagine a positive charged invisible sphere, the sphere will always want to rip itself apart.
Gravity is not holding the clusters together it holds the cluster near the Earth. Yes, charged spheres will have an outward force.
Now at the very instance of the explosion the starting point(s), I call this zero point space,
This is what I want to know about lightning, the zero point space.
I have centripetally pressurised positive ion's clusters that then gain charge and explode at point zero.
The negative ion's absorb the charge and then collapse into point zero forcing an implode and then an escape seen as lightning.
You're making up language again.
What magnetic bottling holds the sun together?
Ummm... Gravity holds the sun together.
-
I feel that science is missing the entire point, what goes up comes back down through itself. If I dropped a drip of water into a glass of water, would the water drip sink?
No, you are missing the entire point. Buoyancy has to do with the density of the object and the fluid (liquid or gas) that it will ultimately sink or float in. It's trickier to talk about objects that can mix with or dissolve in the fluid that they are sinking or floating in. If the object is denser than the fluid, it will sink because it displaces a volume of liquid equal to its own volume. Say a 1 cm3 cube of gold, having a weight of approximately 19 g is placed on the surface some water (approximately 1 g/cm3). For every cm that the gold sinks, you can think of one cm3 of water moving up one cm. This only works because the gold weighs 19 times as much. Essentially the 19 gram weight pushes the 1 gram obstacle up, out of its way so it can continue to fall.
Similarly, if we were to put a 1 cm3 plastic cube (approximately 0.8 grams) at the bottom of a glass of water, the heavier water will fall down, pushing the plastic cube up.
As I said, it's harder to think about objects that will mix/dissolve in the fluid, but if we look at timescales shorter than mixing time we can still see the same picture: If the drip of water has the same density as the water in the glass (same temperature) then it will not sink or float, but merely mix into the water that is there. If it is denser it will sink before ultimately reaching the same temperature and mixing perfectly.
If i was to add about 50,000 volts to wire surrounding an aluminium structure and it rises of the ground would you not consider that anti-gravity?
I have already said that electrostatic forces and gravity are totally different. They can oppose each other, but neither is "anti" the other. You also would not be able to lift an aluminum structure with 50,000 volts (negative or positive). If it were a flexible structure, it might distort to maximize the distance between same charges (like strings on a van de graff generator), but it will not rise off the ground.
''See'' this please, air is not buoyant when it is sinking......
Imagine two separate clusters of air molecules at ground level, let's say 10 molecules per cluster and 10 atoms per molecule.
Most molecules in the air have 2 or 3 atoms. For a gas, the density is directly related to how many atoms are in the molecule (actually the mass of each molecule).
Lets say (a) and (b) start off at 1kg. 0.981n of force and both clusters are only 1 inch cubed.
and both clusters have 100 atoms total volume.
Cluster (a) expands making now 50 atoms per cubic inch compared to 100 atoms a cubic inch of (b).
Less dense making less weight, newtons of force.
100 atoms, one kg? You're off by two dozen orders of magnitude (a factor of 1000000000000000000000000)!!!
This still does not explain why it rises opposing gravity,
neither does it account for that when the air is expanding it opposes itself.
Cluster (a) is held together by gravity, cluster (a) expands, cluster (a) opposes its own gravity when charged.
If you can imagine a positive charged invisible sphere, the sphere will always want to rip itself apart.
Gravity is not holding the clusters together it holds the cluster near the Earth. Yes, charged spheres will have an outward force.
Now at the very instance of the explosion the starting point(s), I call this zero point space,
This is what I want to know about lightning, the zero point space.
I have centripetally pressurised positive ion's clusters that then gain charge and explode at point zero.
The negative ion's absorb the charge and then collapse into point zero forcing an implode and then an escape seen as lightning.
You're making up language again.
What magnetic bottling holds the sun together?
Ummm... Gravity holds the sun together.
All matter has mass, all matter is held together by its own mass.
All equal positive forces will repel each other.
Let us take your bar of gold and add some energy to the gold , enough energy to cause the binding gravity of itself to molecularly fail and the gold to change form.
Can you not see that gravity is being opposed in the gold of the atoms when charged?
And 100 atoms per kg was just an example that would be easier to understand and work with rather than millions.
''I have already said that electrostatic forces and gravity are totally different. They can oppose each other, but neither is "anti" the other. You also would not be able to lift an aluminum structure with 50,000 volts (negative or positive). If it were a flexible structure, it might distort to maximize the distance between same charges (like strings on a van de graff generator), but it will not rise off the ground. ''
Incorrect, view a lifter device.
and also the energy vortex from the sun better known has curvature.
except the suns energy vortex is transparent and invisible and the sun is in the center of a worm hole.
A worm hole created by its motion. A rolling road.
You say the sun is held together by its own gravity, in plasma Physics you have to magnetic bottle plasma, how is this different?
-
All matter has mass, all matter is held together by its own mass.
The force of gravity is very, very weak compared to electrostatic forces. Think about it, it takes the mass of the entire Earth to generate the gravity that holds you to the surface. But this force is much smaller than the force that holds you together (the Earth won't rip you apart).
All equal positive forces will repel each other.
Positive *charges* repel each other.
Let us take your bar of gold and add some energy to the gold , enough energy to cause the binding gravity of itself to molecularly fail and the gold to change form.
Can you not see that gravity is being opposed in the gold of the atoms when charged?
Again, gravity is not what holds the gold together. Gold atoms are bound to each other by electrostatic forces (positive nuclei sharing negative electrons). You have to put a lot of energy into gold to melt it (melting point is 1064 °C), and this hardly changes its density (it goes from 19.3 g/cm3 as a solid at rt to 17.3 g/cm3 as a liquid at melting point). You have to get it up to 2970 °C to boil gold and then heat of vaporization is still 342 kJ/mol! (water only needs 40 kJ/mol) In contrast, the energy required to lift gold 1000 meters above the ground is only about 1.9 kJ/mol.
And 100 atoms per kg was just an example that would be easier to understand and work with rather than millions.
I understand that you are just supplying numbers that are easier to work with, but even "millions" is way off. Millions of millions of millions of millions are the numbers that we need to think about. It's easier to use scientific notation to discuss these numbers 1x1024 is just as easy to think about as 100 (1x102).
''I have already said that electrostatic forces and gravity are totally different. They can oppose each other, but neither is "anti" the other. You also would not be able to lift an aluminum structure with 50,000 volts (negative or positive). If it were a flexible structure, it might distort to maximize the distance between same charges (like strings on a van de graff generator), but it will not rise off the ground. ''
Incorrect, view a lifter device.
Sorry, I misinterpreted "aluminum structure" as something much bigger than you intended. Sure, you can lift a piece of aluminum foil with 50kV--just more proof that gravity is much weaker than electrostatics.
and also the energy vortex from the sun better known has curvature.
except the suns energy vortex is transparent and invisible and the sun is in the center of a worm hole.
A worm hole created by its motion. A rolling road.
I wish there were a wormhole so close that it could be studied!
You say the sun is held together by its own gravity, in plasma Physics you have to magnetic bottle plasma, how is this different?
We resort to using electromagnetic technology to confine plasma because that's all we can do. The sun has enough mass that the plasma is confined purely by gravitational forces. Bear in mind the sun has a mass of 2x1030 kg! Essentially ratio of mass between the sun and you is approximately the same as the ratio of mass between you and an electron. That's also 330000 times the mass of the Earth.
-
All matter has mass, all matter is held together by its own mass.
The force of gravity is very, very weak compared to electrostatic forces. Think about it, it takes the mass of the entire Earth to generate the gravity that holds you to the surface. But this force is much smaller than the force that holds you together (the Earth won't rip you apart).
All equal positive forces will repel each other.
Positive *charges* repel each other.
Let us take your bar of gold and add some energy to the gold , enough energy to cause the binding gravity of itself to molecularly fail and the gold to change form.
Can you not see that gravity is being opposed in the gold of the atoms when charged?
Again, gravity is not what holds the gold together. Gold atoms are bound to each other by electrostatic forces (positive nuclei sharing negative electrons). You have to put a lot of energy into gold to melt it (melting point is 1064 °C), and this hardly changes its density (it goes from 19.3 g/cm3 as a solid at rt to 17.3 g/cm3 as a liquid at melting point). You have to get it up to 2970 °C to boil gold and then heat of vaporization is still 342 kJ/mol! (water only needs 40 kJ/mol) In contrast, the energy required to lift gold 1000 meters above the ground is only about 1.9 kJ/mol.
And 100 atoms per kg was just an example that would be easier to understand and work with rather than millions.
I understand that you are just supplying numbers that are easier to work with, but even "millions" is way off. Millions of millions of millions of millions are the numbers that we need to think about. It's easier to use scientific notation to discuss these numbers 1x1024 is just as easy to think about as 100 (1x102).
''I have already said that electrostatic forces and gravity are totally different. They can oppose each other, but neither is "anti" the other. You also would not be able to lift an aluminum structure with 50,000 volts (negative or positive). If it were a flexible structure, it might distort to maximize the distance between same charges (like strings on a van de graff generator), but it will not rise off the ground. ''
Incorrect, view a lifter device.
Sorry, I misinterpreted "aluminum structure" as something much bigger than you intended. Sure, you can lift a piece of aluminum foil with 50kV--just more proof that gravity is much weaker than electrostatics.
and also the energy vortex from the sun better known has curvature.
except the suns energy vortex is transparent and invisible and the sun is in the center of a worm hole.
A worm hole created by its motion. A rolling road.
I wish there were a wormhole so close that it could be studied!
You say the sun is held together by its own gravity, in plasma Physics you have to magnetic bottle plasma, how is this different?
We resort to using electromagnetic technology to confine plasma because that's all we can do. The sun has enough mass that the plasma is confined purely by gravitational forces. Bear in mind the sun has a mass of 2x1030 kg! Essentially ratio of mass between the sun and you is approximately the same as the ratio of mass between you and an electron. That's also 330000 times the mass of the Earth.
I understand the electrostatic force of atoms but that is not what I am referring to. A positive attracts the negative (a) + (b) , (a) + (b) generates an (ab) field. this field is a weak force, both attractive and repelling?
-
I feel that science is missing the entire point, what goes up comes back down through itself. If I dropped a drip of water into a glass of water, would the water drip sink?if it was denser than the surrounding water, yes. That's why there is life on earth - but the logic is a bit too complicated for this thread.
If i was to add about 50,000 volts to wire surrounding an aluminium structure and it rises of the ground would you not consider that anti-gravity?no. no more than a crane or an aeroplane is antigravity
I am still considering lightning, just down a different path than a normal person would take.alas, lightning strikes normal people too, by pretty much the same path as the abnormal
''See'' this please, air is not buoyant when it is sinking...... I guess that's a good definition of buoyancy, but pointless
Imagine two separate clusters of air molecules at ground level, let's say 10 molecules per cluster and 10 atoms per molecule.
Cluster (a) we start to add energy, the cluster then starts to expand, so per cubic mm, the density becomes less, in effect being lighter than cluster (b).less dense, not lighter
Lighter meaning less Newtons of force.but it isn't lighter - you haven't altered the mass
Lets say (a) and (b) start off at 1kg. 0.981n of force and both clusters are only 1 inch cubed.
and both clusters have 100 atoms total volume.
Cluster (a) expands making now 50 atoms per cubic inch compared to 100 atoms a cubic inch of (b).
Less dense making less weight, newtons of force.no, becuse you haven't got rid of any mass, just spread it out a bit
This still does not explain why it rises opposing gravity, PLEASE read Archimedes before confusing yourself any further
neither does it account for that when the air is expanding it opposes itself.
Cluster (a) is held together by gravity who said so? I thought you had put the molecules in a box
, cluster (a) expands, cluster (a) opposes its own gravity when charged where diod this charge come from, all of a sudden? Heat doesn't make charge
.
If you can imagine a positive charged invisible sphere, the sphere will always want to rip itself apartnot in my imagination, nor according to Cavendish's experiment
.
I am sure you have seen one of these video before.
The energy from the explosion expanding making a temporal energy vacuum in the water , as the water pressurises and the explosion force radius weakens, the vacuum then implodes forcing the explosion upwards, upwards being the less dense and less pressure.lots of words, no discernible logic or meaning
Now at the very instance of the explosion the starting point(s), I call this zero point space, quite ambitious, equating time to space, and quite unnecessary: lightning is a mesoscopic phenomenon of classical electrostatics
This is what I want to know about lightning, the zero point space.
I have centripetally pressurised positive ion's clusters that then gain charge and explode at point zero.
The negative ion's absorb the charge and then collapse into point zero forcing an implode and then an escape seen as lightninga wonderful concoction, but utterly unlike anything anyone has ever observed
.
A similarity to the underwater link without the water.
What magnetic bottling holds the sun together none. gravity is not magnetism
?
-
I feel that science is missing the entire point, what goes up comes back down through itself. If I dropped a drip of water into a glass of water, would the water drip sink?if it was denser than the surrounding water, yes. That's why there is life on earth - but the logic is a bit too complicated for this thread.
If i was to add about 50,000 volts to wire surrounding an aluminium structure and it rises of the ground would you not consider that anti-gravity?no. no more than a crane or an aeroplane is antigravity
I am still considering lightning, just down a different path than a normal person would take.alas, lightning strikes normal people too, by pretty much the same path as the abnormal
''See'' this please, air is not buoyant when it is sinking...... I guess that's a good definition of buoyancy, but pointless
Imagine two separate clusters of air molecules at ground level, let's say 10 molecules per cluster and 10 atoms per molecule.
Cluster (a) we start to add energy, the cluster then starts to expand, so per cubic mm, the density becomes less, in effect being lighter than cluster (b).less dense, not lighter
Lighter meaning less Newtons of force.but it isn't lighter - you haven't altered the mass
Lets say (a) and (b) start off at 1kg. 0.981n of force and both clusters are only 1 inch cubed.
and both clusters have 100 atoms total volume.
Cluster (a) expands making now 50 atoms per cubic inch compared to 100 atoms a cubic inch of (b).
Less dense making less weight, newtons of force.no, becuse you haven't got rid of any mass, just spread it out a bit
This still does not explain why it rises opposing gravity, PLEASE read Archimedes before confusing yourself any further
neither does it account for that when the air is expanding it opposes itself.
Cluster (a) is held together by gravity who said so? I thought you had put the molecules in a box
, cluster (a) expands, cluster (a) opposes its own gravity when charged where diod this charge come from, all of a sudden? Heat doesn't make charge
.
If you can imagine a positive charged invisible sphere, the sphere will always want to rip itself apartnot in my imagination, nor according to Cavendish's experiment
.
I am sure you have seen one of these video before.
The energy from the explosion expanding making a temporal energy vacuum in the water , as the water pressurises and the explosion force radius weakens, the vacuum then implodes forcing the explosion upwards, upwards being the less dense and less pressure.lots of words, no discernible logic or meaning
Now at the very instance of the explosion the starting point(s), I call this zero point space, quite ambitious, equating time to space, and quite unnecessary: lightning is a mesoscopic phenomenon of classical electrostatics
This is what I want to know about lightning, the zero point space.
I have centripetally pressurised positive ion's clusters that then gain charge and explode at point zero.
The negative ion's absorb the charge and then collapse into point zero forcing an implode and then an escape seen as lightninga wonderful concoction, but utterly unlike anything anyone has ever observed
.
A similarity to the underwater link without the water.
What magnetic bottling holds the sun together none. gravity is not magnetism
?
''I guess that's a good definition of buoyancy, but pointless''
It is not pointless, science claims air is buoyant, when air is only temporal buoyant.
You will not observe point zero actions until the light is made visible. All the energy action is invisible.
''but it isn't lighter - you haven't altered the mass''
No the mass may not alter but the newtons of force does for a certainty?
-
It is not pointless, science claims air is buoyant, when air is only temporal buoyant.I know of no science that makes any claims - science is a process, not an agent. Air is certainly buoyant in the presence of liquid water, but sinks in an atmosphere of hydrogen, or even gaseous water.
You will not observe point zero actions until the light is made visible. All the energy action is invisible.I have no idea what your "point zero" means, but since lightning is principally a linear, not a point or volume phenomenon, it is irrelevant anyway
''but it isn't lighter - you haven't altered the mass''
No the mass may not alter but the newtons of force does for a certainty?force = mass x gravitational acceleration. If you haven't changed m or g, you haven't altered F.
-
''The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as a closed isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.''
A closed isolated system, an object?
How can anything in the Universe be an isolated system ?
All systems in the Universe lose energy as much as they gain it, what is lost is gained to maintain stability.
Neutron stars attract atoms and eat them, how is the laws of attraction possible?
How is the Universe an enclosed system, is science suggesting the visual Universe is inside of a solid?
''enclose
ɪnˈkləʊz,ɛn-/Submit
verb
past tense: enclosed; past participle: enclosed
1.
surround or close off on all sides.
"the entire estate was enclosed with walls"
synonyms: surround, circle, ring, encompass, encircle, circumscribe, border, bound, edge, skirt, fringe, hem, line, flank; More
historical
fence in (common land) so as to make it private property.
"the open fields in the parish were enclosed in 1808"
seclude (a religious order or other community) from the outside world.
"a Mother Superior in an enclosed order"
2.
place (something) in an envelope together with a letter.''
-
You need to distinguish between "closed" and "enclosed". Read Bertrand Russell "Principia Mathematica" for a full explanation(I think it's Chapter 3 or thereabouts, dealing with bounded sets). But I don't see how it is relevant to this thread anyway, which is about an electrostatic discharge.
-
You need to distinguish between "closed" and "enclosed". Read Bertrand Russell "Principia Mathematica" for a full explanation(I think it's Chapter 3 or thereabouts, dealing with bounded sets). But I don't see how it is relevant to this thread anyway, which is about an electrostatic discharge.
It is relevant because everything is connected by EMR, an EMR constant that in space has no net charge , only by interaction does a net charge establish, a net charge different to the constant.
Entropy of an object enclosed by light is dependent on light magnitude.
Zero point space, sorry i should explain better. Everything happens at point zero space.
Zero represents 0=t , time,
the point represents 0 dimensions, V=0 , xyz=0, V being volume, xyz being 3 dimensional space.
So if you place your hands 1ft apart then move your hands out of the way, then where your hands were imagine millions of zero point spaces where your hands where joined by the space of millions of zero point spaces.
Then you are on my wavelength of though and can see the complete matrix of the universe, not in a computerised sense though to be clear.
Even a 0 is to big to represent a . , and even a . is to big to represent zero point space.
after the = represents zero point space , =
Lightning starts from a zero point space.
The big bang started from a zero point space.
I and you evolved from a zero point space.
zero point space-
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=black&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=923&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=uFQRVbvgCorkaIrHgMAN&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#imgdii=_&imgrc=lX5ajMOCxxvKaM%253A%3BtZD74d6_-RBo3M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fblacklabelsociety.com%252Fhome%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2014%252F01%252Fspacer.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.blacklabelsociety.com%252F%3B960%3B400
In the link I do not see a blackness, I see matter everywhere but the matter is so far away and I can not see it, I perceive it as zero point space.
''I know of no science that makes any claims - science is a process, not an agent. Air is certainly buoyant in the presence of liquid water, but sinks in an atmosphere of hydrogen, or even gaseous water.''
A process that explains air wrongly as buoyant.
Air is not buoyant to water it simply can not pass the waters density. The same reason we are always falling but the ground stops us falling.
Air naturally always wants to fall, and always does fall, except when some force stops it falling.
Each and every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
zero point space can never occupied by two particles occupying the same zero point space, any particles recombining in zero point spaces start an isotropic centripetal epoch of recombination,
This is how I see lightning, except positive charge being pressured isotropic and centripetal to the energies core, (micro scale), whilst the energy wants to repel itself and tear itself apart.
The pressure builds then is released to create a rift, (lightning), from where the space is distorted into an positive energy, and the energy is released, the zero point space, the surrounding negative force/pressure collapses forcing the observed pulse until the energy dissipates. A sort of oscillating effect expansion and contraction at the same time.
The negativeness that is collapsing gaining some of the expanding charge, then ''colliding'' at zero point space, to start a chain reaction until the energy is spent at that point and redirected by dispersion.
It could be has few as two positive ions being enclosed by negative ions, the negative ions wanting to crush the positive ions by attractive force and volume .
-
Try breathing slowly, relax, and learn some physics. It's much easier than you think, if you start with humility and observation. For instance
Air is not buoyant to water it simply can not pass the waters density.
try blowing bubbles in the bath, and ask yourself whether a sane, honest, sighted person could have made such a statement.
Or are you suggesting that H2O has a higher molecular weight than O2? The fact that wet air is less dense than dry air is the reason that convection clouds form in the first place.
-
''The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as a closed isolated system, will always increase over time. ...''
...How can anything in the Universe be an isolated system?
I agree that it is practically impossible to turn any part of the universe into a fully isolated system - with our current technologies, heat will always leak in or out. But people are trying (on a small scale) with quantum computers, and very precise measurements.
If you turned the Solar system into a closed system with a radius of (say) 200 million kilometers, all life on Earth's surface would be dead within a few hours. We actually rely on the general expansion of the universe to make the Earth a habitable place.
However, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the universe itself is a closed system, having no contact with other universes.
But it's hard to be sure, because we haven't explored the universe very thoroughly at this time.
-
''The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as a closed isolated system, will always increase over time. ...''
...How can anything in the Universe be an isolated system?
I agree that it is practically impossible to turn any part of the universe into a fully isolated system - with our current technologies, heat will always leak in or out. But people are trying (on a small scale) with quantum computers, and very precise measurements.
If you turned the Solar system into a closed system with a radius of (say) 200 million kilometers, all life on Earth's surface would be dead within a few hours. We actually rely on the general expansion of the universe to make the Earth a habitable place.
However, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the universe itself is a closed system, having no contact with other universes.
But it's hard to be sure, because we haven't explored the universe very thoroughly at this time.
It is a reasonable hypothesis that the Universe is not a closed system, either could be true, and on a note of other Universes, if we were to observe matter beyond our boundaries, this would not be observing another universe, it would be extending our visual universe.
-
I think this is a matter of definition. If the universe is defined as containing all matter and energy that exists, then it would have to be a closed system. Any matter or energy that "leaked out" would still count as part of the universe, where ever it is--there is no escape.
-
I think this is a matter of definition. If the universe is defined as containing all matter and energy that exists, then it would have to be a closed system. Any matter or energy that "leaked out" would still count as part of the universe, where ever it is--there is no escape.
That would be only true if an infinite space did not exist!
-
1. An assumption that the answers I am given may be incomplete.
All answers are necessarily incomplete. A reasonable person, in learning mode, expects to receive incomplete, simplified answers.
If they seek deep answers that take them to the edge of human knowledge on a subject, they need to invest substantial time and effort in acquiring a very sound understanding of the subject area first. Reading broadly for four years, as you mentioned earlier, simply won't cut it.
2. I can think for myself , I know enough basics about forces and work and energies to make a reasonable assumption
Your posts in this thread show that you do not know enough about forces and energies and that much of what you do know is fundamentally wrong. You are also blithely unaware of this limitation.
I do not consider the Universe and process is that complex or hard to visualise.
You are profoundly mistaken. I suggest you take an appropriate Open University course and begin your journey towards comprehension.
-
TB - Your DOB states that you're 12 years old. With the comments you make in this forum and the near total lack of understanding of physics it makes sense.
At this point its clear to us that you are in all likelihood a young kid who knows the words of science but not what they mean. You've been nothing but trouble since you've gotten here. Please leave your ignorant ranting in the New Theories section where they belong.
My apologies Pm, this is the mainstream section for asking questions , and I agree that alternative or new theories do not belong here.
I do get carried away sometimes , my apologies.
Please do not consider any of my statements to be implying this as any facts. They are question statements, can it be this way, can it be that way, why isn't it this.
I do not know the answer to lightning, I am just questioning about it, not a theory in any sense.
Questions and questioning the answers, I thought that was discussion?
-
Questions and questioning the answers, I thought that was discussion?
You've been talking as if your promoting a theory. It appears that you're trolling which means that you create a thread innocently asking a question and then as things move along you push the theory you had really created the thread for. As such we see your questions designed to arrive at such conclusions giving you an in to push your theory.
You must think us very naïve to miss something that obvious.
It may come across that way but I assure you it is not, if I had a theory on lightning it would be in the theory section. Would there be any point to a discussion if we handle it in the manner of just defying Wiki quotes?
Or just posting a link that we can all access? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning
On the presumption that some of you are scientists in the real world, and not just invisible cyber chatters, I would rather hear your own thoughts on lightning and discuss any other possibilities different to that of present information.
Your own words rather than an interpret of wiki, in which I have the worlds knowledge at my finger tips.
In saying that I would like to ask your opinions on the voltage of lightning, and polarities, is something that emits visible light not the same thing? One comes from the ground and one from the sky, they both emit visible light, I understand one suppose to be a negative and one suppose to be a positive in polarity.
I presume they both have a voltage?
-
Your own words rather than an interpret of wiki, in which I have the worlds knowledge at my finger tips.
You might think that's true but it isn't exactly so. There is a major difference between what you'll find written and what is actually true. For example: in most texts on nuclear physics the say that you can convert mass into energy when in fact that's not true in the sense both the amount of mass and the amount of energy remain constant during both fission and fusion processes. Then you'll hear people claim that light has no mass when in fact it does. What they really meant was that the proper mass of light is zero. Then there's the fact that all to many SR texts claim that "nobody" uses relativistic mass anymore or that it was an error to begin with when in fact that's one of the most inaccurate claims in physics today. I could go on but you get the idea.
That would be the reason I spend time on forums, to try to obtain the truths out of the rubbish. Have you seen the internet lately ? there is a lot of ideas that differ.
-
That would be the reason I spend time on forums, to try to obtain the truths out of the rubbish. Have you seen the internet lately ? there is a lot of ideas that differ.
How many times do we ALL have to tell you? Pick up a darn physics text and start reading it!
What makes you think I do not pick up a text book and read it, like the kindly link that was provided?
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html
I can't read that fast, there is a lot, also I have spent 4 years reading, I do understand most of the present science stance.
-
That would be the reason I spend time on forums, to try to obtain the truths out of the rubbish. Have you seen the internet lately ? there is a lot of ideas that differ.
How many times do we ALL have to tell you? Pick up a darn physics text and start reading it!
What makes you think I do not pick up a text book and read it, like the kindly link that was provided?
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html
I can't read that fast, there is a lot, also I have spent 4 years reading, I do understand most of the present science stance.
If you "understand most of the present science stance", why do you continually ask such elementary questions? I agree with Pete, pick up a good physics book and start reading. After spending some time doing this, you may be ready to ask a few intelligent questions.
-
That would be the reason I spend time on forums, to try to obtain the truths out of the rubbish. Have you seen the internet lately ? there is a lot of ideas that differ.
How many times do we ALL have to tell you? Pick up a darn physics text and start reading it!
What makes you think I do not pick up a text book and read it, like the kindly link that was provided?
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html
I can't read that fast, there is a lot, also I have spent 4 years reading, I do understand most of the present science stance.
If you "understand most of the present science stance", why do you continually ask such elementary questions? I agree with Pete, pick up a good physics book and start reading. After spending some time doing this, you may be ready to ask a few intelligent questions.
You have to start a discussion with a starting point, often expressed in a question form. What makes lightning? a simple start that explains the discussion.
What happens at the initial starting point of lightning, the ''point zero'' I explained?
I do not believe it has been answered? or I still do not understand the answer.
-
Regarding the question; "What makes lightning?"
Very simple, it's called electrical potential. Same potential that one can arrive at by raising the voltage between the positive and negative electrodes of a spark plug. When the voltage is high enough, the current will jump the gap, same phenomenon occurs with lightning. All very elementary Mr. Watson!
-
What makes you think I do not pick up a text book and read it, like the kindly link that was provided?
Because I made the assumption that if you actually did pick up such a text that you'd have to learn and know calculus and that you'd have worked hundreds, if not thousands, of homework problems and your knowledge wouldn't be as horrible as you've demonstrated it to be in this forum. Plus you claim to be twelve years old by the information you provided to set up the account. If that was the truth then you'd be unable to have learned calculus by the time you claimed to have started reading the Feynman Lectures. If you're not 12 and thus you lied then there's every likelihood that you're lying about reading the Feynman Lectures.
Every physicist, student and amateur knows that the Feynman Lectures are quite advanced. If you read and understood them then it would show. But you clearly don't have a good grasp of physics as all of use can attest to.
It's so sad that you thought that you could pull the wool over our eyes and pretend to know physics as well as an undergrad. But we're good at what we do and have dealt with people such as yourself trying to BS us for decades so we know that you're lying about your education.
That this is evident is clearly demonstrated from the countless times that we've all asked you very clear questions and you either avoided answering them as if we never asked them or your answer was that of a 12 year olds understanding.
Stop thinking that we're as ignorant as you are and you'll start to get on the right track.
Why would a nobody who was not going anywhere with their life, who was never going to be a scientist, learn Calculus, something they will never use in their life?
I still have not had my question answered about lightning, again attention focused on me rather than my posts or ideas. This forum is no different from others, it takes little time for members to become anti-members.
-
I still have not had my question answered about lightning, again attention focused on me rather than my posts or ideas. This forum is no different from others, it takes little time for members to become anti-members.
The answer to your question is found in reply #105. If that isn't good enough for you, try Wikipedia.............enough said!
-
Why would a nobody who was not going anywhere with their life, who was never going to be a scientist, learn Calculus, something they will never use in their life?
You use it every time you catch a ball or cross a road. And when you grow up, you will use it when you drive a car, to avoid killing people.
-
What happens at the initial starting point of lightning, the ''point zero'' I explained?
I do not believe it has been answered? or I still do not understand the answer.
You won't understand the answer because the question is meaningless. Many people understand basic electrostatics, and quite a few have a good idea of what goes on inside thunderclouds. Several have explained both in this thread. But nobody has any idea what you mean by "point zero", and you seem to have failed to absorb the most elementary explanations we have given, because none of them include your bizarre preconceptions and absurd misappropriations of everyday terminology.
If you want to talk science, you have to use the same language as everyone else. You won't get far in France by shouting in German, so why should the experts and knowledgeable amateurs on this forum abandon their universal professional vocabulary in order to peer into the murky depths of your fantasies?
Hey! You have got a professional scientist to use adjectives! Quite an achievement!
-
so why should the experts and knowledgeable amateurs on this forum abandon their universal professional vocabulary in order to peer into the murky depths of your fantasies?
Hey! You have got a professional scientist to use adjectives! Quite an achievement!
Good one Alan,.................that observation produced a healthy belly laugh with a significant duration on my end of this conversation.
"the desperate and murky bottomless depths of his unimaginable, illogical, and incurable fantasies"
-
Negative ion's can become temporarily attached to positive ion's , until the negative ion, by rules of thermodynamics and exchange from the positive to the negative ion, then also becomes a positive ion so then repels each other causing a rift in space?
-
If that is a question,the answer is no.
If it is a statement, it is nonsense: charge is conserved, and a "rift in space" is meaningless.
-
If that is a question,the answer is no.
If it is a statement, it is nonsense: charge is conserved, and a "rift in space" is meaningless.
it is a question, a rift -a crack, split, or break in something. I consider lightning to be a split of the constant transparent we look through.
You say no, if opposite polarities attract? then surely negative ions are attracted to positive ions and vice versus. Surely when any two ''objects'' are in contact they exchange heat from the warmer object to the colder object?
Has seen with room temperature.
When I rub a balloon and create friction, I create a positive electrostatic charge, this allows the balloon to ''stick'' to a more negative surface such as a wall. Now if I rub the wall and the balloon, ad then try to ''stick'' the balloon to the wall, what would happen?
would the wall repel the balloon by the same polarity of electrostatic charge?
-
it is a question, a rift -a crack, split, or break in something. I consider lightning to be a split of the constant transparent we look through.
It isn't. Benjamin Franklin explained what it is, about 300 years ago. I don't think it has changed.
You say no, if opposite polarities attract? then surely negative ions are attracted to positive ions and vice versus. Surely when any two ''objects'' are in contact they exchange heat from the warmer object to the colder object?
Non sequitur: charge has nothing to do with temperature
When I rub a balloon and create friction, I create a positive electrostatic charge,
No, you separate charges - your sweater acquires an equal and opposite charge to the balloon. this allows the balloon to ''stick'' to a more negative surface such as a wall. Now if I rub the wall and the balloon, ad then try to ''stick'' the balloon to the wall, what would happen?
would the wall repel the balloon by the same polarity of electrostatic charge?
Why not try it and tell us?
-
it is a question, a rift -a crack, split, or break in something. I consider lightning to be a split of the constant transparent we look through.
It isn't. Benjamin Franklin explained what it is, about 300 years ago. I don't think it has changed.
You say no, if opposite polarities attract? then surely negative ions are attracted to positive ions and vice versus. Surely when any two ''objects'' are in contact they exchange heat from the warmer object to the colder object?
Non sequitur: charge has nothing to do with temperature
When I rub a balloon and create friction, I create a positive electrostatic charge,
No, you separate charges - your sweater acquires an equal and opposite charge to the balloon. this allows the balloon to ''stick'' to a more negative surface such as a wall. Now if I rub the wall and the balloon, ad then try to ''stick'' the balloon to the wall, what would happen?
would the wall repel the balloon by the same polarity of electrostatic charge?
Why not try it and tell us?
You say your sweater acquires an equal and opposite charge, does something spin ''backwards'', the opposite way?
-
Why would a nobody who was not going anywhere with their life, who was never going to be a scientist, learn Calculus, something they will never use in their life?
You cannot develop a good understanding of physics without a grasp of the tools that physicists use. You are putting forward your own ideas on a physics forum without having gained this knowledge. You cannot sensible criticize the answers you are given without this grounding. It isn't easy to get to a point where you can start to master these tools. I certainly am not there yet which is why I read the answers given and verify them by using other sources. I know nothing of quantum physics and very little about the standard model so I don't post on those topics. Find yourself one area of physics and target your learning towards that initially. That way you are not shooting off in multiple directions with no idea of any subject.
-
You say your sweater acquires an equal and opposite charge, does something spin ''backwards'', the opposite way?
Charge has nothing to do with spin.
-
Why would a nobody who was not going anywhere with their life, who was never going to be a scientist, learn Calculus, something they will never use in their life?
You cannot develop a good understanding of physics without a grasp of the tools that physicists use. You are putting forward your own ideas on a physics forum without having gained this knowledge. You cannot sensible criticize the answers you are given without this grounding. It isn't easy to get to a point where you can start to master these tools. I certainly am not there yet which is why I read the answers given and verify them by using other sources. I know nothing of quantum physics and very little about the standard model so I don't post on those topics. Find yourself one area of physics and target your learning towards that initially. That way you are not shooting off in multiple directions with no idea of any subject.
I would argue knowledge is memorised words from someone else's words and thought's, I would argue that I can think for myself and need no knowledge of present to consider and think about anything, I would argue my ideas are based on a ''beginning principle'', something always has routes. Physics is not hard to consider any aspect, I wish I did not shy away from it at school now.
The sun and lightning are a plasma, when plasma dissipates it becomes a gas, when the gas is dissipated is becomes scattered fragments of plasma gas,
What happens at the sun , plasma to gas conversion? as seen in solar flare dissociation from the sun and space
-
I would argue knowledge is memorised words from someone else's words and thought's,
If you genuinely believe this is what constitutes knowledge then it would explain why you appear to know so little.
I would argue that I can think for myself and need no knowledge of present to consider and think about anything,
True, but if you wish to think effectively and efficiently, then ignoring what is already known is strange blend of arrogance and foolishness. I remind you of the famous quote of Newton, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".
I would argue my ideas are based on a ''beginning principle'', something always has routes.
I am sure that statement has significance for you. Perhaps you will rephrase it so others can understand its meaning.
Physics is not hard to consider any aspect, I wish I did not shy away from it at school now.
I suspect several members share that regret. However, as others have pointed out, it is not too late for you to learn, but you need to go about it the right way. You are not presently doing so.
The sun and lightning are a plasma, when plasma dissipates it becomes a gas, when the gas is dissipated is becomes scattered fragments of plasma gas,
Wrong. To my knowledge there is no such thing as plasma gas. If such exists, please provide references for its definition.
What happens at the sun , plasma to gas conversion? as seen in solar flare dissociation from the sun and space
Incomplete and consequently meaningless phrase.