The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What makes lightning?  (Read 33657 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #25 on: 18/03/2015 23:09:48 »
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.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #26 on: 18/03/2015 23:14:45 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #27 on: 18/03/2015 23:26:04 »
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?





« Last Edit: 18/03/2015 23:40:51 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #28 on: 19/03/2015 06:35:42 »
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.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2015 06:37:37 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #29 on: 19/03/2015 08:39:25 »
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?

« Last Edit: 19/03/2015 09:23:10 by Thebox »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #30 on: 19/03/2015 12:07:45 »
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
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
  • Thanked: 122 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #31 on: 19/03/2015 12:42:28 »
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.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 05:32:55 by Colin2B »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #32 on: 19/03/2015 16:23:15 »
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.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #33 on: 19/03/2015 17:27:16 »
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!!!
Quote



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.   


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4091
  • Thanked: 243 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #34 on: 19/03/2015 20:09:25 »
Quote from: Thebox
I am interested in.. how the lightning discharge initiates, the initial point in a cloud where lightning starts its short journey.
Quote from: Thebox
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 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.

Quote from: Thebox
Centripetal
I think that you are using "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..)
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #35 on: 19/03/2015 21:14:27 »


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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #36 on: 20/03/2015 12:17:03 »
Quote from: Thebox
I am interested in.. how the lightning discharge initiates, the initial point in a cloud where lightning starts its short journey.
Quote from: Thebox
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 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.

Quote from: Thebox
Centripetal
I think that you are using "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?







« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 12:24:12 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #37 on: 20/03/2015 12:27:56 »
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!!!
Quote



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.   


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #38 on: 20/03/2015 12:37:00 »
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?

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #39 on: 20/03/2015 12:47:12 »


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.



« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 13:29:09 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
  • Thanked: 122 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #40 on: 20/03/2015 13:27:18 »
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!


 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #41 on: 20/03/2015 13:40:43 »


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.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #42 on: 20/03/2015 13:41:20 »
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.





« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 13:42:53 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #43 on: 20/03/2015 13:49:35 »


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.

 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #44 on: 20/03/2015 14:00:59 »


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.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #45 on: 20/03/2015 14:05:28 »


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?
« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 14:11:57 by Thebox »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #46 on: 20/03/2015 14:11:38 »


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.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 16:32:21 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #47 on: 20/03/2015 14:21:33 »


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?

« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 14:31:01 by Thebox »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #48 on: 20/03/2015 14:35:43 »


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...........................
« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 16:35:10 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #49 on: 20/03/2015 14:41:30 »


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?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #49 on: 20/03/2015 14:41:30 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length