What makes lightning?

  • 111 Replies
  • 34675 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #50 on: 20/03/2015 16:07:58 »
TheBox, try this 1,

http://www.sciforums.com

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2026
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #51 on: 20/03/2015 18:22:40 »
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.



and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #52 on: 20/03/2015 20:44:42 »
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.

 

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #53 on: 20/03/2015 21:07:28 »
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?
« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 21:11:40 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #54 on: 20/03/2015 21:48:13 »
My questions have not been answered, people avoid them.
No, you avoid listening!
Quote from: Thebox
what allows the neutron to be attracted and part of an atom?
The strong nuclear force.
Quote from: Thebox
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.
Quote from: Thebox
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.
Quote from: Thebox
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.

Quote from: Thebox
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.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 22:14:49 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2026
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #55 on: 20/03/2015 22:23:46 »
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
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #56 on: 20/03/2015 23:17:27 »
My questions have not been answered, people avoid them.
No, you avoid listening!
Quote from: Thebox
what allows the neutron to be attracted and part of an atom?
The strong nuclear force.
Quote from: Thebox
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.
Quote from: Thebox
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.
Quote from: Thebox
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.

Quote from: Thebox
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #57 on: 20/03/2015 23:23:35 »
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



« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 23:26:52 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: Lightning mechanism?
« Reply #58 on: 20/03/2015 23:44:05 »
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?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #59 on: 21/03/2015 00:11:15 »

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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #60 on: 21/03/2015 01:14:25 »

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.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2015 01:23:56 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #61 on: 21/03/2015 02:14:29 »

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.......................
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #62 on: 21/03/2015 06:53:32 »
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?
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #63 on: 21/03/2015 10:18:34 »
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.








*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #64 on: 21/03/2015 10:38:28 »
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 atomís being positive ionís 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 ionís become compressed centripetally into a cluster by the surrounding attracted negative ionís with greater volume and the positive ionís of the earthís core and the upper layer positive ions forcing the positive ionís of the cloud to be in a suspended equilibrium making a virtual containment that causes the positive ionís 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/





« Last Edit: 21/03/2015 14:11:31 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #65 on: 21/03/2015 17:57:18 »
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.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #66 on: 21/03/2015 23:56:59 »
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.





*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4246
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #67 on: 22/03/2015 10:14:11 »
Quote from: Thebox
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.

Quote from: Thebox
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
thermodynamic absorption...thermodynamic increase
Thermodynamics 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?
« Last Edit: 22/03/2015 10:27:18 by evan_au »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #68 on: 22/03/2015 10:35:05 »
Quote from: Thebox
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.

Quote from: Thebox
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
thermodynamic absorption...thermodynamic increase
Thermodynamics 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.


 
« Last Edit: 22/03/2015 11:38:25 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #69 on: 22/03/2015 16:05:24 »
Just a few notes



In reply

Mechanism is not the process like the hands on a clock
Quote
hands 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
Quote
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
Quote
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 mass
Quote
not 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
Quote
not atoms, nuclei
and have the ability to become excited by gaining positive charge or becoming dormant when negative
Quote
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 ion
Quote
on 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 gravity
Quote
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
.

It is a well known fact that Helium and Hydrogen are buoyant gases
Quote
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 rising
Quote
not 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 decrease
Quote
try 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 Newtons
Quote
not 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,
Quote
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
Quote
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.

helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #70 on: 22/03/2015 20:22:53 »
Just a few notes



In reply

Mechanism is not the process like the hands on a clock
Quote
hands 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
Quote
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
Quote
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 mass
Quote
not 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
Quote
not atoms, nuclei
and have the ability to become excited by gaining positive charge or becoming dormant when negative
Quote
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 ion
Quote
on 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 gravity
Quote
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
.

It is a well known fact that Helium and Hydrogen are buoyant gases
Quote
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 rising
Quote
not 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 decrease
Quote
try 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 Newtons
Quote
not 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,
Quote
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
Quote
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,







*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1912
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #71 on: 22/03/2015 23:13:26 »
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #72 on: 22/03/2015 23:58:48 »
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.


« Last Edit: 23/03/2015 00:28:12 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #73 on: 23/03/2015 07:32:02 »


Ok lets try it a different way, I will change my approach of how I write things.
Quote
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?
Quote
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 force
Quote
Nothing. Gravity strill applies
, that what makes the air rise up from the ground?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
Convection


Air floats on air is what science is saying.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.


helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #74 on: 23/03/2015 10:25:49 »


Ok lets try it a different way, I will change my approach of how I write things.
Quote
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?
Quote
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 force
Quote
Nothing. Gravity strill applies
, that what makes the air rise up from the ground?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
Convection


Air floats on air is what science is saying.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6ucN1Qa-Po


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?


















« Last Edit: 23/03/2015 13:01:26 by Thebox »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1912
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #75 on: 23/03/2015 12:52:49 »
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #76 on: 23/03/2015 13:08:18 »
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHPevIbSCPA

and also the energy vortex from the sun better known has curvature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbBYZZBREBA

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?

« Last Edit: 23/03/2015 13:48:53 by Thebox »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1912
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #77 on: 23/03/2015 14:18:25 »
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 įC), 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 įC 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHPevIbSCPA

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbBYZZBREBA

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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #78 on: 23/03/2015 16:03:26 »
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 įC), 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 įC 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHPevIbSCPA

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbBYZZBREBA

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?



*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #79 on: 23/03/2015 16:43:34 »


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?
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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......
Quote
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).
Quote
less dense, not lighter

Lighter meaning less Newtons of force.
Quote
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.
Quote
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,
Quote
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
Quote
who said so? I thought you had put the molecules in a box
, cluster (a) expands, cluster (a) opposes its own gravity when charged
Quote
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 apart
Quote
not in my imagination, nor according to Cavendish's experiment
.

I am sure you have seen one of these video before.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6ucN1Qa-Po


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.
Quote
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,
Quote
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 lightning
Quote
a 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
Quote
none. gravity is not magnetism
?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #80 on: 23/03/2015 19:04:11 »


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?
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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......
Quote
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).
Quote
less dense, not lighter

Lighter meaning less Newtons of force.
Quote
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.
Quote
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,
Quote
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
Quote
who said so? I thought you had put the molecules in a box
, cluster (a) expands, cluster (a) opposes its own gravity when charged
Quote
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 apart
Quote
not in my imagination, nor according to Cavendish's experiment
.

I am sure you have seen one of these video before.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6ucN1Qa-Po


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.
Quote
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,
Quote
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 lightning
Quote
a 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
Quote
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?



*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #81 on: 23/03/2015 22:08:37 »


It is not pointless, science claims air is buoyant, when air is only temporal buoyant.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
force = mass x gravitational acceleration. If you haven't changed m or g, you haven't altered F.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #82 on: 24/03/2015 11:39:40 »



''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.''


« Last Edit: 24/03/2015 11:43:07 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #83 on: 24/03/2015 11:47:26 »
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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #84 on: 24/03/2015 12:01:12 »
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 .





 
« Last Edit: 24/03/2015 13:10:26 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #85 on: 26/03/2015 00:54:41 »
Try breathing slowly, relax, and learn some physics. It's much easier than you think, if you start with humility and observation. For instance

Quote
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. 
« Last Edit: 26/03/2015 06:37:40 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4246
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #86 on: 26/03/2015 02:05:56 »
Quote from: Thebox
''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.


*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #87 on: 26/03/2015 12:40:45 »
Quote from: Thebox
''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.


*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1912
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #88 on: 26/03/2015 13:45:40 »
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #89 on: 26/03/2015 14:16:28 »
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!

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #90 on: 30/03/2015 07:04:11 »
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.

Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #91 on: 30/03/2015 14:28:08 »
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?

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #92 on: 30/03/2015 14:46:37 »
Quote from: Thebox
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 naÔve 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?



« Last Edit: 30/03/2015 14:49:10 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #93 on: 31/03/2015 03:34:05 »
Quote from: Thebox
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.


*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #94 on: 31/03/2015 03:45:15 »
Quote from: Thebox
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.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #95 on: 31/03/2015 03:58:37 »
Quote from: Thebox
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.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #96 on: 31/03/2015 16:13:52 »
Quote from: Thebox
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.
« Last Edit: 31/03/2015 16:15:46 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #97 on: 31/03/2015 17:32:43 »
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!
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3209
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #98 on: 01/04/2015 09:20:19 »
Quote from: Thebox
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.





*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: What makes lightning?
« Reply #99 on: 01/04/2015 16:31:31 »


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!
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."