What do subatomic particles have in common with ball lightning?

JMG.

They are both mentioned in this totally useless and space-consuming thread ?

Originally posted by Crisp
They are both mentioned in this totally useless and space-consuming thread ?

Crisp, you should have more ideas than the simplest observation that two objects are in the same sentence. Clearly, if that is all anyone had to answer to any comparison/contrast query, nobody will ever have to creatively think about any comparison/contrast questions. Certainly, you appear to enjoy not thinking. Try again.

JMG.

Oh, I thought that you knew the answer and were playing a "guess what" game. Nevertheless, you should be more specific with your question. Do you have any subatomic (what do you mean by this anyway?) particle in mind ? You do know that very little is understood about lightning balls ?

Bye!

Crisp

Originally posted by Crisp
Oh, I thought that you knew the answer and were playing a "guess what" game. Nevertheless, you should be more specific with your question. Do you have any subatomic (what do you mean by this anyway?) particle in mind ? You do know that very little is understood about lightning balls ?

Bye!

Crisp

My question was on the comparison of subatomic particles and ball lightning. Because my question was not specific which subatomic particle to compare against ball lightning, all are compared against ball lightning. Subatomic particles can be protons, neutrons and electrons. Once one shows protons, neutrons and electrons are composed of standing electromagnetic waves, elements which compose those particles are standing electromagnetic waves.

Ball lightning is itself a standing electromagnetic wave. Nikola Tesla was written to have been able to artificially make ball lightning. Some submarines were once written to sometimes have ball lightning.

GodLied.

<i>Once one shows protons, neutrons and electrons are composed of standing electromagnetic waves, elements which compose those particles are standing electromagnetic waves.</i>

Nobody has ever shown that, though.

<i>Ball lightning is itself a standing electromagnetic wave.</i>

Is it? Says who?

<i>Nikola Tesla was written to have been able to artificially make ball lightning. Some submarines were once written to sometimes have ball lightning.</i>

Which submarines, in particular?

Ah, so it was not a genuine question after all, but just an attempt to ventilate Tesla's ideas in this forum.

Bye!

Crisp

Originally posted by James R
<i>Once one shows protons, neutrons and electrons are composed of standing electromagnetic waves, elements which compose those particles are standing electromagnetic waves.</i>

Nobody has ever shown that, though.

<i>Ball lightning is itself a standing electromagnetic wave.</i>

Is it? Says who?

<i>Nikola Tesla was written to have been able to artificially make ball lightning. Some submarines were once written to sometimes have ball lightning.</i>

Which submarines, in particular?

Hi James. In regards to your inquiry on ball lightning, ball lightning is composed of electromagnetic waves which do not move in a linear fashion like a beam of lazer light. Because ball lightning is composed of electromagnetic waves and ball lightning is not moving at light speed, ball lightning is composed of standing electromagnetic waves.

For answers to relations between electromagnetic waves and subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons), one must look at experiments with atom smashers. Any experiments where at least one subatomic particle can be converted into an electromagnetic wave and vice versa, every subatomic particle is composed of standing electromagnetic waves because subatomic particles are composed of a set of basic elements. Even if one further splits those elements up into smaller components, all smaller components are going to become standing waves.

JMG.

Originally posted by Crisp
Ah, so it was not a genuine question after all, but just an attempt to ventilate Tesla's ideas in this forum.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp, if I ask a question it is a question. Your incapacity to answer the question is obvious.

If you dislike Tesla and his creations, recall he patented ac generators which benefits everyone: dc power does not go far on a power line as the same ac power. An example of the benefits of ac is radio and electric furnaces. An ac in a coil can melt metal faster than dc in the same coil. Dc circuits have to be connected and ac circuits do not to transfer electricity. One of the side effects of ac power plants is that conductive dust cloud bombs can create brownouts.

Oh, high frequency skin effect of ac electricity allows planes to ionize air on the skin of the plane to reduce friction.

If you want to bash a scientist like Tesla, make a new thread and find some basis for your bashing. Any bashing is a sign of jealousy. Freud might call it Tesla envy. If you have a case of Tesla envy, spill your brain damage in your own independent thread: this thread deals with the relation between subatomic particles and ball lightning.

GodLied.

Originally posted by James R
...
<i>Nikola Tesla was written to have been able to artificially make ball lightning. Some submarines were once written to sometimes have ball lightning.</i>

Which submarines, in particular?

I did a simple web search for "ball lightning submarine" and came across these websites:

http://www.meta-religion.com/Paranormale/ball_lightning.htm
http://www.pupman.com/listarchives/1998/August/msg00635.html

You may entertain yourself by searching other websites.

Oh, ball lightning is composed of plasma. Plasma is ionized gas which can form when electric current runs through it. Ball lightning is cohesive as it floats around. Electric current is circulating in the ball lightning. To do so it should be a standing wave.

JMG.

[extensive reply deleted]

GodLied:

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say:

<i>In regards to your inquiry on ball lightning, ball lightning is composed of electromagnetic waves which do not move in a linear fashion like a beam of lazer light.</i>

Then, a little later:

<i>Oh, ball lightning is composed of plasma.</i>

Plasma is not the same as electromagnetic waves.

And you still haven't pointed to anything which supports the idea that ball lightning is composed of EM waves.

<i>For answers to relations between electromagnetic waves and subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons), one must look at experiments with atom smashers. Any experiments where at least one subatomic particle can be converted into an electromagnetic wave and vice versa, every subatomic particle is composed of standing electromagnetic waves because subatomic particles are composed of a set of basic elements.</i>

Converting a particle (or, more often, a pair of particles) into electromagnetic waves (i.e. light) does not mean that the original particles were made of light to start with.

<i>Even if one further splits those elements up into smaller components, all smaller components are going to become standing waves.</i>

How?

<i>I did a simple web search for "ball lightning submarine" and came across these websites...</i>

Ah...ok. What you meant was that ball lightning has been observed in submarines. Fair enough. I thought you were talking about some kind of weapon or something.

<i>Plasma is ionized gas which can form when electric current runs through it. Ball lightning is cohesive as it floats around. Electric current is circulating in the ball lightning.</i>

Yes...

<i>To do so it should be a standing wave.</i>

What should be?

To cut to the chase;

[Link removed]

Moderator edit: Personal insults add nothing useful to the discussion.

Plasma is ionized gas. One gets plasma by running electric current through gas. Ball lightning, uncontained cohesive plasma floating through space, has electric currents running through it which do not escape from it. Such currents are either infinite loops or somehow otherwise contained like a standing wave. Therefore, ball lightning is composed of standing electromagnetic waves generating light by ionizing the gas they flow through. Energy from those waves is lost by the emission of light by the plasma as the standing wave runs through it.

Why does conversion of a particle or pair of particles into electromagnetic waves not mean that the original particles were composed of standing electromagnetic waves?

James, if wave at speed c can be transformed into another object which may exist at 0 speed, the resultant object is composed of at least one standing wave. If we separate the resultant object into smaller parts, those parts are standing waves.

Ball lightning cannot be used as a weapon because it does not have decisive paths to travel: one cannot focus the weapon on a target in the midst of electrically similar non-targets. One time long ago a scientist wanted to sell a lightning machine to zap airplanes out of the sky. That is not really an effective weapon either.

JMG.

Thed, answer the question to the thread or start your own: responses like yours render your intellect as high as that of Crisp.

Have a great Day!

JMG.

Originally posted by GodLied
Thed, answer the question to the thread or start your own: responses like yours render your intellect as high as that of Crisp.

Have a great Day!

JMG.

Well, I could explain at some length how you can create EM standing waves using carefully designed wave guides designed by solving Maxwell's equations. I could explain how EM is no mysterious force and is well understood. Fundamental particles are adequately explained by the Lie group SU(3)U(1) which is very successfull at predicting new particles. The generators of this group have been experimentally verified to exist. Further to that I could add that EM and weak nuclear forces have been successfully unified in the electroweak theory, which has also been experimentally verifed by the discovery of the W and Z vector bosons. On top of that the behaviour of plasmas are reasonably well understood, they can create their own current loops quite spontaneously.

To answer your vague question, there is nothing in common with Ball Lightning and Subatomic particles. Very different phenomena.

But you have apparently already made up your mind so any attempt at shifting your position will fall upon deaf ears. Like many you've apparently decided EM is some wierd force responsible for all other forces (for why, I have no idea) and probably that Tesla was some misunderstood genius. You asked the question to further your own agenda and have no intention of accepting anyone elses perspective. In short, debate is not possible.

At least you didn't try to convince anyone the Sun is a Z-pinch in a Birkeland current.

BTW, thanks for the compliment. I consider Crisp's intellect to be high. They are a very knowledgeable poster indeed. Best to listen to them.

GodLied:

<i>Plasma is ionized gas. One gets plasma by running electric current through gas.</i>

That's one way.

<i>Ball lightning, uncontained cohesive plasma floating through space, has electric currents running through it which do not escape from it. Such currents are either infinite loops or somehow otherwise contained like a standing wave.</i>

Not necessarily.

<i>Therefore, ball lightning is composed of standing electromagnetic waves generating light by ionizing the gas they flow through.</i>

That doesn't follow from what you've just said.


<i>Why does conversion of a particle or pair of particles into electromagnetic waves not mean that the original particles were composed of standing electromagnetic waves?</i>

Why does the conversion of milk into butter not mean that butter was originally composed of milk?

<i>James, if wave at speed c can be transformed into another object which may exist at 0 speed, the resultant object is composed of at least one standing wave.</i>

That doesn't follow.

Originally posted by James R
GodLied:

...
Why does the conversion of milk into butter not mean that butter was originally composed of milk?

...

Then the relation between subatomic particles and ball lightning is empty and the question of their relation has been answered.

JMG.

Originally posted by thed
....
To answer your vague question, there is nothing in common with Ball Lightning and Subatomic particles. Very different phenomena.

....
......

If I ask a question I seek an answer. Answers may not be gained by those who chose to not enter into a discussion in pursuit of an answer. Furthermore, an educator cannot educate another by ridiculing one who asks a question. To teach, one should either discuss points as I have done with James or provide the rationale for an answer.

When I ask about apples and oranges I do not want to hear about pears and grapefruit unless there is something which inherently leads to the answer to my question by analogy, similarity, and so on. If I want to ask about Tesla I will ask about Tesla. In general, my question is precisely my question.

Why people chose to add to questions what is not present in the question is a mysterious reason why rumors and misconceptions arise. Such manufacturing information leads to elaborate, wordy answers which are not necessarily directed at the object of the question. An example of adding information to solving a problem occurred in anther thread about nozzles, tanks, flow rates, and time. In that problem flow rate was constant, tanks all had equal volumes, time was relative and the number of nozzles was desired. One poster invented data to answer the question. Such invention of data elaborates an answer with excess information that clouds the problem solving process.

Debate is not possible with those who prefer to ridicule instead of debate. Debate involves at least two opinions. Each opinion will hopefully have some basis for its existence. An observer can compare basis of the opinions to form a decision if both opinions are right, wrong, or right relative to particular belief systems.

An example of four statements which are all right but sound different result from a race of two opponents where F finished first and S finished second.

1. F won first place in the race.
2. F got a trophy for finishing next to last.
3. S finished second.
4. S finished last.

All four comments are true but they all infer different emotions about F and S.

Have a good Day!

JMG.