>Fast radio bursts: What are these ‘insanely powerful,’ unexplained signals from space? >The signals almost always occur as one-off events, with just a single burst recorded from a single location. >A widely-held explanation for the fascinating signals remains elusive. >FRBs travel billions of years to get to us, and only last a few milliseconds, suggesting the emission mechanism is short-lived.
How about black hole lightning? The no hair theorem lets BHs have both mass *and* charge, and it is known that lightning can be a radio source. Say you have a charged black hole accreting for a long time, then there is a void in the accretion disk, and then the electric attraction between the BH and the charged accretion material leads to "dielectric breakdown of the vacuum." KABOOM!!! Then you get black hole lightning with an accompanying radio signal that depends on the length of the arc of the dielectric breakdown.
You can say, "A BH would never acquire that much charge," or, "Large scale charge formations would never form in the accretion material because the charge when rearrange to neutralize itself when the charge formations were still small." However, you can make this same argument about BHs and accretion material with the Earth and clouds. The same argument against large scale charge formations in BH systems will lead one to conclude that large scale charge formations should never form in the terrestrial atmosphere... and yet they do form. Lighting is very real! (Any what are sprites and jets???)
too bad you didn't ask if .999... was equal to one while being a superluminal psychology engineer. then you prolly woulda got a bite
Andrew Myers
Why is the same idiot proposing a theory and then saying the OP is a brainlet for introducing such a crack-brained notion?
If you're not the same person, at least ONE of you ought to consider using a trip-code to prevent identity-theft.
Gabriel Flores
idk what a trip code is.
Michael Jenkins
>failing this much at samefagging Don't worry, this place is already so infested by terminal brainlet kids, I'm not even going to tell you to kill yourself. Have a nice day, faggot.
>he same argument against large scale charge formations in BH systems will lead one to conclude that large scale charge formations should never form in the terrestrial atmosphere... and yet they do form. Are there event horizons in the atmosphere? No. So no the same logic does not apply. The point about black holes is that unlike a solid surface in a plasma there is no equilibrium surface charging. Instead of dealing in bullshit analogies why don't you do some actual physics?
Asher Ross
Your comment is totally stupid. The event horizon has nothing to do with the tendency of small scale charge gradients to rearrange themselves before they can become large scale gradients.
I am doing actual physics: I am theorizing a mechanism for an unexplained signal. What do you call "actual physics?" Pushing enter on the keyboard connected to the device that computes things for you?
Anthony Turner
>I am doing actual physics Ok then. A black hole is charged and surrounded by a plasma. Why isn't it neutralised? Explain the behaviour of charged particles specifically.
By doing actual physics I mean actually considering the forces and dynamics involved instead of drawing subjective analogies.
Oliver Reed
>pushing a button to make a computer do things finite element analysis btfo
You fucking stupid moron. Why aren't the charge distributions that cause terresrial lightning neutralized? Physics says they should be and yet lightning still exists. Therefore it is not too outlandish to suppose that black hole lightning also exists.
>actual physics I mean actually considering the forces and dynamics involved "actual physics" says there should be no large scale lightning in the terrestrial atmosphere and yet it is there, so by extension "real actual physics" says that we don't know enough about plasmas to say what they will or won't do. cretin.
Jace Roberts
>Why aren't the charge distributions that cause terresrial lightning neutralized? Because the atmosphere is not a plasma. Lightning is the process though which neutralisation occurs, lightning has to happen first because charge can't be conducted though the insulator that is the atmosphere. The charge imbalance causes an electric field, eventually you get an a runaway breakdown which ionises the lightning path.
That isn't necessary in my scenario because the Black Hole is surrounded by a plasma.
You didn't answer my question at all. You didn't even try. You entirely sidestepped it and doubled down on your stupid analogy. The actual physics of why lightning happens is quite well understood.
>says that we don't know enough about plasmas to say what they will or won't do. That argument is fucking retarded. Criticising standard theory does not make your claim any more credible. That's not even bad physics it's just shitty logic.
Cameron Nelson
>The actual physics of why lightning happens is quite well understood. wrong, atmospheric lightning is an unsolved problem
What I wrote was coherent: >maybe the radio signal is BH lightning >lightning is a radio source >the one off nature of lightning is like the one nature of the anomalous radio signal
What you wrote was incoherent: >Here's about 25 words regarding one of the least understood areas of physics! >why won't you answer me? >why won't you take my bait? >weh weh weh weh!
>atmospheric lightning is an unsolved problem What problem?
Robert Clark
...
Caleb Peterson
why do you see tiny static electricity lightning at night under a polyester blanket riddle me that
Henry Morris
the problem of why large scale electric potential gradients form in the sky without neutralizing themselves via charge rearrangement while they are still small scale
Ryder Smith
Once again you just sidestep the entire discussion of plasma physics. It's amazing you feel qualified to propose a "model" like this you won't even discuss the physics of your own bullshit arguments.
Even if you ignore your completely absent logic what you've put forward is useless. Just saying "it's lightning. Don't ask me how. Plasma is a mystery so I can make it do whatever I want." doesn't provide anything that can be tested against observation. For example what type of galaxies does your model predict generate FRBs? You don't know because you don't understand anything. Are the bursts already dispersed in frequency when emitted like terrestrial lightning? You don't know. There is nothing to test.
These are the problems actual astronomers face, this is why you need to understand the physics. This is why acting like a retard and pretending you can't hear the criticism doesn't fly.
Jaxon Gomez
>"You fucking stupid moron" >"Physics says" >"cretin" >namefagging Not even that guy but you come off as a spammer and a troll. You respond with ad hominem and hostility to that guy for no reason. I had no inclination to believe either stance but your poor discussion skills immediately made me wary of any of your claims.
Lincoln Roberts
But that's not lightning, that's what leads to lightning. We understand exactly how that leads to lightning. And anyway, it's not like physics can't explain why large scale electric potential gradients form in the sky, it's theorized that it's caused by stratification of different sizes of particles of water vapor and ice. We just don't know for sure if that theory is correct.
Justin Cooper
I wouldn't try engaging him with logic.
Justin Gray
Just ignore him, he's schizophrenic and has extreme delusions of grandeur.
Grayson Brooks
Without giving it too much thought, my intuition is that the energy of the electrons is lower, due to the chemical properties of your sheets' material compared to your blankets' material, so they move to the lower energy material. This is like why an electron from sodium goes into chlorine in the salt molecule. Regarding blankets, when you manually separate the sheet and the blanket the energy landscape changes leading to the neutralizing rearrangement of the small scale charge distributions that formed while the two materials where in contact. The neutralized charge distribution is the lower energy configuration when the blanket and sheet lose contact.
Large scale charge formations in the atmosphere are not low energy. What natural process drives the atmospheric electrons into the high energy state? This is a famously unsolved problem.
Ayden Roberts
Those lightning strikes are the first thoughts of the earth mind entity, just like computers and humans ! >duhhhhhhhhhh sentience ! I'm atheist ! upload me bitch !
>doesn't provide anything that can be tested against observation wrong again dummy. To test is one can add charge structure to one computational accretion models. Then one can add spatial voids into the geometry of the accretion material such that an electric discharge is produced in the simulation. Then you can study the expected signature of the resultant radio signal and compare it to the anomalous FRB signal.
Benjamin Adams
>for no reason. the reason is because what he wrote was stupid
Levi Taylor
>What natural process drives the atmospheric electrons into the high energy state? Ice particles in the cloud rubbing up against each other and being separated due to their differences in density.
Lucas Reed
>But that's not lightning, that's what leads to lightning. that's right. this is why we say the problem of atmospheric lightning is unsolved. If I was going to paraphrase that problem simply I would do it thusly: "Lightning: where does it come from?"
>theorized that it's caused by stratification of different sizes yes that is theorized but when one attempts to examine that theory one quickly realizes that the charge formations should self-neutralize while they are still small instead of becoming so huge.
Logan Jackson
>one quickly realizes that the charge formations should self-neutralize while they are still small instead of becoming so huge. Why?
Carson Lopez
the tiny charges jump around the polyester blanket, from the blanket to the blanket, no sheet involved just the air and the bankie
unlike dryer removal when a linen of some type is stuck to the poly blanket and separating them can produce more than one helluva jolt
Chase Kelly
>Ice particles in the cloud rubbing up against each other and being separated due to their differences in density.
Differences in density have nothing to do with it. Differences in energy can cause small scale charge separation where one particle bumps another and some electrons move and then don't have enough energy to move back when the two particles separate. This could be due to kinetic energy obtained in collisions with other fast moving particles. However, this is about small scale charge distributions. On large scales, the energy of the large scale charge distributions is many orders of magnitude above the scale of the energy of the stochastic kinematics of the atmospheric particles. Therefore it is wrong to say that the large effect is the additive result of the small scale effect. On the small scale, the energy of the electric gradients is near the scale of the thermal energies. This is not true at all on the large scale.
Owen Lee
answered here:
Colton Long
> To test is one can add charge structure to one computational accretion models.
But hang on you just said:
>we don't know enough about plasmas to say what they will or won't do.
You've already claimed you don't believe current plasma physics and then propose to use computational simulations based on the same physics? That's not "coherent".
>Then one can add spatial voids into the geometry of the accretion material such that an electric discharge is produced in the simulation. You're assuming that would happen at all. A baseless assumption.
"The details of the charging process are still being studied by scientists, but there is general agreement on some of the basic concepts of thunderstorm electrification. The main charging area in a thunderstorm occurs in the central part of the storm where air is moving upward rapidly (updraft) and temperatures range from −15 to −25 Celsius, see figure to the right. At that place, the combination of temperature and rapid upward air movement produces a mixture of super-cooled cloud droplets (small water droplets below freezing), small ice crystals, and graupel (soft hail). The updraft carries the super-cooled cloud droplets and very small ice crystals upward. At the same time, the graupel, which is considerably larger and denser, tends to fall or be suspended in the rising air.[1]
The differences in the movement of the precipitation cause collisions to occur. When the rising ice crystals collide with graupel, the ice crystals become positively charged and the graupel becomes negatively charged. See figure to the left. The updraft carries the positively charged ice crystals upward toward the top of the storm cloud. The larger and denser graupel is either suspended in the middle of the thunderstorm cloud or falls toward the lower part of the storm.[1]"
Luis Watson
I suppose that the sparks are derived from blanket on blanket contact due to the energy landscape of the polyester surface electrons. When two parts of the blanker touch in some irregular geometry then perhaps the energy landscape says more electrons should congregate here than there, and then when you change the configuration of the polyester surface, you also change the energy landscape of the polyester surface. Then the electrons are able to move through sparking via the energy they gain in moving to the new energy minimum associated with the new configuration of the surface of the blanket.
Nathaniel Ward
>You've already claimed you don't believe current plasma physics and then propose to use computational simulations based on the same physics? That's not "coherent".
it is coherent you fucking retard. If you invent some model that creates a signature and then you also observe that signal in nature, then that is good evidence that the model you invented is useful
Nicholas Lee
Yes, I am familiar with this mechanism. My criticism is that it suggests that the charge moves into the high energy configuration, and then keeps moving into the higher energy configuration for a very long time, and then finally moves back into the lower energy configuration. Why doesn't it move back into the lower energy configuration via the electric interaction as soon as the climatic interaction disrupts the low energy equilibrium of electric neutrality?
Ryder Davis
But for all we know, lightning might as well come from Zeus. Counting Ben Franklin's kite-and-key experiment as the starting point, 250 years of scientific investigation have yet to get to grips with how lightning works. That aforementioned positive patch near the bottom of the cloud remains a head-scratcher. [The Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Physics]
The second point of confusion is called the "lightning initiation problem." Measurements of the electric fields inside thunderclouds have consistently yielded peak values that are an order of magnitude weaker than is needed to break down the insulating properties of air. Man-made spark plugs require a much bigger electric field, or voltage difference between one electrode and the other in order for a current to tear across the gap. So the question is, "How do you get a spark going inside a thunderstorm? The electric fields never seem to be big enough inside the storm to generate a spark. So how does that spark get going? This is a very active area of research," Dwyer said.
And once the spark gets going, the final question is how it keeps going. "After you get it started, how does lightning propagate for tens of miles through clouds?" Dwyer said. "That's an amazing thing — how do you turn air from being an insulator into a conductor?"
Lightning confounds much of scientists' understanding of basic physics. But according to Dwyer, progress has recently picked up the pace. "We have a lot of ways of measuring lightning and storms that weren't available a few years ago. We can look at the radio signals coming out of them. We can trigger lightning, so that we can know where to point our cameras and instruments. Ten years ago we realized that lightning produces X-rays and gamma rays, which was unexpected.
LOL - yeah it's all figured out...
Gabriel Brooks
>This could be due to kinetic energy obtained in collisions with other fast moving particles. However, this is about small scale charge distributions. On large scales, the energy of the large scale charge distributions is many orders of magnitude above the scale of the energy of the stochastic kinematics of the atmospheric particles. According to what analysis? Does it take into account that these particles have exterior layers of water that get exchanged in collisions?
Eli Ortiz
>If you invent some model that creates a signature and then you also observe that signal in nature, then that is good evidence that the model you invented is useful You missed the point entirely. You refused to explain how a black hole could be charged because "plasma are not understood". Now you want to use that same plasma physics to simulate your hypothesis.
If you claim plasma physics is wrong then simulating it will likely give the wrong answers.
If you claim plasma physics is actually fine then your original excuse for not answering my question was bullshit.
Joshua Kelly
>yeah it's all figured out Did I say that? No. Are any of these points relevant to the coarse discussion about how black holes become neutral? No.
Xavier Lee
>Why doesn't it move back into the lower energy configuration via the electric interaction as soon as the climatic interaction disrupts the low energy equilibrium of electric neutrality? I don't understand, wouldn't the atmosphere itself act as an insulator?
Aaron Cooper
>But for all we know, lightning might as well come from Zeus. you can say this about any unsolved problem. Most scientists don't.
>That aforementioned positive patch near the bottom of the cloud remains a head-scratcher. >Measurements of the electric fields inside thunderclouds have consistently yielded peak values that are an order of magnitude weaker than is needed to break down the insulating properties of air. >Lightning confounds much of scientists' understanding of basic physics. thank you
>Lightning confounds much of scientists' understanding of basic physics. that sounds like a good idea
Nicholas Gutierrez
>According to what analysis? Here is my analysis: (1) consider the energy scale of individual molecules in the atmosphere (2)consider the energy scale of 10+ coulombs of charge separated my miles
Easton Thompson
>You refused to explain how a black hole could be charged this true. I did not take that bait because the point I raised was only that large scale BH charges should not be ruled out on simplistic assumptions.
Adrian Green
>I don't understand, wouldn't the atmosphere itself act as an insulator? Now you are getting into the interesting part. It seems like it should, and yet there is lightning.
Henry Rodriguez
>consider the energy scale of individual molecules in the atmosphere OK, where's this analysis?
This is the same as any other electrostatic discharge. Lightning is simply a high potential overcoming the resistance of the atmosphere, or the resistance of the atmosphere breaking down enough for the high potential to overcome it.
Isaac Nguyen
You ignored my point, again. I'll take that as you admitting your bullshit claims are self-contradictory.
Good luck convincing an actual physicists to run the simulations for you. Pro tip: you won't.
Logan Bell
>where's this analysis? its called the Boltzmann-Maxwell distribution
Brody Watson
Why are you stalling? Just post a paper.
Easton Kelly
i think it's overwhelmingly likely that there will be a period of terrible suffering near the end of your life, or your programmers' lives, where you (they) look back and regret antagonizing me
Liam Richardson
Take your meds.
Jack Robinson
The actual physics of why lightning happens is quite well understood. >yes you actually said it, and you're actually wrong
David Sanders
>lightning produces X-rays and gamma rays There's physics, then there's imaginary ass cream rubs you two are doing, well, stick it up your black holes, carry on
Cameron Brown
>quite well understood > all figured out
Adrian Nguyen
For more exciting insight in phsyics, check out my new book:
