Ball Lightning
in [Physics]
|
Prev: $50,000 for KILLING FBI, CIA, NSA and NIS DIRECTORS
Next: * Iarnrod Hates US * the usenet kook makes HUGE stinking turd pile in newsgroups by failing to confront prove FACT that his claims are physically impossible
From: Mitchell Jones on 29 May 2010 23:42 In article <f8a040c9-d648-46b6-b474-ef804aaef214(a)t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On May 28, 7:30�pm, Mitchell Jones <mjo...(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > > Reluctantly I leave the entire hash. > > > In article <86abmnF3k...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > �Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 28/05/2010 14:15, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > > In article<869qivFpt...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > � Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> �wrote: > > > > > >> On 28/05/2010 03:27, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > >>> In article<8689l4Flv...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > >>> � �Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> � wrote: > > > > > >>>> On 27/05/2010 22:56, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > >>>>> In article<86801kFph...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > >>>>> � � Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> � �wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> On 27/05/2010 19:50, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > >>>>>>> In article<wAyLn.7480$v%3.4...(a)newsfe15.ams2>, > > > >>>>>>> � � �"Androcles"<Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> � � wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>> "Mitchell Jones"<mjo...(a)21cenlogic.com> � � wrote in message > > > >>>>>>>>news:mjones-64395F.12240327052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com > > > >>>>>>>>... > > > >>>>>>>> | In article<htf1k6$gk...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > > >>>>>>>> | "hanson"<han...(a)quick.net> � � wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> | > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � > > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � "Mitchell Jones"<mjo...(a)21cenlogic.com> � � wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � > � � [snip] > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � O Mighty Hanson! :-) > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � > > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � hanson wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I > > > >>>>>>>> |> will > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � bestow > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at > > > >>>>>>>> |> least as > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that > > > >>>>>>>> |> you > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � have > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � been here on earth. > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � ==== �You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. > > > >>>>>>>> |> ==== > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you....... > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � > > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � benefit: > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � > > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � anthropic > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling > > > >>>>>>>> |> and > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � sooner > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant& > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � all > > > >>>>>>>> |> � � heuristic thinkers end up. > > > >>>>>>>> | > > > >>>>>>>> | ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, > > > >>>>>>>> | but > > > >>>>>>>> | it > > > >>>>>>>> | is > > > >>>>>>>> | also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on > > > >>>>>>>> | which > > > >>>>>>>> | everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire > > > >>>>>>>> | structure > > > >>>>>>>> | is > > > >>>>>>>> | unsound. > > > >>>>>>>> | > > > >>>>>>>> | Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify > > > >>>>>>>> | the > > > >>>>>>>> | circularity in the following: > > > >>>>>>>> | > > > >>>>>>>> | (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of > > > >>>>>>>> | continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of > > > >>>>>>>> | nothing > > > >>>>>>>> | or > > > >>>>>>>> | vanish into nothing--is true. > > > >>>>>>>> | > > > > > >>>>>>>> The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come > > > >>>>>>>> from an egg's mind. Your "reasoning" is false. > > > > > >>>>>>> ***{Since things cannot come into existence out of nothing, it > > > >>>>>>> follows > > > >>>>>>> that they come into existence out of something--which means: the > > > > > >>>>>> Well, apart from universes and virtual particles. > > > > > >>>>> ***{Attempting to refute the only reasoning by which the existence > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> an > > > >>>>> external world, hence of science, hence of scientific theories, can > > > >>>>> be > > > >>>>> established, by citing a couple of allegedly "scientific" theories, > > > >>>>> seems rather akin to attempting to lift oneself off of the floor by > > > >>>>> tugging at one's own bootstraps, don't you think? :-) �--MJ}*** > > > > > >>>>> ***************************************************************** > > > >>>>> If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility > > > >>>>> that you are in my killfile. --MJ > > > > > >>>> No. > > > >>>> Your claims that "something from nothing" is impossible is an act of > > > >>>> faith on your part. > > > > > >>> ***{Pardon me for persisting here, but what you are saying seems very > > > >>> strange to me. > > > > > >>> In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of > > > >>> continuity > > > >>> requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, which is > > > >>> an > > > >>> act of self-contradiction. Therefore, since denial of continuity > > > >>> leads > > > > > >> Tell it to the Buddha. > > > > > >>> to a contradiction, it follows that the principle of continuity must > > > >>> be > > > >>> true. > > > > > >>> Where, exactly, does an "act of faith" occur in that line of > > > >>> reasoning? > > > > > >> Your belief that what you say is true. > > > > > > ***{So my "act of faith" lies in the fact that I am willing to be > > > > convinced by a proof. I can live with that. :-) --MJ}*** > > > > > You have not offered proof. > > > All you have offered is an assertion: > > > > > "In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of > > > continuity requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, > > > which is an act of self-contradiction." > > > > ***{That's another very strange statement, since you should know > > perfectly well that the above quoted sentence is NOT the only thing I > > have offered along those lines. Multiple posts from me elaborating on > > the above in great detail are in fact sitting in sci.physics right now, > > only a mouse click away, a fact that is readily verifiable by anyone who > > is interested. > > > > Below, between the lines of asterisks, is one of those detailed > > elaborations. > > > > ************************************** > > (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of > > continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or > > vanish into nothing--is true. > > > > (2) The possible answers to that question are two: it is either true, or > > it is false. > > > > (3) Doubt is a state of mind. Hence the claim to doubt that one has a > > mind is a contradiction in terms. Hence the existence of one's mind is a > > self-evident fact. But the mind is more than consciousness: it is that > > which, by receiving sensations, IS conscious, and by sourcing > > sensations, acts. If, however, we assume that the principle of > > continuity is false, we must doubt that anything exists to receive > > sensations: they may be simply vanishing into nothing; and we must doubt > > that anything exists to act as a source of sensations: they may be > > simply leaping into existence out of nothing. To say, therefore, that > > the principle of continuity is false, or even that it may be false, is > > to say that we doubt the existence of anything outside of the field of > > consciousness, including the existence of the mind. But that is a > > contradiction: we cannot doubt the existence of the mind, because doubt > > is a state of mind. Therefore we can eliminate the possibility that the > > principle of continuity is false from our consideration, and, when we do > > so, we find that only one possibility remains: that the principle of > > continuity is true. > > > > (4) �Since only one possibility remains, we must accept it as the truth, > > until and unless we find an error in steps (1) through (3) above. > > ************************************** > > > > The sentence that you quoted, and falsely claimed to be the only thing I > > have offered on this subject, was in fact intended as a sort of summary, > > an abstract if you will, of the detailed content that I supplied above, > > and at multiple other locations in this thread. > > > > That's why the first three words of the sentence are "In a nutshell." > > Those words are there to tell you that what follows is a brief summary > > of comments that I made elsewhere. > > > > --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > > > I say it does not require doubt of the existence of his own mind. > > > > ***{The denial of continuity opens up the possibility that things may > > leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing. Hence it > > opens up the possibility that our sensations are doing that. Hence it > > opens up the possibility that all of our sensations are doing > > that--which means: it becomes possible that nothing exists other than > > the field of consciousness itself. > > > > That would mean the external world may not exist: your sensations of > > sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell might under that scenario not be > > coming from anything; they might be simply leaping into existence out of > > nothing. [snip] > > In summary, the mind involves faculties which exist outside of the field > > of consciousness, faculties which receive, process, and respond to > > sensations. The mind, like the external world, is an inference which is > > called into question by the notion that sensations may be leaping into > > existence out of nothing and/or vanishing into nothing. > > > > Bottom line: the denial of continuity does, in fact, require one to > > doubt the existence of one's own mind. > > I can live with that, and simply shelve it. ***{Or, alternatively, you could note that doubt is a state of mind, hence that doubt of the existence of one's own mind is a contradiction in terms, hence that, because it requires a contradiction, the denial of continuity is refuted, and that since the truth of the principle of continuity is the only possibility that remains, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTINUITY MUST BE TRUE. It's a standard, garden-variety indirect proof, Edward: you assume that the proposition to be proven is false, and show that such an assumption leads to a contradiction. You then conclude that, since the proposition cannot be false, it therefore must be true. Of course, as you say, you don't have to do that. You can simply "shelve it" instead--which means: you can force the whole line of reasoning out of consciousness before, horror of horrors, it forces you to change one of your opinions. You can do as you wish, of course. I, on the other hand, am willing to be convinced by a proof. --MJ}*** ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 31 May 2010 19:24 On 29/05/2010 00:30, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > ***{The denial of continuity opens up the possibility that things may > leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing. Hence it > opens up the possibility that our sensations are doing that. Hence it > opens up the possibility that all of our sensations are doing > that--which means: it becomes possible that nothing exists other than > the field of consciousness itself. > > That would mean the external world may not exist: your sensations of > sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell might under that scenario not be > coming from anything; they might be simply leaping into existence out of > nothing. > > And it would mean the internal world--your mind--might not exist: the > sensations you think indicate the existence of faculties of mind such as > memory, judgment, imagination, choice, understanding, etc., might in > fact merely be leaping into existence out of nothing; and you might be > similarly mistaken in thinking that they were impinging upon, hence > influencing, any such mental faculties, because those sensations might > in fact merely be disappearing into nothing. Now you've got it. > In summary, the mind involves faculties which exist outside of the field > of consciousness, faculties which receive, process, and respond to > sensations. The mind, like the external world, is an inference which is > called into question by the notion that sensations may be leaping into > existence out of nothing and/or vanishing into nothing. > Bottom line: the denial of continuity does, in fact, require one to > doubt the existence of one's own mind. No, it requires one to doubt the continuity of ones own mind. Doubting its existence is another question altogether. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 31 May 2010 19:25 On 30/05/2010 00:25, Edward Green wrote: > On May 28, 9:15 am, Mitchell Jones<mjo...(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: >> In article<869qivFpt...(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 28/05/2010 03:27, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > <...> > >>>> ***{Pardon me for persisting here, but what you are saying seems very >>>> strange to me. >> >>>> In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of continuity >>>> requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, which is an >>>> act of self-contradiction. Therefore, since denial of continuity leads >> >>> Tell it to the Buddha. >> >>>> to a contradiction, it follows that the principle of continuity must be >>>> true. >> >>>> Where, exactly, does an "act of faith" occur in that line of reasoning? >> >>> Your belief that what you say is true. >> >> ***{So my "act of faith" lies in the fact that I am willing to be >> convinced by a proof. I can live with that. :-) --MJ}*** > > Your "proof" smacks of scholasticism. I am not convinced by it. > > Mind you, I agree with your premise... that something from nothing is > unthinkable... just not your alleged proof. If nothing begets > something, why then it was not complete and utter nothing -- it was > the kind of nothing which is apt to beget that kind of something, > which is not quite nothing. > Boltzmann Brains. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Brad Guth on 8 Jun 2010 07:27 On May 20, 3:55 am, HVAC <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ball lightning is a rare circular light phenomenon occurring during > thunderstorms. Scientists have been puzzled by the nature of these > apparent fire balls for a long time. Now physicists at the University > of Innsbruck have calculated that the magnetic field of long lightning > strokes may produce the image of luminous shapes, also known as > phosphenes, in the brain. This finding may offer an explanation for > many ball lightning observations. > > Physicists Josef Peer and Alexander Kendl from the University of > Innsbruck have studied electromagnetic fields of different types of > lightning strokes occurring during thunderstorms. Their calculations > suggest that the magnetic fields of a specific class of long lasting > repetitive lightning discharges show the same properties as > transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a technique commonly used in > clinical and psychiatric practice to stimulate neural activity in the > human brain. Time varying and sufficiently strong magnetic fields > induce electrical fields in the brain, specifically, in neurons of the > visual cortex, which may invoke phosphenes. "In the clinical > application of TMS, luminous and apparently real visual perceptions in > varying shapes and colors within the visual field of the patients and > test persons are reported and well examined," says Alexander Kendl. > The Innsbruck physicists have now calculated that a near lightning > stroke of long lasting thunderbolts may also generate these luminous > visions, which are likely to appear as ball lightning. > > Is the mystery of ball lightning solved now? > > Ball lightnings are rather rare events. The majority of researchers > agree that different phenomena are likely to be summarized under the > collective term "ball lightning." Over time, various theories and > propositions about the nature of these experiences have been > suggested. Other researchers have produced luminous fire balls in the > laboratory, which appeared not completely unlike ball lightning and > could explain some of the observations but were mostly too short > lived. Other plausible explanations for some of observations are St. > Elmo's fire, luminous dust balls or small molten balls of metal. In > which cases then, can a lightning bolt invoke a ball-shaped phosphene? > " > > Lightning strokes with repetitive discharges producing stimulating > magnetic fields over a period of a few seconds are rather rare and > only occur in about one in one hundred events," reports physicist > Kendl. "An observer located within few hundred metres of a long > lightning stroke may experience a magnetic phosphene in the shape of a > luminous spot." Also other sensations, such as noises or smells, may > be induced. Since the term "ball lightning" is well known from media > reports, observers are likely to classify lightning phosphenes as > such. Alexander Kendl's hypothesis that in fact the majority of ball > lightning observations are phosphenes is strongly supported by its > simplicity: "Contrary to other theories describing floating fire > balls, no new and other suppositions are necessary." Imagine how many teravolts and farads our gamma moon/Selene is always charged up with. Within the thick and insulated atmosphere of Venus are terrific discharges, so much so that they may have been observed from Earth and otherwise recorded by ESA's Venus EXPRESS. ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 8 Jun 2010 07:37
On May 24, 4:27 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On May 23, 1:50 pm, "Hagar" <hagen(a)sahm,name> wrote: > > > > > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message > > >news:476f326f-5401-48a7-87c3-514247497007(a)40g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > On May 22, 6:30 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > > On May 21, 9:21 pm, "Hagar" <hagen(a)sahm,name> wrote: > > > > > <UseNetO...(a)t-online.de> wrote in message > > > > >news:j61dv59f039nel5odof00dd18l5qst9n3f(a)pasoschweiz.de... > > > > > > On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:44:24 -0400, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>I have seen trees > > > > >>completely disintegrate > > > > > > Agent Orange? > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange > > > > > Quote: Agent Orange is the code name for an herbicide and > > > > > defoliant-contaminated with TCDD-used by the U.S. military in its > > > > > herbicidal warfare program during the Vietnam War. > > > > > According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million > > > > > Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 > > > > > deaths and disabilities, and 500,000 children born with birth > > > > > defects.[1] > > > > > From 1961 to 1971, Agent Orange was by far the most widely used of the > > > > > so-called "Rainbow Herbicides" employed in the herbicidal warfare > > > > > program. During the production of Agent Orange (as well as Agents > > > > > Purple, Pink, and Green) dioxins were produced as a contaminant, which > > > > > have caused numerous health problems for the millions of people who > > > > > have > > > > > been exposed. Agents Blue and White were part of the same program but > > > > > did not contain dioxins. > > > > > We asked the fine folks who gave the world Zyklon-B to develop something > > > > to eradicate the gooks at the same rate Hitler's goon wasted Jews .... > > > > that's > > > > the best they could do, Chuckles. Hope that helps you out, you moronic > > > > goat humper.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Read ball lighning came down a chimey. Maybe it was Santa and his > > > coat was on fire. Read ball lighning bounces. Well lighning does > > > curve and a ball is a complete curve. > > > This all reminds me of what happens when you throw a piece of metallic > > sodium onto water. It fizzes for a while and moves around in circles, > > and then it forms a fiery ball that dances on the water's surface! > > Then that ball explodes! Sounds like some of the description I hear > > of ball lighting. > > > Double-A > > **************************************** > > Nah ... BeeertBrain was lighting his own farts with a Bic after a good night > > of Bud-Light guzzling ... it just looked like his balls were lit up, because > > of the way he held the mirror.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Hagar For a person with no balls and a short dipstick you should look > in a mirror and see what I say is reality. 4 doctors told me if I stop > drinking beer I would make it to 75 That was 7 years ago they are all > dead and I am still drinking my Bud to wash down MSP chips. Drinking > Florida water is what killed them. get the picture TreBert Doctors are always guessing. Some are better guessers than others. The rich and powerful always get the better guessers, and the rest of us always get to pay for it. ~ BG |