Fun talk:Dry lightning

Better than the WP article, even if it could use some work and clean up. Heart♥Gold ^tx 03:26, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, please copyedit and improve. Heart♥Gold ^tx 03:41, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Out of curiosity, what's the angle here? Is there something particularly controversial about lightning?--PalMD^{-yada yada} 13:43, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

This article should probably just be concerned with lightning. "Dry Lightning" isn't anything special, just a simplistic argument some of the more religious among us subscribe to. ʄĹїþþїɲ^;-) 13:51, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

How does it have anything to do with religion?--PalMD^{-yada yada} 13:59, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

While I'm not certain what HG's motivation was, I suspect it has something to do with the inclusion of the word "pseudoscience" relative to the NOAA's "vague" explanation of how it works/what it is. But I may be wrong. human^{be in} 14:06, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I recall reading in Scientific American oh, like, three years ago, that the people who study lightning aren't really sure (as yet) how lightning becomes...lightning. The article said the differences in potential(s) wasn't enough to start a bolt going, that another factor (perhaps a high energy cosmic ray sets off a chain-reaction within a thunderhead). Positive strikes are rarer by a factor of 10 (or more), this may be due to negative strikes sloughing off a stream of positively charged particles or even that the strike begins on Earth rather than in the cloud. Lightning researches wait for an approaching thunderstorm before firing a rocket that drags up a micro thin copper wire to induce a lightning strike that they can measure, bit I don't know if their data shows more postive strikes than are otherwise (naturally) reported/detected. CЯacke® 15:09, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

One interesting aspect

The explanations on Dry Lighting (Bolt from the Blue) are rather pseudoscientific, even by so-called experts at the NOAA. I find it interesting. Yet, in general, you don't see electrical engineers setting up websites to fight the evil pseudoscientific influences of those who inaccurately explain lightning. (I am not an expert on lighting, but I can believe that the understanding of what exactly finally accutates a lightning strike in normal conditions is less than clear.) But the many of the explanations of lightning, even by the NOAA, are simply just wrong (at best, overly simplified for the layman, at worse, the result of a cluttered mind).

So, while we don't have talklightningorigins.com and the NCLE (National Center for Lighting Education) vociferously fighting against pseudoscience vis-a-vis lightning misinformation, we do have atheistic biologists thumping their atheistic POV vis-a-vis so-called "psuedoscientific" investigations of the diversity or development of species (families, genres, etc.).

I think there is more than a mere disdain for pseudoscience at work with regard to the NCSE. Where were they yesterday when the Miami Herald put out that crap on dry lightning? Nowhere to be found. Why? I think it has more to do with an atheistic world view than a disdain for pseudoscience.

Evolutionists enjoy thumping evolution because they view it as a weapon against a belief in God. That is my conspiracy theory. Heart♥Gold ^tx 19:20, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Still, is it better than WPs article?

wp:Bolt from the blue. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:58, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

It seems so, yes - but check back in a few days? WP moves fast... human^{be in} 21:25, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Will probably take a {{stub}} tag to get it to develop more. Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:29, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Still Unclear

I'm not sure what this article adds, anymore than an article on, say, hail storms. Consider changing to essay, or expanding to explain why we should care about "dry lightning"--PalMD^{-yada yada} 04:39, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

The science of lighting is presented using inaccurate language by the press and even the NOAA. Censor it if you wish, or improve it. Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:35, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

ACD?

I have no idea what the point of this article is, and it has still not been made clear to me. I vote for ACD.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 22:33, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

The article is on a subject that is described with technobabble in the mainstream press, and even in NOAA releases. One of Rational wiki's objectives is Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas." Positive lighting is a crank idea.

Yes, I know, Laws of gravition don't matter to other RW contributors if they tend to mitigate a B4B contributor's assertion. (Point being, RW swarm is not so much interested in defending science as assualting traditional and religious values.) Heart♥Gold^{Demonstrate the spirit of stupor} 23:24, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

So, in closing, since this article doesn't attack a mainstream religion or family values, it probably should be deleted. Heart♥Gold^{Demonstrate the spirit of stupor} 23:15, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Hey, except for the conspiracy stuff, I end up agreeing with you more of the time than not. I still don't get it. Can you educate me?69.216.102.194 07:15, 15 July 2007 (CDT)