Lightning – It’s In Your Face Bitch

In order for physicists to be able to tell us where lightning comes from, they would have to be able to articulate a source of perpetually free energy all around us. The reason why physicists don’t know where lightning comes from yet is because they CANNOT admit that free energy is so pervasive that it’s blasting our atmosphere all around us.

If mother nature can blast a hundred million volts of pure energy into the ground right in front of our face, there MUST be a way to harness all of that latent energy that is in the air all around us.  There is absolutely no reason why we should not be able to harness that latent charge and create lightning bolts on command to power our industry.

Physicists will tell you all sorts of reasons why physics theories say free energy is impossible, but just ask them where lightning comes from.  If their theories can’t explain lightning, then their theories MUST be wrong.

The very fact that lightning is real proves they are wrong.  There are NO solutions for lightning in modern physics theory.  Lightning proves the impossible.  Energy from nothing is unleashed by God himself every time a lightning bolt strikes.  Modern  physics theory proves it with its impossibility of an explanation.

Don’t be fooled by the charlatans in white lab coats.  They will argue that modern physics theory can provide an answer, they just don’t have all the details worked out.  But believe me, that is not the case.  Their theories cannot EVER provide a causal initiator for lightning.  In order for that to occur, there must be circuit for the lightning to discharge from.  Only electrical circuit theory is capable of incorporating a causal initiator for a lightning discharge.

For example, even if we had perfect knowledge of each atom’s location and motion in a thundercloud, the standard model of particle physics still wouldn’t be able to tell us what unleashed a lightning strike from that cloud.  The standard model simply doesn’t have the language to provide explanations for the discharging of a circuit.

Modern physics theory (the standard model) is about modeling snapshots in time and then IGNORING what happened between those snapshots in time.  A theory that completely ignores why time “ticks” is missing the whole point of the game!  The question of why time exists in the first place is fundamental to understanding how energy is created and circulated in our physical universe.

Modern physics theory is like a stop motion film.  The theory models point to point along an imaginary continuum, but that’s NOT what reality actually is.   Something MUST be a causal agent for the ticking of time.  That causal energy is lightning!  That causal energy is consciousness!  That causal energy is the root of all existence!  The energy that drives lightning had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere must be part of a greater circuit.

I know this is a complex and incredibly deep topic, so I hope I’m conveying my point clearly enough for you to grasp the root meaning of what I’m saying here.  The standard model is correct in as much as it is capable of modeling.  However, the standard model is incapable of explaining why time “ticks,” or why lightning should suddenly unleash itself, because it is not a circuit theory that can explain things as a process flow.

The standard model is just talking about life as it if were only a series of images on a movie film.  “Oh look, at time A, this piece of film looks like this, and at time B, the next image on the film looks like this.  Isn’t that interesting?”  That’s what the standard model is saying.  So what caused A to become B?  WHY did time tick? WHY is matter existing and why is it moving? – *crickets*

Again, don’t be fooled by Big Bang theories, or any other creationist theory.  The real question isn’t about what caused matter to spring into existence billions of years ago, the real question is explaining why reality should have existed a moment ago and why it is existing now.  We don’t even understand why a moment ago existed, let alone why anything should have sprung into existence billions of years ago.  How about we focus on a moment ago for now!

Get it?  I know, sometimes I blow my own mind.

If you accept that a moment ago existed, then you must accept that you must be some kind of a God.  What other possible explanation could there be?  You tell me!  I’m all ears!

I mean come on!!!!  What the hell is a moment ago?  Why was it a moment ago?  What the fuck is a moment ago?  - It’s impossible to arrive at an explanation for those questions by talking about physical things.  Thoughts are not physical “things” to be measured, nor are feelings, or any other kind of qualia. Yet they exist, and they only exist in the now.  You can’t feel the future, you can only feel the now.

All electrical discharges are part of an electrical circuit.  To understand the circuit of lightning is to understand the circuit of life.

  • moto perpetuo

    There’s a straightforward misrepresentation of standard physics here.

    Lightning is actually pretty well understood. What is not understood about it is not the ‘where does this energy come from’ bit. There are various parts of the mechanism of lightning production which remain mysterious, for instance how charge separation occurs in thunderclouds and the precise mechanism of discharge (is it ‘seeded’? If so, how?)

    These things are difficult to study because there are no fixed points in a thundercloud, and you can’t embed sensors in a cloud.

    What is emphatically NOT a mystery is where the energy itself comes from. A cyclone or anticyclone contains many gigajoules of energy. It’s a massive static electricity factory. An energetic storm system is simply converting kinetic to electrical energy. If we had a way of creating massive ice-bearing clouds to order, and discharging their energy in a controlled way, sure, we’d have energy. But since we’d have to input massive amounts of energy into the system in the first place, it’s unlikely to be a viable way of meeting our energy needs.

    There is no parallel between lightning and energy from the vacuum. Lightning is not, as you suggest ‘energy from nothing’. It’s energy from energy, i.e. it obeys the first law of thermodynamics. Energy from the vacuum, on the other hand…

    • Michael Suede

      Ah, you must be one of the “white lab coat” people I talk about in the article.

      1. There is no misrepresentation of the standard model in my article. Go ahead and point out where I misrepresent the model.

      2. Lightning is not understood at all. Quoting the BBC, “It’s not yet agreed, for example, how a thundercloud gets charged up in the first place.” – nor is it agreed what causes the initial spark of lightning.

      So if science can’t tell us how a cloud gets charged, and science can’t tell us what causes the initial spark, then how in the fuck can you consider lightning to be “pretty well understood?” It’s not understood at all.

      • moto perpetuo

        Whatever BBC article you’re quoting is badly written and wrong as is it phrased.

        Here is where you misrepresent standard physics:

        “The very fact that lightning is real proves they are wrong. There are NO solutions for lighting in modern physics theory. Lighting proves the impossible. Energy from nothing is unleashed by God himself every time a lightning bolt strikes. Modern physics theory proves it with its impossibility of an explanation”

        Lightning does NOT prove the impossible, and it is NOT energy from nothing. Static electricity is not understood well – quite how electrons or ions can be liberated in any quantity by rubbing a piece of plastic against natural fiber remains somewhat mysterious, for instance – but the process itself is known to occur. It is well understood, however, that friction processes between the right materials result in electric charge. It’s a simple conversion of kinetic to electric potential energy. There is no ‘new’ energy created in a thundercloud: it requires a tremendous amount of kinetic energy, in the movement of ice and other atmospheric particles, to generate these tremendous voltages.

        Science does not currently understand the process that gives rise to the spark, but that is a detail, not the substance of the problem. We have similarly little understanding of why a charged capacitor discharges across a spark gap at a particular point of proximity.

        What we have with lightning is quite simple: a large capacitor (thunder clouds) charged by kinetic (friction) processes, then discharging to earth across a large potential difference. The micro-mechanisms have not yet been fully elucidated, but the basic mechanism is just that – basic. You appear to be trying to argue that there is some other, radically different, process going on here. You appear reluctant to offer an alternative, perhaps because it will be far less credible than what is generally understood to be taking place.

        It’s a common ploy of those who want to discredit ‘standard’ physics to claim that our inability (so far) to understand the fine detail of a problem in some way invalidates the overall orthodox approach to it. It doesn’t.

        • Michael Suede

          “What we have with lightning is quite simple: a large capacitor (thunder clouds) charged by kinetic (friction) processes, then discharging to earth across a large potential difference.”

          No shit Sherlock.

          However, you can’t address the cause of lightning without using a circuit theory. It’s not possible. It’s not a question of discrediting the standard model, it’s pointing out that the standard model simply can’t answer the question because it’s not a god damn circuit theory.

          • moto perpetuo

            Ah, I see, it’s another case of the lamentable influence of electrical engineers trying to generalize outside the field they actually understand…

            If you’re insisting that electrostatics has to involve a circuit, there is little point in continuing this discussion. The ‘problem’ you are positing is created by a total misconception of the nature of the situation.

            But, to reiterate, the entire premise of this article – its first sentence, in fact – is completely false.

          • Michael Suede

            “If you’re insisting that electrostatics has to involve a circuit, there is little point in continuing this discussion. ”

            Obviously you’re making my point for me by your response.

            You’re flat out rejecting circuit law simply because you don’t like what it implies.

          • moto perpetuo

            “You’re flat out rejecting circuit law simply because you don’t like what it implies.”

            Not at all. Circuit law is essential for electronics. The problem is that some (thankfully only a few) electrical engineers don’t understand that a circuit need not exist wherever there is movement of electrons. This sentence which you wrote above would get you zero in a Physics 101 class:

            “Once you have a discharge, you’re no longer in the regime of static energy.”

            Complete garbage. A discharge of static electricity to ground is not a circuit. It’s the simple movement of charge.

            The irony is that people like you who insist there’s some great mystery to lightning are creating your own mystery in the first place. Only if you commit the category error of insisting that a discharge of static must involve a circuit does any ‘problem’ arise. Conventional physics, in which no circuit is necessary, does not have the problem you are unnecessarily imposing on it. Occam’s Razor applies.

          • Michael Suede

            “Complete garbage. A discharge of static electricity to ground is not a circuit. It’s the simple movement of charge.”

            This is why you, and your lab coat wearing pals, will never understanding lightning.

            There is a gigantic mystery around lightning, so I don’t know where you are coming from with your response.

          • moto perpetuo

            The textbooks, and the entire history of electrostatics,disagree. Maybe you should stick to programming computers.

          • Michael Suede

            I’m not the one who doesn’t know what causes a lighting spark in this conversation.

            So you can wave your textbooks in my face all day long, but you will not be able to answer the question I already know the answer to.

            What causes the spark?

            What do your textbooks say?

            If the textbooks know the answer, why can’t we create lightning sparks on demand?

            Why can’t we “friction” up some lightning in a cloud chamber?

            Drop the ego and open up your eyes.

          • moto perpetuo

            If there were a way of containing highly chaotic gigajoule cloud systems in a laboratory, creating lightning on demand wouldn’t be a problem. It’s a practical problem, not a theoretical one.

            Ego? Who’s the one describing mainstream science as ‘charlatans in white coats’? Who’s the one who says loftily that he ‘knows the answers to these questions’ but totally fails to supply them? So if you *do* know what causes a lightning spark, why not tell us? (The likely answer, incidentally, is that cascades of ions caused by high-energy cosmic rays provide a pathway for charge – a large-scale version of what happens in a Geiger counter.

            It’s funny that you can be so hysterical about this and keep a straight face, given that the only ‘explanation’ you offer in your original article involves an omniscient deity unleashing thunderbolts ‘from nothing’. Or that you then link lightning to causality, without a shred of argument to support the assertion, before segueing into some ninth-grade musings on the nature of time. Don’t give up the day job, is my advice.

          • Michael Suede

            “If there were a way of containing highly chaotic gigajoule cloud systems in a laboratory, creating lightning on demand wouldn’t be a problem. It’s a practical problem, not a theoretical one.”

            My ass:


            And I did supply the answers. Your ego prevents you from reading them. They appear on the paper but you can’t see them. They are like magic words that fly straight through your brain.

          • moto perpetuo

            The closest you got to an explanation was some childish metaphysical ramblings about our perception of time.

            Reading between the lines, I think what you’re trying to articulate is that lightning is a manifestation of the Electric Universe. A cosmology which poses far more questions than it answers. And given the choice between *my* model of lightning (static electricity originating in movement of energetic particles, a simple effect known to exist) and *yours* (fanciful celestial circuits, producing vast amounts of electrical energy from a mysterious source none of you is willing or able to identify), I know which I’ll choose. The simple one.

            The ‘unexplained’ in the conventional view of lightning is trivial compared to what is known; you, on the other hand are positing a whole source of cosmic electricity nobody’s ever seen. Ask yourself, which explanation is more likely?

          • Michael Suede

            “The closest you got to an explanation was some childish metaphysical ramblings about our perception of time.”

            No, I gave you links. Links that you refuse to read.

            If your retarded explanation for lightning was true, then there would be no such thing as “transient luminous events.” – lightning on the edge of space. There’s no water up there to “friction” up some lightning!

            Only a complete solar system to Earth circuit can explain all of the observations of lightning. Cloud’s are clearly receiving charge from outer-space else there would be no tropical depression zones in the ionosphere preceding hurricane activity. There would be no TLE’s without space charge. There is a CIRCUIT FLOWING and the clouds are leaky capacitors.

          • moto perpetuo

            Oh no, I read the links.

            Transient luminous events provide zero support for your argument. They’re an upper-atmosphere plasma phenomenon induced by electrical activity in thunderclouds beneath. There is a large body of associated literature and the causative mechanism is pretty well understood. Since you’re evidently ignorant of the literature, you might want to have a read of Pasco et al, Blue jets produced by quasi-electrostatic pre-discharge thundercloud fields,Geophys. Res. Lett., 23(3), and later papers.

            Two fundamental problems with your suggested mechanism.

            Firstly, the battery of terrestrial, orbiting and remote probes have never detected this enormous electrical field you are hypothesizing. Experiment has, in fact, refuted it.

            Secondly, the hypothesis requires an enormous cosmic electricity source. Such a thing has never been observed; worse, electric-universe proponents remain silent on the key question of where it is and what its nature is. And you think the standard physics version of lightning leaves stuff unexplained?

            In summary, you suggest ‘conventional’ science has huge gaps in its knowledge of lightning, when those gaps are in fact relatively trivial; and then you propose an alternative that’s been experimentally disproved and has a massive theoretical hole at its heart. This isn’t going well for you, my friend.

          • Michael Suede


            To quote this more recent paper by Tong, “The conditions triggering gigantic jets are unknown.”


            The paper continues, “The energy source causing gigantic jets is assumed to be due to the quasi-electrostatic field generated by thunderclouds.”

            This is an ASSUMPTION, just as it is an assumption that a Earth is part of a greater electrical circuit. The question is which ASSUMPTION better describes observation.

            You ignored the information on discharging tornadoes, climatic cycles, hurricanes, water, etc.. etc.. that I laid out in the linked article. Your responses are all cock-eyed theories that have no congruence. If you were to respond to each of those points, your responses would sound like a patch work of crap theories with absolutely no relationship to each other.

            I offer a clear SINGULAR explanation that covers all events.

          • moto perpetuo

            Is that the best you can do? A paper which SUPPORTS the hypothesis laid out by Pasco et al, and finds that theory as it currently stands provides a close fit with observation?

            Whereas your crackpot theory is entirely unsupported by observation or theory.

            Your clear, ‘SINGULAR’, theory still requires a giant invisible cosmic power station, never observed, for which it does not even hazard an explanation. As a proposed mechanism, it’s dead in the water. It barely even qualifies as a hypothesis.

          • Michael Suede

            He doesn’t support anything! The Tong paper readily admits that they have no idea what the fuck is going on. They make one gigantic assumption and then try to come up with a shitty model to make that first major assumption work. That’s not science! That’s a god damn joke!

          • moto perpetuo

            It’s an assumption because it’s the best explanation so far offered, it’s closely in agreement with observation, and it’s generally accepted by actual scientists as the best working hypothesis. I do find it funny you cite a paper in your support whose authors would think you’re a crank, though.

            You clearly have ZERO idea how science works. Go and play in your electric sandbox, stop pretending you know what you’re talking about, and let those who do get on with your job. And before you say this is a typical patronizing response from a government-funded mainstream scientist, a) I may be a scientist, but I’m sure as hell not government funded; b) you deserve it.

          • Michael Suede

            “It’s an assumption because it’s the best explanation so far offered”

            NO IT’S NOT LOLLLLL

            I just showed you ONE explanation that can account for EVERYTHING we see in terms of climate and weather on this planet.

            I can make ONE assumption, the Earth is part of a circuit, and account for ALL of the phenomena. I don’t need to have a separate theory for auroras, a separate theory for hurricanes, a separate theory for lightning, a separate theory for tornadoes, etc.. I can account for ALL of those under one umbrella theory.

          • moto perpetuo

            Your ONE assumption leads to conclusions which are inconsistent with your own theory and comprehensively disproved by observation. And rely on a power source far more mysterious (and, in truth, non-existent) than anything you’re criticizing in conventional sciene.

            When I started debating you I assumed you were just misguided. Now I just think you’re nuts.

          • Michael Suede

            That is simply not true. Just because we haven’t detected all the elements of the circuit yet doesn’t mean it isn’t there. The evidence for its existence is simply overwhelming.

            You just ignored my comment on perfectly conducting lightning clouds. You ignored it because you lost the argument so now your back to using ad homs to attack me. The sure sign of a loser.

          • moto perpetuo

            The one thing you have totally failed to supply to is evidence. All you have to back up your case is a childish set of parallels, most of which fly in the face of actual evidence.

            “Just because we haven’t detected all the elements of the circuit yet doesn’t mean it isn’t there”…. and that’s your argument unraveling, right there. You haven’t detected *any* of the circuit, because it doesn’t exist. You haven’t detected – or even hypothesized – a source of electrical energy, or even a plausible route for completing the circuit. In other words, it’s a cretinous non-theory. And you think conventional thinking on lightning has holes in it?

            Pretty much your first comeback to me was that ‘my’ theory – which incidentally is supported by a vast majority of scientists who work in this area, who spend hours in laboratories, and studying experimentally-derived data and other scientists’ papers – was ‘retarded’. Is that the terminology of an adult? And you have the gall to suggest that your crackpot theories have *all* the answers. They haven’t, because they’re wrong. And there isn’t some sinister conspiracy in action here: they have been tried against observation and found wanting.

          • Michael Suede

            WTF are you talking about evidence?

            I have failed to supply evidence?

            Oh no no no – YOU have failed to provide evidence. I just laid out ONE theory that can account for everything we observe.

          • moto perpetuo

            To reiterate: it is plain you understand almost nothing about science. Assuming perfectly conductive plasma does not mean we actually think plasma is perfectly conductive. It’s because we (or rather, the researchers who wrote this paper) are constructing a quantitative model. And because models are not – cannot be – perfect replicas of reality (because otherwise they would not be models) they have to make certain assumptions, or simplifications, about what we are modelling. This does not invalidate the conclusions reached, it merely makes them computable. The resistance of plasma is of negligible importance to the result of the model, but ignoring it actually makes the results possible to compute. A parallel is Kepler’s calculation of planetary orbits, which assumes (entirely incorrectly) that all planets are perfectly spherical, that they have uniform density and that gravity propagates at infinite speed. None of these assumptions is actually true, but Kepler’s model computes actual observable orbits to a very high degree of accuracy. And by ignoring factors which have only a negligible effect on the outcome of the calculation, Kepler produced something he could work out himself without recourse to a supercomputer.

            Following me so far?

            Right, so as to YOUR lack of evidence. As I have repeatedly pointed out – and will not bother to again – your wonderful, solves-everything theory relies on the most colossal assumption: a mysterious cosmic source of energy that has never been observed, and for which even the most fanatical exponents of the electric universe have totally failed to offer an explanation, or even hazard a guess. It’s insanity.

            You set yourself up on this website as some sort of authority in Austrian economics. You may indeed be that, for all I know. But you can’t be an authority on astrophysics as well; nobody is. Your arrogance in not only debating, but deriding, somebody who has spent ten years studying, and several years subsequently researching, this stuff is breathtaking. Stick to the economics, because you’re making a complete fool of yourself in the science. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and it’s embarrassing.

          • Michael Suede

            “Following me so far?”

            Did you read the article attached to this string of comments?

            The entire article was about how your models aren’t able to provide answers to lightning because of the assumptions they are predicated on.

            You just admitted that your models aren’t accurate representations of the events you are modeling, they are approximations. Therefore, my problems with your models are at the level of the ASSUMPTIONS they are predicated on.

            So you can argue about how great they are all day long, but the models are not able to provide an answer! So what fucking good are they!?

          • Michael Suede

            I’m not so “woo woo” now, hey?

            I see you struggling to cough up a response, but you know I’m right, so you’re head is exploding with rage right now.

  • Christian

    I was hoping you figured out the way to get the electricity out of the air! I read about Tesla experiments where he did just that with his car. I am unsure if he was near his tower of power at the time or not. It would be a much better invention to power a car with energy in ambient air. I suppose it’s possible, now it’s time for someone to figure it out.

  • ax123man

    Normally I avoid debate of the ad hominem form, but in this case I think you’ve earned it. It’s difficult to accept a post that claims knowledge beyond current science, ie the “white lab coat”, community from someone who can’t consistently spell the word lightning. And, since the term “white lab coat” itself is ad hominem, you opened the door yourself.

    I work in Information Technology. In that field, where, in the end, only facts matter, I’ve learned that arrogance is dangerous. If you want to find employees you can count on, look for humility. I think it’s pretty clear where, in the spectrum between those extremes, you lie.

    Now, let’s take a look at the logical fallacies in this post:

    “If their theories can’t explain lightning, then their theories MUST be wrong”

    This is a fallacy of cherry picking or hasty generalization. Which theories are wrong? First law of thermodynamics? Einsteins theories don’t explain quantum black holes, so should we abandon those theories?

    “Lighting proves the impossible. Energy from nothing is unleashed by God himself every time a lightning bolt strikes”

    Argument from ignorance. This is the kind of logical fallacy that was made in ancient times. The ancient Chinese believed solar eclipses occur when a dragon devours the Sun. This proves the impossible: that dragons live in outer space.

    “Their theories cannot EVER provide a causal initiator for lightning. Only electrical circuit theory is capable of incorporating a causal initiator for a lightning discharge”

    If neither you or the “white lab coats” can explain lightning, then how do you conclude anything at all about it?

    “Something MUST be a causal agent for the ticking of time. That causal energy is lightning!”

    Good grief. Really? Jumping to conclusions much? And just the fact that you would try to make this jump out of nothing, and then follow it up with statements like “ I know, sometimes I blow my own mind”, is problematic.

    This post clearly is not intended to prove anything scientifically. Instead it’s written in an “appeal to emotion” form. No one takes the time to write and post on the internet without a purpose. So, what can we conclude from this? Can we expect a follow up paper published to, say, the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences? Somehow I doubt it. Bloggers on the internet need an edge of some kind to compete. And, if your audience is, say the Alex Jones crowd, this post is a work of art.