‘Brighter Than the Planet Venus’: Team Captures Lightning Sprites in 3D
- Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:03pm by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
A team of thunderstorm chasers funded by the Japan Broadcasting Corporation have captured what National Geographic reports to be the first 3D film of lightning sprites. Sprites are huge, very brief flashes of light that happen above thunder clouds, 50 miles up from land.
(Image via National Geographic)
The sprites, National Geographic reports, are electrical phenomena that have been scientifically recognized since 1989 but little is known about what causes the often colorful, intensely bright flashes. Hans Stenbaek-Nielsen, a space physicist at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, is reported as saying the flashes are “brighter than the planet Venus” from the view we see on Earth.
Check out this brief footage caught of a “clear image” of a sprite:
Here’s more on how they captured the footage, which was presented at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, according to National Geographic:
Last summer, Stenbaek-Nielsen joined a team of thunderstorm chasers funded by the Japan Broadcasting Corporation. Carrying high-speed video cameras on a pair of Gulfstream jets, the scientists flew across the Midwest, hunting out sprite-generating thunderstorms.
When the team found its quarry, the researchers filmed the lightning sprites and other bursts at 10,000 frames a second from two different angles, allowing the creation of the first stereoscopic videos of these phenomena.
What researchers do know about the sprites is that they require a huge amount of energy and are found in the mesosphere, an area of the atmosphere where researchers used to think not much activity occurred:
“Traditionally, the weather here on the ground has been thought to be separated from the ‘weather’ that goes on in space,” said Geoff McHarg, a space physicist at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado who was also part of the study team.
“We had this big range in the middle [of Earth's atmosphere] called the mesosphere. When I was in graduate school, we called it the ignore-o-sphere. It was thought not much goes on there.”
(Image: Abestrobi/Creative Commons)
At this point, National Geographic reports Stenbaek-Nielsen as comparing the sprites to rainbows, since scientists aren’t sure if they serve any real purpose in the environment aside from being “pretty to look at.”
Wired reports the researchers as also filming crawlers and blue jets, which form on the top of thunder clouds.
Comments (82)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 695 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 664 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 525 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 365 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 364 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 236 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 249 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 236 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 11:57amAs to free will and neuroscience… most neuroscientists realize that free will by definition is not under the purview of science and is not testable by the scientific method and subsequently no research is done in the subject area. You are asking me to prove something that I admit is not scientific, scientifically THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.
However, modern science asserts that the fate of an atom was determined from the inception of matter at the big bang… use your reason rather than look at what other people tell you… if I am merely a compilation of matter which is fated to move through time in a specific way by a specific rule, FREE WILL CANNOT EXIST, however, internal observation (a tenant of philosophy) allows me to see that I HAVE FREE WILL. There is a contradiction between reality and science here… so I have to immolate my own observation to the mantel of science?
I know that free will exists… I can see it in my own life, however because I am ONE MAN, I cannot prove such a belief, none the less the observation is fact, and the consequences of “no free will” are more objectionable to reality as I see than my belief… thus I say that this belief is truth or fact. Science cannot speak to free will, and logically speaks against it (although no experimental evidence proves this), you are saying that my truth: free will; is less true because science cannot pass judgment on it.
Here is an article written by Rothbard on scientific bounds: http://mises.org/rothbar
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 12:22pmThis is in response to DeavonReye
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 12:23pmThe link is supposed to be: http://mises.org/rothbard/mantle.pdf
Report Post »stupid word limit
DeavonReye
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 1:49pmI will take a look at the link when I am able to. Thanks.
I am unsure about Big Bang cosmology. Though something CAN work mathmatically, it doesn’t mean it would work in process. As I said earlier, dreaming is apparently something that science cannot test [unless I'm wrong on that]. However it is obvious. Again, I’m not ridgid on a “science only” stance. I just choose to not allow a faith decision into my life, especially if I am only doing so because another person tells me to believe it.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 3:07pmDreaming is really a great example of something that science can neither confirm or deny, how do we know that dogs dream?… we can stick a dog in an fMRI while it sleeps and watch the neuronal activity while it dreams but ultimately we cannot ask the dog if what we observed was in fact a dream, similarly because of position that an individual holds in the chain of observation during a dream, we cannot (with any credibility) modify the mind to alter a dream and thus peg down the area or functioning of the cortex that is responsible for the creation of the “dream world.” This is not just because of the credibility of the dreaming individual but because what he sees and how he interprets it cannot be scientifically measured… by definition (two things that occur at the same time, in the same location, in the same way, are the same thing and cannot be experimentally modified without changing at least two variables –even in theory). Yet most people accept that dreaming does occur due to the brain… the only evidence of this is that science and functional fact (for each individual) do not contradict it. However, consensus of individuals does not make a fact a fact (I argue that no amount of evidence can make a fact a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt) it is ultimately boiled down to personal preference and personal standard for proof.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 4:09pmThat is what I remember seeing about the topic of dreaming. It is known that SOMETHING is happening. Parts of the brain are active. What is amazing is the events I “see” in my dreams, usually out of my control. There was one time I recognized [in my dream] that I was dreaming and was able to take a measure of control and direct it. But it is true that dreaming, as I see it, is a fact.
This is SIMILAR to what I would feel as “a spiritual experience”. Something that I cannot deny, but I am unable to measure it and/or show it to someone else.
When it comes to gravity, light, magnetism, . . . or sprites, I will stick to the side of science. However, I am continually looking for what would be called “the spiritual”. I hope to find it someday.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 5:54pmDeavonReye,
Once again I have to thank you for the fascinating debate, I wish you the best of luck on your search for truth, have a wonderful Christmas.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 10, 2011 at 12:06amLikewise. And have a happy Christmas with your family.
Report Post »sgtstubbs
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 9:00pmLooks more like retro rocket fireing to slow down the space craft. Well here comes the DOD to investigate…..Me again, again.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 11:09amHow come it seem like every story on the Blaze has posters commenting about “the glory of god”?? This has nothing to do with any deity. It is just a natural phenomena, just like rainbows. Stop dumbing down a story by assuming it is “a god thing”.
Report Post »vandyman84
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 11:14amSometimes, it’s just to create beautiful objects. I used to be an atheist/agnostic until I really looked at pictures of nebulae and novas and such, that’s what convinced me. Both are equally beautiful, even though one heralds destruction and the other creation and everything in between is “just filler.”
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 11:53amI’m all for appreciating the beauty and wonders of the uninverse, but they are what they are. They are bound by physical laws that govern pretty much every aspect of existence. The issue that I find in those who see it as “a great work of god” is that it is 1.) outside of any level of evidence to prove that stance…2.) focuses some people away from the science at work and onto a fantasy world…3.) may cause some to even resist any ideas that are outside of “god did it, so I don’t have to question why it is.”
Let me ask this. What would be the purpose of any god creating something that can only be seen via expensive equipement. . . . and doesn’t do any “pointing to a SPECIFIC god”?
Report Post »Whyismynamealwaystaken
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:05pmHey unbeliver! It’s just the way it is deal with it. God is here and he make wonderful things. When will you realize that he deserves your thanks and praise? I’m sick of people like you who are so tired and annoyed by God and Jesus. It’s time for you to WAKE up!
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:16pmOh, I’m sorry to have hurt your feelings. You’re FIRST going to have to make your case that YOUR claimed god is 1.) Actually real….2.) even CARES about people “giving him thanks” for seeing sprites VIA the accompishments of man to even SEE them! And sorry, . . . but your way of thinking ISN’T “just the way it is”.
Just look and wonder at this natural occurance. It really is okay.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:39pmHey DeavonReye:
You cannot apply the rules and assumptions used in science to faith. Science is based on two assumptions: 1) our senses give us an accurate description of the world around us 2) because we cannot “see” everything, nothing can every be proven, it can only be disproved (and even then with the caveat of being disproved only under certain conditions). Theology on the other hand expands philosophic inquiry beyond the “knowable” reality, to include the supernatural as well as the temporal world.
Science by its own assumptions cannot speak to the supernatural, it can neither prove nor disprove it. If you want to argue with people of faith based on the assumptions of science, know that it is not done on “scientific grounds” it is done on theological grounds. This is because you are making the assumption that because your senses have not interpreted something (GOD) it does not exist anywhere. This violates the second assumption that science is based on.
I’m so tired of you self-righteous so-called “scientists” who fancy yourselves to be enlightened kings amongst the common riffraff because you are areligious. The simple truth is that atheism is just as anti-scientific as theism because science CANNOT speak to religion, for or against it. This is not to say that some people’s religions are not bad philosophy, and this is not to say that some “science” is not truth functional, but science and theology are apples and oranges under the larger umbrella o
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:41pm… of philosophic inquiry, and cannot be directly compared. Read Ayn Rand, our society needs a philosophy lecture!
Report Post »blazingaway
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:50pmGod created it, God sustains it, there would be nothing without God. The fact that you can‘t understand or appreciate that simply means you are either devoid of God within your space of time or you’re clueless. In either event, get a clue on don’t make such comments that reveal your stupidity.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 1:02pmC Delta, I am not an atheist. I would also never make the assumption that just because we can’t test for it, it is, therefore, non-existent. Discovery of the new demands that a person be open to forces yet to be discovered. Will there be a time in history that man develops a mechanism sensitive enough to accurately and consistently test for the supernatural, I’ll be good with it.
However, when it comes to an obvious physical force, there is no reason to “give praise to a deity for it”. I am not intersted in “phylosophy” or the “assumptions considered within spiritual matters”. It passes the time, but when it comes to the topic of this page, it is meaningless. It is FAR better to speak with certainty than with unsubstantiated beliefs. A person can [and has every right to, BTW] have a belief, but in no way can it ever be true, even if their stance is that they “know that they know”.
In case it matters, I was “a christian” for 30 years of my life [and in the end, part of church leadership], so I know all about the religion.
Once again, the story is what it is. An amazing phenomenon. That statement is factual.
Report Post »Whyismynamealwaystaken
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 1:09pmTruth is hard to handle isn’t it Deavonreye?
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 1:31pmBlazingaway, make your case! If you are going to resort to name calling, or making reference to me as “stupid” then you better damn well make a compelling case, . . . or shut up!
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 1:36pmNo, truth isn’t hard to handle. When I see something as truth, I am more likely to accept it. When something is stated as a “belief”, it isn’t a truth. Too many differing religions to make “truth statements” about them. How many times have you heard, “May religion is the correct one. Theirs is not.”? How many christian denominations are fundamentally different from another? Of course, . . . the ones who don’t believe YOUR doctrines “just aren’t letting the holy spirit discern it to them.”
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 1:59pmIn response to DeavonReye:
1) “a mechanism sensitive enough to accurately and consistently test for the supernatural”
Supernatural means NOT NATURAL, and subsequently cannot be measured naturally. Remember science is based on senses (and extensions of senses) theology is not.
2) “an obvious physical force… FAR better to speak with certainty”
Based on the assumptions of YOUR PHILOSOPHY this may be an obvious physical force, but if someone believes that God is behind every action of nature it is just as obvious to believe that sprites are God raking-his-fingers-through-the-atmosphere. “far better” theology need not subject itself to Occam’s razor, scientists on the other hand do. Not to mention, the measure of scientific certainty is fundamentally different from that of religious certainty.
3) “An amazing phenomenon. That statement is factual”
The Truth of this statement does not invalidate the ideal that God is behind beauty in nature, other than the fact that science has coopted the term “phenomenon”.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 2:00pmDeavonReye, you are so inundated in scientism that you cannot see how much it influences your thinking and your argumentation. It has caused you to become intolerant to other people who look at the world in a different way than you. It seems that you want to carve out a space where religion cannot exist, a place where your beliefs can go unchallenged. You have not stated that science is the best way to see this phenomenon, but rather that religion is wrong because it cannot be proven scientifically (I don’t think religious people desire scientific proof to substantiate their beliefs).
Report Post »Twinspeedr
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 2:30pmEverything IS an God thing. Why not give him the glory for it. The more we learn about science the more we realize that Intelligent Design is the only theory that holds water. If you were willing to take the time to consider at the current scientific evidence you might be convinced as well…
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
Report Post »http://www.discovery.org/csc/
DeavonReye
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 3:07pmC-Delta, again, I am not atheistic. I have no way of determining whether or not there is a god or not. What is of VALUE is what can be determined scientifically. Anything else is conjecture and open to a wide range of interpretation. Many of those interpretations will be absolutely wrong. For example, when it used to be thought that lightning bolts were from Zeus.
Now, when I say “supernatural” one can use that term for “that which isn’t natural”, but it can also be a holding place for “that which SEEMS to be non-testable, but actually IS a completely natural event, but one that we have not reached the technological advancement to test for it.
However, while ALL I have to go on are “an ancient book” and/or “the firm beliefs of followers”, I will continue to take the stance I am. This is natural. It is not supernatural.
As for the links, if you expect me to go to such sites [which I have and know their stance already], you must also [in turn] search for the topics raised within this link:
talkorigins.org
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 3:25pmThat last part was for Twinspeedr.
Report Post »scarebear83
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 4:19pmWhat’s wrong with giving God the glory for such beautiful things? The more we learn the more the signs point to His handy work. I’m not afraid to give God the glory, I’m also not afraid of sound science… science that can actually be proved using the senses, not assumptions that cannot be proven. For instance, I know I can’t “see” gravity, but I can drop an object and see it’s effects right in front of me. But if I dig up a fossil I see, well, I see a fossil. I don’t see evolution right there. I don‘t even see it’s supposed effects. I just see something that was once living has become fossilized. All signs point to a Creator. We know in this world that it is naturally impossible for nothing to create something or for non living matter to somehow create living matter. It can‘t be done unless there’s a Creator behind it. It’s simply and physically impossible for living material to come from non-living material or non existing material.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 4:31pmScarebear, the “something from nothing” is the same old misinformation that creationists sites use to confuse people. And yes, there is nothing “wrong” with an event giving you a desire to “be thankful to a deity”, and a person expressing that thanks. It just serves no purpose when the event is completely natural.
And, . . . everything DOESN’T “point to a creator”. But for argument sake, let’s say it does. This in no way points to any specific god being and falls to the individual to determine that. Hence the thousands of religions and deities that have been created by humans. And of course, the deities that aren’t yours are “of Satan” or “false gods”.
Again, feel free to “thank your god”. It is your 1st Amendment right. It is mine to voice my opinion of your statement.
Let’s look at measurable evidences, though. Gravity can be measured. Whether sprites are created by “the fingers of a god” is a statement of belief, not fact. That is all I am saying.
I have enjoyed the debate.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 6:47pmDeavonReye, you still seem to misinterpret the point I am attempting to make, so I will ask you some questions:
What makes the standard that you hold for “truth” the *correct* standard?
What makes your definition of VALUE the *correct* definition of value?
Why is measurement (observation) the absolute determiner of fact and falsehood?
What makes your squabble with religion any different than the disagreements between religious denominations?
It’s time to examine your own arguments.
I don’t care if you are atheistic or not, I don’t even care about your belief in science or any other philosophy you may hold. My problem is that the arguments that you are using against others are based on premises that do not agree with the conclusions you want us to reach. If you believe that you can determine right from wrong and the rest of us are idiots that is the greatest form of hubris, and I argue that it leads to misguided belief that one can disregard the rights of other people. Read CRIME AND PUNISHMENT.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 7:29pmAt absolutely no time did I call any of those who posted here “an idiot”. I also have no desire to discuss “right and wrong”. But to your quetions:
“What makes the standard that you hold for “truth” the *correct* standard?
What makes your definition of VALUE the *correct* definition of value?
Why is measurement (observation) the absolute determiner of fact and falsehood? ”
All of these can be answered together. Observable testing [that is repeatable] is valuable in determining what is factual. Very simple. Metaphysics are interesting, maybe even fun at times. But if we put too much weight on topics that have no way of determining their veracity, then they are open to human interpretation. As I stated above, interpretation is open to the one who is interpreting it. Interpretation is fickle, unreliable, and often turns into ridiculous arguments. “Is Yahweh or Allah the true god?” The scientific method, though not perfect, is the best way to make factual determinations. Opinions are fine, . . . but opinions are not facts in and of themselves.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:47pmDeavonReye
You have not answered my question, but I’ll skip to the point: you cannot prove that your way of viewing the world is the correct way, that scientific verification is the correct test for functional truth, nor can Christians prove that their viewpoint is the correct one. The simple argument that you are making is that: observability (the scientific method) is the only correct way of knowing reality BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS. The reason why you cannot apply this position to other people is because you are you and everybody else is everybody else. To require that people of faith prove their God’s existence based on your standards is an impossible request (that I think you made with the intention of being intellectually dishonest) because I can make up a standard that I want you to fulfill as a prerequisite for stating your opinion on a matter that is equally impossible to meet.
My overarching point is that everyone can show a little bit of humility and recognize that we, as humans, cannot place value judgements on other peoples philosophies or worldviews, because we are all individuals and ultimately “truth” is only a term that can be defined for oneself. You, on the other hand, want everyone to meet your standard for truth or leave the conversation, why? Because it is largely accepted by general consensus that science=truth. Such lazy thinking is dangerous. That is my only point.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 10:23pmI did answer your questions. They all were basically the same question asked four different ways. Our current state of technology and discover are all about repeatable testing. If they weren’t, you wouldn‘t be typing on the computer you’re on. It is tactile. Sensory. Scientific discover isn’t fact . . . because I say it is [of which I made NO claim of]. It is fact because it is repeatable. The religious world view, on the other hand, is absolutely unprovable and is useless in determining facts. Regardless of you claiming that I was being “intellectually dishonest” [of which I completely reject and am offended by], in no way do I actually expect a person to “prove god”. But that is the point. It isn’t going to happen in any credible way…and insists that I BECOME intellectually dishonest with myself if I choose to consider “god causing what is natural” as a possible way sprites [for example] are occuring.
People are free to have any worldview on a subject that they wish, but that doesn’t shelter them from an honest critique. They are free to read my posts and move on. I don’t expect them to bend to my standards. In the same way, I’m not going to bend to the worldview that RELIGIOUS beliefs and god beings are equally as possible as cold hard scientific fact. If you see that as somehow “lazy”, that is your problem. It is lazy to stop at “it must be god doing it”.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 10:36pmOut of curiosity, could you give me a fact about our world/universe that was NOT brought about by the scientific method? I am actually interested in knowing. I’m also interested in hearing a reality that can only be answered by “the existence of a god”.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 12:52amD.R.
You are claiming that any statement of truth that is not backed by science is conjecture, and that any statement that is backed by science is fact. I personally, agree with you in MOST cases of natural phenomenon. However, my point is about the general purview of scientific knowing, and the fact that science which is innately silent on matters of faith and God, is MISused to discredit so-called believers.
As to questions that science has no answer to: Why should there exist anything (matter, space, stuff) at all? or perhaps how can free will (which I observe in myself every day) exist in a Newtonian universe? (and don’t give me the “randomness of QM” argument –physics is trending towards string theory– or the “thalamic-illusion” argument –that Columbia research was psychological B.S.).
My objective in this discussion is to open up people’s minds to the fact that there are other viewpoints (not just ethereal worldviews or colloquial religions) on reality and knowing that are just as not-false as science. Examples: nihilism which states that nothing can actually be proven true therefore all things must be considered truth functionally false; solipsism, a belief that one’s own mind is the only knowable thing (neither of which I subscribe too, but I do accept the fact that they are both truth functional and intellectually valid). Science CANNOT speak to such assertions.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 12:53amOne more argument: science (by definition) does not make value judgments, good or evil, right or wrong. If someone accepts the premise that such categories exist, a force must exist that presides over science, and no logical argument can stop such a force from interfering with natural events (in aggregate or systemically). Although I am a neuroscientist by training and profession, I see the value of philosophy which looks at the world from axiom to phenomenon (rather than from phenomenon to theory –i.e. axiom). Philosophy, whether you like it or not, is what gives science its wings… in that it allows scientists to judge whether they should accept a claim or reject it, whether a theory is complete or not, without actually observing a new phenomenon: these are a-scientific decisions… if you look at the Bohr-Einstein letters, each man’s BELIEFS drove them to tirelessly look for the solution to the QM paradox which has lead to the modern computer age… if each only accepted what the scientific evidence said, the depth of understanding that we have today would be greatly reduced.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 12:55amYour argument that technological merits make science true is poor because I can just argue that the technology would work just as well if God were moving every electron in my circuit board, according to some plan (analogous to natural law). Your argument on repeatability is equally invalid, because an ardent believer could simply say that God is reliable. (I do not claim that these arguments are true –in fact, they’re really dumb–, but they are PHILOSOPHICALLY VALID).
I don’t expect you to have an epiphany and suddenly see God in all matter… but I do want the acknowledgement that (if you accept science as your primary worldview), that it makes assumptions (i.e. leaps of faith), just like every other religion/philosophy/worldview/faith, and that those assumptions have the potential to be just as inaccurate as you appear to believe our God-in-everything friends’ assumptions are. I’m not asking you to say that science is not THE truth, just recognize the IDEA, that logically (for the sake of argument, as it were) other peoples’ definitions of truth, fact, and reality COULD be accurate as well… you are not A God, neither am I, I believe what I believe 100%, but I still acknowledge that other people have just as much reason to believe what they believe as I do… they’re just wrong.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 8:30amI understand what you are saying. I suppose it could be true that a person would say that repeatability is only repeatable because “god makes it so”. If we go there, then we would have to assume that the things that DO work . . . this god wants it to be. What doesn’t work this god is against. It could be that we are all in a matrix. There are many ways that a mechanism COULD work, but my point is, . . . IF it works and can be repeated, that gives us an idea of whether or not it can be trusted as fact. However, to say “give your life to god, surrender to Jesus because he loves you. . . . . else, when you die you will go to hell”, . . . I can only see that as an opinion. To say “my god created all things”, it is opinion. Are these things true? I can’t answer that.
True, it may be a phylosophical beginning to a scientific inquiry, I don’t see the value in accepting fully that which is a matter of faith ALONE. I’m not completely unbending on this. I wouldn’t say that science is the answer for everything because that would be cold.
For my own investigation, please post a list of facts that the scientific method cannot be used to determine. Being a neuroscientist, I am sure that you are aware of why we “fall in love”, “experience emotions”, etc. . . or even why we dream [which is something that I am actually amazed by...how my brain can create scenarios and scenes I haven't seen when awake].
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 11:38amOnce again you misinterpret my intention… I wish to show that science and philosophy/theology/religion/faith in our world and bound by the fact that we are individuals and cannot know the mind/understanding of another person, and therefore the value of each cannot be objectively tested. Thus stating that perception/science is the best way of knowing reality for all people is a false argument.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 12:11pmLet me try one final tactic to explain my point:
Imagine that reality is some shape that we can’t see because we are limited by our physical senses. No let’s consider science as a circle that is overlays a part of the reality shape. Now because science is a way of knowing the universe, let’s say that one segment of the outline of the reality-shape is described by science: a straight line, thus science can say only that a straight line is a part of the reality shape: this is the naturalist, sensory bound of science. Based on the data that science has given us, it is possible that reality is just the straight line and the remaining bounds of science, however it is just as likely that the shape extends out beyond the bounds of science.
As to truth and fact, the science-circle also filters some of the color from reality (this is because of the error inherent to scientific inquiry). Let’s say it filters red light, while it is possible the actual image is red, just like science says it is, it is equally likely that reality is yellow, or cyan. A true, purist, scientist CANNOT pass judgment on peoples’ views that lay outside of science, you can only say they are not confirmed by science. That is unless you assume, have faith, that the world through the hue and shape of science is all that there is, but this claim cannot be validated by science either.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 12:13pmSorry I posted a reply above this discussion:
If my previous illustration does not provoke a concession I believe that our views are so radically different and our interpretation of logic and the world around us separated by such an enormous divide that they can NEVER be reconciled.
Thanks for the debate though, I fell that it has sharpened my mind and my reasoning immensely.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 1:19pmC-Delta, I believe that I have stated that “true, science isn’t all there is”. My stance is . . . .that which cannot be confirmed by the scientific method is left up to interpretation of faulty human minds. I may have a strong feeling against religion because of my experience of 30 years in it. It was my interpretation that it was all true, . . . but because a person of leadership was telling me it was true, based off his own interpretation. I attempted to gain the same understanding and feelings ["I felt impressed by the lord", "god spoke to me", "I feel his spirit", etc], but never did. And at a point in my life, a few years ago, I came to the realization that I actually had no “religious experience”. I had a mindset based upon what others expected of me. I came to the point where [because "faith" is a product of nearly all religions], without a solid foundation and evidence, I couldn’t continue in it.
I only say all that so you know where I come from. Perhaps I have become a bit ridgid, but I wouldn’t reject an undenyable experience. So, what do I have to go on? What do I choose to see as fact? That which has been discovered by those who spent the time and money to achieve degrees in.
Perhaps I can’t look at the “reality shape” on the same level as the “science circle”. But without a frame of reference, these “philosophical possibilities” are foreign in concept. Not all are correct. Many will be wrong. How, without a method of t
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 1:53pmWithout a method of testing, . . . how would I know which is valid?
If it is fine with you, we can continue the talk from the post you started above [with the link]. This one has gotten rather long.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 2:54pmI believe your question was “how do we test what reality-shape is the correct one?”: my answer is terribly disappointing and equally wonderful: there is not an objective test. It is up to personal preference alone to choose what one wishes to believe and how they wish to ascribe value. This is why (to bring this to practical politics) a government entity cannot control a people, or an economy; why each man should be left to rule himself as long as he does not interfere with another person’s right to live their life according to their values. The fundamental uncertainty about nature/God/value/reality/truth is what allows for the wonderful diversity of opinion and the amazing tessellations of theology/science/philosophy that human societies can make.
This is my personal value system (so it is not really an argument but an example): I believe that the value of a belief must impart an advantage on one who believes it (i.e. a belief in gravity gives me the advantage of not jumping off tall structures; or a belief in God saves one’s spirit from the “fire of hell”). Ultimately time is the determining factor on whose philosophy or value system is right and wrong… i.e. if I die and find that there is no God or (inversely) hell fires, I had wasted a large portion of my life seeking after God’s grace that I could have used on more productive activities. I have no way of proving that my value system is correct, allowing for anyone else to have different values that MAY be co
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 3:57pmI can agree with what you said here. At this point in my life, I must take what I am and be the best I can be with it. Regardless of whether or not I make a faith statement, I will have to [IF a god exists] hope that this being will consider what was given to me or how my brain was made, and make a call based upon my character. I have no religious beliefs, but I also don’t use that as a reason to behave badly.
I must say that when I first saw this article, I was amazed by it, . . . but was having one of those days where I was overly sensitive to religious remarks. People are free to hold their beleifs and share them. I apologize for stepping on anyone’s toes. Having said that, I must conclude that, with where I am in my life, I can only see sprites as amazing . . . yet natural occurences.
Report Post »callmechristina
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 9:32ami first researched sprites, elves, and blue jets a few years ago. they are so fascinating and beautiful. God has a purpose for everything He creates, and so many times my human mind is at a loss. Glory to God
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 9:26amAnd you thought it was just a refreshing beverage.
Report Post »Sam the Casual Movie Guy
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 9:06amPerhaps Tesla was on to something, with all of this energy permeating the atmosphere.
Report Post »tomcatfromtexas
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 7:57amsouls on there way to Heaven.
Report Post »LeeroyJenkins
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 6:08amRainbows are GODs reminder not to drown us again….I am sure lightning sprites are just for his entertainment.
Report Post »Ironeagle
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:48amNo, I don‘t believe its not for God’s entertainment. Just as the Rainbow was God’s sign/reminder to mankind that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood, this could be a sign to us that He will destroy it with fire…as the scripture says in1 Peter 3:3-13.
Report Post »Hobo Boondocks
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 5:28amLightning or electrical energy discharge, travels not only from earth to clouds and clouds to earth but from cloud to cloud. Should it come as a terrible shock that it travels from cloud to outer space? Energy particles from the sun travel to the earth and are seen as the aurora borealis, primarily in the northern and southern hemispheres, yet the earth is continually bathed in this energy. The discharge observed in the form of sprites COULD just as easily be supplied by this source or means as any other. To what extent the third of Newton’s laws of motion of classical mechanics (that forces always occur in pairs) plays in the discharging of massive amounts of electrical energy in the areas above the planet is a question for further research.
Report Post »Carter John
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:19amThat could be a factor however we can see the sprite because of a reaction. It fizzles out shortly after but my question is what in the world is it reacting to to cause this? Energy in thunderstorms are immense, it can’t be an overage of a type of gas. The gas would disperse into the entire atmosphere, maybe it is a counter charge that is equal in strength? What I think is obvious is that the middle zone in thunderstorms need more research, problem is getting up there safely to do it.
Report Post »Hobo Boondocks
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 10:45am@ CARTER JOHN
Report Post »Some may theorize that the lightning we see near the surface of the earth should be considered as part of the cycle that results from sprites; others that sprites are caused by the lightning discharges see near the surface and thus are still part of the cycle. Still others may suggest that the observable discharge of energy may occur in both directions depending on which area happens to hold a greater charge at a particular moment. That is, the energy stored in the atmosphere and/or ground where the lightning is seen from our vantage point or 50 miles up where sprites are observed. The characteristics of each discharge is going to be affected by the composition of the area the phenomena is observed in. Consequently, the higher you go up the fewer oxygen, nitrogen molecules and other tiny amounts of gases there are which will affect the characteristics (color, size, shape etc.) of the discharge of energy we see. The more energy released or transferred the greater or more dazzling display of light. One thing I’m looking forward to seeing is film or photos taken from outer space looking down very closely on sprites.
joetex
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 3:07ami-e/r
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 10:11amOhm would be proud. E/I = Resist we much!
Report Post »KeystoneState
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 1:04amLooks like Dick Cheney and Haliburton are up to they’re old tricks again!
Report Post »Exrepublisheep
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 1:59amNa, its what happens when lightning hits a U.F.O. thats using cloaking technology.
Report Post »KeystoneState
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 5:12amSheesh you expect me to believe that? Why even have a Cloaking device then! Its ok though, just keep reading his talking points!
Report Post »000degrees
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 7:19amthis is Bush’s fault….
Report Post »team1blazer
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:56amAnd we humans think we’ve got it all figured out. God is Awesome!
Report Post »Captain Crunch
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:41amMakes me think of a big capacitor.
Report Post »1casawizard
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:45amYa might be on track, CAPTAIN CRUNCH.
Report Post »1casawizard
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:36amIt looks like it‘s magnetic field related and transfering electricity to another level until it hits a resistence it can’t overcome.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:34amGod the artist master at work.
Report Post »Exrepublisheep
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 2:00amYup!
Report Post »jcannon98188
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 3:19amYou are OBVIOUSLY mistaken. This is CLEARLY the work of random matter thrown here by the big bang. It is all random, a team of monkeys could have made this.
Yup, that is enough trolling for me today :)
For reals though, God creates the most beautiful things in Nature.
Report Post »burnteye86
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 3:35am.This reminds me of something I read many years ago, and I’ll have to paraphrase: Scientists will climb the mountain of knowledge and when they get to the top, look over the edge and find a theologian sitting there
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:16amCool!
Report Post »ravinginfidel
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:48pmIf they require huge amounts of energy, lets find a way to tap it. Lets grab our kites keys and balloons and see what we can harness, although I suspect that like lightning a brief high voltage discharge is hard to extract usable energy.
Report Post »Carter John
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:21amIt‘s hard to use because we don’t have anything strong enough yet to hold the charge. Once we do we would be able to use it as a “green” energy source but like Solar power we have a long way to go yet.
Report Post »Impenitent
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:34pmmake seven sprites yours?
Report Post »GlintoftheScythe
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:34pmSprites were originally seen, but not reported, by military pilots early in the jet age. They were afraid they would be considered pysc cases and lose their flight status. I think that is very telling, that at least hundreds of pilots saw theses things and talked amongst themselves about what they witnessed but it was never brought to public attention until may decades after their discovery. I think there is something to be learned about UFO sightings in this context.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:45pmMaybe, but a Sprite doesn’t glow in a half-mile wide light blue oval at night apparently at or near the upper level of the atmosphere, and move from one horizon to the other at apparently several thousand miles per hour either
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:50pmOh, and Sprites don’t linger near the planet Mercury either having a reaction with solar plasma bursts.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:02amI guess someone didn’t like my UFO description, and so they deleted it. Ooooooo!
Report Post »neiman1
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:25pmYou mean science is still discovering new facts about our atmosphere they previously thought was settled science? Amazing.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:35pmAmazing isn’t it? They are so arrogant they think they can just say it is settled science, even though there is more about the earth they don’t know than there is they do know. And then at the same time they will also tell us they discovered earth-like planets 600 light-years away. B.S!
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:40pmI don’t need a several billion dollar satellite or a particle collider to know there is a God particle or earth-like planets somewhere else, but I also don‘t believe science’ evidence, and I don’t believe God will let them use it anyways because we are here in captivity for a reason.
Report Post »mauijonny
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 2:09amLol.
Report Post »CowboyExpat
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 4:47amFaster than the speed of light….
Report Post »GrannyATL
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:12pmI saw something like this one time when flying from Miami to NYC — it was about 30 years ago and I never forgot it. The group of us on the plane just sat mesmerized looking out the window at a thunderstorm in the distance with what looked to be super-bright explosions in the night sky above the storm. It was incredible.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:08pmWhat if sprites are really deceased people’s spirits traveling to heaven? Wouldn’t that be awesome if that were true?
Report Post »