Thread replies: 4
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: Staccoto_Lightning.jpg (654KB, 1255x1500px) Image search:
[Google]
654KB, 1255x1500px
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#Physics
>The idea that lightning never strikes the same place twice is one of the oldest and best known superstitions about lightning. There is no reason that lightning would not be able to strike the same place twice; if there is a thunderstorm in a given area, then objects and places which are more prominent or conductive (and therefore minimize distance) are more likely to be struck. For instance, lightning strikes the Empire State Building in New York City about 100 times per year.
Is it not very reasonable to assume as that a lighting strike is a transfer of electrons from clouds to the earth, that as the struck locale on the earth is now more negatively charged than before (and it's surroundings), that it becomes very unlikely for lightning to strike in that same place again, if only for a relatively short time? This is all dependent of course on the dispersion rate of electrons in the ground which I have no clue about.
>>
>>9101210
If the electrons stayed where they struck, then it would be hazardous to go near a lightning strike due to the extreme static discharge that you would encounter. As it stands, it isn't, and so it follows that you were correct about having no clue about this.
>>
>>9101210
i think the factor of it being closest to the sky and made of conductive metal really means more. a random spot in a flat field would probably statistically not have a significant likelihood to be struck again, if it is equal to all other spots. But it wouldnt be random, it would be slightly elevated or have some factor that makes it an ideal dispersion point, relative to other points around you.
i know if you are struck by lightning as a person, your likelihood of being struck again goes up by a huge amount
Thread posts: 4
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1