Talk:Thunder

message: Presumably we are talking Celcius degrees?
18:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are google hits for temperature of lightning
* 54 000 F = 30 000 C
* 28-30 Kelvin from peer reviewed sources.
* Nasa 20,000 degrees C 
So it is pretty clear that who ever typed that was thinking in Farenheit. Which will seem very strange to anyone who hasnt been to theUSA, where that is still the defualt temperature scale! Perhaps the author hadn't been to the rest of the world where Celcius is the default. Anyway in the interest of US rest of the word relations I will leave both Billlion 08:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degrees? 

message: Thunder is most likely an explosive, multidirectional sonic boom created by the lightning bolt rather and an "expansion and contraction of air". Many people think it's scary, but you they can not hit you. Because people have different structurs then a poet
:A sonic boom is a shock wave -- caused by the expansion of airBilllion 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thunder 

message: Is there any occurrance of sound without lightning? The old tale was that when different masses of air "collide" and mix there is a sort of early storm sound. This may be a myth. It may also influence the lightning sound theory noted above.
:Actually what happens is the air gets heated as the lightning passes through. The air rapidly expands and at that moment creates a sonic boom. So, no, you cant have thudner without lightning (even if you cant see the lightning.)
:You can make a sonic boom with things other than lightning, but in that case we do not call the noise "thunder." 96.28.157.126 (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: No Lightning no Rumbling?

message: Do we need this list?Yes we do need a list. Isnt it covered by the category!Billlion 22:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the list is needed here since we already a separate article for List of thunder gods which is more complete. Having it included here instead of linked to gives it undue weight. Angela. 09:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thunder gods?

message: There is a major prophet&saint in the Romanian Christian-Orthodox religion, called Ilie, that people believe to be the master of thunders and violent summer tunderstorms. His celebration is an important event in the Orthodox Calendar and takes place every year on july the 20th http://www.calendar-ortodox.ro/luna/iulie/iulie20.htm.
He is depicted driving a horse-pulled chariot (sometimes of fire) over storm clouds http://www.plasticsusa.com/ortho/ic040a.jpg.
It is said in Romanian folklore that when he's angry or just passing by in his vehicle, he throws thunders away. 
There are lots of churches built in his honour all over Romania, and Ilie is a common name for a man in this country.
This character might be the old Slav Thunder God Perun, adopted by the Eastern Christian Orthodox Church in order to ease the conversion of the Slavs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perun#Post-Christian_Perun, but since the Orthodox people here are mostly not Slavs, but descendants of the Romanized Dacians, connections between Ilie, the Dacian god Gebeleizis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebeleizis  and roman mythology must be investigated.
The Catholic Church attributes the power over thunders to St. Michael http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perun#Post-Christian_Perun .
Since there is a topic about Thunder gods, I think that Saint Ilie and St. Michael should be mentioned in this article alongside Perun as his successors, with the note that they are not actual gods, but Holly People in monotheistic beliefs (they are venerated and not worshiped, they were real people once that were glorified in Heaven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint, but still supernatural characters).
:Get real kid. Thor is the only one who belongs here. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thunder Saints - Sfantul Ilie and Saint Michael 

message: Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#_note-2 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder
The two articles don't seem to agree on lighning speed. 
In "Calculating distance" in the article of Thunder, it says "Using this difference (sound travels slower than light), one can estimate how far away the bolt of lightning is by timing the interval between seeing the flash and hearing thunder. The speed of sound in air is approximately 344 m/s or 769 mph. The speed of light can be assumed to be infinite in this calculation because one must know that there has been a lightning strike before starting counting. " It implies that the lightning is travelling at speed of light; while in "Properties of lightning" in the article of Lightning, it says "A bolt of lightning can travel at a speed of 45 km/s (kilometres per second) (100,000 mph, 160,000 km/h)." (Speed of light in a vacuum is about 300,000 km/s.)
Can I conclude that the speed of light in the atmosphere is about 45 km/s? Could it be possible that the speed of light is reduced from 300,000 km/s to 45 km/s in the air? Or there is something I missed? 
Any expert please clear my confusion? --Natasha2006 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the lightning travelling speed?  

message: if people can add more to this section that would be great....specifically "thunder" --Hornplayer2 (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: School Mascots

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Should this really be here? It doesn't seem relevant to thunder, speaking in terms of physics of the phenomenon, but more of a cultural reference to thunder. If anything this section seems more like a ploy to draw attention to the schools listed... Rabid9797 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elegibility of School Mascots section

message: A flash of lightning, followed after some seconds by a rumble of thunder, is for many people the first illustration of the fact that sound (like light) does not travel instantaneously (...)
Light does not travel instantaneously it travel at a speed very close to 300 000 km/s. It's is fast, but not instanteneous... I won't rip my shirt, but someone better than me should rectify that  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Crépeau (talk • contribs) 06:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: something not right with this sentence

message: "In the same five seconds the light could have circled the globe 37 times" - uhh, if light happened to orbit a planet then maybe... 78.86.37.93 (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Using mirrors or fibre optics for example? Billlion (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: something not right with this sentence

message: Okay if sound does travel at said speed, then why does the dynamics involving thunder travel VERY slow, resulting in an elongated burst of thunder?  Sure the front wave is traveling at the speed of sound, but what about everything behind the initial burst? Murakumo-Elite (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Im pretty sure thats covered by the  Doppler Effect. The sound waves compress as they approach, getting louder. As they move away from the event, they become more spread out and thus quieter. This should not be taken as 100% fact, in large part because im not a scientist and im not sure what exactly you are trying to ask. 96.28.157.126 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question is why the sound lasts so long, compared to the lightning itself which seems instantaneous. First of all, the lightning is not instantaneous, even though it expands downwards or sideways very fast. More importantly, the length of the lightning means that the sound from the farthest end must travel longer to reach the observer. As an example let the observer be 1 km away from where a cloud to ground lightning strikes. Then, assuming the cloud is approximately 1.5 km above ground, the distance to the upper end is 1.8 km. The 0.8 km difference gives a thunder that lasts for more than 2 seconds. In addition, you can have echo from hills or buildings. The Doppler Effect ("the change in frequency of a wave for an observer moving relative to the source of the wave") has nothing to do with it. Thomas Nygreen (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas: is there a WP:RS for this? It looks like a useful addition. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm grateful for this question because I have often been puzzled why thunder can last a long time even though the lightning flash lasts for such a short time. Thomas Nygreen, in your worked example you conclude that a roll of thunder can last more than 2 seconds, but I am almost sure I have often heard a single roll of thunder last for more than twenty seconds. If the sound from the near end of a lightning bolt reaches me at time = 0, and the sound from the far end reaches me at time = 20 seconds, and sound travels a kilometre every 3 seconds, that suggests the lightning bolt is 6.7 km or 4 miles long (which is not implausible, I suppose, though the thought of a snake of plasma stretching for 4 miles makes one pause in awe). If some of the peal of thunder is being extended in duration by echoing off buildings, this should presumably mean that thunder heard at sea lasts much less long - which I confess I doubt, because although I'm no seaman myself, I've never heard anyone say that thunder sounds any different at sea. Very well then, perhaps it is being echoed from other air masses of different density? I doubt if they can actually be reflected - I would expect they can only be made to change direction slightly - but even if such echoes can occur, surely they would be very weak and indistinct, unlike the typical peal of thunder which includes several very distinct and intense bangs, many of which make windows rattle. Surely bangs of such intensity, if echoes, would have to be echoes from solid objects, which suggests that thunder heard among skyscrapers would have many more bangs, and carry on for much longer, than thunder heard at sea, and again I doubt this. One would have thought, on the face of it, that the sound generated by a 4-mile-long snake of plasma would be a more or less smooth roar like a waterfall, or a more or less smooth crackle like a vast firework sparkler, or a more or less smooth rumble like a landslide; not a chain of extremely uneven banging and rattling. On reflection I posit the following: the various individual bangs may be from the individual branches of the lightning, which is often very forked. I think I've seen photos of lightning which is as forked as a genealogical tree - not a bolt but a bush. If the branches are spread out widely, then even though they all occur within the space of (I guess) one millisecond of each other, the nearest branch could be half a mile away from me and the furthest branch 4 miles away on the other side of the "bush". A bang from a branch very near might arrive in half a second, that from a branch 4 miles away not for twenty seconds. This would imply that the uneven banging of a peal of thunder is not the result of one bang echoing off multiple buildings or off airmasses of differing densities, but the bangs of each individual branch; and therefore thunder need not sound different at sea or among skyscrapers. Does this sound a sufficient explanation of what is, frankly, a puzzling phenomenon? UBJ 43X (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding to my note of 26 February 2013 immediately above, I am similarly puzzled by the possibly related phenomenon that the noise of jet aircraft flying steadily is very uneven. The volume is decidedly irregular (though not divided up into distinct cracks as thunder is), especially when the aircraft is flying fast and overhead. I don't know what sort of speed this becomes noticeable at (600 mph?), but when, for example, a fighter jet flies overhead, the volume of the sound it makes is very noticeably uneven - a noise somewhat like a person tearing a bedsheet a couple of feet at a time: rip, rip, rip. Why is that? The engines are presumably burning steadily, but the noise one hears on the ground keeps changing in volume - and the volume of different bands of frequencies varies continually too, creating an impression of something rolling and surging. In this it would seem to be very similar to the unevenness of thunder, though I cannot see the reason. UBJ 43X (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You might consider asking at the reference desk. It's quite peripheral to the content of this article, and it's really unlikely that anyone with the answer will see your comment here. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT SOUND PHYSICS NEED CLARIFYING 

message: counting after a flash of lightning in seconds  does not   indicate how far the lightning is  rather  it is used  too tell how far away  the  storm center is and  if   lightning   flashs over head  and  thunder cracks at the same time    it means  the storm is  over  head you. --86.41.138.186 (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think you are right. Counting the seconds between seeing the flash and hearing the thunder is a very good way of estimating the distance of the flash, not the "storm center" - the flash might be nowhere near the storm center. The lightning sends out photons which travel at a stonking 186,000 miles per second and reach you almost instantaneously. It also expands the air so that a sound wave expands away in all directions (like a balloon expanding), but much slower, travelling a mere 1/5 of a mile per second. If the light reaches you at 5 o'clock and you start counting seconds, and 5 seconds later you hear the sound of the thunder, the lightning bolt was one mile away (approximately).UBJ 43X (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  distance of storm  

message: For this sentence: "More recently, the consensus around the cause of the shock wave has been eroded by the observation that measured overpressures in simulated lightning are greater than could be achieved by the amount of heating found. Alternative proposals rely on electrodynamic effects of the massive current acting on the plasma in the bolt of lightning"
I do not like it. Its only reference is a book from 22 years ago. Such proposals must have been measured, and we must have better information than this, right? The googles were of no help to me, as usual. I dont want to just hack away at a sentence, but it really needs a better, more recent source. 96.28.157.126 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: [My first Wikipedia post, my apologies for format errors]This source is OR (see []. There is a secondary source from Chapter 11 of Lightning: Physics and Effects (ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIGHTNING)V.A. RAKOV and M.A. UMAN, Cambridge University Press,  , 687 p., 2003. Shevek60 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a shot at fixing this, and have added another reference in support. Jbening (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a better source. 

message: Can you please tell me a resource for God talk.
For exapmle his booming voice that thundered scared the villagers half out of their wits.
Whats he saying?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankensteinsreal (talk • contribs) 05:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lather, rinse, repeat.Jbening (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  God talk 

message: thunder is loud
102.248.212.80 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  thunder is loud 

message: What are the safety form thunder in home 2409:4052:E1F:6633:0:0:CF89:8B0A (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science