To assist with the development of my revolutionary H-aether theory, I invite
constructive comments on the following.

Basically, my theory claims that a light beam projected into empty space
behaves in much the same way as a fine, high speed jet of gas or liquid might
under the same circumstances.

Consider that you are in remote space equipped with an air bottle.
You open the nozzle for a brief period. What happens?

The air escapes with an average velocity determined by the pressure inside the
bottle. Air molecules collide inside the nozzle itself and so emerge with
component velocities in directions other than straight ahead.

Before very long, the probability of further collisions decreases rapidly and
the molecules travel essentially in straight lines for considerable distances.
Eventually, the occasional collision with the very low density molcules of
space causes them to equilibrate with whatever local conditions they happen to
be passing through. Their initial momentum has been absorbed by the molecules
of space.

In the case of a water jet, the dispersion is not as immediate as with a gas,
presumably because of surface tension. It is not until the jet evaporates that
dispersion takes place. The higher the initial speed, the lower the relative
dispersion.

Similarly, light does not disperse rapidly because of its extreme forward
speed. The likelihood of lateral photon collisions is very low, particularly if
their initial speed is constant (almost?) wrt their source.

However, like the air molecules, all the photons emitted in a particular pulse
will eventually interact with the 'gas' of photons in space and settle down to
'local conditions'. This individual fields that make up this photon gas
collectively constitute the 'H-aether', which is by no means isotropic and can
be regarded as possing turbulence, pressure and density gradients like, for
instance, our upper atmosphere.

As far as we know, however, light is not influenced by the passage of other
light through it. However, experiments that have investigated this possibility
have been in the lab and over short ranges. I doubt if anyone has really looked
seriously into the way in which light might react with other light particularly
at very low intensities.

You can laugh at my theory if you like but it seems to offer a few answers that
others cannot and fits the evidence pretty well.

Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

In sci.physics, HenriWilson

wrote
on Sat, 30 Aug 2003 20:57:21 GMT
:
To assist with the development of my revolutionary H-aether theory, I invite
constructive comments on the following.

Basically, my theory claims that a light beam projected
into empty space behaves in much the same way as a fine,
high speed jet of gas or liquid might under the same
circumstances.

Consider that you are in remote space equipped with an air bottle.
You open the nozzle for a brief period. What happens?

Even in light of my relative ignorance of the flight
dynamics of a bumblebee, airplane, balloon, or rocket, I
can nevertheless point out some problems with this analogy;
the single biggest one is that the jet of air might "sing",
if the opening and air velocity is just right. Whistling
teakettles and flutes are common, for example.

There are also issues with the temperature inside the
bottle. PV = nRT; with decreasing P and constant V (we
neglect here the already-exhausted gas) T has to go down,
and the air may liquefy fairly easily. Consider, for
example, an ordinary scuba gear pressurized to 3,000 psi
(20 megaPascal), at 300 K (after it's been left to cool).
O2 boils at 90.2 K so all one has to do is release 7/10 or
so of that bottle and in theory at least one has liquid
air. (In practice, I don't know; n is decreasing, too.
But in light of this consideration it's not difficult to
produce the stuff, although it does take some energy.)


The air escapes with an average velocity determined by the
pressure inside the bottle. Air molecules collide inside
the nozzle itself and so emerge with component velocities
in directions other than straight ahead.

Before very long, the probability of further collisions
decreases rapidly and the molecules travel essentially
in straight lines for considerable distances. Eventually,
the occasional collision with the very low density molcules of
space causes them to equilibrate with whatever local conditions
they happen to be passing through. Their initial momentum
has been absorbed by the molecules of space.

In the case of a water jet, the dispersion is not as immediate
as with a gas, presumably because of surface tension. It is not
until the jet evaporates that dispersion takes place. The higher
the initial speed, the lower the relative dispersion.

Similarly, light does not disperse rapidly because of its
extreme forward speed. The likelihood of lateral photon
collisions is very low, particularly if their initial speed
is constant (almost?) wrt their source.

The likelihood of photon-photon collisions is close to nil,
although quantum entanglement is interesting and (AFAIK)
as yet unexplained.


However, like the air molecules, all the photons emitted
in a particular pulse will eventually interact with the
'gas' of photons in space and settle down to 'local
conditions'.

How? Photons don't interact. Think of two laser beams
(or any light beams) passing through each other.

This individual fields that make up this photon gas
collectively constitute the 'H-aether', which is by
no means isotropic and can be regarded as possing

Presumably "possessing".

turbulence, pressure and density gradients like, for
instance, our upper atmosphere.

As far as we know, however, light is not influenced by
the passage of other light through it. However, experiments
that have investigated this possibility have been in the lab
and over short ranges. I doubt if anyone has really looked
seriously into the way in which light might react with other
light particularly at very low intensities.

You can laugh at my theory if you like but it seems to offer
a few answers that others cannot and fits the evidence pretty well.

Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

HenriWilson wrote:

To assist with the development of my revolutionary H-aether theory, I invite
constructive comments on the following.

Basically, my theory claims that a light beam projected into empty space
behaves in much the same way as a fine, high speed jet of gas or liquid might
under the same circumstances.
[snip]

Hey stooopid Henri Wilson, what is the Reynolds number of a light
beam?

http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

It's not every ****ing imbecile who can violate quantum mechanics,
relativity, and classical physics in fewer than 50 words. Wait... it
*is* every ****ing imbecile who can violate quantum mechanics,
relativity, and classical physics in fewer than 50 words.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, HenriWilson

wrote
on Sat, 30 Aug 2003 20:57:21 GMT
:
To assist with the development of my revolutionary H-aether theory, I invite
constructive comments on the following.

Basically, my theory claims that a light beam projected
into empty space behaves in much the same way as a fine,
high speed jet of gas or liquid might under the same
circumstances.

Consider that you are in remote space equipped with an air bottle.
You open the nozzle for a brief period. What happens?

Even in light of my relative ignorance of the flight
dynamics of a bumblebee, airplane, balloon, or rocket, I
can nevertheless point out some problems with this analogy;
the single biggest one is that the jet of air might "sing",
if the opening and air velocity is just right. Whistling
teakettles and flutes are common, for example.

Just as we get interference patterns from light passing through pinholes, eh
ghost?


There are also issues with the temperature inside the
bottle. PV = nRT; with decreasing P and constant V (we
neglect here the already-exhausted gas) T has to go down,
and the air may liquefy fairly easily. Consider, for
example, an ordinary scuba gear pressurized to 3,000 psi
(20 megaPascal), at 300 K (after it's been left to cool).
O2 boils at 90.2 K so all one has to do is release 7/10 or
so of that bottle and in theory at least one has liquid
air. (In practice, I don't know; n is decreasing, too.
But in light of this consideration it's not difficult to
produce the stuff, although it does take some energy.)

What are you talking about Ghost. You have really gone crazy this time.

All you do is squirt a few billion molecules out of the nozzle. You don't have
to empty the whole bloody bottle to demonstrate my point.
And, of course, I assume you are familiar with the porous plug experiments.



The air escapes with an average velocity determined by the
pressure inside the bottle. Air molecules collide inside
the nozzle itself and so emerge with component velocities
in directions other than straight ahead.

Before very long, the probability of further collisions
decreases rapidly and the molecules travel essentially
in straight lines for considerable distances. Eventually,
the occasional collision with the very low density molcules of
space causes them to equilibrate with whatever local conditions
they happen to be passing through. Their initial momentum
has been absorbed by the molecules of space.

In the case of a water jet, the dispersion is not as immediate
as with a gas, presumably because of surface tension. It is not
until the jet evaporates that dispersion takes place. The higher
the initial speed, the lower the relative dispersion.

Similarly, light does not disperse rapidly because of its
extreme forward speed. The likelihood of lateral photon
collisions is very low, particularly if their initial speed
is constant (almost?) wrt their source.

The likelihood of photon-photon collisions is close to nil,
although quantum entanglement is interesting and (AFAIK)
as yet unexplained.

quite. So my theory remains intact.



However, like the air molecules, all the photons emitted
in a particular pulse will eventually interact with the
'gas' of photons in space and settle down to 'local
conditions'.

How? Photons don't interact. Think of two laser beams
(or any light beams) passing through each other.

I have thought about that.
Even if two laser beams cross, what are the chances of two photons (if they
exist) hitting each other. One would have to know the effective length and
'cross section' to work this out.

I would like to know how deeply light beam interaction has been investigated.


This individual fields that make up this photon gas
collectively constitute the 'H-aether', which is by
no means isotropic and can be regarded as possing

Presumably "possessing".

yes

turbulence, pressure and density gradients like, for
instance, our upper atmosphere.

As far as we know, however, light is not influenced by
the passage of other light through it. However, experiments
that have investigated this possibility have been in the lab
and over short ranges. I doubt if anyone has really looked
seriously into the way in which light might react with other
light particularly at very low intensities.

You can laugh at my theory if you like but it seems to offer
a few answers that others cannot and fits the evidence pretty well.

Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:01:12 +0100, "davidoff404"
wrote:


HenriWilson wrote in message
.. .
To assist with the development of my revolutionary H-aether theory, I
invite
constructive comments on the following.

Basically, my theory claims that a light beam projected into empty space
behaves in much the same way as a fine, high speed jet of gas or liquid
might
under the same circumstances.


Horse****.


What happens when you squirt a little gas into empty space?

Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:21:05 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

HenriWilson wrote:

To assist with the development of my revolutionary H-aether theory, I invite
constructive comments on the following.

Basically, my theory claims that a light beam projected into empty space
behaves in much the same way as a fine, high speed jet of gas or liquid might
under the same circumstances.
[snip]

Hey stooopid Henri Wilson, what is the Reynolds number of a light
beam?

http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

It's not every ****ing imbecile who can violate quantum mechanics,
relativity, and classical physics in fewer than 50 words. Wait... it
*is* every ****ing imbecile who can violate quantum mechanics,
relativity, and classical physics in fewer than 50 words.

Does that mean I can violate my neighbour's 16yo daughter?


Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

HenriWilson wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:01:12 +0100, "davidoff404"
wrote:


HenriWilson wrote in message
.. .
To assist with the development of my revolutionary H-aether theory, I
invite
constructive comments on the following.

Basically, my theory claims that a light beam projected into empty space
behaves in much the same way as a fine, high speed jet of gas or liquid
might
under the same circumstances.


Horse****.


What happens when you squirt a little gas into empty space?

As a molecular beam, an effusion, a diffusion, an orifice expansion,
or a free expansion? Your profound ignorance must be of great comfort
to you. You know NOTHING.

http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

HenriWilson wrote:
[snip usual crap]

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

Here is a very wyse advice on computer animation and
the fallacy it can easily illustrates :

" We should always be suspicious of computer animations,
for while they look impressive, they may very well be
constructed on mathematical models the programmer assumes,
but which may not be the ones which nature uses. This animation
of the overbalanced wheel is unphysical in several respects.
Can you identify its errors? "

the animation is :

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/obw1Xs.gif

(from : http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/home.htm )

After a year I suggested it to you, stupid Henry, you'd
never had a though about what kind of physical model
a computer "canvas" impose if you use it blindly ?

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:48:46 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

HenriWilson wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:01:12 +0100, "davidoff404"
wrote:


HenriWilson wrote in message
.. .
To assist with the development of my revolutionary H-aether theory, I
invite
constructive comments on the following.

Basically, my theory claims that a light beam projected into empty space
behaves in much the same way as a fine, high speed jet of gas or liquid
might
under the same circumstances.


Horse****.


What happens when you squirt a little gas into empty space?

As a molecular beam, an effusion, a diffusion, an orifice expansion,
or a free expansion? Your profound ignorance must be of great comfort
to you. You know NOTHING.

So what happens to a fine jet of water that is sqirted into empty space?



Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 03:19:15 +0200, YBM wrote:

HenriWilson wrote:
[snip usual crap]

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

Here is a very wyse advice on computer animation and
the fallacy it can easily illustrates :

" We should always be suspicious of computer animations,
for while they look impressive, they may very well be
constructed on mathematical models the programmer assumes,
but which may not be the ones which nature uses. This animation
of the overbalanced wheel is unphysical in several respects.
Can you identify its errors? "

the animation is :

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/obw1Xs.gif

Of course I can.
I would not design a simulation like that. It is nowhere near the truth.
It takes no account of the bob's momentum at the bottom and ignores the
directional component of the gravity force.
It is stupid.

I could do it properly if I had the time and inclination.


(from : http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/home.htm )

After a year I suggested it to you, stupid Henry, you'd
never had a thought about what kind of physical model
a computer "canvas" impose if you use it blindly ?

My models don't have errors.

Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm