Newsgroup sci.physics 216530

Directory

Eric Flesch  wrote in article
<32e079ec.45085630@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>...
> On 17 Jan 1997 00:58:55 GMT, "Peter Diehr" wrote:
> >Eric Flesch  wrote in article
> >> Light is composed of photon particles which move in
> >>probability-based  wave-like patterns.  The photons themselves
> >>have no wave-like properties, they are just particles.
> >
> >This is a very inaccurate description of a photon.  The state
> >vector (or wave function, if you prefer to go to that notation),
contains
> >all information; the photon number operator tells you how many
> >photons are present.  You can also determine the probability of
an
> >interaction from the state vector.   Interference effects enter
via the
> >state vector. Wave and particle are aspects of the state vector.
> > You cannot truly dispense with either aspect.
> 
> The question, Peter, is what a photon IS, not what it DOES.  I
suppose
> that if someone asked you about cars, you would describe roads.
> 
Rude potshots are unbecoming of you.   However, I certainly would
define
a car in terms of its function (personal transportation), and not in
terms of
a particular vehicle (is a 1968 Volkswagon a car? A 1921 Model T?  A
Stanley Steamer? A 3-wheeled British "commuter"?).
> Wave functions, state vectors, etc., all describe what a photon
does.
> As for what the photon is, it's just a particle.  Ask Feynman. 
(well,
> anyway, read Feynman  :-)
> 
Oh, I've read Feynman.  And I don't think that your earlier
statement
is a Feynman quotation.
In any case, since one has a mathematical choice in quantum
descriptions,
all of which are consistent with observation, it is simply _not
possible_ to
say that some quantum particle is "really this" or "really that".
To say otherwise is to have missed a point (or three) along the way
while
studying QM.
Best Regards, Peter

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> Dan Evens includes:
> 
>      Not all that incredible.  If it is plutonium oxide, it is
>      roughly as chemically poisonous as caffeine. You don't see
Nonsense!  Heavy metal toxicity is very different from alkaloid toxicity.
Alkaloid toxicity can kill you quickly, heavy metals do it slowly and
painfully.  Ever see the play Arsenic and Old Lace?
>      too many terrorists hijacking coffee shipments and
>      threatening to blow them up.
> 
> Plutonium oxide is hardly poisonous at all.
More nonsense!  Plutonium is both a potent heavy metal toxin and a
dangerous radiological toxin.  Plutonium doesn't remain in the oxide
form in the body but is metabolized to the phosphate and carbonate
and perhaps even methylated.  It is a bone seaker which irradiates
the bone marrow causing cancers of the bone marrow stem cells, such
as leukemia and lymphoma.  Particles in the lung cause lung cancer.
> Professor Bernard Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh, and an expert
> on radiological hazards, offered to eat a gram of plutonium oxide or
> breathe a liter of air contaminated with whatever plutonium oxide
> particles would stay in suspension for one minute.  He calculated that
> because of the chemical inertness of plutonium oxide the added
> radiation exposure would be equivalent to his taking a six month
> sabbatical in Denver.  At 5,000 feet, Denver has more cosmic rays than
> Pittsburgh.
Please spare us any more refferences to that moron Bernie Cohen.  Most
thinking people wouldn't give his comments or writing the time of day.
As for this silly Denver argument, Denver has more background from man-made
radiological contamination than it does from cosmic rays.
> He did not offer to eat methylated plutonium.  That is absorbable by
> the human body and would have given him heavy metal poisoning.
> (Apparently all heavy metals, e.g. lead, are poisonous if ingested in
> form that lets the stomach absorb them.)
Now there's a profound gem of wisdom!
> I don't know if methylated plutonium is a lot more poisonous than the
> corresponding chemical form of lead.  If it is anywhere close, 80
> grams wouldn't make much of a weapon, no matter what the chemical
> form.
Would someone calculate the number of curies in 80 grams of Pu?  With a 
half life of 24,000 years it should be pretty active?
> Of course, if you could get each of your enemies to step up and eat
> the exact lethal dose for him of plutonium cyanide, you could stretch
> your 80 grams into killing quite a few.
Yes, those who didn't die quickly would die a slow agonizing death as
their bodies were eaten up from the inside out by cancer.  And in the
process of dieing this agonizing death they would also expend their
entire lifetime accumulation of wealth, to add insult to injury.
Dennis Nelson

Rupert Sheldrake has a theory of morphic resonance.
Combinations of frequencies may explain everything.
In the holographic supertheory, the brain interprets
frequencies from a dimension beyond time and space.
Resonance needs a mathematical definition and should
be considered as another universal constant.
Newton's gravitation constant=G
Einstein's speed of light=c
Planck's constant= h
resonance constant=r
In Planck's constant, the frequency of the radiant energy
is multiplied by h to get the Energy level.
But, there is energy entering the system before 
any radiation emissions.
Entry energy in the configuration S-matrix must be
coupled with configuration frequency.
If we let the configuration frequency represent
a non-local resonance r, then:
      r=Hi    where H is the Hilbert Space and
              i is Lorentz invariant instanton generation
Graviton-dilaton coupling in the Witten scheme is similar to
paramagnetic resonance in positron-electron pairs.  In a
potential coupling, if an electron is free, it will be
paired with a positron of opposite spin at the first
opportunity.
Instantons as invariant vibrations determined by string
frequency must move in elliptical orbits.  Baryons and
mesons must contain the string orbits.  The string orbits
are determined by spin, charge, length, and most significant,
*weight and number*.  
It may very well be that a frequency is a sum of strings.
Ultimately, wave packets comprised of strings, which are
harmonics of superstring vibration, resonate invariantly
as atomic weight and number.
A single superstring may be generated in a black hole.
As another universe is instantiated, the total electromagnetic
spectrum is differentiated into smaller strings.  These are
the resonant harmonics.
Resonators are isomorphic and homogeneous.  It looks like
all universes look exactly like our own!
Craig Clark


Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>Well, he had his childhood experiences with the commies (the bloody 
>communist takeover attempt in Hungary in 1921, or maybe 22) at that 
>set his attitude for life.
Quite understandable of course, though not all drew the same conclusions.
>He saw them as a scourge no less then 
>Hitler was and, belonging to a generation which 
>learned first hand what are the consequences of
>letting scourges grow unchecked, he considered
>it necessery to do something about it.  While I by
>no means identify with his attitude, I can see where
>it is coming from and understand it.
Yes, you explained that quite well.
>Anyway, lots of physicists get involved
>with nonsense when they get older.
This unfortunately is not only true for physicists. Quantum back-action at
work?
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

On Sat, 18 Jan 1997 05:50:27 -0800, "R. Alan Squire"
 wrote:
>
>Clearly not too tedious for your replies,
i never pass up a chance to educate the uneducated
.  You tend instead to resort to personal
>attacks or facetious remarks.  Criticising an idea or labeling it
>"illogical" is easier than addressing it.
well since creationists dont consider any evidence which contradicts
their religious beliefs to BE evidence its easier for you to say THAT
than to face the evidence that creationism is religion
>
>
>I've studied it and discussed religious ideas with fellow students and
>friends, some of whom are born-again Christians.  None of them have
>expressed any indignation with a broad definition of religion.
since religion does not include science its obvious what your
definition includes
>Was it your implication that religion IS "voodoo", or perhaps you
>were referring to the Haitian vodu religion.
creationism is voodoo. never said religion was voodoo or anything
else. 
>
>> faith and experience are not identical.
>
>I never said that they were.  I said that science relies to some
>degree on faith in addition to experience.
it relies on experience which is quite a bit different than the faith
in things not seen as paul says.
>
>>
>> none of them want it accepted as scientific fact
>
>Nor do you want to consider the idea that the basis for the existence
>of the universe and life MAY lie outside the boundaries of science.
its irrelevant to science. 
>
>Because science is based partly on faith, I feel it may fall within
>the category of religion. 
then you do not know what religion is. science is religion like
painting is taxi cab driving.
 Because it is "a way of life woven around
>a people's ultimate concerns"
so is train collecting. so is keeping a clean house. so is raising
ones family or someones job. the category is so broad as to be
meaningless which is EXACTLY what i pointed out above.
>
>"Transcendent" is a way of describing what is outside our experience
>or ability to conceive rationally. 
it is a way to describe what is not material or what IS spiritual. it
is not science
 Transcendental ideas are acceded
>to intuitively.  Metaphysics is by its very nature speculative.  I'm
>contending that science is often both intuitive and speculative
right. but it does so based on physical evidence not spiritual
beliefs. when ed witten discusses string theory he does so on the
basis of mathematics. and math AINT spiritual.
.
>If that's the case, then any theory not tested and confirmed should
>eventually disappear from the scientific scene.  More often than not,
>however, a theory must be DISproved before it's dismissed.  A theory
>yet to be substantiated tends to remain for decades or centuries.
>During that time, intuition and speculation play a large part in its
>existence.
and it is rooted in physical evidence as cited above. you try to blend
concepts of science and religion. there are many aspects of human
experience. you have a neo-scholastic belief that EVERYTHING is
religious. i tend to go along with karen armstrongs observation that
this is the first time in human history when atheism and secularism
are strong forces to be dealt with in their own right. how you
religionists deal with it is your problem, not mine. by trying to
stretch words to encompass new ideas, or pouring new wine into old
wineskins doesnt cut it because its a meaningless concept

Chris Street wrote:
> 
> jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> 
> > It should strike you as unusual that you can overdose on alcohol and
> > heroin, and yet the law treats marijuana like heroin and alcohol like
> > cigarettes.  Anyway, the key issue (and the AAAS should address it)
> > is that my mother-in-law could self-administer morphine PRN for pain
> > during the hospice care period as she died from cigarette smoking,
> > but folks go nuts when some Arizona retiree wants marijuana to deal
> > with chemotherapy side effects.
> 
> This is probably because marijuana is a "pleasurable drug" and as
> such is seen to be decadant, therfore bad, therefore we must
> protect those who cannot make an informed choice (like all those
> adults of sound body and mind out there) Why tobacco and alcohol
> are not included is anyones guess.
Alcohol and tobacco are not included because they are **part of the
economy**.    If you doubt how important this is, just listen to
Senator(God help us!) Jesse Helms in NC rant on about tobacco.
jdbarron@cphl.mindspring.com
> 
> Just my two cents worth.
> 
> The Original Mad alCHEMIST. 
> PGP key from http://www.mithrandir.demon.co.uk/contents.htm

George Penney  wrote in article
<01bc0497$3d232ee0$38c00bce@TIME>...
> 		     A Solution to the Einstien-Podolsky Paradox.                  This
> is a solution based on 4D Space.If a Flatlander lived in his 2D universe
> which consisted of a flat plane and we intersected it with a circular
ring
> which say was spring loaded so we
>  could make it bigger or smaller at will.Now if we laid this rind flat on
> his plane,he would see a circle,if we now lift the ring out of his plane
so
> it is inclined 90 degrees to his plane he would see two points (or
> dots),seperated by the dia of the ring
> ..We then rotate the ring(say clockwise),perpendicular to the plane,he
would
> observe them moving in unsion in his space,but not conected.He would
> conclude they obayed some law(such as a force between them that made them
> move in unsion).He then positons him
> self on one of the dots(lets say one is blue and the other red,he's on
the
> blue dot).He can't visalize why they move together as he is in
2D-space.We
> then make the dia of the ring larger so the dots are further apart,he
still
> can see both and that they ar
> e moving in unsion.Everytime the blue dot moves so dose the red dot.Then
we
> slowly increase the dia so it's dia is 6x10^8M in dia(The speed of light
in
> his universe is 3x10^8M/S,also we can rotate the ring as slowly as we
> like). We now reverse the rotatio
> n of the ring CCW and although he cant observe both the blue dot (which
he
> is on),and the red dot simaltanesly he just knows that the red dot has
also
> reversed it's direction.But he reasons how can this be since information
> can't travel between them at gr
> eater than the speed of light?? Note now that the flatlander now has a
> paradox the same as the Einstien-Podolsky paradox.Two pairs are
> communicating information(as QM would predict),but faster than the speed
of
> light)??.Of course what he dont know is that
>  the pairs are connected in 3D-Space.If he did he can conclude that
> Reletivity and Quantum Mech are not in violation of each other!!!.Thus we
> have a resolution of this paradox.The same would apply if we had this
> paradox in our 3D-Space and concluded that 
> the pairs are connected in 4D Space.                               				  
>          In working out this solution I also noticed a peculiar property
of
> partical spin in 4 or higher dimensional spaces.It goes as follows:---
> First lets discuss some aspects 
> of an n-dimensional object intersecting an (N-1)-dimensional space. I'll
do
> this by going back to the flatlander and our 3-space.In the flatlander's
> universe his circle is the same to him as our sphere(Keep this in mind)
in
> that he can't enter his circle 
> without breaking it's circumference(lets assume his circle is not solid
> inside like we would have if we shaded the circle inside).To us in
3-space
> we could step inside his circle without breaking the circumference due to
> the fact that we have access to 1 
> more dimension than he has.His circle is the same as our 3D hollow
> sphere,we woudn't be able to enter our sphere without breaking it's
surface
> but it could easily be done from  4D-space because in 4-space our
3D-sphere
> would be equivalent to their 4D circ
> le.Now if we inter- sect the 2d circle with out sphere perpendicular to
and
> in the center of his circle passing the sphere down through the plane of
> the circle,if he were inside he would see a dot that would become a small
> circle that would get bigger in 
> dia as we continued to pass the sphere through the 2D circle--- (let the
> dia of OUR  sphere = the dia of his circle),midway through our sphere
would
> form a concetric circle with his own,then start to decrease in size back
to
> a point and finaly dissapear c
> ompletly!!.This would seem very odd to him as all he is observing are
cross
> sectional pieces of our sphere at any one instant in time.It would be the
> same as if we saw an object suddenly appear in our 3-Space,continualy
> change shape and then dissapear.We 
> can get even stranger effects if we intersect irregular shaped geometric
> objects from higher spaces into lower spaces.Of course the flatlander
can't
> visualize our sphere due to his restriction of being confined to his 2D
> universe,however he can construct 
> the laws of 3D-Space Geometry based on the cross sections that he seen of
> our 3D objects Similerly we can construct the laws of 4D-Space and
> N-Dimensional Spaces and their Geometries.                               
>                                 Keepin
> g this in mind let's get to rotation or spin properties of 2D space and
3D
> space,then apply this to higher spaces.If we rotate the Flander's circle
or
> if HE rotates what he considers to be his SPHERE it can only rotate in
TWO
> directions(CC or CCW) or if y
> ou like it can rotate one way or the other[for the terms CC & CCW can
> interchange depending on where you view the rotation from in space].Now
if
> we in 3-Space take the circle(----- his sphere)and rotate it down-
> ward(around it's dia) into the plane of his
>  2-Space and perpendicular to it we can rotate it in two more directions
in
> our 3-space!!He would observe two points seperated by the dia of his
sphere
> that would be stationary.Again he would not be able to visualize that the
> circle(his sphere) had TWO mo
> re modes of rotation or spin in 3D-Space!From this it follows that a
sphere
> in our 3D-Space which has only 2 directions of spin would have MORE than
2
> directions of spin in 4Space and even more in higher dimensional
> spaces.Like the Flander this goes again
> st our common sense(common sense being that layer of predudice layed down
> prior to the age of 16---I could'nt resist getting that in).Also we would
> not be able to mentaly visualize this.(unless we were Charles Hinton who
> claimed he could  visualize 4D obj
> ects such as Hypercubes and so on).                                      
>                                                                          
>               George Penney
> 
>                                                                          
>                                                                          
>                     
> George Penney
> 
> 
> 
You've almost got it right.  The higher dimensional space you speak of is a
fictitious one that exists through the consciousness of the entity doing
the analysis.  The higher dimensional surface that connects seemingly
isolated points in the space observed by the entity is a construct created
through understanding.  In the case of EPR a conservation law forms a
hypersurface in the "space of all possible theories."  This surface
constrains the dynamics of the system under study as it propagates through
this imaginary space (or if you prefer, complex space, including a
representation of the real and imaginary parts).
As I've posted elsewhere, there is no non-locality in the Physics of the
Aspect experiments or anywhere in Quantum Mechanics.  The non-locality lies
in the mathematics.  But thank you for the evocative visualization of this
concept.
-- 
Timothy J. Ebben
2470 Island Drive #304
Spring Park, MN  55384
"While the fire lights aglow, strange shadows from flames will grow
Till things we've never seen will seem familiar."
-Robert Hunter

Bruce C. Fielder wrote:
> 
> 80 grams of plutonium is much to small to make a bomb - one needs at
> least 3000 grams.  So I can't imagine why the US would bother to ship 80
> grams anywhere.  Any cancer deaths would occur years after the war, so I
> can't see why even the US military in the 60's would bother.
> 
> Sounds to me like one of those government = evil = bad = (black
> helicopters, but don't tell anybody) stories.May be wrong here, but I thought criticaly mass (enough for a self-
sustaining fission chain reaction) of Pu 239 was c. 2.2 kg.  Of course,
3 kg could be a little "fudge factor," allowing for imperfect union of
the fissioning mass.
10/Q,
Jack

In article <32DFE3ED.3F59@b.com>, a@b.com wrote:
> Oh, sorry.  My tirade was in favor of using scales of increments other
> than the twelve tone scale, or in favor of using the quarter or eighth
> step, not necessarily against atonality.
And sorry from me too. My tirade was in favour of sometimes sitting back
and enjoying sheer artistry for what it is, without having to disect it to
its last cog and sprocket to find out what makes it tick, or not, because
it is more than a mere mechanical exercise.
-- 
Peter Kerr                        bodger
School of Music                   chandler
University of Auckland NZ         neo-Luddite

To quote Dilbert, "A little knowledge can be a ridiculous thing."  Archie
should learn to understand a whole theory, not just a sound bite, before he
declares it a fake.
	Eric Lucas
Chris Street  wrote in article
<853609302.18011.3@mithrandir.demon.co.uk>...
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> 
> >The 2nd law of thermodynamics needs readjusting. It is not true. And
> >the analogy to put with it is to think of radioactivity.
> 
> The 2nd law is NEVER always true, but it holds in the vast
> majority of cases. Taken as an overall view, it should, and does
> hold true.
> 
> When a uranium atom undergoes decay, it decays into two daughter
> atoms, generates heat, generates neutrons, and occasionaly a
> neutron will be captured, and Np, Pu will be formed. 
> 
> Occasionally. Not all the time. Hence the second law still holds
> true.....
> The Original Mad alCHEMIST. 
> PGP key from http://www.mithrandir.demon.co.uk/contents.htm
> 
> 

Jim Rogers ("jfr"@f[RemoveThis/NoJunkMail]c.hp.com) wrote:
: References would certainly be dandy, so we can all see what the current
: state of understanding is. Given the fuzzy "refences" already cited,
: however, digging a good one up is likely to require broader help. To
: that end I added sci.physics on the chance that one of the regulars
: there might point us straight at an appropriately recent good reference
: about ball lightning. 
Note from a passerby:
Check out my BL page, http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/tesla/ballgtn.html
It includes list of a couple hundred references, the raw output of a
literature search program. 
: > >>You can't open the chamber and
: > >>watch your little plasma ball float around the lab for seconds or tens of
: > >>seconds, as is reported for natural ball lightning.  Nobody understands the
: > >>mechanism of stability.
But this is what Corum and Corum claim to produce!  No replications
though.
-- 
....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page

In article <5bhv7b$ndn$4@nova.thezone.net>, George Penney
 wrote:
> 
> 
>    When Einstein put forth his Equivalence Principal using the elevator thought experi
> ment,He reasoned that a beam of Light entering the elevator through a window(lets say 
> located 1/4 from the 'top'),would curve 'downward'and hit the opposite side at a lo
> wer point then where it entered,he concluded that a lightbeam would also bend in the p
> resence of a Gravatational Field produced by a Mass.Simple enought so far.Now lets car
> ry this to the limit!!.If we increse the acceleration the radius of curvature will 
> get smaller thus the beam will hit the opposite wall further down.If we keep on increa
> sing the acceleration the beam will eventualy hit the floor then move from right to le
> ft across the floor and up the opposite wall toward the point where it entered.With
>  just the right amount of acceleration the  beam will again bend away from where it en
> tered but this time it will continue to loop in a circle forever not striking either w
> all! No:1.What will be the acceleration of the elevator(in m/sec^2),to produce this
>  effect? No:2.What will be the diameter of the circle of light?What would be the limit
>  to how small it could be!!!(if you wish and if need be assign your own dimensions to 
> the elevator).
>
What you are describing amounts to an elevator 'running circles' around a
photon.
That is a physical impossibility.
[snip]
-- 
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981

In article ,
Ron Shepard  wrote:
>In article <5bnv9r$2iv@amenti.rutgers.edu>, owl@rci.rutgers.edu (Michael
>Huemer) wrote:
>[...]
>>Here's a start at that.  Here are some intuitively plausible
>>principles that ought to govern the 'confirmation' relation:
>>1. The observation of an A that is B confirms "All A's are B."
>>2. The observation of an A that is non-B disconfirms "All A's are B."
>>3. The observation of a non-A is irrelevant to (neither confirms nor
>>disconfirms) "All A's are B."
>>4. If P is logically equivalent to Q, then whatever confirms P
>>confirms Q.
>>(The first three principles are collectively called "Nicod's
>>criterion".)
>>The Ravens Paradox results because we see that these 4 principles,
>>which at least appear obviously true, are inconsistent.  For consider
>>the observation of a white shoe.  This object is a non-black
>>non-raven.  Therefore, by (1), it confirms "All non-black things are
>>non-ravens."  But "All non-black things are non-ravens" is logically
>>equivalent to "All ravens are black."  Therefore, by (4), the
>>observation of a white shoe confirms "All ravens are black."  However,
>>by (3), the observation of a white shoe is irrelevant to whether all
>>ravens are black.
>>Thus, one of these principles has to go.  Which one?
>It seems that there should be a difference between proving/confirming
>relations between members of finite sets and those of infinite sets.  If
>there are a finite number of objects, then confirmation of "All non-black
>things are non-ravens" does indeed make progress toward proving that all
>ravens are black; in principle, if the process were continued until all
>non-black objects were tested, we would have the complete proof.  But if
>there are an infinite number of such non-black objects, then little, or
>perhaps even no progress at all has been made.
None of these has to go.  It is not even a matter of infinite sets,
but of probabilities.  However, to illustrate the point without
complication, I will assume that all ravens are equally likely,
and that all non-black objects are equally likely.
Now consider the table
		Black	Non-black
Raven		A	B	A+B
Non-Raven	C	D	C+D
		A+C	B+D
What we are testing is that B=0.  Since A is much smaller than
D, choosing an item "at random" from the set of ravens and finding
it black is much more informative than choosing an item at random
from the set of non-black objects and finding it not a raven.
-- 
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (317)494-6054   FAX: (317)494-0558

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>The 2nd law of thermodynamics needs readjusting. It is not true. And
>the analogy to put with it is to think of radioactivity.
The 2nd law is NEVER always true, but it holds in the vast
majority of cases. Taken as an overall view, it should, and does
hold true.
When a uranium atom undergoes decay, it decays into two daughter
atoms, generates heat, generates neutrons, and occasionaly a
neutron will be captured, and Np, Pu will be formed. 
Occasionally. Not all the time. Hence the second law still holds
true.....
The Original Mad alCHEMIST. 
PGP key from http://www.mithrandir.demon.co.uk/contents.htm

On 15 Jan 1997 06:40:09 GMT, gpenney@thezone.net (George Penney)
wrote:
>The speed of light.
No return key on your keyboard?
From a numerologist's point of view it must be 
300000 km/sec because the universe is metric.
The speed of light has to do with the 
distribution of prime numbers.
Why we actually measure a lower value,
is clear numerologically: The meter
must be redefined. It is wrong now.
:-)
wabi

Bernard Cohen is a professor of physics and former head of the physics
department at the University of Pittsburgh.  Dennis Nelson refers to
him as a moron.  What are Dennis Nelson's qualifications?  His style
of argumentation is that of a middle school student.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

David Sepkoski wrote:
> 
> April wrote:
> [snip]
> > A person who seeks to aquire a PH.D. has that motivation.  For people
> > who aspire wealth, a PH.D. is not necessary.  One has to have the
> > motivation to take big risks in starting their own business.  Most
> > people I know that are on their second majors in college are blindly
> > following the path laid before them by their parents'.  Go to college,
> > get a PH.D. and you will be successful!!  But those who aspire to be
> > self employed have the guts to risk, suffer failure, and end up
> > successful enough to hire degree holders to be their lawyers,
> > accountants, financial advisers......get the picture??
> 
> Why do you assume that earning money is the be-all and end-all of human
> existence?  
I don't.  My motivation centers around family.  I hope to provide
financial security, education, and above all lots of support and love.
> Sure, making a lot of money has its compensations, but not
> everyone cares about that kind of thing.  And believe me, most people
> who get PhDs aren't out for the money.  I think that you are confusing a
> JD or an MD (which really isn't the same thing) with a doctorate.  You
> can get rich and hire all the lawyers you want, but good luck trying to
> find a physicist or a historian to keep around the house.  
Yes you are probably right that I was confusing various degrees,
However, I am not interested in "keeping" a physicist or any other
degree holder "around the house".  Really, what do you mean by that
statement?  Also, if Ph.D. aspirers are not "out for the money" are they
already wealthy, their parents maybe?  Maybe they're not concerned with
providing for a family?
> And as for
> your comment that
> 
> >it was infinitly easier to go to college and get good grades, But it did
> > not compare to the stress, risk, and enormous amount of motiviation
> > required to start a small business!
> 
> I don't think you have any idea what getting a PhD is all about.  I've
> read a lot of posts that seem to indicate that getting a doctorate is a
> simple matter of studying hard or memorizing a lot of useless facts.
> Its not.  It is about intellectual creativity, hard work and as much
> stress as you'll find in any other occupation.  It ain't about pulling a
> B+ average in a bunch of lecture courses in college.  So before YOU go
> assuming a bunch of things that YOU aren't informed about, I urge you to
> heed your own advice.  I'd like to see YOU try it, ace.
I have a degree.  I tried enough of it to know that getting an advanced
degree conflicted with what I wanted out of life.  I was not interested
in spending the considerable time and money involved in getting an
advanced degree (at least in the USA).  My husband and I chose to invest
in a small business in half the time and about one quarter of the money
than would have been required had I remained in college.  Incidently we
are making about 3 times the money than my chosen profession's starting
salary.  It wasn't easy and it didn't matter.  Getting a Ph.D. might
also be difficult, but what's the point? 
What is your drive?  What is your ambition?  Are they in conflict?
If your sole aspiration is to be a respected member of the Ph.D. holding
society, go for it!
But, by my definition of success, aspiring for a Ph.D. is not
neccessary.  It may be a way to success, it may be YOUR way to success
by YOUR definition, but it is by far not the only way.  I would
certainly hope that all the Ph.D. hopefuls have a well-rounded view of
what they want out of life and how to achieve it.
And don't be misled by thinking that those who haven't earned Ph.D.s are
somewhat lacking in education.  Getting an education isn't only about
going to college.  I would hope that everyone furthers their education
whether or not in an institutionalized classroom.  
Oh, and don't call me "ace". 
April

Hey All,
Does someonw have an FAQ for this group that they wish to share?? My question 
about th enature of the leap year and exactly what causes it I would asume is 
in there.
If not, can anyone elaborate on the leap year thing? What causes this? The 
Earth's rotation? The Sun's orbit? Does leap year mean we are losing (x)time 
every second of our lives?
Thanks all!!
Chris
cwzeth@nis.net

In article <32E037C6.62CB@quadrant.net>,
   "Bruce C. Fielder"  wrote:
>Religion is based on "faith", science is based on "observation".
>
>These are not mutually exclusive.
>
>For example, consider a world is which any sinwas Imediately punished
>-say, by pain.  How many people would brave the pain to 'sin' when the
>punishment was imediately there?
>
>Of course, this eliminates the proposition of 'free will'.  After all,
>if you are imediately punished, "free will" can hardy be said to apply.
>At best, god would be selecting the stupid.
  you may have gotten your causality reversed here.
  it seems probable, from the experiments i've conducted so far,
  that the stupid are selecting gods.  and it's lots of diferent 
  ones, too.  at the least, it's quite creative. 
  -ray
>By extension, ANY type of proof for the existence of god is infringement
>upon our free will.  (If YOU had proof of god's existance, how stupid
>would you have to be to knowingly choose hell?)  And, if proof was
>available, but only to those who had studied science (or theology), god
>would obviously be favouring those who were rich enough to study -
>clearly contradicted by anyone's version of the scriptures.
>
>Therefore, if god exists, s/he cannot be proved or disproved by anything
>we may discover in science.  
>
>Logic cannot prove or disprove God; but it can prove that no matter what
>we learn about the world, it has no bearing upom whether God exists.
   now you got your science screwed up.
   while i think it's highly improbable that you could prove the
   existance of a god, you can never rule that possibility out
   until you prove that gods don't exist.  that's also highly 
   improbable, but i never thought Reagan would be elected either.
   -ray

In article <5bpamr$eka$1@nova.thezone.net>
gpenney@thezone.net (George Penney) writes:
>    I hope I've finaly layed this issue to rest with my theory of why C has the
>   velocity it has,and not some other value.
Thanks, that felt good, what is next %^)

In article ,
David Kastrup  wrote:
========Clippit Here=======
>Relativistic effects make intergalactic speeding even more dangerous
>than it would be anyway.
>
=======
But you could argue that the red lights appeared green, owing to the
Doppler shift.
earle
=====
               __
            __/\_\
           /\_\/_/   
           \/_/\_\   earle
              \/_/   jones

Does anyone have any information on the subject ?
I need technical documentation on why, how is the distance between earth
and moon meseared.

In article <5bmec3$r92$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes 
Plutonium wrote:
>The universe as a Lattice does not make sense in either a Big Bang
>theory nor in the Steady State theory.
  Taking the planes where the patterned material that is "an atom"  
meets the similarly decreasing-density patterns of neighbor-atoms 
as "the matrix", this matrix IS an areolar structure, a "lattice". 
Allowing that the very same patterns exist in molecular and stellar 
and galactic structures for the very same underlying physical 
reasons, a matrix (lattice) exists at every level of size from 
atoms on up to mega-galactic structures.   
  Even if, then, the galaxies come and go in a statistically Steady 
State universal system, the Lattice theory still makes sense.
glird

In article <5b9lh9$aut@news.fsu.edu> Jim Carr wrote:
> Nothing can change the Eotvos data, but new experiments can shed 
> light on whether the quoted errors were unrealistically small or 
> whether there were systematic errors that caused the differences. 
> Fishbach pointed out the discrepancy, with a particular proposed 
> explanation, and new experiments were done. 
   Thank you. Can you give a brief summary of his proposal?
>
>There is also an continuing experiment using the reflectors on the 
>moon to study its orbit in detail, and a recent Physics Today news 
>article stated that the results are consistent with the 
>equivalence principle.  You might want to track that down if you 
>are interested. 
  Yes, I am. Which issue of Physics Today contains it?
glird

In article <32E04AB6.A4C@quadrant.net> "Bruce C. Fielder"  writes:
 > 
 > 80 grams of plutonium is much to small to make a bomb - one needs at
 > least 3000 grams.  So I can't imagine why the US would bother to ship 80
 > grams anywhere.  Any cancer deaths would occur years after the war, so I
 > can't see why even the US military in the 60's would bother.
 > 
 > Sounds to me like one of those government = evil = bad = (black
 > helicopters, but don't tell anybody) stories.
I would assume that the reactor given to the Vietnamese was of a
standard model used in educational programs in colleges.  Could it
have been a General Atomics Triga reactor?
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Would anyone be able to tell me who is doing research on holograpic
projection?

On 17 Jan 1997 22:16:56 GMT, yqg023@mrbig.rockwell.com (Jim F. Glass
x60375) wrote:
>But if you take the product of the efficiencies of the central power plant,
>the various stages of transmission/conversion, the charger, the battery, the
>electric motor, and so on---it might just be a push.  In fact, it is entirely
>possible that the gas burner could win.
no it isn't.
the issue of the generator is entirely seperate from the issue of the
electric car. In the United States, most generators are still
coal-fired or run on natural gas...such is not the case in the rest of
the world.
IMHO, the engineering issues regarding electric cars can be ignored,
because ICEs are inferior for other reasons also; for example, the
electric car does not pollute the atmosphere. Whether the Generator
that supplies it power pollutes the atmosphere is a parenthetical
issue. Assume that it's powered by a cold fusion plant or whatever.
Also ICEs have a smell that electric cars do not. They are quiet.
The enabling technology for the electric car is the battery. They are
more efficient than ICEs, however, at this point in time, the
batteries used don't hold enough energy for the efficiency of the car
to be a significant factor. If an ICE had only 1 mL of fuel, it
wouldn't go very far either.
There is no conspiracy against electric cars, per se, because in the
common sense a conspiracy is only a conspiracy when most people don't
know it's happening. It's quite obvious, IMHO, that petro companies
don't want electric car to be developed to a point where it's more
practical, because they would loose money. IT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY.
GM is already marketing an electric car in Los Angeles, California,
USA, and also in Arizona iirc. 
There is a law in this state (California, USA) that requires, by 2010
iirc, 10% of all new cars sold here to be zero emission. Sorry I don't
have the details in front of me at the moment. (though I think it's a
good law, I wonder how Sacremento plans to enforce it.)
Also Ford and Chrysler are making electric cars, although information
about their efforts is hard to find.

In <32e079ec.45085630@news.nn.iconz.co.nz> ericf@central.co.nz (Eric
Flesch) writes: 
>
>On 17 Jan 1997 00:58:55 GMT, "Peter Diehr" wrote:
>>Eric Flesch  wrote in article
>>> Light is composed of photon particles which move in
>>>probability-based  wave-like patterns.  The photons themselves
>>>have no wave-like properties, they are just particles.
>>
>>This is a very inaccurate description of a photon.  The state
>>vector (or wave function, if you prefer to go to that notation),
contains
>>all information; the photon number operator tells you how many
>>photons are present.  You can also determine the probability of an
>>interaction from the state vector.   Interference effects enter via
the
>>state vector. Wave and particle are aspects of the state vector.
>> You cannot truly dispense with either aspect.
>
>The question, Peter, is what a photon IS, not what it DOES.  I suppose
>that if someone asked you about cars, you would describe roads.
>
>Wave functions, state vectors, etc., all describe what a photon does.
>As for what the photon is, it's just a particle.  Ask Feynman.  (well,
>anyway, read Feynman  :-)
A photon is NOT a particle, NOR a wave,
a photon is something we invent
to fill the time-space gap between
cause and effect.
It's like inventing something
to exist between zero and one in a logical system, 
or between frames in a movie, 
or energy levels in quantum systems.
It doesn't exist.
We invent it because we perceive most things as continuous,
so we tend to conceptualize everything this way.
Visit my Web site for a discussion of this.
Tom Potter      http://pobox.com/~tdp

terry d gray wrote:
> Very interesting assertion!  But its a very dificult concept to
> grasp and put into words.
> Example//// Simple one!
> A glass of water sits on a table. Not knowing its futures tense,
> let's look at its past tense.
> It is all of the following:
> 
> It is full of water.
> Full of water
> partly full of water
> empty of water / filled with air
> Hot and pure glass
> .... sand
> .... rock
> .... gas
> .... energy
> .... nothing
>    and all of the various forms between.
Perceptive yet something is missed...this something haunts all
who follow the threads in these newsgroups. 'Dwellers on the
threshold' still 'learning how to crawl', waiting to take our
first step.
What you describe is more than a concept to be grasped.  Needs
to be *lived*.  Lightning illuminates a dark landscape just for
a moment but it's enough.  Then all of time rushes through.
Such a fundamental change seems beyond grasp -- frustrating don't
you think?  Something happened and we humans got stuck.  Even
The Quantum Mechanics boys & all their discoveries hasn't been
enough to truly change us.  Why?  What *is* powerful enough to
change us, to illuminate consciousness?  What?
	" Nowhere are we closer to the sublime secret of
	all origination than in the recongition of our own
	selves, whom we always think we know already.  Yet
	we know the immensities of space better than we
	know our own depths, where -- even though we do
	not understand it -- we can listen directly to
	the throb of creation itself."  Carl Jung
'uhane
	"We've been spending most our lives
	living in a past time paradise..."

In article <32DE9199.505C@Prodigy.Net>, crjclark 
writes
>What is the technical term for continuous wave functions influencing
>each other?
>
>Craig Clark
I think you mean 'interference'. Constructive interference being the
state of two waves influencing each other by adding one wave to the
other, and destructive interference occuring when one wave acts to
subtract from the other.
-- 
Derek Brown
e-mail derek@brwn.demon.co.uk

Help!
I really need to know the answer to this one!  THANKS!

heikofy@aol.com (HeikoFy) wrote:
>Hi!
>What current is necessary to heat a filament with a specific electrical
>resistance; diameter and length (full length, not as a helix) are given
>(e.g.
>in a tube) ?
For a tungstin fillment the initial current is fairly high till the thing gets
up to temp. The inrush is probable around 10x.
 If you put two of these in series for the same voltage you get about 75% the
current in steady state.
 For a nicrome filament, it only changes .04% per degree (resistance) and the
initial current is not such a hog. Put two of these together and get half the
current. The inrush should be around 1.5 or less
Duncan
>Thanx for any answer !!!!
>Heiko
>heikofy@aol.com

rhung@hotmail.com wrote:
>Can someone tell me what physically a violin does when we play it?  
>How a vibration of the string vibrates the sound box and the plates...
>and ......
Very Breifly;
 The state of friction is bistable between bow and string and helps to amplify
the movement of the string. The string absorbs the energy into various harmonics
to satisty the tension, stiffness and mass of the string. The vibrations find a
polygon paths (virtual) on the back of the sound plate that will resonate at the
same  frequency as the string. An accoustic resonant air path is also found for
the sound wave to bounce around. The double rounding accommidates many different
wave legths of sound. The corners act as air switches to help the sound take on
different paths as needed. The air presure vibrations become coupled to the
surounding air much better than the string alone. 
To sum -- coupling efficiency, and accoustic resonation.
Duncan
>--
>Posted using Reference.COM                         http://www.reference.com
>Browse, Search and Post         Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog.
>InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.

On Sat 1/18/97 11:17 -0800 crjclark wrote:
> In the holographic supertheory, the brain interprets
> frequencies from a dimension beyond time and space.
Hello, Craig:
In the scientifically rational Holographic Paradigm, nonlocal holonomic
Mind both creates and accepts thought vibrations that interact with
other diverse diffraction patterns within conditional relativity.  And
every diffraction pattern is contained within the transcendental or
material time and space of conditional relativity.
Egoless pure consciousness, unconditioned pure energy, is the underlying
pre-existing ground of uncreated absolute pure being that contains and
sustains all existence including itself.  Thus only omnipresent ONEness
itself abides beyond the conditional relativity of transcendental and
material time and space.
-- 
Alan
The uncreated ground of absolute pure being creates nothing in or of
itself; indeed, each reciprocally emergent entity that cohabits human
form is his or her own creator.

Jon Haugsand wrote:
> > For instance, Murray Gell-Mann insists that the word _quark_ did not
> > originate from Joyce's _Finnegan's wake_.  Is he lying, too?
> 
> No, I do not "disbelieve anything  anyone says". Why do you think so?
Because you're dismissing Clarke's claim for no other reason than that he's
making it.
> I have not read Joyce's "Finnegan's wake", so I cannot answer the
> question. Have you read it?
Whether or not I have read it is irrelevant (I personally strongly dislike
Joyce's writings).  The point, though, is that Gell-Mann invented the word
_quark_ to give the name of the new subatomic particles he was theorizing
about.  This name is generally attributed in the popular literature to a
line in _Finnegan's wake_ by Joyce which reads:
    Three quarks for Muster Mark!
    Sure he hasn't got much of a bark
    And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.
    But O, Wreneagle Almighty, wouldn't un be a sky of a lark
    To see that old buzzard whooping about for uns shirt in the dark
    And he hunting round for uns speckled trousers around by Palmerstown 
        Park?
Gell-Mann, however, says instead that the word _quark_ came about because
its vernacular use in German to mean "nonsense."
So is Gell-Mann lying?  You imply that Clarke is lying, just because you
don't find his explanation as interesting.
-- 
        Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE; / email:  max@alcyone.com
                      Alcyone Systems /   web:  http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 San Jose, California, United States /  icbm:  37 20 07 N  121 53 38 W
                                    \
           "Gods are born and die, / but the atom endures."
                                  / (Alexander Chase)

In article <01bc04af$33191140$5b027ecc@jgoulden.snu.edu>, "John D.
Goulden"  writes:
>> Alex Tsui wrote:
>> > 
>> > I was just wondering, suppose two persons were 10 light years away
>> > from each other, and they were strong enough to hold a 10 light years
>> > long rod that could not be stretched nor be contracted.  if 1 of the
>> > person pulls or pushes the rod, will the person 10 light year years
>> > away immediately sense the change?  IF he was able to do that, then
>> > wouldn't that be regarded as FTL comm?
Moving the far end of the rod requires energy.  You propose to supply that
energy at the near end of the rod.  It's pretty well established that
energy can get from 'here' to 'there' no faster than the speed of light,
no matter what transmission technique is employed.

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  wrote:
>doneal@incentre.net (Duncan O'Neal) wrote:
>>
>>If the universe was to eventually collapse into a one big spinning black hole ,
>>would it still be spinning ? relative to what ?
>>
>>Or could it spin faster ? relative to what ?
>If you believe in conservation of angular momentum, what you get at the 
>Big Crunch mirrors what you started with at the Big Bang, except with 
>wrinkly Weyl tensor.  What is my first bid for symmetry/asymmetry?
>As the universe appears to be about 90% short of the mass necessary for 
>asymptotic expansion halt, the Big Crunch seems an unlikely event.
>Given an empty universe, add a hot neturon star (we need rigidity 
>and illumination) with spin angular velocity omega; synchronously orbited 
>by a planet with orbital angular velocity omega; the planet itself 
>spinning on its axis parallel to that of the neturon star and orbit with 
>rotational velocity omega.  An observer comes into the universe - what 
>keeps everything separated?  If you whisper "Foucault pendulum," remember 
>the rest of space is empty, making Mach's Principle problematic.
Well I can't be sure of what the laws would be at this point.
But it does make me wonder.
We have light that eminates out ward from the star.
We have a dark side of the planet. 
Atom guy picks up a sting and rock and start to swing it around.
Later while trying to start a fire he accidentally invents a gyroscope and plays
with it for hours.
Later he uses magical incantations to float the gyro in a vacume pointing east
and west . By understanding what he observes in the gyro will he be able to make
a prediction on the behaviour of it even though the two large mass world system
lacks a reference point for space. 
In other words is there a absolute rotational momentum for space or only a
average rotational momentum  hooked to time space. How in our universe does the
gyro communicate with the stars to know which way to rotate.
Id rather consider it to be tension stings than pressure.
Absorbtion over Emision for G
Duncan
>-- 
>Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
>UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
>http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
>"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

I wonder if my colleagues over in physics have the same problem I often
have in that of misspelling the words physics and pyschology, ie,
mixing those words?
I am not going to repeat the Brain Locus theory in particulars here.
For I had posted it often to the Net and if you want details you can
look into my Web site. But I have some new thoughts on the theory, as
of recent.
Before I thought the theory implied one or two or a small number of
atoms which functions as the Mind of the Brain. There is a distinction
between 'mind' and 'brain'. The actual thoughts occur in a atom brain
locus and these thoughts are the mind. The mind is a stream of photons
shot from the Protons of 231PU forcing us to think what we think and do
what we do.
  Until recently I thought the brain locus was mostly a single atom.
But recently I have come to the suspicion that the Brain Locus are
plural, many atoms which are coordinated and which do the actual
thinking. On my work with superconductivity, especially with lithium
atoms I have come to the conclusion that lithium atoms exist in every
cell of the human body. Therefore it is possible that the human mind is
a coordination of sorts of all the lithium atoms in the human body. One
can still have a mind if all lithium atoms were removed from the human
body, save one lithium atom in the brain.
  So, my older view of this theory was that the Brain Locus was chiefly
one single atom, but I am slowly coming round to thinking that the mind
of a person is a coordination of several atoms.
  And another experience that happened two days ago. I was walking to
the computer building and the winter sun was out and it was a bright
day and a lot of activity was going on around me, people walking and
cars moving. And I made a quick glance at a person in the distance
walking away, so very quickly and I thought I detected not cold breath
but a slight bit of smoke. And I wanted to see if my hunch was correct
that it was not a cold breath but a smoke. And sure enough a few
seconds later I could see that it was smoke and not breath on a winter
day.  And I thought to myself, are photons the ultimate information
givers in the world around us. That is, with so much activity going on
in the world, are their any other particles that can give us so much
information in such a rapid order as photons? Not even electrons can do
as good a job of information giving as photons. 
   And I said to myself, my theory that a photon has internal machinery
and has perfect DNA bundled inside itself must be a true theory for the
particle that can communicate the fastest and the most complex of
information is the photons.
   And I asked myself the question, if the Brain Locuses theory is
correct, how deeply can photons penetrate inside the body of a human? I
would think that a photon can go completely through a human body
without much trouble.

On 18 Jan 1997 15:45:52 GMT, "Peter Diehr"  wrote:
>I certainly would define a car in terms of its function (personal
> transportation), and not in terms of a particular vehicle (is a 1968
> Volkswagon a car? A 1921 Model T?  A Stanley Steamer?...).
This misses the point of the road's contribution to the car's
behavior.  Drive a new car over Germany's Autobahn.  Then drive it
over a farmer's dirt tracks (with lots of gates) in the deep
countryside.  The car's behavior is markedly different, but the
description of the car is unchanged.
So it is with the photon.  It's kinematic behavior is determined by
the nature of speed-of-light travel.  It travels these highways by
virture of its mass=zero quality.  But it's still just a particle.
>Eric Flesch  wrote in article
>> As for what the photon is, it's just a particle.  Ask Feynman. 
>>(well, anyway, read Feynman  :-)
>
>Oh, I've read Feynman.  And I don't think that your earlier
>statement is a Feynman quotation.
It wasn't, nor did I make it out to be.  However, in the introduction
to his "QED" book, Feynman writes:
	"I want to emphasize that light comes in this form --
particles.  It is very important to know that light behaves like
particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where
you were probbly told something about light behaving like waves.  I'm
telling the way it *does* behave -- like particles.
	"You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects
light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to
be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up
discovering the same thing:  light is made of particles."  
>In any case, since one has a mathematical choice in quantum
>descriptions, all of which are consistent with observation, it is simply _not
>possible_ to say that some quantum particle is "really this" or "really that".
In the case of light, I think the second of Feynman's paragraphs,
above, answers that point satisfactorily.    :-)
Eric

On 18 Jan 1997 03:39:13 GMT, Steve Carlip wrote:
>it is known from observation that...inertial and gravitational mass
>remain equal no matter what proportion of the inertial mass comes
>from energy.
"From observation" is the crux, Steve.  Let's examine your points:
>Experimentally, electrostatic
>binding energy in nuclei gravitates the same as the equivalent
>mass to an accuracy of one part in 10^3 or so; magnetostatic energy
>gravitates the same as the equivalent mass to an accuracy of one
>part in 10^7; the electromagnetic energy in hyperfine interactions
>gravitates the same as the equivalent mass to an accuracy of one
>part in 10^6 or thereabouts; and weak interaction energy gravitates
>the same as the equivalent mass to an accuracy of one part in 10^2.
The energies you speak of are difficult to separate from mass itself.
Is "electrostatic binding energy" not mass?  If not, then the protons
and neutrons themselves can be analyzed in terms of their quarks and
the "energies" used to bind them -- and after that, you can start on
the quarks, until there's no "mass" left!  Plainly, you are speaking
about *mass* here, and no-one is disputing that mass gravitates.
Let's concentrate on free energy, shall we?  
>Furthermore... gravitational binding energy gravitates the same
>as the equivalent mass to an accuracy of about one part in 10^11.
>...
>So it is because of the gravity of gravitational energy that
>general relativity succeeds.
Exactly, Steve.   "Gravity gravitates".   This follows from the
geometric-contour analogy of gravity, where gravity bends space  as
per the commonly-seen pictorial illustrations.  It is a requirement of
this isomorphism that the points of the curve are influenced by other
points-on-the-curve further in.  The outcome is that gravity decreases
with distance a little bit less than the inverse square (i.e. gravity
is a little bit stronger further out).  This is not a consequence of
the "gravitation of energy".  This is a consequence of "the
gravitation of gravity".  Gravity is not energy.  Gravity is gravity.
So you see, Steve, your points miss.  When people ask "does energy
gravitate", they mean things like:
1)   Does a hot body gravitate more than a cold one.
2)   Does radiation gravitate.
3)   Does kinetic energy gravitate.
4)   etc etc  etc
GR answers "yes" to such questions.  But such things have never been
observed, and GR's painstaking analysis of these things is predicated
on such questionable postulates as Mach's principle and the
conservation of momentum in 3D space.   Garbage in, garbage out.
GIGO.   That's what GR is, and the idea that energy gravitates. 
Energy does not gravitate, and Nature pays no heed to a horde of
genuflecting physicists.  Let experiment decide.
Eric