[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Nov 26 07:59:13 PST 2015
Hi Al,
what empirical evidence you are looking for?
We never see elementary particles by our eyes. But even worse: Both
stable quarks, the Up- and the Down-quark, have not only failed to be
seen, it was never possible to isolate them. The only argument in favour
of them is the fact that some mathematical evaluations of particle
reactions are easier with the assumption of these quarks. And the quarks
are given properties like a mass and an electrical charge (i.e. 1/3
electron charge) which was never based on measurements. The only
argument also in this case is the easier mathematics if this model is
used. But they are these days the central particles for the
understanding of hadrons. Nobody questions this. - In comparison to this
situation my second sub-particle in the electron has in my view much
more evidence beyond mathematical advantages.
And another example, from astronomy: Planets outside our solar system
are not visible in the normal cases. But astronomers observe that some
stars, which are assumed to be central stars, show small periodical
motions. From these it is concluded that there are planets, and also
properties of these planets are derived from this visible motion.
Why not assume that the second particle in the electron is a virtual
one? Ok, but then one has to explain how this virtual particle is
caused. Something like a mirror in the electron? Or a different
mechanism? And what is about the electrical charge? Does the real
particle carry the full charge or is the charge distributed between the
real and the virtual constituent? In the former case there would be a
problem to deduce the Landé factor in a classical way which is possible
by my model.
Anyway, if you have such a model with a virtual one in mind and you can
tell all necessary arguments for its existence, and the quantitative
evaluation has correct results, AND this model is simpler that the model
with 2 sub-particles, that would be a great outcome. So, please give
details ....
Chiao
Albrecht
Am 24.11.2015 um 18:40 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Hi Albrecht:
> Your responce has little relaiton to my previous comments.
> I qubble not with your results, nor even the inputs: except to point
> out that one of them is unjustified or unmotivated by any emperical
> evidence---AS YOU TELL THE STORY!
> What I'm failing to get you to consider, is that the 2nd particle is a
> virtual image of the 1st in a delayed position. WHY NOT? [Don't
> tell me there's no empirical evidence!]
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 24. November 2015 um 18:18 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
> Hi Al,
>
> I have nothing better to answer than to point again to the fact that
> this set up of two particles not only explains the fact of inertia,
> but also yields very precise results. I have not heard yet about
> another theory which is even able to provide the first point.
>
> And there is no experiment (no one has given an argument into that
> direction) which is in conflict with this assumption.
>
> What else can one expect from a theory? Right, if another theory,
> which is simpler by being based on a smaller number of assumptions,
> yields the same result. So, which one??
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
> Am 18.11.2015 um 20:04 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> I have and had nothing to say about your motivation /per se/. I
> tried to say that, I see no physical-empirical justification for
> the 2nd particle. The issue is not that I do not, or can not,
> follow your arguments, but that I find them incomplete (as just
> mentioned). I note that others have made the same objection.
> Obendarauf, I have made my own suggestion for a motivation for
> the 2nd particle, namely a virtual image. If you don't like this
> idea, fine! It would be easier to swallow, however, if you gave a
> sensible reason, but that is secondary.
> BTW, /a postiriori /success could justify a search for empirical
> support for the 2nd particle, but not a complete theory---until
> empirical evidence is found. There are literally hundreds of
> candiate theories for everything, Few are taken at all seriously
> because they are jumbeled up in their fundamentals: primative
> element selction, and whatnot. That fact that, histrical
> celeberties got away with it, is part luck and a lot of
> sociological guerilla warfare---techniques not availble to us in
> the trenches.
> Another result of formal logic is that, within an inconsistent
> logical sturture (theory) all theorems, right or wrong, can be
> proven. Thus, too much success is suspicious!
> Best regards, Al
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 18. November 2015 um 11:03 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
> Hi Al,
>
> I completely disagree with your conclusions about the motivation
> towards my model because my intention was not to develop a
> particle model. My intention was to develop a better understanding
> of time in relativity. My present model was an unexpected
> consequence of this work. I show you my arguments again and ask
> you to indicate the point where you do not follow.
> Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrect:
> Comments² *IN BOLD*
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 18:41 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
> Hi Al,
>
> again some responses.
> Am 14.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> Answers to your questions:
> 1) The SED background explains the Planck BB distribution
> without quantization. It explans why an atom doesn't
> collapse: in equilibrium with background, In fact, just
> about every effect described by 2nd quantization has an
> SED parallel explantion without additional
> considerations. With the additional input of the SED
> origin of deBroglie waves, it provides a direct derivation
> of the Schröedinger eq. thereby explainiong all of 1st
> Quantization.
>
> Maybe you achieve something when using SED background. I do
> not really understand this background, but I do not see a
> stringent necessity for it. But SED as an origin to the de
> Broglie waves is of interest for me. I am presently working on
> de Broglie waves to find a solution, which does not have the
> logical conflicts which we have discussed here.
> *See No. 11 (or 1) @ www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com for
> suggetions and some previous work along this line.*
>
> *Thank you, will have a look.*
>
> 2) Olber's logic is in conflict with Mach's Principle, so
> is obviously just valid for visible light. Given a little
> intergalacitc plasma (1 H/m³), not to mention atmossphere
> and interplanatary plama, visible light disappears to
> Earthbound observers at visitble freqs to reappear at
> other, perhaps at 2.7° even, or at any other long or hyper
> short wave length. 'The universe matters'---which is even
> politically correct nowadays!
>
> Olber's logic is simple in so far, as it shows that the
> universe cannot be infinite. I have assumed the same for all
> background effects. Or are they infinite?
> *The fly in the ointment is absorbtion. An inf. universe with
> absorbtion in the visible part of the spectrum will still have
> a largely dark sky. *
>
> *And the other way around: Even if there is no absorption, the sky
> will be dark. And the general opinion is that, even if there is a
> lot of radiation absorbed, this absorbing material will heat up by
> the time and radiate as well. So an absorption should not change
> too much.*
>
>
> What is the conflict with Mach's principle?
> *Mach says: the gravitational "background radiation" is the
> cause of inertia. This effect is parallel to the SED bacground
> causing QM effects. Conflict: if Olber is right, then Mach is
> probably wrong (too weak).*
>
> *In my understanding, what Mach means is completely different.
> Mach's intention was to find a reference system which is absolute
> with respect to acceleration. He assumed that this is caused by
> the stars in our vicinity. He did not have a certain idea how this
> happens, he only needed the fact. (Einstein replaced this
> necessity by his equivalence of gravity and acceleration - which
> however is clearly falsified as mentioned several times.)*
>
> 3) The (wide spread) criticism of 2 particles is that
> there is neither an /a-priori/ intuative reason, nor
> empirical evidence that they exist. Maybe they do anyway.
> But then, maybe Zeus does too, and he is just arranging
> appearances so that we amuse ourselves. (Try to prove
> that wrong!)
>
> I have explained how I came to the conclusion of 2
> sub-particles. Again:
>
> 1) There is motion with c in an elementary particle to explain
> dilation
> 2) With only on particle such process is mechanically not
> possible, and it violates the conservation of momentum
> 3) In this way it is the only working model theses days to
> explain inertia. And this model explains inertia with high
> precision. What more is needed?
> *These assumtions are "teleological," i.e., tuned to give the
> desired results. As logic, although often done, this manuver
> is not legit in the formal presentation of a theory. For a
> physics theory, ideally, all the input assuptios have
> empirical justification or motivation. Your 2nd partical
> (modulo virtual images) has no such motivatin, in fact, just
> the opposite. *
>
> *My logical way is just the other way around. I had the plan to
> work on relativity (the aspects of time), not on particle physics.
> The particle model was an unplanned spin-off. I shall try to
> explain the logical path again:
>
> _1st step:_ I have calculated the 4-dimensional speed of an object
> using the temporal part of the Lorentz transformation. The
> surprising fact was that this 4-dim. speed is always the speed of
> light. I have then assumed that this constant shows a permanent
> motion with c in a particle. I have accepted this as a probable
> solution, but I have never assumed this, before I had this result.
> It was in no way a desired result. My idea was to describe time by
> a vector of 3 of 4 dimensions. - I have then **no further
> **followed this idea.
> _2nd step:_ If there is some motion in the particle, it cannot be
> caused by one constituent. This is logically not possible as it
> violates the conservation of momentum. Also this was not a desired
> result but logically inevitable.
> _3rd step:_ If the constituents move with c, then they cannot have
> any mass. Also this was not a result which I wished to achieve,
> but here I followed my understanding of relativity.*
> *_*4th *__step:_ The size must be such that the resulting
> frequency in the view of c yields the magnetic moment which is
> known by measurements.
> _5th step:_ I had to find a reason for the mass of the electron in
> spite of the fact that the constituents do not have any mass.
> After some thinking I found out the fact that any extended object
> has necessarily inertia. I have applied this insight to this
> particle model, and the result was the actual mass of the
> electron, if I assumed that the force is the strong force. It
> could not be the electric force (as it was assumed by others at
> earlier times) because the result is too weak.
>
> None of the results from step 1 thru step 5 was desired. Every
> step was inevitable, because our standard physical understanding
> (which I did not change at any point) does not allow for any
> alternative. - _Or at which step could I hav__e had an alternative
> in your opinion?_
>
> And btw: which is the stringent argument for only one constituent?
> As I mentioned before, the experiment is not an argument. I have
> discussed my model with the former research director of DESY who
> was responsible for this type of electron experiments, and he
> admitted that there is no conflict with the assumption of 2
> constituents.*
>
>
> I know from several discussions with particle physicists that
> there is a lot of resistance against this assumption of 2
> constituents. The reason is that everyone learn at university
> like with mother's milk that the electron is point-like,
> extremely small and does not have any internal structure. This
> has the effect like a religion. (Same with the relativity of
> Hendrik Lorentz. Everyone learns with the same fundamental
> attitude that Lorentz was nothing better than a senile old man
> how was not able to understand modern physics.) - Not a
> really good way, all this.
> *Mystical thinking is indeed a major problem even in Physics!
> But, some of the objectiors to a 2nd particle are not basing
> their objection of devine revelation or political correctness. *
>
> 4) It is ascientific to consider that the desired result
> is justification for a hypothetical input. OK, one can
> say about such reasoning, it is validated /a posteriori/,
> that at least makes it sound substantial. So much has
> been granted to your "story" but has not granted your
> story status as a "physics theory." It has some appeal,
> which in my mind would be enhansed had a rationalization
> for the 2nd particle been provided. That's all I'm trying
> to do. When you or whoever comes up with a better one,
> I'll drop pushing the virtual particle engendered by the
> background. Maybe, it fixes too many other things.
>
> My history was following another way and another motivation. I
> intended to explain relativity on the basis of physical facts.
> This was my only intention for this model. All further
> properties of the model were logical consequences where I did
> not see alternatives. I did not want to explain inertia. It
> just was a result by itself.
> So, what is the problem? I have a model which explains several
> properties of elementary particles very precisely. It is in no
> conflict with any experimental experience. And as a new
> observation there is even some experimental evidence. - What
> else can physics expect from a theory? - The argument that the
> second particle is not visible is funny. Who has ever seen a
> quark? Who has ever seen the internal structure of the sun? I
> think you have a demand here which was never fulfilled in science.
> *The problem, obviously, is that the existence of the 2nd
> particle, as you have presented it, is not a fact, but a
> Wunschansatz. [BTW: "See" in this context is not meant
> occularly, but figuratively for experimental verification
> through any length of inferance chain.] So, my question is:
> what problem do you have with a virtual mate for the particle?
> In fact, it will be there whether you use it or not.*
>
> And see again Frank Wilczek. He writes: "By combining
> fragmentation with super-conductivity, we can get
> half-electrons that are their own antiparticles."
> *A "straw in the wind" but sure seems far fetched!
> Superconductivity is already a manybody phenomenon, It's
> theory probably involves some "virtual" notions to capture the
> essence of the average effect even if the virtual actors do
> not really exist. *
>
> *This was a nice confirmation in my understanding. So as the whole
> article of Wilczek. The electron is in fact enigmatic if one
> follows main stream. It looses a lot of this property if my model
> is used. - But even without this experimental hint I do not see
> any alternative to my model without severely violating known physics.
>
> Ciao
> Albrecht*
>
> **
>
> Guten Abend
> Albrecht
> *Gleichfalls, Al*
>
> Have a good one! Al
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 14. November 2015 um 14:51 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
> Hi Al,
>
> Why do we need a background? If I assume only local forces
> (strong and electric) for my model, the calculation
> conforms to the measurement (e.g. between mass and
> magnetic moment) with a precision of 2 : 1'000'000. This
> is no incident. Not possible, if a poorly defined and
> stable background has a measurable influence. - And if
> there should be such background and it has such little
> effect, which mistake do we make if we ignore that?
>
> For the competition of the 1/r^2 law for range of charges
> and the r^2 law for the quantity of charges we have a
> popular example when we look at the sky at night. The sky
> is dark and that shows that the r^2 case (number of
> shining stars) does in no way compensates for the 1/r^2
> case (light flow density from the stars).
>
> Why is a 2 particle model necessary?
>
> 1.) for the conservation of momentum
> 2.) for a cause of the inertial mass
> 3.) for the radiation at acceleration which occurs most
> time, but does not occur in specific situations. Not
> explained elsewhere.
>
> Ciao, Albrecht
>
> Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> Your proposed experiment is hampered by reality! If
> you do the measurement with a gaget bought in a store
> that has knobes and a display, then the measurement is
> for certain for signals under a couple hundred GHz and
> based on some phenomena for which the sensitivity of
> man-made devices is limited. And, if limited to the
> electric field, then there is a good chance it is
> missing altogether oscillating signals by virtue of
> its limited reaction time of reset time, etc. etc.
> The vast majority of the background will be much
> higher, the phenomena most attuned to detecting might
> be in fact the quantum effects otherwise explained
> with mystical hokus-pokus! Also to be noted is that,
> the processes invovled in your model, if they pertain
> to elementray entities, will have to be at very small
> size and if at the velocity (c) will be very high
> energy, etc. so that once again, it is quite
> reasonable to suppose that the universe is anything
> but irrelavant!
> Of course, there is then the issue of the divergence
> of the this SED background. Ameliorated to some
> extent with the realization that there is no energy at
> a point in empty space until a charged entity is put
> there, whereupon the energy of interaction with the
> rest of the universe (not just by itself being there
> and ignoring the universe---as QM theorists, and
> yourself, are wont to do) is given by the sum of
> interactions over all particles not by the integral
> over all space, including empty space. Looks at first
> blush to be finite.
> Why fight it? Where the hell else will you find a
> credible 2nd particle?
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 13. November 2015 um 12:11 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a
> model…
> Hi Al,
>
> if we look to charges you mention the law 1/r^2 . Now
> we can perform a simple physical experiment having an
> electrically charged object and using it to measure
> the electric field around us. I say: it is very weak.
> Now look to the distance of the two half-charges
> within the particle having a distance of 4*10^-13 m.
> This means an increase of force of about 25 orders of
> magnitude compared to what we do in a lab. And the
> difference is much greater if we refer to charges
> acting from the universe. So I think we do not make a
> big mistake assuming that there is nothing outside the
> particle.
>
> Regarding my model, the logic of deduction was very
> simple for me:
>
> 1.) We have dilation, so there must be a permanent
> motion with c
> 2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise the
> momentum law is violated; 3 are not possible as in
> conflict with experiments.
> 3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less, otherwise c
> is not possible
> 4.) The whole particle has mass even though the
> sub-particles are mass-less. So there must be a
> mechanism to cause inertia. It was immediately clear
> for me that inertia is a consequence of extension.
> Another reason to assume a particle which is composed
> of parts. (There is no other working mechanism of
> inertia known until today.)
> 5.) I had to find the binding field for the
> sub-particles. I have taken the simplest one which I
> could find which has a potential minimum at some
> distance. And my first attempt worked.
>
> That is all, and I do not see any possibility to
> change one of the points 1.) thru 5.) without getting
> in conflict with fundamental physical rules. And I do
> not invent new facts or rules beyond those already
> known in physics.
>
> So, where do you see any kind of arbitrariness or
> missing justification?
>
> Tschüß!
> Albrecht
>
> Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrect:
> We are making some progress.
> To your remark that Swinger & Feynman introduced
> virtual charges, I note that they used the same
> term: "virtual charge/particle," in spite of the
> much older meaning in accord with the charge and
> mirror example. In the finest of quantum
> traditions, they too ignored the rest of the
> universe and instead tried to vest its effect in
> the "vacuum." This idea was suitably mystical to
> allow them to introduce the associated plaver into
> the folk lore of QM, given the sociology of the
> day. Even in spite of this BS, the idea still has
> merit. Your objection on the basis of the 1/r²
> fall-off is true but not conclusive. This
> fall-off is matched by a r² increase in muber of
> charges, so the integrated total interaction can
> be expected to have at least some effect, no
> matter what. Think of the universe to 1st order
> as a neutral, low-density plasma. I (and some
> others) hold that this interaction is responcible
> for all quantum effects. In any case, no particle
> is a universe unto itself, the rest have the
> poulation and time to take a toll!
> BTW, this is history repeating itself. Once upon
> a time there was theory of Brownian motion that
> posited an internal cause known as "elan vital" to
> dust specks observed hopping about like Mexican
> jumping beans. Ultimately this nonsense was
> displaced by the observation that the dust spots
> were not alone in their immediate universe but
> imbededded in a slurry of other particles, also in
> motion, to which they were reacting. Nowadays
> atoms are analysed in QM text books as if they
> were the only object in the universe---all others
> being too far away (so it is argued, anyway).
> Your model, as it stands, can be free of
> contradiction and still unstatisfying because the
> inputs seem to be just what is needed to make the
> conclusions you aim to make. Fine, but what most
> critics will expect is that these inputs have to
> have some kind of justification or motivation.
> This is what the second particle lacks. Where is
> it when one really looks for it? It has no
> empirical motivation. Thus, this theory then has
> about the same ultimate structure, and
> pursuasiveness, as saying: 'don't worry about it,
> God did it; go home, open a beer, pop your feet
> up, and forget about it---a theory which explains
> absolutely everything!
> Tschuß, Al
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 16:18 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from
> what a model…
> Hi Al,
>
> I have gotten a different understanding of what a
> virtual particle or a virtual charge is. This
> phenomenon was invented by Julian Schwinger and
> Richard Feynman. They thought to need it in order
> to explain certain reactions in particle physics.
> In the case of Schwinger it was the Landé factor,
> where I have shown that this assumption is not
> necessary.
>
> If there is a charge then of course this charge is
> subject to interactions with all other charges in
> the universe. That is correct. But because of the
> normal distribution of these other charges in the
> universe, which cause a good compensation of the
> effects, and because of the distance law we can
> think about models without reference to those. And
> also there is the problem with virtual particles
> and vacuum polarization (which is equivalent), in
> that we have this huge problem that the integrated
> energy of it over the universe is by a factor of
> 10^120 higher than the energy measured. I think
> this is a really big argument against virtual effects.
>
> Your example of the virtual image of a charge in a
> conducting surface is a different case. It is, as
> you write, the rearrangement of charges in the
> conducting surface. So the partner of the charge
> is physically the mirror, not the picture behind
> it. But which mirror can cause the second particle
> in a model if the second particle is not assumed
> to be real?
>
> And what in general is the problem with a two
> particle model? It fulfils the momentum law. And
> it does not cause further conflicts. It also
> explains why an accelerated electron sometimes
> radiates, sometimes not. For an experimental
> evidence I refer again to the article of Frank
> Wilczek in "Nature" which was mentioned here earlier:
>
> http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com:
>
> He writes: "By combining fragmentation with
> super-conductivity, we can get half-electrons that
> are their own antiparticles."
> For Wilczek this is a mysterious result, in view
> of my model it is not, on the contrary it is kind
> of a proof.
>
> Grüße
> Albrecht
>
> Am 12.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> Virtual particles are proxys for an ensemble
> of real particles. There is nothing
> folly-lolly about them! They simply summarize
> the total effect of particles that cannot be
> ignored. To ignore the remainder of the
> universe becasue it is inconvenient for theory
> formulation is for certain leading to error.
> "No man is an island," and no single
> particle is a universe! Thus, it can be
> argued that, to reject the concept of virtual
> particles is to reject a facit of reality that
> must be essential for an explantion of the
> material world.
> For example, if a positive charge is placed
> near a conducting surface, the charges in that
> surface will respond to the positive charge by
> rearranging themselves so as to give a total
> field on the surface of zero strength as if
> there were a negative charge (virtual) behind
> the mirror. Without the real charges on the
> mirror surface, the concept of "virtual"
> negative charge would not be necessary or even
> useful.
> The concept of virtual charge as the second
> particle in your model seems to me to be not
> just a wild supposition, but an absolute
> necessity. Every charge is, without choice,
> in constant interaction with every other
> charge in the universe, has been so since the
> big bang (if such were) and will remain so
> till the big crunch (if such is to be)! The
> universe cannot be ignored. If you reject
> including the universe by means of virtual
> charges, them you have a lot more work to do
> to make your theory reasonable some how else.
> In particular in view of the fact that the
> second particles in your model have never ever
> been seen or even suspected in the various
> experiments resulting in the disasssmbly of
> whatever targert was used.
> MfG, Al
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151126/6b7aac43/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list