[General] research papers

Dr. Albrecht Giese genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Sep 27 03:55:21 PDT 2015


John Duffield:

thank you for the link to the paper of Martin and John Williamson.

Regarding your question for two loops rather two sub-particles. What 
would be the advantage? In that case the loop had to have a radius < 
10^-19 m to comply with the scattering experiments. And if there is a 
motion within such loop, on the other hand the loop itself has to move 
at c like the basic particles do, what about the limitation to the speed 
of light?

Regarding the wave property of the electron:

The field (strong force) which causes the bind between the sub-particles 
reaches of cause also the outside of the electron. As both sub-particles 
orbit, it is an alternating field which propagates as a wave to any 
direction - at the speed of light. If now the electron moves, this wave 
accompanies the electron. It is the "pilot" wave postulated by Louis de 
Broglie.

Scattering and interference: If the electron passes a double slit, this 
pilot wave moves through the slits and builds an interference structure. 
This interference structure guides the sub-particles ("basic particles") 
as it permanently does, in this case to follow this interference 
pattern. As the basic particles do not have any mass on their own, they 
follow the field without any resistance. If there is a detector behind 
the double slit to register the location of the arriving electrons, it 
will display the shape of the interference pattern and give the observer 
so the impression that he observes a wave.

The mass / momentum of a photon has in my understanding a similar cause 
as mass and momentum of an electron. It is caused by its internal field.

If the electron is in a bound state as e.g. on a shell of an atom, then 
its surrounding field is able to build a standing wave.

You wrote about seismic waves as an analogy. Are your considerations 
about them covered by my explanation?

Thank you for the reference to the paper of /Martin and G.W. ’t Hooft. 
/It is also about the mass / momentum of photons. It has very 
interesting thoughts even though I do not follow the arguments in all 
points. But that could be subject to a separate discussion.

Best regards
Albrecht


Am 26.09.2015 um 17:57 schrieb John Duffield:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> In case Martin is tied up, here’s his 1997 paper: 
> http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf co-authored with John Williamson.
>
> As regards electron size, it’s field is what it is. In atomic orbitals 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties> 
> electrons “exist as standing waves”. Standing wave, standing field. We 
> can diffract electrons. I think the electron has size like a seismic 
> wave has size. A seismic wave might have an amplitude of 1 metre, and 
> a wavelength of a kilometre. But when it travels from A to B it isn’t 
> just the houses on top of the AB line that shake. Houses shake a 
> hundred miles away. And that seismic wave is still detectable on the 
> other side f the Earth. It’s not totally different for an ocean wave, 
> see this gif 
> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Deep_water_wave.gif>. 
> The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn’t the size of the wave, nor is 
> the wavelength. The red test particles are still circulating deep 
> below the water.
>
> Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a  double loop, then 
> make it a tighter loop. Then have a look at some knots 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knot_theory>. Photon 
> momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave 
> propagating linearly at c. When it’s a 511keV wave going round and 
> round at c, we don’t call it a photon any more. But it still exhibits 
> resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don’t call it a momentum any 
> more. We call it mass. Make sure you read this 
> <http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm>. It’s not the Nobel ‘t 
> Hooft.
>
> Regards
>
> John Duffield
>
> *From:*General 
> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* 26 September 2015 15:46
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>
> Hi Martin, Al, and all,
>
> thank you all for your contributions.
>
> _Regarding the size of the electron:_
>
> As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is 
> passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent 
> of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if 
> the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last 
> experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which 
> electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" 
> size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This 
> limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react different 
> from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also found that the 
> electron is not only subject to the electric interaction but also to 
> the strong interaction. I think that this is also important for 
> assessing electron models.
>
> This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation of 
> Schrödinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. Schroedinger 
> made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the following 
> result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we 
> know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my 
> evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for 
> Schrödinger this was an unsolvable conflict.
>
> I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but 
> oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton wavelength, 
> this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum. Very 
> clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for 
> Schrödinger and clearly his reason to call the internal motion 
> "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist in the German 
> vocabulary of physical terms. But Schrödinger hesitated (by good 
> reason) to use the German word for "oscillation".
>
> On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, this 
> solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least with 
> respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, which 
> reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the reduced 
> Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two 
> sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but not 
> applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a sufficient effort 
> has been done to decompose an electron by a strong bombardment. This 
> was also done here at DESY. But in my model the sub-particles have no 
> mass on their own (the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics 
> of the binding field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles may 
> be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow 
> without any force coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is 
> therefore never possible. - I have discussed this point with the 
> research director of DESY who was responsible for such experiments, 
> and after at first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in 
> conflict with these experiments.
>
> Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997?
>
> _Regarding dilation:_
>
> There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples:
> -  The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has 
> to be compensated for
> -  In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was 
> extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement 
> with special relativity.
>
> Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of 
> interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to 
> dilation.
>
> Best wishes
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de 
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:
>
>     Well!  The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good
>     idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a
>     point and the size of the volumn in which this point is
>     insessently moving about.  If your 97 paper does that, my
>     appologies.  Does it?  Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred
>     papers I'd like to have read and digested laying about, I do my
>     best but still can't get to them all.  The chances are better,
>     however, if a paper attracts lots of attention because it
>     predicted something new to be observed empirically.  Did it?
>
>     BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better.  But,
>     it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours.  In
>     any case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip"
>     criticism of Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which
>     neither you nor John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego.
>      My comment was not intended ad hominum, but made on the
>     presumtion that you too have hundreds of unread papers available.
>
>     Best,  Al
>
>     *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr
>     *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
>     <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
>     *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
>     <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>     *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>
>     Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am
>     refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered
>     to. Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can
>     only bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you
>     refer to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck.
>
>     Regards, Martin
>
>     Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
>
>     Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de
>     <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>" <af.kracklauer at web.de
>     <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>> het volgende geschreven:
>
>         Dear Martin,
>
>         Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some
>         "shoot'n from the hip."
>
>         You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation
>         based on some hypothtical input of your choise.  Maybe it's
>         good, maybe not.
>
>         The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't
>         get close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close
>         enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll
>         defer to experts up-to-date).  Nevertheless, electrons are in
>         constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung)
>         and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz
>         around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to
>         me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded
>         structure within the scattering cross-section.  Why not?
>
>         Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many
>         folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model
>         elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself
>         interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter
>         as the "rest of the universe").   This "inducement" is a kind
>         of polarization effect.  Every charge repells all other like
>         charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in
>         what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender
>         superimposed on itself in the static approximation.  But,
>         because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's
>         motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the
>         two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs.
>
>         I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely
>         that you all took such consideration into account.
>
>         Best, Al
>
>         *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr
>         *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
>         <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
>         *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
>         <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>         <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>,
>         "phys at a-giese.de" <phys at a-giese.de>
>         *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>
>         Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all,
>
>         In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is
>         explained briefly but adequately.
>
>         Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does
>         not want to understand it because it really destroys his work.
>         This is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science,
>         not sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from
>         the person you are Albrecht.
>
>         The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton
>         wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched
>         in ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to
>         the electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer,
>         not a to be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time.
>         Note that even the sun has point-like scattering for all
>         comets that go round it, its gravitational field seems to come
>         from the centre of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There
>         are no other bits for the electron, but at very high energy
>         the 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at
>         that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT be
>         resolved in principle, if and only if it is of electromagnetic
>         origin.
>
>         The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin
>         only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results.
>
>         Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it.
>         Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other,
>         because that is refuted by experiment, all those models can go
>         in the bin and are a waste of time and energy.
>
>         Regards, Martin
>
>         Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
>
>         Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>
>         Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
>
>         High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
>
>         Prof. Holstlaan 4
>
>         5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
>
>         Tel: +31 40 2747548
>
>         *From:*General
>         [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>         *On Behalf Of *af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
>         *Sent:* vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05
>         *To:* phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>;
>         general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>         *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>         *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>
>         Gentelmen:
>
>         Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size"
>         of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be
>         made.   My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although
>         scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size
>         (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron
>         has any finite size whatsoever.  This is in contrast to the
>         space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would
>         be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly).  
>          Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the
>         latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even
>         recognizing it.  However, since the Zitter volumn will cause
>         electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect
>         on its scatering cross-section too.  I don't know how this is
>         sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all.  (Albrectht?)
>
>         Correct me if I'm wrong.  Best,  Al
>
>         *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr
>         *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de
>         <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
>         *An:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com
>         <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>>, phys at a-giese.de
>         <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>         *Cc:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
>         <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>         <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>         *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>
>         Hello Richard,
>
>         according to present mainstream physics the size of the
>         electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from
>         scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge
>         is the quantity of influence.
>
>         As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman)
>         assume that the electron has no internal structure and that
>         the electric force is the only one effective, this size is
>         identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in
>         severe conflict with the calculations of Schrödinger and of
>         Wilczek based on QM.
>
>         I have the impression that several of us (including me) have
>         models of the electron which assume some extension roughly
>         compatible with the QM calculations.
>
>         Some details of my model related to this question: Here the
>         electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which
>         orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only
>         force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is
>         the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron
>         follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the
>         size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the
>         mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a
>         point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove
>         that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying
>         1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article
>         that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the
>         presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into
>         two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this
>         happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for
>         Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but
>         quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation
>         of this process which I presently do not have.
>
>         All the best to you
>         Albrecht
>
>         Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
>             Hello Albrecht,
>
>              Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius
>             related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac’s zitterbewegung
>             amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or
>             hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating
>             charged photon’s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2
>             charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius
>             decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron.
>             Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged
>             photon model with the generic model could bring the
>             model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc.
>
>             all the best,
>
>                Richard
>
>                 On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese
>                 <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
>                 Dear Richard,
>
>                 thank you for this reference to the article of Frank
>                 Wilczek.
>
>                 He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a
>                 size for the electron. It is the application of the
>                 uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the
>                 electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m,
>                 which is the Compton wavelength of the electron.
>                 This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schrödinger
>                 has determined the size of the electron using the
>                 Dirac function in 1930. There Schrödinger determined
>                 the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying
>                 the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the
>                 electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant
>                 in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron.
>
>                 In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m,
>                 which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But
>                 here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of
>                 Wilczek and Schrödinger but the exact radius of the
>                 orbits of the basic particles.
>
>                 Thank you again and best wishes
>                 Albrecht
>
>                 Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
>                     This 2013 Nature comment “The enigmatic electron”
>                     by Frank Wilczek at
>                     http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is
>                     worth a look. He states that due to QM effects,
>                     the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m,
>                     which is roughly in the range of some of our
>                     electron models.
>
>                     Richard
>
>                         On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer
>                         <wolf at nascentinc.com
>                         <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>> wrote:
>
>                         I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and
>                         that may be the one not available on the web
>                         sight.
>                         I was looking for a similar one that included
>                         the other topics as well.
>                         If you do not have it, its OK, I just like
>                         reading from paper.
>
>                         best wishes,
>
>                         Wolf
>
>                         Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
>                         Research Director
>
>                         Nascent Systems Inc.
>
>                         tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
>                         E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
>                         On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
>                             John,
>
>                             You wrote a long text, so I will enter my
>                             answers within your text.
>
>                             Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken:
>
>                                 Hello David and Albrecht,
>
>                                 It was through the contact with this
>                                 group that I was finally able to
>                                 understand the disconnect that existed
>                                 between my idea of vacuum energy and
>                                 the picture that others were obtaining
>                                 from my use of the term “energy”. Many
>                                 of the mysteries of quantum mechanics
>                                 and general relativity can be traced
>                                 to the fact that fields exist and yet
>                                 we do not have a clear idea of what
>                                 they are.  My answer is that we live
>                                 within a sea of vacuum activity which
>                                 is the physical basis of the
>                                 mysterious fields. I combine all
>                                 fields into a single “spacetime field”
>                                 which is the basis of all particles,
>                                 fields and forces.
>
>                                 *David*, you asked about the
>                                 wordsquantum, quantifying and
>                                 quantizing. I did a word search and I
>                                 did not use the word “quantizing” in
>                                 either the email or the attachment to
>                                 my last post. However, the
>                                 paper/Energetic Spacetime: The New
>                                 Aether/submitted to SPIE as part of
>                                 the conference presentation, used and
>                                 defines the word “quantization”. This
>                                 paper was attached to previous posts,
>                                 and is available at my website:
>                                 http://onlyspacetime.com/
>
>                                 *Albrecht*:  I can combine my answer
>                                 to you with the clarification for
>                                 David of the word “quantify” and its
>                                 derivatives. I claim that my model of
>                                 the universe “quantifies” particles
>                                 and fields.  I will start my
>                                 explanation of this concept by giving
>                                 examples of models which do not
>                                 “quantify” particles and fields. 
>                                 There have been numerous particle
>                                 models from this group and others
>                                 which show an electron model as two
>                                 balls orbiting around a center of
>                                 mass.  Most of the group identifies
>                                 these balls as photons but Albrecht
>                                 names the two balls “charges of the
>                                 strong force”.  Both photons and
>                                 charges of strong force are just
>                                 words. To be quantifiable, it is
>                                 necessary to describe the model of the
>                                 universe which gives the strong force
>                                 or the electromagnetic force.  What
>                                 exactly are these? How much energy and
>                                 energy density does one charge of
>                                 strong force have? Can a photon occupy
>                                 a volume smaller than a reduced
>                                 Compton wavelength in radius? Does a
>                                 muon have the same basic strong force
>                                 charge but just rotate faster? Are the
>                                 charges of strong force or photons
>                                 made of any other more basic component?
>
>
>                             Regarding charge: This is a basic entity
>                             in my model. At some point a physical
>                             theory has to start. My model starts with
>                             the assumption that a charge is an
>                             "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like,
>                             which emits exchange particles (in this
>                             point I follow the general understanding
>                             of QM). There are two types of charges:
>                             the electric ones which we are very
>                             familiar with, having two signs, and the
>                             strong ones, which are not so obvious in
>                             everyday physics; they also have two
>                             signs. In the physical nature we find the
>                             charges of the strong force only in
>                             configurations made of those different
>                             signs, never isolated. This is in contrast
>                             to the electric charges.
>
>                             The basic particles are composed of a
>                             collection of charges of the strong force
>                             so that both basic particles are bound to
>                             each other in a way that they keep a
>                             certain distance. This distance
>                             characterizes an elementary particle. In
>                             several (or most) cases there is
>                             additionally an electric charge in the
>                             basic particle.
>
>                             The two parameters I have to set - or to
>                             find - are the shape of the strong field
>                             in the elementary particle. Here I have
>                             defined an equation describing a minimum
>                             multi-pole field to make the elementary
>                             particle stable. The other setting is the
>                             strength of this field. This strength can
>                             be found e.g. using the electron because
>                             the electron is well known and precisely
>                             measured. This field is then applicable
>                             for all leptons as well as for all quarks.
>                             It is also applicable for the photon with
>                             the restriction that there may be a
>                             correction factor caused by the fact that
>                             the photon is not fundamental in the sense
>                             of this model but composed of (maybe) two
>                             other particles.
>
>                             The size of the photon is (at least
>                             roughly) described by its wavelength. This
>                             follows from the mass formula resulting
>                             from my model, as with this assumption the
>                             (dynamic) mass of the photon is the
>                             correct result.
>
>                             As I wrote, the results of this model are
>                             very precise, the prove is in practice
>                             only limited by limitations of the
>                             measurement processes.
>
>                             I could go on with more questions until it
>                             is possible to calculate the properties of
>                             an electron from the answers.  So far both
>                             models lack any quantifiable details
>                             except perhaps a connection to the
>                             particle’s Compton frequency.  I am not
>                             demanding anything more than I have
>                             already done. For example, I cannot
>                             calculate the electron’s Compton frequency
>                             or the fine structure constant. However,
>                             once I install these into the model that I
>                             create, and combine this with the
>                             properties of the spacetime field, then I
>                             get an electron. Installing a muon’s
>                             Compton frequency generates a muon with
>                             the correct electric field, electrostatic
>                             force, curvature of spacetime,
>                             gravitational force and de Broglie waves. 
>                             I am able to quantify the distortion of
>                             spacetime produced by a charged particle,
>                             an electric field and a photon. I am able
>                             to test these models and show that they
>                             generate both the correct energy density
>                             and generate a black hole when we reach
>                             the distortion limits of the spacetime field.
>
>                             In my model the Compton frequency of the
>                             electron (and of the other leptons)
>                             follows directly from the size of the
>                             particle and the fact that the basic
>                             particle move with c. The fine structure
>                             constant tells us the relation of the
>                             electric force to the strong force. This
>                             explanation follows very directly from
>                             this model, however was also found by
>                             other theorists using algebra of particle
>                             physics.
>
>                             Another result of the model is that
>                             Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is
>                             the field constant of the strong force.
>                             Also this is the result of other models
>                             (however not of mainstream physics).
>
>                             My model starts with a quantifiable
>                             description of the properties of
>                             spacetime. The spacetime model has a
>                             specific impedance which describes the
>                             properties of waves that can exist in
>                             spacetime. Then the amplitude and
>                             frequency of the waves in spacetime is
>                             quantified. This combination allows the
>                             energy density of spacetime to be
>                             calculated and this agrees with the energy
>                             density of zero point energy. The particle
>                             models are then defined as ½ħunits of
>                             quantized angular momentum existing in the
>                             spacetime field.  This model is
>                             quantifiable as to size, structure,
>                             energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate
>                             of time and proper volume is being
>                             modulated, it is possible to calculate the
>                             effect that such a structure would have on
>                             the surrounding volume of spacetime.  It
>                             is possible to calculate the effect if the
>                             spacetime-based particle model would have
>                             if the coupling constant was equal to 1
>                             (Planck charge), To get charge/e/, it is
>                             necessary to manually install the fine
>                             structure constant.
>
>                             How do you get the value½ħfor the angular
>                             momentum? What is the calculation behind
>                             it? - I understand that in your model the
>                             electric charge is a parameter deduced
>                             from other facts. Which ones? From alpha?
>                             How do you then get alpha?
>
>                             I personally have in so far a problem with
>                             all considerations using spacetime as I
>                             have quite thoroughly investigated how
>                             Einstein came to the idea of this
>                             4-dimentional construct. His main
>                             motivation was that he wanted in any case
>                             to avoid an ether. And in his discussions
>                             with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he
>                             was running into a lot of problems with
>                             this assumption. He could solve these
>                             problems in general by his "curved
>                             spacetime". But this concept still causes
>                             logical conflicts which are eagerly
>                             neglected by the followers of Einstein's
>                             relativity (and which do not exist in the
>                             Lorentzian way of relativity).
>
>                             The quantifiable properties of spacetime
>                             imply that there should be boundary
>                             conditions which imply that the waves in
>                             spacetime should be nonlinear. When the
>                             nonlinear component is calculated and
>                             treated as separate waves, the
>                             characteristics of the particle’s
>                             gravitational field are obtained (correct:
>                              curvature, effect on the rate of time,
>                             force and energy density).
>
>                             In my last post I have given an answer
>                             about the factor of 10^120 difference
>                             between the observable energy density of
>                             the universe and the non-observable energy
>                             of the universe. This non-observable
>                             energy density is absolutely necessary for
>                             QED calculations, zero point energy, the
>                             uncertainty principle, Lamb shift,
>                             spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics
>                             in general. This non-observable energy
>                             density is responsible for the
>                             tremendously large impedance of spacetime
>                             c^3 /G. Since I can also show how this
>                             non-observable energy density is
>                             obtainable from gravitational wave
>                             equations, it is necessary for*you*to show
>                             how all these effects can be achieved
>                             without spacetime being a single field
>                             with this non-observable energy density. 
>                             In fact, the name non-observable only
>                             applied to direct observation. The
>                             indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms
>                             the basis of the universe and therefore is
>                             the “background noise” of the universe. 
>                             For this reason it is not directly
>                             observable because we can only detect
>                             differences in energy.  The
>                             constants/c,//G/,/ħ/and/ε_o /testify that
>                             spacetime is not an empty void.
>
>                             Up to now I did not find any necessity for
>                             zero-point energy. And I find it a
>                             dangerous way to assume physical facts
>                             which cannot be observed. The greatest
>                             argument in favour of this energy is its
>                             use in Feynman diagrams. But is there
>                             really no other way? I have a lecture of
>                             Feynman here where he states that his
>                             formalism has good results. But that he
>                             has no physical understanding why it is
>                             successful. In my understanding of the
>                             development of physics this is a weak point.
>
>                             The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed
>                             and observed energy is taken as a great
>                             and unresolved problem by present main
>                             stream physics. Those representatives
>                             would have all reason to find a solution
>                             to keep present QM clean. But they are not
>                             able to. This causes me some concern.
>
>                             The constants you have listed: c is the
>                             speed of light what ever the reason for it
>                             is. (I have a model, but it is a bit
>                             speculative.) But it has nothing to do
>                             with energy. G is the gravitational
>                             constant which is as little understood as
>                             gravity itself. Planck's constant I have
>                             explained, it is (with c) the field
>                             constant of the strong force (any force
>                             has to be described by a field constant);
>                             and/ε_o /is the field constant of the
>                             electric force with a similar background.
>
>                             If spacetime was an empty void, why should
>                             particles have a speed limit of/c/? For a
>                             thought experiment, suppose that two
>                             spaceships leave earth going opposite
>                             directions and accelerate until they reach
>                             a speed of 0.75/c/relative to the earth. 
>                             The earth bound observer sees them
>                             separating at 1.5/c/but the rules of
>                             relativistic addition of velocity has a
>                             spaceship observer seeing the other
>                             spaceship moving away at only 0.96/c/. 
>                             How is this possible if spacetime is an
>                             empty void.  My model of the universe
>                             answers this because all particles, fields
>                             and forces are also made of the spacetime
>                             field and they combine to achieve Lorentz
>                             transformations which affects ruler length
>                             and clocks. None of this can happen unless
>                             spacetime is filled with dipole waves in
>                             spacetime and everything is made of the
>                             single component. The universe is only
>                             spacetime.
>
>                             If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in
>                             opposite direction, the observer at rest
>                             may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as
>                             a result. Why not? If an observer in one
>                             of the spaceships measures the relative
>                             speed of the other spaceship, the result
>                             will be less then c (as you write it). The
>                             reason is the well known fact that the
>                             measurement tools accessible for the
>                             observer in the ship are changed and run
>                             differently at this high speed. The reason
>                             for these changes is for time dilation the
>                             internal speed c in elementary particles.
>                             For contraction it is the contraction of
>                             fields at motion which is a fact
>                             independent of relativity (and which was
>                             already known before Einstein). In
>                             addition when the speed of another object
>                             is to be measured several clocks are to be
>                             used positioned along the measurement
>                             section. These clocks are de-synchronized
>                             in relation to the clocks of the observer
>                             at rest. These phenomena together cause
>                             the measurement result < c. You find these
>                             considerations in papers and books about
>                             the Lorentzian interpretation of
>                             relativity. So, following Lorentz, there
>                             is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime.
>
>                             John M.
>
>                             Perhaps I should read your book. But that
>                             chould take a lot of time, I am afraid.
>
>                             Albrecht
>
>                             *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese
>                             [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]
>                             *Sent:*Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM
>                             *To:*John Macken<john at macken.com>
>                             <mailto:john at macken.com>; 'Nature of Light
>                             and Particles - General
>                             Discussion'<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>                             <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>                             *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>
>                             Hello John,
>
>                             great that you have looked so deeply into
>                             the model which I have presented. Thank you.
>
>                             There are some questions which I can
>                             answer quite easily. I think that this
>                             model in fact explains several points just
>                             in contrast to main stream physics. In
>                             standard physics the electron (just as an
>                             example) is a point-like object without
>                             any internal structure. So, how can a
>                             magnetic moment be explained? How can the
>                             spin be explained? How can the mass be
>                             explained? The position of main stream
>                             physics is: That cannot be explained but
>                             is subject to quantum mechanics. And the
>                             fact that it cannot be explained shows how
>                             necessary QM is.
>
>                             In contrast, if the electron is assumed to
>                             have a structure like in the model
>                             presented, these parameters can be
>                             explained in a classical way, and this
>                             explanation is not merely a qualitative
>                             one but has precise quantitative results.
>
>                             To  your questions in detail:
>                             The fact of two basic particles is
>                             necessary to explain the fact of an
>                             oscillation and to fulfil the conservation
>                             of momentum. A single object (as
>                             point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic
>                             particles are composed of charges of the
>                             strong force. In this model the strong
>                             force is assumed to be the universal force
>                             in our world effective on all particles. A
>                             charge is a fundamental object in the
>                             scope of this model. There are two kinds
>                             of charges according to the two kinds of
>                             forces in our world, the strong one and
>                             the electric one. The weak force is in
>                             fact the strong force but has a smaller
>                             coupling constant caused by geometric
>                             circumstances. And gravity is not a force
>                             at all but a refraction process, which is
>                             so a side effect of the other forces. And,
>                             by the way, gravity is not curved
>                             spacetime. This is not necessary, and
>                             besides of this, Einstein's spacetime
>                             leads to logical conflicts.
>
>                             The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an
>                             elementary particle are configured in a
>                             way that at a certain distance there is a
>                             potential minimum and in this way the
>                             distance between the basic particles is
>                             enforced. So, this field has attracting
>                             and repulsive components. Outside the
>                             elementary particle the attracting forces
>                             dominate to make the particle a stable
>                             one. And those field parts outside have an
>                             opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles
>                             are orbiting each other, the outside field
>                             is an alternating field (of the strong
>                             forth). If this field propagates, it is
>                             builds a wave. This wave is described by
>                             the Schrödinger equation and fulfils the
>                             assumptions of de Broglie.
>
>                             With the assumption of two basic particles
>                             orbiting at c and subject to strong force,
>                             the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin
>                             result from it numerically correctly
>                             without further assumptions.
>
>                             This model does not need any vacuum energy
>                             or virtual particles. Those are simply not
>                             necessary and they are anyway very
>                             speculative because not directly
>                             observable. And in the case of the vacuum
>                             energy of the universe we are confronted
>                             with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you
>                             also mention in your paper attached to
>                             your mail.
>
>                             The Coulomb law can be easily explained by
>                             the assumption (standard at quantum
>                             mechanics) that a force is realized by
>                             exchange particles. The density of
>                             exchange particles and so the strength of
>                             the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is
>                             simple geometry.
>
>                             So John, this is my position. Now I am
>                             curious about your objections of further
>                             questions.
>
>                             Best regards
>                             Albrecht
>
>                             Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken:
>
>                                 Hello Albrecht and All,
>
>                                 I have attached a one page addition
>                                 that I will make to my book. It is a
>                                 preliminary explanation of my model of
>                                 the spacetime field.  It has been very
>                                 helpful to me to interact with this
>                                 group because I now understand better
>                                 the key stumbling block for some
>                                 scientists to accept my thesis.
>                                 Therefore I have written the attached
>                                 introduction to ease the reader of my
>                                 book into my model.
>
>                                 *Albrecht:*I appreciate your email. We
>                                 agree on several points which include
>                                 the size of the electron and there is
>                                 a similarity in the explanation of
>                                 gravity.  The key points of
>                                 disagreement are the same as I have
>                                 with the rest of the group. Your
>                                 explanation of a fundamental particle
>                                 is not really an explanation. You
>                                 substitute a fundamental particle such
>                                 as an electron with two “basic
>                                 particles”. Have we made any progress
>                                 or did we just double the problem? 
>                                 What is your basic particles made of? 
>                                 What is the physics behind the force
>                                 of attraction between the particles?
>                                 What is the physics behind an electric
>                                 field? How does your model create de
>                                 Broglie waves? How does your model
>                                 create a gravitational field (curved
>                                 spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb
>                                 law and Newtonian gravitational
>                                 equation from your model?
>
>                                 These might seem like unfair
>                                 questions, but my model does all of
>                                 these things. All it requires is the
>                                 reader accept the fact that the vacuum
>                                 possesses activity which can be
>                                 characterized as a type of energy
>                                 density that is not observable (no
>                                 rest mass or momentum). This is no
>                                 different that accepting that QED
>                                 calculations should be believed when
>                                 they assume vacuum energy or that zero
>                                 point energy really exists.
>
>                                 *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too
>                                 strong, but I have decided to take a
>                                 firmer stand.  You just happen to be
>                                 the first person that I contrast to my
>                                 model.  I am actually happy to discuss
>                                 the scientific details in a less
>                                 confrontational way.  I just wanted to
>                                 make an initial point.
>
>                                 John M.
>
>                                 *From:*General
>                                 [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>                                 Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese
>                                 *Sent:*Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM
>                                 *To:*general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>                                 <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>                                 *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>
>                                 Dear John Macken,
>
>                                 I would like to answer a specific
>                                 topic in your mail below. You write
>                                 "... would have particular relevance
>                                 to the concept that the Higgs field is
>                                 needed to give inertia to fermions".
>
>                                 We should not overlook that even
>                                 mainstream physicists working on
>                                 elementary particles admit that the
>                                 Higgs theory is not able to explain
>                                 inertia.  I give you as a reference:
>
>                                 >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant
>                                 puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear
>                                 and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< ,
>
>                                 which has the result that the Higgs
>                                 field, which causes inertia according
>                                 to the theory, is by at least 56
>                                 orders of magnitude too small to
>                                 explain the mass of the elementary
>                                 particles. (Another weakness is the
>                                 fact that the Higgs theory does not
>                                 tell us the mass of any elementary
>                                 particle even if all other parameters
>                                 are known.)
>
>                                 As you may remember, in our meeting I
>                                 have presented a model explaining
>                                 inertia which does not only work as a
>                                 general idea but provides very precise
>                                 results for the mass of leptons. The
>                                 mass is classically deduced from the
>                                 size of a particle.  It also explains
>                                 the mass of quarks, but here the
>                                 verification is more difficult, due to
>                                 the lack of measurements. In addition
>                                 I have shown that the model also
>                                 explains the (dynamic) mass of
>                                 photons, if the size of a photon is
>                                 related to its wavelength.
>
>                                 You may find details in the
>                                 proceedings of our San Diego meeting,
>                                 but also on the following web sites:
>
>                                 www.ag-physics.org/rmass
>                                 <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass>
>                                 www.ag-physics.org/electron
>                                 <http://www.ag-physics.org/electron>.
>
>                                 You may also find the sites by Google
>                                 search entering the string "origin of
>                                 mass". You will find it on position 1
>                                 or 2 of the list, where it has
>                                 constantly been during the past 12 years.
>
>                                 If you have any questions about it,
>                                 please ask me. I will be happy about
>                                 any discussion.
>
>                                 With best regards
>                                 Albrecht Giese
>
>                                 Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John
>                                 Macken:
>
>                                     Martin,
>
>                                     I wanted to remind you that I
>                                     think that you should update your
>                                     article “Light Is Heavy” to
>                                     include the mathematical proof
>                                     that confined light has exactly
>                                     the same inertia as particles with
>                                     equal energy. Accelerating a
>                                     reflecting box causes different
>                                     photon pressure which results in a
>                                     net inertial force.  I already
>                                     reference your Light Is Heavy
>                                     article in my book, but expanding
>                                     the article would be even better. 
>                                     An expanded article would have
>                                     particular relevance to the
>                                     concept that the Higgs field is
>                                     needed to give inertia to
>                                     fermions. The Higgs field is not
>                                     needed to give inertia to confined
>                                     light. Furthermore, confined light
>                                     exerts exactly the correct inertia
>                                     and kinetic energy, even at
>                                     relativistic conditions.  I have
>                                     not seen a proof that the Higgs
>                                     field gives exactly the correct
>                                     amount of inertia or kinetic
>                                     energy to fermions. Any particle
>                                     model that includes either a
>                                     confined photon or confined waves
>                                     in spacetime propagating at the
>                                     speed of light gets inertia and
>                                     kinetic energy from the same
>                                     principles as confined light in a
>                                     reflecting box.
>
>                                     John M.
>
>                                     *From:*General
>                                     [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>                                     Behalf Of*Mark, Martin van der
>                                     *Sent:*Friday, September 04, 2015
>                                     6:34 AM
>                                     *To:*Nature of Light and Particles
>                                     - General
>                                     Discussion<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>                                     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>                                     *Subject:*[General] research papers
>
>                                     Dear all,
>
>                                     My recent (and old) work can be
>                                     found on Researchgate:
>
>                                     https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications
>
>                                     In particular you will find the
>                                     most recent work:
>
>                                       * On the nature of “stuff” and
>                                         the hierarchy of forces
>                                       * Quantum mechanical probability
>                                         current as electromagnetic
>                                         4-current from topological EM
>                                         fields
>
>                                     Very best regards,
>
>                                     Martin
>
>                                     Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
>
>                                     Principal Scientist, Minimally
>                                     Invasive Healthcare
>
>                                     Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
>
>                                     High Tech Campus, Building 34
>                                     (WB2.025)
>
>                                     Prof. Holstlaan 4
>
>                                     5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
>
>                                     Tel: +31 40 2747548
>
>                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                                     The information contained in this
>                                     message may be confidential and
>                                     legally protected under applicable
>                                     law. The message is intended
>                                     solely for the addressee(s). If
>                                     you are not the intended
>                                     recipient, you are hereby notified
>                                     that any use, forwarding,
>                                     dissemination, or reproduction of
>                                     this message is strictly
>                                     prohibited and may be unlawful. If
>                                     you are not the intended
>                                     recipient, please contact the
>                                     sender by return e-mail and
>                                     destroy all copies of the original
>                                     message.
>
>
>
>
>                                     _______________________________________________
>
>                                     If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>                                     <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
>                                     <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>                                     <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
>                                     Click here to unsubscribe
>
>                                     </a>
>
>
>
>                                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                                 <Mail Attachment.jpeg>
>                                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>                                 	
>
>                                 Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
>                                 Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>                                 www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>
>
>
>                             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                             <Mail Attachment.jpeg>
>                             <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>                             	
>
>                             Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
>                             Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>                             www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>
>
>
>
>                             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                             Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>                             	
>
>                             Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
>                             Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>                             www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>
>
>                             _______________________________________________
>
>                             If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>                             <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
>                             <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>                             <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
>                             Click here to unsubscribe
>
>                             </a>
>
>
>                         _______________________________________________
>                         If you no longer wish to receive communication
>                         from the Nature of Light and Particles General
>                         Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com
>                         <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>                         <a
>                         href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>                         Click here to unsubscribe
>                         </a>
>
>
>
>                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>                 	
>
>                 Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
>                 Viren geprüft.
>                 www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>
>
>
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>         	
>
>         Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>         www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________ If you no
>         longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>         and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de
>         <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> Click here to unsubscribe
>         <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>         _______________________________________________ If you no
>         longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>         and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de
>         Click here to unsubscribe
>         <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
>         of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
>         martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
>         <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
>         <a
>         href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>         Click here to unsubscribe
>         </a>
>
>     _______________________________________________ If you no longer
>     wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
>     Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de
>     <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> Click here to unsubscribe
>     <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
>     <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>     <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
>     Click here to unsubscribe
>
>     </a>
>



---
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/20150927/596706df/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list