[General] STR twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Sun Aug 27 13:51:52 PDT 2017
Wolf,
answers again interleaved.
Am 24.08.2017 um 09:05 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Answers interleaved
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 8/23/2017 12:17 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf:
>>
>> Please stay at the topic we are just discussing here. We should first
>> come to a result with those before extending our topics.
>>
>>
>> Am 21.08.2017 um 08:47 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> I mentioned the Michelson Morley experiment because the URL I sent
>>> is an interesting alternative that gives a completely different
>>> answer which is probably wrong Watch
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc
>>>
>> Yes, I have seen both videos. But I suspect, for the first one, that
>> it is a property of his set up. If in the upright position the
>> elements of the apparatus move only by a micrometer by gravity, then
>> this effect is already understandable. Generally speaking, the author
>> did not present an error investigation; and that is essential for
>> every experiment.
>>>
>>> However in general this experiment is extremely pertinent because
>>> the inability to detect ether drift is one of the main pillars of
>>> Einstein's approach and one of the main pillars of my consciousness
>>> theory of why why we should not detect the background space which is
>>> attached and generated by us. I am working on my book fro ROutledge
>>> Press and would be happy to start sending you parts of it for
>>> comments on this observer oriented event theory.
>>>
>> But my question was about the measurement of the speed of light c. We
>> should not jump but bring one question to an end before switching to
>> philosophy or similar.
>
> Ok you measure the speed of light on earth by sending a pulse around
> the circumference of the synchrotron. It has a round trip distance of
> “X” you measure the time by a clock that is driven by the speed of
> electromagnetic influences. Lets say it’s a light clock and the speed
> of light is Ce on earth and the clock round trip distance is “Y” so a
> clock cycle is Tc = Y/Ce, Now it takes N clock cycles for the light to
> travel around the synchrotron thenThe speed of light is Cs = X/NTc =
> (X/NY)Ce
>
> But by measurement you can determine that X =NY soCs = Ce
>
> so the speed of light is the speed of light her on earth , there is no
> question about that
>
This was not my example, my example is illustrated by the drawing
further down and the speed of the electrons is given by the frequency of
the accelerating field. But ok., it can also be argued in your way.
But now you say " there is no question about this" ??? In the past you
have just questioned also this very strongly!!
>
>>> You are very right I should learn more about synchrotrons but we re
>>> not discussing the standard text book approach and its assumptions
>>> so I am hoping you will meet me half way and tell my specifically
>>> why you think I'm wrong instead of generally asking me to go look at
>>> a text book and hoping I would guess your objection.
>>>
>> In the following you see the accelerating pieces of a /linear
>> /accelerator. This is showing how the speed of a particle - like an
>> electron - determines the switching frequency
>>
>> Bildergebnis für linearbeschleuniger
>> In a synchrotron this is built in a circular way.
>>>
>>> Now you've started to be mores specific and I greatly appreciate
>>> that. The definition of momentum is p=mpv1−v2c2−−−−−√
>>>
>>> However the derivation of this equation is not at all straight
>>> forward since we are talking about three dimensions and the formula
>>> is different in the direction of motion vs the cross direction
>>> terms. In the circular orbit we are talking about a momentum in te
>>> radial direction vs one in the angular direction and furthermore the
>>> particle is in an accelerated frame.
>>>
>> The point is here that the momentum of the electron increases
>> permanently, but the speed is limited to c. And as there is p = m*v ,
>> and at the end v = c, how can you explain the increase of p if
>> assuming m to be constant?
> Yes , thank you I believe your diagram is helpful although it also
> leaves out a critical component of our discussion, Does the stay
> constant inside the particle and therefor give the appearance of a
> momentum increase or does it truely stay constant in all reference
> frames and therefore the measured effects must be attributed elsewhere.
> Obviously for a parameter that is defined by two variables m*v there
> is not much choice. One measures v and any deviation must be
> attributed to the mass.
That was meant and I understand that you accept that.
>>>
>>> You are saying particles are accelerated to near the speed of light
>>> and easily measured, yes but this is a one way near speed of light
>>> measurement and one needs to examine this carefully.I've read in
>>> numerous places that the Large Hadron Collider is capable of
>>> accelerating protons at 0.999999991 c,- At those speeds the
>>> circumference of "C" is the stationary distance and the time is the
>>> time statinary period tp measured at one point whenever the particle
>>> comes around. so its velocity is C/tp, However the particle is
>>> stationary in its own reference frame and only feels a radial
>>> gravitational pull outward for which the factor under the integral
>>> depends upon the log of the radius
>> When we say that an object has a certain speed we mean the speed
>> measured in our laboratory frame. For other frames (also the one of
>> the particle itself) it has to be determined by the Lorentz
>> transformation. But that is a different story than what we are
>> discussing here.
>>>
> Well here we are taking about interactions between the mass of an
> electron and its charge. So I'm suggesting that the speed of
> Electromagentic interaction speeds up when the particle is in a higher
> state of Lagrangian energy when the potential of the distant mass star
> ring is taken into account. this accounting is given by the equations
> I've sent you many times which you thing are just number games.
What is a "distant mass star ring"? You introduce again a new topic.
> So I'm suggesting that internal activity for a mass-charge particle (
> even a neutron is considered a combination of charged particles ) both
> absorbs energy and makes the particle appear to have a greater
> momentum and furthermore that it is the speed of light change that
> give a simpler explanation than changing ether charge of mass values.
Sorry, I do not understand what you mean here.
>
> Now you will say its all accounted for by the Lorenz transformations,
> but that is wrong. These transformations deal with charges and EM fields
> it is their connection with matter that Einstein introduced and that
> has turned classic mechanics on its end
The Lorentz transformation has primarily nothing to do with charges and
EM fields. That are only aspects for which the LT is /also /correct, but
not the basics. Einstein has deduced the LT only from the assumption
that the speed of light is constant in any frame.
>>> Furthermore we must talk about the momentum of a charged particle
>>> since presumably the momentum is measured by the curvature on a
>>> charge induced by a magnetic field.
>> That is one way. The other - which relates to the energy of a
>> particle - is its conversion into other particles. So, an electron
>> and a positron accelerated in a storage ring can collide and in this
>> moment be converted into particles of a much higher mass (a mass of
>> more than 1000 times the mass of the electron). How is this possible
>> if the electron does not change its mass (and the positron as well)?
> I do not know if this is anything more than an energy conversion , i'm
> not questioning the energy increase mc = m_0 c_0 *(1-v^2 /c^2 )^-1/2
> happens but whether it aplies to the mass or the speed of light
Where is the energy of an electron which moves close to c, if it is not
in its mass?
>>>
>>> This it gets very complex and your recommendation to understand more
>>> is appropriate. However is the situation not similar to the central
>>> force problem of a particle moving in an atom where the
>>> gravitational and electric forces are balanced
>> The gravitational force is completely irrelevant for the processes in
>> an atom. I have many times given you numbers that for such influence
>> the gravitational force is too low by more than 30 orders of
>> magnitude. - Why do I write this again and again, and you never react
>> on it but repeat completely wrong numbers or assumption again and
>> again?? So we cannot go on.
> Well Albrecht please listen! No one questions that gravity is weak,
> but inertia is equivalent to the magnetic component of gravity , that
> is why I call it gravito-inertial and keep evoking Mach's principle.
> It is inertia that balances the coulomb force in Bohr's atom model. It
> is inertia that is as strong as the electric force. I know you think
> you have an explanation for inertia from your rotating charge model,
> but I. Lorenz , Sciama , and many more feel a simpler and more elegant
> description of inertia has inertia treated as the angular momentum
> pseudo vector. Leaving both mass and charge as constants.
Magnetism is a side effect of the electric charge and is much weaker
than the electric charge. Also the gravitational force has its own
magnetism, but also this is much weaker than the (already very weak)
gravitational force. So, physicists working on magno-gravity can perform
calculations but there is almost no way to measure the effect
experimentally (except the Probe B) but that was extremely difficult as
we know.
Any inertia which we can measure is so strong that it is not deducible
from gravo-magnetism. Inertia is stronger than the (quite strong)
electric force, it is a consequence of the strong force. My model shows
it and this model has results which are quantitatively correct with high
precision. I do not know any other model of inertia which has this, in
no way the Higgs model, and the other models presented in this
discussion are tautological models in so far as they deduce inertia from
momentum ignoring the fact that also momentum is a consequence of inertia.
And, just to avoid misunderstanding, the inertia is in my model the
consequence of the finite speed of light by which binding forces
propagate in an extended object. The fact of circulation is another
feature to explain the magnetic moment, spin, and relativistic dilation.
These aspects are not directly connected to the fact of inertia (except
the spin which has it a bit).
The Mach principle cited here quite often only demands the existence of
an ether (meant as an absolute reference frame) necessary to explain
inertia. There is nothing more behind it.
>
>>>
>>> i will try to get you a calculation which shows that for an atom the
>>> assumption that charge and mass are at a point is no longer valid
>>> and in fact the two are separated. Thus the momentum of a particle
>>> is dependent upon the separation distance. this allows me to
>>> calculate the momentum and energy of a particle from contant mass
>>> and force since the correction factors are used to explain an
>>> internal geometry to matter rather than a change in the value of mass.
>> So a particle without a charge does not have any momentum?
>>>
>>> please stand by
>>>
>>> Wolf
>>
>> Please treat the questions we are discussing right now here. The rest
>> please later.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> On 8/18/2017 8:18 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wolf,
>>>>
>>>> why do you mention the Michelson Morley experiment? It was not the
>>>> purpose of it to determine the speed of light. And it is in no way
>>>> suitable to do this determination. It was designed to measure the
>>>> ether drift.
>>>>
>>>> A particle accelerator is, on the other hand, a very good way to
>>>> determine the behaviour of c. Because when the particle flies along
>>>> the chain of acceleration sections, the fields of these sections
>>>> have to be switched in a properly synchronized way so that an
>>>> acceleration can happen. Therefore the speed of the particle is
>>>> very simple logic. At which point do you doubt this process?
>>>>
>>>> If it is now visible that this speed has an upper bound (more is
>>>> not necessary), but the momentum of the particle increases
>>>> permanently, then the increase of mass is the only explanation. Or
>>>> do you have another one? - The increase of momentum is easily
>>>> measured in a magnetic field.
>>>>
>>>> From these facts together the increase of mass has to be concluded.
>>>> I do not know any other explanation. Do you have one?
>>>>
>>>> Your doubt of this is in my view a consequence of the fact that you
>>>> have never looked into the design of a synchrotron. You should do
>>>> that urgently before presenting unchained statements about
>>>> relativistic facts.
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.08.2017 um 08:16 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>
>>>>> wel the first thin I would like to see is nano second pulses
>>>>> reproducing a michelson Morely type experiment
>>>>>
>>>>> But the simplest thing is to look at the theory of the synchroton
>>>>> design you keep talking about are you talking about the energy
>>>>> formula
>>>>>
>>>>> m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 )that we both agree on. If
>>>>> so then we are only in disagreement about the interpretation and
>>>>> the assmptions inside that interpretation, observations like this
>>>>> E-mail in front of your nose are facts I do not dispute facts, I'm
>>>>> interested in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> by the way have you seen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
>>>>>
>>>>> The truth is hard to come by.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>> Research Director
>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>> On 8/16/2017 7:42 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, what is /your /way to measure the speed of light so that you
>>>>>> trust the result?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 16.08.2017 um 07:56 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You still do not grasp the idea that theory and therefore the
>>>>>>> assumption of theory determine the interpretation and therfore
>>>>>>> what we thing we are seeing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>> On 8/15/2017 12:44 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wolf:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it may be good to have new ideas or new insights, but please do
>>>>>>>> not offer equations which are in clear conflict to safe
>>>>>>>> experiments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 15.08.2017 um 07:45 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You said "Your equation Your equation m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2
>>>>>>>>> *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 )is correct. It describes the increase
>>>>>>>>> of mass at motion. But your equation c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2
>>>>>>>>> /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) does not have any meaning for me. And I do not
>>>>>>>>> understand how you have deduced it. I have asked you the other
>>>>>>>>> day what this equation means in your view, but you did not
>>>>>>>>> answer this.'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I thought I had answered many times. Lets assume we both agree
>>>>>>>>> on this equation m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 ) is
>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now how do you interpret it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you believe in Einsteins postulate that c is constant then
>>>>>>>>> you can logically divide c oyt of the equation and get m = m_0
>>>>>>>>> *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 ) which you believe has been proven in
>>>>>>>>> accelerator designs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I on the other hand recognize that Einstein's postulate is
>>>>>>>>> precisely a postulate, an initial assumption that may or may
>>>>>>>>> not be correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are both and all of us in this discussion group exploring
>>>>>>>>> the validity of initial assumptions. Therefor Allow me to
>>>>>>>>> assume Eistein's assumption is one way of developing a theory
>>>>>>>>> but not the only way. If we assume mass is the invariant
>>>>>>>>> instead of the speed of light then the very same equation we
>>>>>>>>> both agree on could be written as m*c^2 = m*c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2
>>>>>>>>> /c^2 )^1/2 ). Now we can cancel the "m' and get c^2 = c_0 ^2
>>>>>>>>> *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 )
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The operation of accelerators show every day and every second
>>>>>>>> that the speed of particles has a limit at the speed of light
>>>>>>>> c. And as on the other hand the energy (or momentum) of a
>>>>>>>> particle in an accelerator is increased to above any limit, the
>>>>>>>> mass of that particles must increase. There is no other
>>>>>>>> explanation, or do you have one?
>>>>>>> The operation of acceloators show m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2
>>>>>>> /c^2 )^1/2 ) which can be interpreted in two ways. I challenge
>>>>>>> you again to show me why your interpretation of c remaining
>>>>>>> contant and m needs to increase is the right one?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This may not have any meaning to you, but it that is the case
>>>>>>>>> you do not understand how a community of scientists could be
>>>>>>>>> so brain washed that they accept an assumption for gospel
>>>>>>>>> truth and do not want to understand circular reasoning which
>>>>>>>>> will always prove the initial assumption is true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you not explain a physical process which is described by
>>>>>>>> your equation above: "c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 )" ?
>>>>>>> I've explained this many times the speed of EM process in a
>>>>>>> particle or coordinate frame built of particle is dependent upon
>>>>>>> the total energy potential the particle experiences
>>>>>>> gravitational potentialis one of the components the particle is
>>>>>>> in. The speed of light and all processes including clock rates
>>>>>>> slow down when the clock is in a lower gravity potential
>>>>>>> mc^2 =~ m c_0 ^2 + 1/2 mv^2
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now i know you are smart enough to understand this choice of
>>>>>>>>> initial assumptions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which initial assumptions do you mean?
>>>>>>> That the speed of light is constant. instead of being dependent
>>>>>>> on the energy potential it is in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An further more if we rewrite the equation we both agree on
>>>>>>>>> as m*c^2 = m_0 ^3/2 *c^3 *(1/(mc^2 -mv^2 )^1/2 )we would
>>>>>>>>> recognize the mc^2 -mv^2 in the corrective factor as the
>>>>>>>>> negative classic Lagrangian when the potential energy of the a
>>>>>>>>> mass inside a universe mass shell is 1/2 mc^2 . This means
>>>>>>>>> mc^2 is the escape energy to get outside our Universe of mass
>>>>>>>>> surrounding us. In other words we live in a flat space at the
>>>>>>>>> center od a ball of mass. Simple and consistent with intuition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This again assumes that the mass of an object is constant if
>>>>>>>> put to motion. This is clearly falsified by safe experiments.
>>>>>>> You keep saying clearly falsified but you do not show me the
>>>>>>> safe experiments I believe the experiments you refer to are
>>>>>>> based on this equation m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 )
>>>>>>> and I keep saying it can be interpreted in two ways
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now I ask you to show me experiments that cannot be explained
>>>>>>>>> with the assumptions leading to c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0
>>>>>>>>> ^2 )^1/2 )
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My question again - not answered by you - is: which physical
>>>>>>>> process is described by this equation in your view? For me it
>>>>>>>> is just a collection of symbols without any message.
>>>>>>> Ive again told you the physical process is to include the
>>>>>>> gravity potential of the distant stars Machs principle
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> since I or we have shown you arguments that Einsteins
>>>>>>>>> assumption is inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) gravity must be infinite or there would be a tangential
>>>>>>>>> component to increase our orbit
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which gravity, i.e. the gravity of which object is infinite in
>>>>>>>> your view?
>>>>>>> I meant the speed of gravity, this is also a problem with your
>>>>>>> rotating charges unless the interaction speed is infinite a
>>>>>>> tangential component will arise which makes the orbit unstable
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2) the perihelion correction is based upon the calculation
>>>>>>>>> classic i.e. infinite speed of gravity calculations
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To my understanding the perihelion shift is caused by the fact
>>>>>>>> that the planet changes its mass during the orbit because the
>>>>>>>> speed changes.
>>>>>>> That again is an interpretation but the prehelion shift is
>>>>>>> calculated by assuming Newtons infinite gravity it again is
>>>>>>> false reasoning. You can explain the shift by making new
>>>>>>> assumptions, but if you apply those assumptions consistently you
>>>>>>> get a different answer to the shift and one that is inconsistent
>>>>>>> wih Einsteins calculations. We sent out the paper on this i can
>>>>>>> dig it up and send itr again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3) Shapiro's speed of light calculation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shapiro's result for the speed of light is in full agreement
>>>>>>>> with Einstein and also in full agreement with my approach to
>>>>>>>> gravity.
>>>>>>> it proves the speed of light is dependent u[pon the
>>>>>>> gravito-inertial field the light is in and is not constant. So
>>>>>>> why are you so critical of my c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2
>>>>>>> )^1/2 )
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4) Gravitational shielding during eclipses and anomalies in
>>>>>>>>> satellite orbits (not sure about this one)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where was gravitational shielding observed? And which anomalies
>>>>>>>> in satellite orbits do you mean?
>>>>>>> I cannot remember right now but maybe Candra sent some paper
>>>>>>> that mentioned the anomalies and gravity effects measured during
>>>>>>> an eclipse
>>>>>>> perhaps someone will remember the reference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Einstein should have listened to Mach.
>>>>>>>> If Einstein would have listened to Mach he would have accepted
>>>>>>>> the existence of a fixed frame of reference (this kind of an
>>>>>>>> ether). I assume the same as Mach.
>>>>>>> The why are you so critical? My on;y contribution is to realize
>>>>>>> that the fixed frame of reference is the perceptive space
>>>>>>> attached to each observer
>>>>>>> you must understand yourself in the picture or you have only
>>>>>>> half the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best wishes ,
>>>>>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>>> Best wishes back
>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2017 4:24 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Your equation m*c^2 = m_0 *c^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 )is
>>>>>>>>>> correct. It describes the increase of mass at motion. But
>>>>>>>>>> your equation c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) does
>>>>>>>>>> not have any meaning for me. And I do not understand how you
>>>>>>>>>> have deduced it. I have asked you the other day what this
>>>>>>>>>> equation means in your view, but you did not answer this.
>>>>>>>>>> Because why should the speed of light change if something
>>>>>>>>>> (what??) moves at some speed v?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>>>>> <a href="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 atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>>>> <a href="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 atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>> <a href="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 atphys at a-giese.de
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 atWolf at nascentinc.com
>> <a href="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 at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="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/20170827/915de5ef/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jafkggglpgchcgjc.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5075 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170827/915de5ef/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list