[General] Relativity
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Sat Dec 9 11:56:01 PST 2017
A friend of mine sent me this interesting article regarding Einstein's
take on the ether
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3313
Perhaps his theories have been misunderstood by those who follow,
wouldn't be the first time
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 11/7/2017 3:40 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell wrote:
> Hi Richard, André, Wolf, and All,
> André, I'm delighted that others, too, are now coming to this
> conclusion. I don't feel that your conclusion is really in any way
> different from mine - my perception of the situation is pretty much
> identical to yours. The difference lies, not in how we perceive the
> situation, but in what we are describing. I have described the
> actuality of the totality of wavefronts at any given instant, you have
> (as I understand it) described the experience of that totality as it
> is mediated/filtered by our physical senses and interpreted by the
> brain; this matches exactly how I see our assimilation of data
> from our immersive environment (though I would say the whole brain
> rather than just neocortex - since limbic system, reptilian brain, etc
> all contribute to our picture of the reality that we inhabit
> [including our own body]).
> In other writings I have proposed that experience of its environment
> by, for example, a bat would be radically different from our own,
> since its internal 'preprocessor logic' would be dealing with quite a
> different set of inputs: presumably a bat has a major part of its
> brain given over to processing sound signals to produce a picture of
> its surroundings, comparable to that produced by our visual cortex; it
> would be ludicrous to suppose that a bat would have to figure out what
> incoming sound signals meant in terms of the topography of the
> fast-moving 'terrain' around it. Similarly for IR sensors in a snake,
> and all sorts of other sensors in fish etc.
> Richard, I fully agree that our sense of 'now' must surely be a
> 'moving sample' of short duration - I believe this has been shown to
> be the case by research, also point sources would not allow for
> extrapolation of meaningful observations (e.g. a colour must
> necessarily require at least a fragment of wave in order to identify
> frequency - this is part of the role of sensors, which must therefore
> have a 'time-sampling' element about them .. . . which we know to be
> the case since photon absorption itself takes a finite time).
> I also agree, without question, that the Pythagorean relationship
> between time-experience, velocity and c is a more appropriate
> representation if the interrelationship between these qualities than
> the hyperbolic relationship - this has been a central tenet of all
> that I've published on this subject over the past 20 years. It was
> for some time a puzzle to me why people would choose to favour the
> complexity of the hyperbolic model over the clear (and clean) reality
> of the Pythagorean description - I liken it to choosing to opt for the
> Greeks' epicycloids for orbits in a geocentric system rather than the
> elliptical orbits of a heliocentric system. I concluded (and
> calculated) after a while that it's all down to appearances (for us as
> for the Greeks): the Pythagorean relationship, coupled with other
> real-world phenomena such as electromagnetic foreshortening of objects
> in motion, leads a moving observer to experience the illusion of a
> fully reciprocal relationship - considering themself to be at rest,
> the observer will experience the illusion that others in different
> states of motion (including the objective rest-state) are in fact
> subject to 'relativistic' effects. As I keep saying, SR is an observer
> effect.
> This in turn leads to the illusion of full reciprocity - the
> equivalence (and so also symmetry) of all intertial 'frames'. The
> hyperbolic model is fully symmetric, whereas the Pythagorean is not.
> If one chooses to go with the illusion rather than (I contend)
> objective reality then, just as the Greeks allowed their illusion to
> dictate a more complex model of the universe, so do we (collectively -
> with some exceptions).
> Clearly the hyperbolic model is faithful to observation and
> measurement - this is a point that I have always stressed - since all
> observers and measuring instruments are subject to this 'illusion'
> (measurements by instruments will be affected by the helical nature of
> the energy-flows forming their constituent particles); in this respect
> of course that model is hugely useful - one might say absolutely
> essential. However, to then on that basis attribute to objective
> reality the metaphysical property of 'frame symmetry' - leading, for
> example, to the same train actually BEING (not just seeming to be)
> different lengths depending on whether one is on the train, watching
> it from the track-side or observing it from a high-speed aircraft -
> makes as much sense to me as the notion that planets ARE in fact
> bouncing around a complex path akin to the path of a fly on the rim of
> a bicycle wheel being rolled around the outside of a large drum! I
> reiterate, in BOTH cases I believe that finding causation for such
> claimed properties could be hugely difficult!
> One might ask: if the observed data fits the hyperbolic model so well,
> why am I (and others) so sure that the Pythagorean model fits the true
> reality? My answer is one word: Occam. The Pythagorean model
> requires NO additional explanation for ALL observed effects other than
> known physical properties, including the now well-attested principle
> that particles of matter are (or at least can be) formed from photons
> of electromagnetic energy; by contrast, just an explanation of how a
> railway train obligingly adjusts its length to simultaneously suit a
> passenger, a track-worker and a jet pilot so that frame symmetry is
> not breached could involve quite a few as-yet-unknown (and
> unimaginable!) properties of material reality. (That 'causation'
> thing again.)
> I need to reiterate: THIS MATTERS! It matters absolutely hugely!
> (Mainstream) Physics is at present (I would contend) stuck in a
> cul-de-sac of its own making, unable to move forward on such crucial
> matters as fundamentals of gravitation as it insists on finding a
> frame-independent formulation. Releasing that self-imposed constraint
> would free things up absolutely phenomenally!
> I'm actually finding this discussion very exciting! We're now talking
> about the role of the observer, and of the consciousness of that
> observer, in the process. This, to me, is a major step forward.
> Thanks guys!
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Richard Gauthier <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *To:* srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org> ; Nature of Light
> and Particles - General Discussion
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2017 6:55 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Relativity
>
> Hi Grahame, André, Wolf, Chip and others,
> I also have a sense that our experienced sense of “now” (which
> is probably not a mathematical point in time but a very short
> experienced interval which could be different for different
> people) is related to the speed of light. The best objective
> measure of experienced time that I know of is one's “wristwatch
> time” or proper time tau, which moves with a person or object and
> indicates passing moments of “now” for that person or object (c
> tau is zero for a photon). Several people, the first I think being
> Lewis Carroll Epstein in his 1981 book “Relativity Visualized”,
> discovered that proper time tau (or rather c tau) can be the 4th
> orthogonal dimension on a Minkowski-type diagram, rather than
> coordinate time t (or ct) in the usual Minkowski spacetime
> diagram. This approach simplifies Minkowski diagram math (from
> hyperbolic to pythagorean), removes the need for light cones,
> and also suggests the idea that every person (or object with mass)
> is traveling through time at light-speed, whether standing still
> or moving. Please see "Relativity Simplified by Modified
> Minkowski Metric Spacetime and Momentum-Energy Diagrams” at
> https://richardgauthier.academia.edu .
> Richard
>
>
>
>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 6:48 AM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org
>> <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Grahame,
>>
>> You write "///At any given instant in time a snapshot of the
>> physical state of the universe is given by the totality of the
>> leading edges (or wavefronts) of the electromagnetic energy flows
>> that make up all the particles and free energies in the universe
>> at that time/"
>>
>> I must say that I also drew converging conclusions with regard to
>> time, and so did a group of European researchers.
>>
>> You might be interested in an article published last year by
>> Amrit Sorli et al. analyzing what Einstein called the "NOW"
>> moment, title "Cosmology of Einstein's NOW":
>>
>> http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.11.pdf
>>
>> My personal conclusion is only slightly different from yours, as
>> I would formulate this idea as:
>>
>> "/At any given instant in time each of us records in his
>> neocortex what his senses let him perceive of the physical state
>> of the universe given by the totality of the leading edges (or
>> wavefronts) of the electromagnetic energy flows that make up all
>> the particles and free energies in the universe at that instant
>> of time/"
>>
>> Each of us thus internally builds a personal, thus subjective,
>> model of what is occurring in physical reality as the "present
>> moment" progresses, which "present moment" is the only moment
>> that we can be aware of.
>>
>> My own conclusions in this regard can be found in Section "8. The
>> Time Dimension" of this article, titled "On the Birth of the
>> Universe and the Time Dimension in the 3-Spaces Model":
>>
>> http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.17.pdf
>>
>> Best Regards
>> André
>>
>>
>> /On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:08:29 -0000, "Dr Grahame Blackwell"wrote:/
>>
>>
>>
>> Wolf [et al.],
>> I have no doubt that time is a subjective experience of
>> consciousness - that, as you say, the speed of light is in fact
>> the speed at which consciousness moves through 'instants' of
>> reality, i.e. as you put it: "Einstein's constant becomes[IS, in
>> fact]the speed of each observer's "Now"."
>> I first presented this view myself 10 years ago in an article in
>> published the journal of the Scientific & Medical Network
>> [Network Review, Issue 95, Dec 2007], in the following words:
>> "
>>
>> *_The Role of Consciousness in Time Perception_*
>>
>> At any given instant in time a snapshot of the physical state of
>> the universe is given by the totality of the leading edges (or
>> wavefronts) of the electromagnetic energy flows that make up all
>> the particles and free energies in the universe at that time. (In
>> passing it's worth noting that this may have a bearing on
>> Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, since the 'position' of a
>> fundamental sub-atomic particle will at that instant be reduced
>> to a single point in the cyclic path of the energy flow forming
>> that particle – which will vary in position and direction at
>> different points in that cycle.)
>>
>> As time progresses successive snapshots will be given by
>> corresponding advances in each of those energy flows. From the
>> point of view of an eternal observer, unhampered by the temporal
>> limitation of observing only one instant at a time, each of those
>> energy flows will form a continuous thread weaving its way
>> through space as it also progresses through what we call 'time'.
>>
>> Almost certainly our perception of three-dimensional space is a
>> consciousness-mapping of some deeper reality, but since we're
>> built to think in these terms it makes sense to visualise that
>> succession of snapshots by some spatial analogy. A common model
>> is to think of a succession of frames from a cine film or video
>> recording, but this tends to lose the continuity of those energy
>> flows. Perhaps a better model is that of a four-dimensional
>> spherical crystal, growing outwards from the centre as time
>> progresses (though of course from the eternal perspective that
>> crystal simply*/is/*).
>>
>> Each instant in time is then an infinitely thin three-dimensional
>> layer of that hypersphere, like the layers of an onion. The
>> strands of light-energy snake outwards from the Source at the
>> centre, weaving their intricate patterns of successive instants
>> of reality in synchronisation with one another as they shape our
>> ongoing cosmic destiny. Consciousness, flowing outward from the
>> Source at the speed of light, experiences successive layers of
>> this amazing hypersphere of light as instants of being, each
>> perfect in its own way.
>>
>> "
>> [If others think this crazy (as they may), I invite them to
>> consider observations by Planck andSchrödingeron consciousness,
>> which they both considered to bethe fundamental driving force of
>> the universe.]
>> I'd agree also that "the speed of light is constant for every
>> observer because it is tied to the material which generates the
>> space of that observer" [and, of course, that observer themself].
>> This is totally consistent with the logical observation that the
>> 'time-experience' of that observer will itself be affected by
>> those energy flows and the rate at which they pass through/around
>> the observer (and any instruments they may use) - and so the
>> time-experience of any observer/instrument will be tied to its
>> state of motion ("reference frame") exactly in accordance with
>> the findings of SR.
>> I.e. SR is an observer effect caused by the variation in
>> cyclic-to-linear ratio of energy flows in an observer's
>> 'reference frame' affecting the rate at which consciousness
>> experiences the passage of time.
>> Grahame
>> =========
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:*Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
>> *To:*general at lists...natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Sent:*Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:43 PM
>> *Subject:*Re: [General] Relativity
>>
>> At the risk of both repeating and sounding crazy
>>
>> I've been developing a theory of physics that includes
>> subjective experiences and identifies a background space with
>> every observer
>>
>> It would then seem that the speed of light is constant for
>> every observer because it is tied to the material which
>> generates the space of that observer. If we look at the
>> relationship between observer and the reference frame and
>> realize the reference frame defines the space for that
>> observer Einstein's constant becomes the speed of each
>> observers "Now"
>>
>> I have a paper for the Vigier conference tat explores this
>> possibility which I will send if interest exists
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>
>> On 11/3/2017 12:37 PM, André Michaud wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chip,
>>>
>>> I indeed see what you mean.
>>>
>>> Since the constant velocity of light is established in such
>>> certain terms as an absolute velocity, what actually came to
>>> my mind was the idea of possibly establishing the asymptotic
>>> speed of light itself as the absolute reference with respect
>>> to which all motion could be measured.
>>>
>>> I'll have a look at Albrecht's work.
>>>
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>> /On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:25:40 -0500, "Chip Akins"wrote:/
>>>
>>> Hi Andre (and Albrecht) and All
>>> I think that if Einstein’s statement “/light is propagated
>>> in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the
>>> motion of the source/” is true, then the only reference
>>> which makes any sense is the frame of space itself. It is
>>> implicit within the statement that the reference frame for
>>> this velocity is space itself. Lorentz argued that there
>>> must be a fixed frame of space for these same reasons.
>>> What we observe is exactly compatible with this concept,
>>> that there is a fixed frame of space, and that we are not
>>> able to measure our motion relative to that fixed frame
>>> because matter is made of confined propagating energy which
>>> moves at the same velocity as light. Then, in a Euclidian
>>> three dimensional space, we would experience the exact
>>> transformations Lorentz suggested are required. As a result
>>> we would always measure the speed of light to be the same
>>> speed. In this causal form of relativity there is no room
>>> for the supposition that all motion is relative. For motion
>>> is, in such a situation, relative to the frame of space.
>>> The impulse which is momentum (a specific force for a finite
>>> time) is quite compatible, it seems, with your concept of
>>> the importance of kinetic energy in the behavior of
>>> propagating disturbances which make up all particles.
>>> One reason I am interested in the kinetic energy analysis is
>>> because it would be nice to better understand the subject of
>>> momentum as it refers to the propagation of energy through
>>> space. I think it would be helpful if we understood the
>>> mechanisms which create this momentum.
>>> Albrecht has done some work in this area, using a novel
>>> approach which evaluates the behavior of “extended bodies”
>>> in space, which is also very interesting.
>>> Chip
>>> *From:*André Michaud [mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org]
>>> *Sent:*Friday, November 03, 2017 11:23 AM
>>> *To:*chipakins at gmail.com;general at lists...natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> *Cc:*srp2 at srpinc.org
>>> *Subject:*Re: Fwd: [General] Relativity
>>>
>>> Hi Chip,
>>>
>>> I have been thinking about what you wrote here:
>>>
>>> "Einstein stated that “/light is propagated in empty space
>>> with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the
>>> source/”, which is an incomplete statement, logically
>>> inconsistent, because*the/velocity c in empty space/has no
>>> meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space, or some
>>> other reference, as the logical reference for that
>>> velocity.*A velocity simply must be stated in reference to
>>> something."
>>>
>>> My own view on this hinges on the kinetic energy viewpoint
>>> that you seem to have taken an interest in.
>>>
>>> On page 14 of my paper on the de Broglie photon hypothesis,
>>> you will find my take on this issue, which relates the
>>> "*some other logical reference*" that you mention, to the
>>> physical presence of momentum related translational kinetic
>>> energy:
>>>
>>> "Now this brings up the old issue of what
>>> this"equilibrium"constant velocity of photons in vacuum
>>> (free moving kinetic energy) is relative to in reality. Is
>>> it relative to the medium? To the point of emission? To the
>>> point of absorption? To the observer? To this or that
>>> reference frame, or multiple reference frames, inertial, non
>>> inertial, Galilean, moving or not, etc.?
>>>
>>> A deeply ingrained habit has developed since the beginning
>>> of the 20th century to hypothesize various reference frames
>>> in attempts to make sense of the experimentally observed
>>> data. But in physical reality, velocity depends on only one
>>> criterion: the actual presence of translational kinetic
>>> energy. If translational kinetic energy is present and if
>>> the local electromagnetic equilibrium allows it, there will
>>> be velocity in vacuum, relative to there being absence of
>>> translational kinetic energy, irrespective of any
>>> hypothesized reference frame or frames.
>>>
>>> _The absolute lower velocity limit_, as seen from this
>>> perspective, would be an electron possessing zero
>>> translational kinetic energy in excess the energy making up
>>> its rest mass. Of course, such an electron totally deprived
>>> of translational kinetic energy can only be theoretical,
>>> because all massive particles are subject to gravitational
>>> or electrostatic acceleration in physical reality from the
>>> moment they start existing.
>>>
>>> _The absolute upper velocity limit_involving electromagnetic
>>> oscillation is reached when an amount of translational (aka
>>> unidirectional) kinetic energy propels*_an equal amount_*of
>>> kinetic energy captive in transverse electromagnetic
>>> oscillation, that is, a free moving photon for example, as
>>> described in this paper.
>>>
>>> _The only other possible case_between these two limits
>>> involving electromagnetic oscillation, applies to an amount
>>> of kinetic energy captive in transverse electromagnetic
>>> oscillation being propelled by*_a lesser amount_*of
>>> translational kinetic energy, such as the kinetic energy
>>> making up the rest mass of an electron, plus the
>>> transversely oscillating half of its carrier-photon's
>>> kinetic energy, both quantities being propelled by the
>>> unidirectional half of the carrier-photon's quantum of
>>> kinetic energy. The velocity of such a system will
>>> mandatorily lie between zero and asymptotically close to the
>>> speed of light."
>>>
>>> This is the one logical possible other reference that I have
>>> identified.
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>>
>>> --- André Michaud
>>> GSJournal admin
>>> http://www.gsjournal.net/
>>> http://www.srpinc.org/
>>>
>>> /On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:23:45 -0700, Richard Gauthier wrote:/
>>>
>>> Forwarded from Chip
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> *From:*"Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>>
>>> *Subject: [General] Relativity*
>>> *Date:*October 31, 2017 at 6:46:19 AM PDT
>>> *To:*"'Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>> Discussion'"
>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>> *Reply-To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>> Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>> Hi Grahame (and Andre)
>>> A while back, we briefly discussed the idea that SR is
>>> not “logically self-consistent” even though many
>>> conclude that it is mathematically self-consistent.
>>> Regarding logical self-consistent issues…
>>> In order to address this point I think we would need to
>>> take a look at the “landscape” as it relates to
>>> “relativity”.
>>> While doing this, if we look at causes, which is to say
>>> that we use the concept of cause-and-effect as our
>>> guiding principle, as you have properly stressed, we can
>>> come to logical conclusions which simply do not agree
>>> with SR in all details.
>>> So we can take a look at many of the known conditions to
>>> guide the development of a composite view of the causes
>>> for “relativity”.
>>> Sound waves travel through a medium. Sound waves exhibit
>>> the Doppler Effect simply because they travel at a
>>> “fixed” speed through a “homogeneous” medium, regardless
>>> of the velocity of the object emitting the waves.
>>> Light also exhibits the Doppler Effect in space.
>>> So there is an indication that some similarities may
>>> exist between the causes of the Doppler Effect in sound
>>> and in light.
>>> Einstein stated that “/light is propagated in empty
>>> space with a velocity c which is independent of the
>>> motion of the source/”, which is an incomplete
>>> statement, logically inconsistent, because the/velocity
>>> c in empty space/has no meaning, unless we use the fixed
>>> frame of space, or some other reference, as the logical
>>> reference for that velocity. A velocity simply must be
>>> stated in reference to something.
>>> Einstein also stated that, “/Absolute uniform motion
>>> cannot be detected by any means./” Which is indicated by
>>> experiment as well. So no problem here.
>>> And he then followed with the assertion that “/This is
>>> to say that the concept of absolute rest and the ether
>>> have no meaning./” (/Paraphrased/)
>>> This second conclusion is/not/fully logically supported
>>> by the evidence presented, and is logically inconsistent
>>> with the assertion that “/light is propagated in empty
>>> space with a velocity c which is independent of the
>>> motion of the source/”. There are alternate
>>> interpretations of this evidence which are more causal
>>> and logical than this.
>>> First, our inability to measure something does not
>>> necessarily make it meaningless. There are a myriad
>>> examples we can give of things which we cannot directly
>>> measure, but we have come to accept, because of indirect
>>> evidence which stipulates their existence.
>>> We can however, from the evidence, reconstruct a set of
>>> conditions, which is causal, and yields results which
>>> match observation.
>>> For example, if light is made of “stuff” that propagates
>>> through a fixed frame of space at c, and if matter is
>>> made of confined versions of the same “stuff” also
>>> propagating (in confinement) at c in a fixed frame of
>>> space, then we would have exactly this set of
>>> circumstances. We would not be able to detect our motion
>>> through space by using an apparatus like the
>>> Michelson-Morley experiment. Note: This approach does
>>> not relegate as meaningless anything which may in fact
>>> be quite important.
>>> But if “/the concept of absolute rest and the ether have
>>> no meaning.”/Then how do we explain/“light is propagated
>>> in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of
>>> the motion of the source”/and the resultant Doppler
>>> Effect when a moving object emits light?
>>> While I am fully aware of the explanation that EM
>>> radiation is represented by vector “fields”, and that
>>> they somehow could propagate through an empty space at a
>>> fixed velocity justified only by the math. That is a
>>> less satisfactory answer logically because it does not
>>> present/physical/cause. This consideration, and the
>>> Doppler Effect, coupled with the underlying physical
>>> cause mentioned above, for us not being able to detect
>>> our own motion through space, yields two logically
>>> consistent reasons for looking at space as a sort of
>>> medium, with a “fixed” frame.
>>> Lorentz transformations are a natural result of the
>>> situation mentioned above regarding the constitution of
>>> light a matter. These transformations are required under
>>> the circumstances where light and matter are made of the
>>> same “stuff” and that stuff moves at the fixed speed c
>>> in a fixed frame of space. This all occurs in a 3
>>> dimensional Euclidian space.
>>> So there is a more logically consistent, causal view,
>>> than the one proposed by SR.
>>> When we run the math describing the situation where
>>> space is a medium in which the propagation of
>>> disturbances is a fixed velocity, and light and matter
>>> are made of these disturbances, we obtain the set of
>>> Lorentz transformations, and cause for “relativity” is
>>> shown, precisely and clearly. This is a logically
>>> consistent basis, and one which shows cause. In contrast
>>> to SR, which is a different interpretation of the same
>>> starting information, but does not show cause, and does
>>> not appear to be as logically consistent.
>>> Are there ways to present this and related information
>>> which better illustrates the case from a logical basis?
>>> Thoughts?
>>> Chip
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>>> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>> atsrp2 at srpinc.org
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/srp2%40srpinc.org?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> atgrahame at starweave.com <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
>> <a
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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 atsrp2 at srpinc.org
>> <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/srp2%40srpinc.org?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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 Wolf 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171209/7d62cea5/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list