[General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Feb 8 12:34:59 PST 2017
Hi!
No, it is not the point that 'Albrecht has some other ideas'. But it is
the situation solved by the treatment of "retarded potential" as I have
already written. This is classical Main Stream physics.
I can only repeat to refer to textbooks about retarded potential which
is besides my favourite French the well known Landau&Lifschitz about the
so called Lienard-Wiechert potential (and I think also in Jackson). From
that calculation follows that the forces arrive in a radial direction at
the particles / charges and so there is no tangential component.
Van Flanders has obviously overlooked this fact which is - to say it
again - standard classical physics.
Best, Albrecht
Am 08.02.2017 um 20:02 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> I agree one must integrate the effect, but since the instantaneous
> snapshot shown below generate a small but not zero tangential force
> along the trajectory if you rotate the entire diagram by an
> infinitesimal angle the same force will move around the cycle in the
> same direction , so there would be no cancellation but an accumulation
> of the tangential force build up.
>
> I believe the only way to avoid the problem is to have an attractive
> force at the center so only radial force fields are encountered, or
> have infinite propagation speed which is what TOm Vam Flandern's paper
> tried to prove.
>
> Albrecht has some other ideas
>
> Best, wolf
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 2/5/2017 5:26 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
>> Hey Wolf:
>> The actual force at any reception point is not just that from one
>> position of the sending charge, but an integral over all positions of
>> the sending charge intersecting the past light cone of the sender. I
>> don't know what the answer is and I'm too tired at the moment to do
>> the math. Looks too like it might be very involved! Cone
>> intersecting a spiral, etc. 3/4-D, lots of unknown integrals....
>> Also, a positron-electron pair should be essentiall invisible as it
>> is charge nutral, i.e., won't interact with our only agent of
>> "seeing." Except ...??
>> ---Al
>> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 05. Februar 2017 um 21:47 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
>> *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> I do not see how your example with electric forces applies to the
>> gravitational example.in van Flanders 1998 paper , or for that matter
>> to your model of an elementary particle. Has anyone ever seen
>> positron electron orbiting each other?
>>
>> Consider two particles instantly at 10 and 6 Oclock send out a force
>> that propagates radially from their instantaneous position
>>
>> A time of flight delay caused by field propagating spherically to
>> reach the other particle after it has moved around the orbit.
>>
>> This means there is an angle between the purely radial from orbit
>> center direction by an angleΘ
>>
>> This angle will give a force vector along the orbit path would this
>> not change the momentum??
>>
>> The only way I know Bohr atom works is because the proton is at the
>> center of the electron orbit so no matter where the electron moves
>> around the orbit it will experience a radial only force.
>>
>> I believe van Flanders 1998 paper claims that ephemerus data was
>> calculated assuming instantaneous gravity force projection and which
>> seem to match visual position when corrected for the time delay
>> between sources and observer. And if the time delay for gravity were
>> introduced it would show up in orbit corrections not actually seen.
>> Is he making a mistake?
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 1/31/2017 1:35 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf,
>>
>> regarding the /speed of gravitational influence/:
>>
>> I have looked into the mentioned paper of Van Flanders in 1998
>> and particularly his arguments why gravitational influences must
>> propagate instantly, not at the speed of light. I do not follow
>> his arguments because he has overlooked an important point.
>>
>> His argument (also that one cited from Eddington) is: If the
>> speed of gravitational propagation is limited (e.g. to c) then in
>> the case of two celestial bodies each body would not see the
>> other one at its actual position but at a past position. This
>> would destroy the conservation of momentum. - However, this is
>> not the case.
>>
>> One simple example to see that this argument cannot be true. We
>> can imagine a set up of two /massive /bodies which orbit each
>> other and which are bound to each other by an electrical force;
>> this is easily possible by putting an appropriate electrical
>> charge of different sign onto both bodies. Also the electrical
>> force is, as we know, restricted to the speed of light. But it is
>> very clear that this set up would keep the momentum of both
>> bodies and would steadily move in a stable way.
>>
>> How does this work? The phenomenon is the so called "retarded
>> potential". It has the effect that, even though both charges are
>> seen at a past position by the other charge, the force vector
>> points to the /actual /position of the other one.
>>
>> If we now assume that gravity is a force (independent of what
>> Einstein talks about curvature of space), then the same rules of
>> retarded potential apply to gravity. And so there is no change of
>> momentum even though the effect of gravity is limited to the
>> speed of light.
>>
>> Does this provide some clarification?
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 22.01.2017 um 20:52 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Al:
>>
>> I think the "where is the evidence" argument is no longer
>> powerful because so many things happening in physics have
>> little or even contradictory evidence. I'm just reading Van
>> Flanders 1998 "the speed of gravity" Physics Letters A250
>> 1-11 which makes a good case for gravity influences
>> influences moving instantly - not at the speed of light.
>>
>> However I like your idea of only interactions - in fact I'm
>> developing a theory along those lines by modeling nothing as
>> an empty page and requiring material formatting of the page
>> as an explicit field of space cells. This still allows fields
>> as a shortcut for calculating interactions from multiple
>> distant cells, but nothing remains nothing, if there are no
>> cells to host interactions i.e. sources and sinks, then there
>> is no influence propagating. It takes some material to
>> propagate influences.
>>
>> I would be very curious to read how your "one way out"
>> formulates this problem.
>>
>> One of my hang ups is that any visualization of material
>> basis for space implies a kind of permanent structural
>> relationship between sources and sinks - but objects do seem
>> to move fairly fluidly from place to place. Do sources and
>> sinks move in your vision, If so what do they move in?
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>
>> On 1/21/2017 10:20 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
>>
>> Challenge for proponents of fields (all kinds: E&M,
>> Gravity, Tension, whatever): If the universe is finite,
>> then the field sources on the outer rind will be pumping
>> field energy into the void, the material universe would
>> be cooling down, etc. So, where is the evidence for
>> such? If the universe is finite but topologically
>> closed, then it will have certain "Betti numbers" for
>> various forms which will be closed, (see: algebraic
>> topology texts), again there should be some observable
>> consequence from the these closed forms. So (again)
>> where's the evidence? Granted, current tech may not be
>> up to the task; but that would imply that field theories
>> have to be reduced in status to be virtually religion.
>> One way out: there are no fields, but interactions
>> between sources and sinks. Where one is missing, there's
>> nothing! In particular nothing emminating from sources
>> without regard for target-like sinks. Advantage: the
>> math works out without internal contradictions
>> (divergencies, etc.). Another advantage: from this
>> viewpoint, there are no waves, and associated
>> divergencies. They are just cocek the ptual Fourier
>> components for the interactions. Useful, but strictly
>> hypothetical.
>> For what it's worth, Al
>> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 22. Januar 2017 um 04:19 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Roychoudhuri, Chandra"
>> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General
>> Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] light and particles group
>>
>> John M.
>>
>> I am not the right person to give you decisive answers as
>> I have not followed the math relevant to the origin of
>> Gravitational Wave (GW) and its spontaneous propagation.
>>
>> First, you can find out the current state of
>> technology in the measuring precision of (i) fringe
>> fraction, F (i.e., 180-degree/F) vs. (i) polarization
>> angle fraction F (90-degree/F). As I recall, much better
>> than thousandth of a fringe-shift is now measurable. I do
>> not know what is the current best value of F for
>> polarization measurement. You can look up Gravitational
>> Faraday Effect also. I did “poke my nose” there in the
>> past; but could not find anything measurable.
>>
>> Second, more fundamental physics. All material based
>> waves and light waves require a continuous tension field
>> that steadily gets pushed away from the original site of
>> perturbation induced on the field; provided the
>> perturbation does not exceed the restoration linearity
>> condition (“Young’s Modulus”, or equivalent). For,
>> stretched material string, the mechanical tension is T
>> and the restoration force is the “inertial mass” “Sigma”
>> per unit length; then string-wave v-squared =T/Sigma. For
>> light, c-squared = Epsilon-inverse/Mu. Epsilon-inverse is
>> the electric tension and Mu is the magnetic restoration
>> force. These analogies are explained in some of my
>> papers; I have sent earlier.
>>
>> Now my very basic question for the experts in GW: */How
>> do you define the GW-tension field?/* All spontaneously
>> propagating waves require a steady and continuous tension
>> field in which a suitable perturbation triggers the
>> original wave. What is the velocity of GW and what are
>> the corresponding tension and restoration parameters? If
>> you say, it is the same velocity as “c”, for the EM wave;
>> then */we have some serious confusion to resolve/*. Are
>> the tension and restoration parameters same as those for
>> EM waves? Then, why should we call it GW; instead of
>> pulsed EM waves? Or, */are the two parameters really
>> physically different for GW/*(should be); but GW-velocity
>> number just happens to coincide with “c”?
>>
>> I took Einstein’s explanation for the origin of Gravity
>> as the “Curvature of Space” literally, as the Potential
>> Gradient generated around any assembly of Baryonic
>> Particles. So, a pair of rotating binary stars will
>> generate a periodically oscillating potential gradient.
>> Whatever the value of the effective gravity of a
>> “stationary” binary star around earth is; it would be
>> oscillating slightly when the “stationary” binary stars
>> start rotating around themselves. But, this is not
>> Gravity Wave to me. It is a phenomenon of “locally”
>> changing value of the “curvature of space”; not a passing
>> by wave. Imagine the typical “trampoline demo” for
>> Einsteinian gravity with a heavy iron ball at the
>> depressed center. If you periodically magnetically
>> attract the iron ball to effectively reduce the
>> trampoline curvature; we are not generating propagating
>> GW; we are periodically changing the local “curvature”!
>>
>> These comments should give you some pragmatic “food
>> for thought”!
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *John Macken
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:14 PM
>> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] light and particles group
>>
>> Chandra,
>>
>> I have one quick question for you and the group to
>> consider. You mention that Maxwell connected the speed
>> of light to the properties of space (epsilon and mu). To
>> explain my question, I first have to give some background
>> which is accomplished by quoting a short section of the
>> previously attached paper.
>>
>> “Gravitational waves (GWs) propagate in the medium of
>> spacetime. They are transverse quadrupole waves which
>> slightly distort the “fabric of space”. For example, a
>> GW propagating in the “Z” direction would cause a sphere
>> made from baryonic matter such as metal to become an
>> oscillating ellipsoid. When the sphere expands in the X
>> direction it contracts in the Y direction and vice versa.
>> The GW produces: 1) no change in the total volume of the
>> oscillating sphere 2) no change in the rate of time, 3)
>> no displacement of the center of mass of the oscillating
>> sphere.
>>
>> Point #3 addresses an important point. If there are two
>> isolated masses such as two LIGO interferometer mirrors
>> suspended by wires [17], the passage of a GW does not
>> move the mirror’s center of mass. Instead of the mirrors
>> physically moving, the GW changes the properties of
>> spacetime producing a redshift and a blue shift on LIGO’s
>> laser beams. This difference in wavelength is detected
>> by the interferometer as a fringe shift…”
>>
>> With this introduction, the questions are:
>>
>> 1. Should a GW effect the permeability and permittivity
>> of free space?
>> 2. Should the two orthogonal polarizations of a GW
>> produce opposite effects on the permeability and
>> permittivity of free space?
>> 3. Since epsilon and mu determine the speed of light,
>> should a GW produce a different effect on the two
>> orthogonal polarizations of light?
>>
>> If the answer to question #3 is yes, then this suggests
>> that it should be possible to detect GWs by monitoring
>> the polarization of a laser beam. It is vastly simpler
>> to detect a slight difference in the polarization of a
>> single beam of light than it is to detect the same
>> optical shift between two arms of an interferometer. The
>> interferometer encounters vibration noise to a much
>> greater degree than is encountered in the polarization of
>> a single laser beam. Also, multiple laser beams could
>> identify the direction of the GW much better than an
>> interferometer.
>>
>> Perhaps this is off the subject of the discussion group.
>> But it is an example of a subject which might be low
>> hanging fruit that could make a historic contribution to
>> physics. In the past I have made the suggestion that GWs
>> produce a polarization effect, but this suggestion is
>> lacking additional insight and analysis to be taken
>> seriously. Is there anyone in this group with the
>> expertise to contribute to this study?
>>
>> John M.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:56 AM
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] light and particles group
>>
>> “Gravitational waves indicate vacuum energy exists”,
>> paper by John Macken
>>
>> John M.: Thanks for attaching your paper. */The title
>> clearly indicates that we really are in basic agreement.
>> The cosmic space has physical properties./* I have
>> expressed my views a bit differently, that the cosmic
>> space is a */stationary /*Complex Tension Filed (CTF),
>> */holding 100% of the cosmic energy/* in the attached
>> papers and in my book, “Causal Physics”. */If the
>> so-called vacuous cosmic space and the CTF were not
>> inseparable, the velocity of light would have been
>> different through different regions of the cosmic space/*!
>>
>> I just do not like to continue to use the word
>> “vacuum” because, in the English language, it has
>> acquired a very different meaning (“nothing”) for
>> absolute majority of people over many centuries. It is
>> better not to confuse common people by asserting new
>> meanings on very old and very well established words.
>>
>> Further, in your support, the quantitative values of
>> at least two physical properties, Epsilon & Mu, of the
>> comic space have already presented as quantified
>> properties by Maxwell around 1867 through his wave
>> equation. Recall (c-squared)=(1/Epsilon.Mu). These
>> properties of the cosmic space were already quantified
>> before Maxwell by the early developers of electrostatics
>> and magneto statics.
>>
>> I assume that you are suggesting us that we need to
>> postulate and quantify other physical properties
>> possessed by this cosmic space (*/Maxwellian or Faraday
>> Tension Field/*?), so that the “emergent dynamic
>> particles” out of this cosmic space would display all the
>> properties we have already been measuring for well over a
>> century.
>>
>> However, I disagree, as of now, that cosmic space is
>> “space-time” four dimensional. Because, the “running
>> time” is not a measurable physical parameter of any
>> physical entity that we know of in this universe. So, I
>> assert that the “running time” cannot be altered by any
>> physical process. */Humans have smartly derived the
>> concept of “running time” using various kinds of harmonic
>> oscillators and/or periodic motions./* We can alter the
>> frequency of a physical oscillator by changing its
>> physical environment. Of course, this is my personal
>> perception, */not supported by the entire group/*. But,
>> that is precisely the purpose of this free and honest
>> discussions so we can learn from each other. As my
>> understanding evolves; I might change back my mind and
>> accept space as four- or even thirteen-dimensional.
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *John Macken
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 1:37 PM
>> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
>> Discussion'; 'Andrew Worsley'
>> *Cc:* 'M.A.'
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] light and particles group
>>
>> Dear Chandra and All,
>>
>> You have said “We definitely have advanced our
>> */collective understanding/* that */space is not empty
>> and the particles are some form of emergent properties of
>> this same universal cosmic field./*” The idea that space
>> is not an empty void has not been quantified in any model
>> of spacetime proposed by members of the group.
>>
>> I have concentrated in defining and quantifying the
>> properties of the vacuum and the results are presented in
>> the attached paper. This paper analyzes the properties
>> of spacetime encountered by gravitational waves. The
>> conclusion is that spacetime is a sea of Planck length
>> vacuum fluctuations that oscillate at Planck frequency.
>> This model can be quantified, analyzed and tested. It is
>> shown that this model gives the correct energy for
>> virtual particle formation. It also gives the correct
>> energy density for black holes, the correct zero point
>> energy density of the universe (about 10^113 J/m^3 ) and
>> generates the Friedmann equation for the critical density
>> of the universe (about 10^-26 kg/m^3 = 10^-9 J/m^3 ).
>>
>> The reason for mentioning this to a group interested in
>> the structure of electrons, photons and electric fields
>> is that the quantifiable properties of spacetime must be
>> incorporated into any particle or field model.
>>
>> John M.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 8:45 AM
>> *To:* Andrew Worsley <worsley333 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:worsley333 at gmail.com>>; Light & particles. Web
>> discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Cc:* M.A. <ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu
>> <mailto:ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] light and particles group
>>
>> Dear Andrew Worsely:
>>
>> This is a platform for ethical, serious and honest
>> discussions on scientific issues that the prevailing
>> mainstream platforms have been shunning. We definitely do
>> not want to sow unsubstantiated distrust within this
>> group. */This not a political forum where sophisticated
>> deceptions are highly prized; which has been
>> intellectualized as “post-truth”!/* This is not a
>> “post-truth” forum.
>>
>> So, please, */help us/*by getting help from computer
>> professionals before repeating any further
>> unsubstantiated accusations.
>>
>> If you can definitively identify anybody within our group
>> carrying out unethical and destructive activities;
>> obviously, we would bar such persons from this group
>> discussion.
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> Dear All Participants:
>>
>> Please be vigilant in maintaining the essential ethics
>> behind this discussion forum – honestly accept or reject
>> others’ opinions; preferably, */build upon them. This is
>> the main objective of this forum as this would advance
>> real progress in physics out of the currently stagnant
>> culture/*. While we have not come to realize any
>> broadly-acceptable major break-through out of this forum;
>> we definitely have advanced our */collective
>> understanding/* that */space is not empty and the
>> particles are some form of emergent properties of this
>> same universal cosmic field./* This, in itself, is
>> significant; because the approach of this group to
>> particle physics is significantly different from the
>> mainstream. I definitely see a better future for physics
>> out of this thinking: Space is a real physical field and
>> observables are manifestation (different forms of excited
>> states) of this field.
>>
>> Most of you are aware that our SPIE conference series,
>> which was continuing since 2005, has been abruptly shut
>> down without serious valid justifications (complains from
>> “knowledgeable people” that “bad apples” have joined in).
>> We certainly do not want something similar happen to this
>> web discussion forum due to internal dissentions and
>> internal unethical behavior.
>>
>> Many thanks for your vigilance and support.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*Andrew Worsley [mailto:worsley333 at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:49 AM
>> *To:* John Duffield
>> *Cc:* Roychoudhuri, Chandra; ANDREW WORSLEY
>> *Subject:* Re: Andrew Worsley, light and particles group
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Could be a coincidence, but some damn troll from the
>> discussion group (called Vladimir) has screwed up my
>> email which I have had problem free for the last 20
>> years- and my computer is now going suspiciously slow.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John Duffield
>> <johnduffield at btconnect.com
>> <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Chandra:
>>
>> Please can you add Andrew Worsley to the nature of light
>> and particles group. I’ve met him personally, and think
>> he has a valuable contribution to make.
>>
>> Apologies if you’ve already done this, but Andrew tells
>> me he’s received a /blocked by moderator/ message.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> John Duffield
>>
>> 7 Gleneagles Avenue
>>
>> Poole
>>
>> BH14 9LJ
>>
>> UK
>>
>> *From:* John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com
>> <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>]
>> *Sent:* 09 January 2017 08:34
>> *To:* 'Roychoudhuri, Chandra'
>> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
>> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>>
>> *Cc:* 'ANDREW WORSLEY' <member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk
>> <mailto:member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk>>; 'John Williamson'
>> <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
>> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>>; 'Martin Van Der
>> Mark' <martinvandermark1 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:martinvandermark1 at gmail.com>>
>> *Subject:* Andrew Worsley, light and particles group
>>
>> Chandra:
>>
>> Please can you add Andrew Worsley (worsley333 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:worsley333 at gmail.com>) to the nature of light and
>> particles group. I’ve met him personally, and think he
>> has a valuable contribution to make. He has described the
>> electron as being what you might call a quantum harmonic
>> structure. The electron in an orbital is described by
>> spherical harmonics, the electron itself might be
>> described by spherical (or toroidal) harmonics.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> JohnD
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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 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>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 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 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/20170208/8aebdf0a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 12494 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170208/8aebdf0a/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list