[General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Wed Feb 15 10:50:29 PST 2017
Albrecht:
I think I need more time as well to investigate , this claim.
I need to get more information for the claim that the instantaneous
center of mass position of the sun is 8 minutes ahead in its orbit from
the apparent optical position. I'll see if I can contact Van flanders
and get the details of this calculation. Although he says ephemera are
calculated from Newtonian non relativistic physics with infinite gravity
propagation and then the optical correction for light flight is applied
to get the observed location. Any astronomer should know the answer ,
but most just deal with the optical right ascension and declination and
do not ever consider the gravity effects.
"vectors of any fields originating at a moving object do not point to
(or from) the visible position of its source but from the advanced
position, where the object is when the field is received." obviously
this is not true for sound , and I believe would also not be true if
there were an "ether"
"From the view of the Earth the Sun can be taken as being in a fixed
position" , You are taking a theoretical view point , not an
observational view point. The sum and earth move relative to each other
in your theoretical view point, it looks as though the sun is moving
"direction from which the photons arrive. That is obviously not a
field." Are you taking the QM approach? Photons are particles their wave
properties are debroglie waves not EM waves. Otherwise Em waves are
traverse field disturbances are they not.
Lastly I feel there is a confusion in relativity discussions between
local experiments like the Michelson Morely that happen inside a
physical structure, which correspond to coordinate frames in SRT vs.
when we look outside the coordinate frame. The statement that one cannot
tell if we are moving is obviously not true when we look outside our
own frame, i.e. our motion relative to the cosmic background. As you
know from my Vigier 10 paper. I am working on the possibility that space
is an internal perceptual phenomena like any other personal appearance,
and therefore connected the material background from which we are
built. Therefore as long as we compare observations made within one
space attached to one configuration of material we get the maxwell,
Lorenz , SRT, and now Lienard-Wiechert as consistent mathematical
formulations. Thus as my Vigier paper points out SRT is derivable by
Einstein because the thought experiments leading to the derivatin were
carried out in Einsteins imagination space which is hosted in the
material of his brain. Classic EM is formulated in the assumption that
there is an independent classical background space. If this assumption
is wrong, Maxwell may be an over simplification as well.
Do you have a reference for the derivation of the Lorenz transforms from
Maxwells Equations? What I've found in my texts are usually statements
that say it is true. I have not seen the actual derivation that defines
the coordinate frames independently of the assumption that the physical
laws in all frames should be identical. Once you make this independent
reality assumption then one starts with the assumption that Maxwell
equations have the same form in two coordinate frames and asks what
transformations between these frames make that assumption true? But that
is circular reasoning.
This reasoning is especially irritating for people like me who are
exploring the possibility that Aristotle was wrong and Plato was right.
We only see the shadows of reality not reality itself.
best wishes,
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 2/14/2017 1:12 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> it is in fact not necessary to follow Einstein's version of SRT. I for
> myself follow the version of Hendrik Lorentz as it is based on known
> physical facts, not on fictitious assumptions about space-time.
> However there are relativistic facts which are obvious and independent
> of any formal version of SRT. That is the contraction of fields and
> the dilation of periodic processes. And these are for sure. The
> calculations according to Lienard-Wiechert are based on these fact to
> my knowledge. At present I have started to follow this derivation step
> by step but will need a bit of time.
>
> Do we indeed see the sun in a position which is about 8 minutes
> retarded? From the view of the Earth the Sun can be taken as being in
> a fixed position without making a big mistake. But even if the sun
> would be moving in relation to our planetary system that would not
> matter in this case The point is that the vectors of any fields
> originating at a moving object do not point to (or from) the visible
> position of its source but from the advanced position, where the
> object is when the field is received.
>
> As far as I understand what you write (or van Flanders writes) about
> the US naval data, these date describe the visible position of the
> sun, so the direction from which the photons arrive. That is obviously
> not a field. And if the direction of the gravitational field would be
> towards the retarded position then the orbital speed of the Earth
> would in fact change with time. Which is not the case - But
> independent of this consideration, this case seems particularly simple
> to me. As stated above, from the view of the Earth the Sun can be
> taken as being in a fixed position. With respect to this position the
> Sun has a constant gravitational field in all directions. If now the
> Earth orbits the sun then this steady field will reach the Earth as
> always coming from the centre of the sun. The motion of the Earth is
> of no influence. - The interesting case for this problem discussed at
> other places is the one of a double star. If both stars orbit each
> other then the position of one star changes permanently as seen from
> the other star. In that case the direction of the field and the
> propagation speed of the field are of relevance. But also for these
> cases the relativistic calculation seems to show that the fields are
> pointing towards the centre of the orbit following the
> Lienard-Wiechert calculation of potential.
>
> I shall come back here as soon as I am more familiar with this case.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 11.02.2017 um 20:30 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> I'll admit that I do not follow the consequences of Special
>> Relativity Theory (SRT) as it is worked out in the Lienard-Wiechert
>> potential. And since I identified at least a half dozen derivations
>> of these results in the internet I assume the math is correct.
>> However we have been to the Vigier Conference and seen several
>> presentations criticizing Special Relativity
>>
>> So rather than go through a derivation again, which I do not doubt,
>> I'm trying to make sense of the predicted results. Its kind of like
>> seeing SRT calculations and coming up with the twin paradox.
>> Something is wrong with SRT
>>
>> The VanFlanders paper ( I can send another copy for anyone who needs
>> it) in the paragraph above "3.3 the solar eclipse test" clearly
>> claims that experimental data from the Astronomical Almanac produced
>> by the US naval observatory shows that the earth is attracted to a
>> point 8.5 min. ahead of its optical position. This means the earth is
>> gravitationally attracted to where the sun is /Now/ not where the sun
>> was when light was emitted.
>>
>> The drawing below shows a simple example of how a light emitted from
>> a non-relativistic particle ( 30km/sec) at the upper past position
>> will not hit a parallel traveling lower particle at some distance
>> achieved during the flight time of light and therefore will receive
>> light at an angle pointing to the retarded position. For earth orbit
>> (30Km/sec) which is 10^4 less than the speed of light relativistic
>> effects are 10^-8 , i.e.very very small.compared with Newtonian
>> thinking, but the displacement in 8.5 minutes is 15,300km nearly 3
>> earth diameters offset which should be measurable.
>>
>> I've just gotten some visitors and need to go, but we are questioning
>> SRT and the assumption that gravity may move at a different speed. so
>> just citing more SRT derivations is not convincing.
>>
>> Why is My diagram and "Eddington" and Flanders wrong? Is Flanders
>> lying about his Ephemeris data and its experimental content?
>>
>> Or are we just so brow beaten by SRT that whatever derivations we
>> develop from it must be right?
>>
>> Got to go
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baerecht
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 2/10/2017 12:33 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Wolf, and hi Chip and All,
>>>
>>> it is correct that the solution is a relativistic calculation. In
>>> the figure below, the lower circuit "now" gets the field from the
>>> direction of the higher (small) circuit "now". Not so easily
>>> understandable by visualisation but theoretically confirmed. It has
>>> to do with relativistic contraction (of space / fields) and with
>>> relativistic time synchronization.
>>>
>>> If I look into Jackson, to the mentioned p486 and p487, then eq.
>>> (14.17) describes (unfortunately only) the transverse field. But if
>>> in this equation the product (kappa*R) is replace by the value given
>>> in (14.16) then the result does not depend on the retarded position
>>> P'. - It would be better to have here the field component for the
>>> longitudinal direction. But even this is an indication that the
>>> retarded position has no effect.
>>>
>>> Regarding the two charges in my model I assume that both charges are
>>> getting the field of the respective other charge by similar
>>> considerations. If we assume that charges permanently emit exchange
>>> particles for the corresponding field following QM in this respect,
>>> then there are exchange particles leaving the one charge and
>>> reaching the other one. So there is a field (a binding field) at the
>>> locations of both charges. - But this statement is of course not a
>>> precise one and I am going to present a detailed calculation taking
>>> all this into account mathematically.
>>>
>>> And by the way with respect to gravity: This discussion which we
>>> have started here has kept the physicists busy during the entire
>>> 19th century (which can be found at Wikipedia) The discussion used
>>> the arguments of Van Flanders, Wolf, and also myself (in the
>>> beginning) about the influence of retardation to the perspective of
>>> the gravitational force; but this discussion ended when Special
>>> Relativity was introduced.
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 09.02.2017 um 21:32 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>
>>>> What I know about retarded potentials exactly corroborates my point
>>>>
>>>> The potential is retarded yes but go backwards from the 4Oklock
>>>> location of the advancing lower particle you will see the force
>>>> vector no longer goes through the orbit center. It comes from the
>>>> retarded position of the source, which was at 12Oclock.
>>>>
>>>> Does retarded potential not mean one must calculate the potential
>>>> from the point sources were in the past ? I'm reading Jackson p468
>>>> right now
>>>>
>>>> Its a typical formula first section with no explanation of what
>>>> they mean, but it is clear that my diagram is non relativistic and
>>>> that may be my error.
>>>>
>>>> However a very slow moving particle very far away moving
>>>> transversely would have almost no relativistic correction and still
>>>> be seen. So in this case would the observer ( big circle) not see
>>>> the source at the retarded past position. And if that is the case
>>>> would he not "see" the force vector from the retarded past position?
>>>>
>>>> And that is exactly Flanders Argument regarding the motion of the
>>>> sun relative to an observer on the earth. The EM force vector
>>>> points to the retarded position not the current position. But
>>>> gravity orbits are calculated as though the force vector points to
>>>> the actual Now position.
>>>>
>>>> In my diagram the past upper particle is at 12Oclock and when the
>>>> Light(EM INFLUENCE) gets to the lower particle at 4 Oclock it sees
>>>> the upper particle at its past 12O'clock position. Thus the force
>>>> vector is no longer radially symmetric but has a tangential component.
>>>>
>>>> How your dual orbiting charge model traveling at "c" works out I do
>>>> not know. But if the E filed is squeezed in the velocity direction
>>>> then
>>>>
>>>> then the two particles would never influence each other since the
>>>> flat plane of E fileds would rotate and always miss the
>>>>
>>>> other particle. So what creates the field holding the particles in
>>>> orbit?
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>>
>>>> wolf
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>> Research Director
>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>> On 2/8/2017 12:34 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 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 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 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 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/20170215/ec3f2125/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 5346 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170215/ec3f2125/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 3466 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170215/ec3f2125/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- 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/20170215/ec3f2125/attachment-0002.png>
More information about the General
mailing list