[General] The grand challenge
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Tue Jul 18 23:09:59 PDT 2017
Viv and Albrecht:
1) sorry all I know is what I can interpret from the information I get
given my internal structure and yes I have only encountered the first
name Viv for females , My grand daughter is an example. Sorry, and
thanks for the correction.
2) I sounds like neither of you two are willing to entertain the two
conditions I lay out for an even playing field discussion of fundamental
physics.
On point 1 Albrecht feels without a firm objective reality, independent
of our observations, there would be no physics and no need to talk further
Viv states supernova 1 billion light years away are facts
proven by experiment and they obviously happened independent of the
observer, so independent objective reality is already a
proven fact and there is no need to discuss it further
On point 2 Albrecht says including the interpretations is well known, it
is done there is nothing new to be learned.
Viv rejects it because he is afraid I can prove
anything if I am allowed to chose my own interpretation. Unstated in
Viv's dismissal is the assumption that he is able to prove anything
he wants because he has already chosen the only correct interpretation.
Ok so this is not the forum to discuss fundamental assumptions
underlying our physical theories. Fine! I have no problem sticking to
experiments, in a forum that calls itself the "Nature of Light" , just
thought I'd try something a bit more fundamental.
So let me leave you with the following experiment. Take a vacation to a
worm climate and in the evening go to the beach and lay down in the sand
and look up at the sky. You will see thousands of points of light. It is
a magnificent and awe inspiring spectacle. Some of you will say, "I am
seeing thousands of stars, galaxies, and if I'm lucky perhaps a
supernova or two that happened billions of years ago'. Others will say,
"I am seeing interactions in my retina that I interpret in my model of
the universe in which I've given names like stars, galaxies and perhaps
supernova as explanations to interactions happening right here and now'.
Some of you will feel like the stars are up there high above light hears
away. Others will say, "the stars are down there and I'm hanging on the
bottom of a ball with gravity pulling up'. Perhaps feeling a moment of
panic lest the force release you fall into the void. As you stare longer
and longer some of you will see patterns. A great warrior , a leaning
maiden, a sparkling twinkle. Others will see thermal oscillations
diffracting photons.
To which group do you belong? To which group do you think I belong?
Well to answer my own question I would modestly suggest that I have had
strong and deep experiences in both camps, and the one thing I've come
to understand is that there is no right or wrong here, only the fact
that the human Brain is a major organ that determines how we see things
and what theory we believe to explain our experiences. If we do not
understand the instrument with which we explore the world our theories
are simply self consistent symbol structures based upon a layer of
irrational assumptions. So to further explain the basis of my challenge
I've attached a paper that will be published in the August issue of 'the
Journal of Consciousness Studies. Please do not disseminate since it is
copyrighted by the Journal and limited to research purposes, which this
is one.
I have lots to do so I'm actually thankful no one has accepted my proposal.
Best,
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 7/17/2017 7:36 PM, Viv Robinson wrote:
> Wolf,
>
> Please get your facts correct. Vivian was a relatively common male
> name that has been “hijacked” by women. You appear to have made the a
> priori assumption that, because some women have the name Vivian, all
> people with the name Vivian must be female. Not correct!
>
> Regarding my statement "What happens on a macro scale, happens whether
> anyone is looking or not” is accepted by most scientists. Super novae
> 1 billion light years away, happen whether astronomers observe them or
> not. You need to provide evidence of how a super nova would change
> because humans observed it a billion years later. Using that as an
> example, you should show how humans observing a super nova changed
> them. Without such proof it is difficult to see how what you call an
> assumption is not supported by observation.
>
> Your points are not acceptable. What you are requesting is “Assume my
> statement is correct then I can prove it to you if you let me
> interpret experimental results my way”. I am not going to try to stop
> you from doing that in the case of a super nova event from about one
> billion light years away. If your explanation is not sound IMHO, don’t
> expect a response.
>
> Vivian Robinson
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 July 2017 at 4:46:41 PM, Wolfgang Baer (wolf at nascentinc.com
> <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>) wrote:
>
>> TO Viv, Graham, Chip, Albrecht ... etc.
>>
>> I am willing to accept Viv's challenge in her 7/15/2017 reply that
>> states " State the science behind it. Then use mathematics to show
>> that the effect of the science matches observation."
>>
>> This has been my goal all along. However to have any chance of
>> acceptance I must ask for two conditions that will grantee a fair
>> playing field of open minds.
>>
>> 1) You must be able to accept the statement "What happens on a macro
>> scale, happens whether anyone is looking or not.".(7/4/2017) as an
>> assumption that itself needs proof rather than an a-priory truth
>>
>> 2) Experimental proof i.e. predictions match observations; Must allow
>> me to include the interpretation of experimental results without the
>> a-priory assumption #1 stated above.
>>
>> If you do not agree to these two conditions then any theory or
>> experimental result justifying the theory will be interpreted under
>> the requirement of consistentcy with the a priory assumption #1 in a
>> kind of circular self fulfilling logic that now new idea can ever
>> hope to penetrate. In this case it would be better not to bother
>> communicating on fundamental issues.
>>
>> Specifically Viv You state : "Newton's mechanics and Maxwell’s
>> electromagnetism, form the basis of the physical world. Apply
>> Newtonian mechanics to properties of the photon as I outlined a while
>> ago and you get general relativity." I have no reference to this
>> conjecture and no entry in my E-mail list from you addressing this
>> approach but it describes my approach very well and please provide
>> references again.
>>
>> If I get some agreement I will be writing a mathematical appendix to
>> a book I am writing for Routledge Press that is intended to describe
>> an action theory formulation of physics that will reduce to both
>> quantum and classic theory and therefore be compatible with all
>> experimental verification of these disciplines with the additional
>> property that the conscious experience is explicitly included in the
>> theory.
>>
>> best wishes
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 7/16/2017 10:26 AM, Chip Akins wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you Eric
>>>
>>> I need to review your work on this as well. And compare your
>>> thought to the results of the research I have been doing on electric
>>> charge, fields, and displacement of space.
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>> *From:*General
>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>> *On Behalf Of *Eric Reiter
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 16, 2017 12:10 PM
>>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon Emission - Space
>>>
>>> If anyone talks about continuous absorption, explosive emission, you
>>> need to include my work. I reported the only experiments that
>>> demonstrate this effect at your conference; a good theory also.
>>> There was no feedback from hardly anyone. Wolf came to my lab and
>>> saw it. Do my letters reach other blog members or is it filtered?
>>> Please, the model of the photon does not allow for continuous
>>> absorption. Call it light.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Eric Reiter
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> On Sunday, July 16, 2017, 10:04:04 AM PDT, Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>>> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
>>> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Chip: Excellent!
>>>
>>> Thanks for contacting me on the “dipole” issue.
>>>
>>> I am going to do some searching to find the latest/best article on
>>> “abrupt dipole transition in emission”, which then evolves into a
>>> classical wave packet. The other model is, “dipole quantum cup”, in
>>> absorption. However, my thoughts (expressions) on these topics are
>>> still in the process of evolving (not moving away though!).
>>>
>>> Chandra.
>>>
>>> *From:*General
>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>> *On Behalf Of *Chip Akins
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 16, 2017 8:58 AM
>>> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>> *Subject:* [General] Photon Emission - Space
>>>
>>> Hi Chandra
>>>
>>> I recall you mentioning something about light being emitted or
>>> absorbed by *dipoles*.
>>>
>>> My work, on electric charge as a displacement of the tensor medium
>>> of space, has been quite productive and yields remarkably accurate
>>> results. But it seems to indicate that a dipole field may be
>>> required for the emission or absorption of energy.
>>>
>>> Can you elaborate on your thoughts on this topic?
>>>
>>> Is there a reference to a paper where you discuss this?
>>>
>>> This “tensor medium of space” approach explains exactly why the
>>> binding energy for hydrogen is 13.6eV, but it also suggests that
>>> there are specific requirements for radiation and absorption which
>>> go beyond the simple suggestion that “an accelerated charge radiates”.
>>>
>>> I think that is a good thing, because it also explains why electrons
>>> in “orbit” in an atom do not continuously radiate.
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>> *From:*General
>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>> *On Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 16, 2017 5:22 AM
>>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Consciousness, time etc
>>>
>>> Wolf,
>>>
>>> Of all the various emails flying about, I had to respond immediately
>>> to this one.
>>>
>>> I really DON'T reject your contention - indeed I agree with it
>>> 100%! Consciousness is the ultimate substrate, IMO - it's the
>>> 'ocean' in which all the 'fish' (physical phenomena) swim, and
>>> indeed all of those 'fish' are themselves woven by consciousness
>>> (mixing my metaphors a bit here!). More than this, time and space
>>> (spatial dimensions) are themselves constructs of consciousness. My
>>> point is simply: accepting all of that, we don't need to keep
>>> referring to it (any more than we need to keep referring back to the
>>> breed of sheep that our sweater initially comes from!) in order to
>>> discuss and analyse physical effects. YES, those physical effects
>>> ARE created and sustained by consciousness - but in a coherent and
>>> consistent way, subject to 'physical laws' (defined and given form
>>> by consciousness, sure - but we can take that as read without
>>> constantly referring back to it). So we can reason in respect of
>>> those 'physical realities' in respect of the 'physical laws' that
>>> are built into them. In the same way, we all agree that a log cabin
>>> is made of wood, which has a cellular structure; but once we have
>>> ascertained the properties of the wood we're using, we can carve it
>>> into different shapes, make roof timbers, structural supports etc of
>>> it without having to constantly remind ourselves that it originally
>>> came from a tree with these types of leaves and this particular
>>> cellular structure - though the cellular structure is crucial to the
>>> properties of the wood, we can take and use those properties 'as
>>> they turn out', without having to relate them constantly to that
>>> cell structure. So it is, in my view, with 'space-time' properties
>>> of 'physical realities' (given that they are in fact constructs of
>>> constructs of constructs of ... ultimately, consciousness).
>>>
>>> With regard to your note in light blue, you may be surprised also to
>>> hear that I have for some long time held the view that you have
>>> expressed (I think), namely that time is the consequence of
>>> the experience of consciousness sequentially along energy lines [the
>>> issue of 'sequential' as a causation of time rather than a
>>> consequence is a difficult one, but not impossible to conceptualise,
>>> as I do in the following items]. You may be interested in my
>>> article: 'Time, Light and Consciousness', published by the SMN ten
>>> years ago http://transfinitemind.com/SMN_article.php (see my 4th
>>> para: "time is the process of consciousness moving along energy
>>> lines") , also my blog post: 'Time doesn't exist: a step-by-step
>>> proof' http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425 .
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking such trouble to put your ideas across. I'm sure
>>> we're on the same page - just looking at that page from a slightly
>>> different angle.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> 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, July 16, 2017 7:46 AM
>>>
>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox
>>>
>>> Grahame;
>>>
>>> I agree we need to stop the ping pong.
>>>
>>> And I have to digest "Layers of Reality" since it is an
>>> intriguing title and as such could reflect much of my own thinking.
>>>
>>> That you reject my contention that your personal conscious
>>> perception space underlies and always provides the aether in
>>> which all objects you percieve exist including the clock and the
>>> observer riding along with it , and therefore is in my opinion
>>> missing key to understanding SRT and GRT and precisely relevant
>>> to your discussion with Albrecht, is for me sad but I assume it
>>> is because i'm not making myself clear. I'll try to put a better
>>> formulation together and get back in a few weeks. Can't help
>>> making a last comment to your comment in blue below.
>>>
>>> best
>>>
>>> Wolf
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>
>>> Research Director
>>>
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>
>>> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>
>>> On 7/15/2017 9:07 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell wrote:
>>>
>>> Wolf (and Chip),
>>>
>>> First and most important point: I have no wish or intention
>>> to get drawn into the sort of 'email ping-pong' (aka
>>> 'tit-for-tat') that I've watched going on here over this
>>> issue, so I'll try to address these points simply with facts
>>> as I see them - no blame, no criticism, just observations.
>>>
>>> Second: the fact that I propose that certain phenomena can
>>> be explained in a wholly mechanistic way, without reference
>>> to consciousness, doesn't mean that I don't regard
>>> consciousness as having a part to play in the
>>> perceptual/cognitive process - far from it. In my view
>>> consciousness is absolutely key to anything we perceive or
>>> analyse; however, in my view also, consciousness has
>>> provided/evolved for itself perceptual and analytical tools
>>> that behave in a totally consistent way; therefore, for
>>> analytical purposes we can regard measurements and
>>> conclusions as being 'so' (i.e. actuality) at a certain
>>> level, we don't need to agonise over how consciousness has
>>> provided us with them or what underlies them. [Some may
>>> find my talk: 'Layers of Reality' useful to understand my
>>> take on such things:
>>> http://transfinitemind.com/layers_of_reality.php , username:
>>> xxxxx , password: xxxxx .] I believe, Wolf, that if you
>>> were aware of my own view on how central consciousness is to
>>> the whole process, it would surprise even you.
>>>
>>> With those points in mind, I have responded, Wolf, to your
>>> comments to me, under those comments, in maroon text.
>>>
>>> Grahame
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> *From:*Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>>
>>> *To:*general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>
>>> *Sent:*Friday, July 14, 2017 10:02 PM
>>>
>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox
>>>
>>> Chip and Graham:
>>>
>>> Chip: First I would like to agree with your agreement
>>> regarding Special relativity: "But I do agree that
>>> Special Relativity, as written and discussed by Einstein
>>> himself, has a fundamental paradoxical logical
>>> inconsistency, which cannot be explained away by layers
>>> of additional “interpretation” of his theory." This was
>>> my original intent. First 1) to show that
>>> inconsistencies exist in SRT , second 2) to show that
>>> GRT was one avenue of development that utilizes gravity
>>> and acceleration to address the problems in SRT and to
>>> forward our understanding of gravity, and thirdly 3) to
>>> open the door for new directions. I did not anticipate
>>> getting blind sided by alternative interpretations that
>>> then did not further the discussion into step two and
>>> three. At least not in a step by step logical way.
>>>
>>> Chip second: "When several “observers” read the data
>>> then collected and communicate about that data, it is
>>> clear to us that we have all viewed the same data. It
>>> is therefore quite ridiculous to assume that we, the
>>> “observers”, had a notable effect on the outcome of the
>>> automated experiment weeks earlier." It is ridiculous
>>> only within the context of an Aristotelian framework of
>>> reality in which one assumes there is a thing called
>>> "the same data". What if Plato, Kant and to some extent
>>> quantum theory is correct and the data no matter how or
>>> when it is viewed is and always has been in the eye of
>>> the beholder? Then the observer does influence the
>>> outcome of the experiment because for him the data he
>>> sees*is reality* and that reality will depend upon how
>>> he sees it.
>>>
>>> The question I ask myself is can a useful and
>>> quantitative physics be built without "the same data"
>>> assumption. In philosophy this is called the "naive
>>> reality" assumption and Aristotle's view that we are
>>> looking out through the windows of our senses at an
>>> objective real world has won the day for 500 years and
>>> it seem ridiculous to challenge all the greats who have
>>> come to this conclusion. But that is what I am doing.
>>>
>>> Graham; First If you feel that your exchange with
>>> Albrecht was "as specifically limited to physical
>>> realities" and want to stay within the limits of your
>>> definition of physical realities and exclude how the
>>> nature of perception, and your(my) truism that
>>> perception is a tool of the conscious mind, effects and
>>> to a large extent determines our physical theories
>>> (which I believe is at the center of understanding both
>>> SRT and GRT and why they are incompatible with quantum
>>> theory) then I am sorry I interjected my comments into
>>> your discussion. Please keep taking and I'll just listen
>>> quietly.
>>>
>>> Wolf, I am by no means dismissing your observations on
>>> consciousness as irrelevant to the issue of perception -
>>> far from it. I'm simply observing that the phenomena
>>> that Albrecht and I have been discussing can be
>>> explained fully satisfactorily in terms of mechanistic
>>> interactions, without resorting to how consciousness
>>> interprets those interactions. In simple terms, using
>>> my idea of 'layers (or levels) of reality' we are simply
>>> discussing 'facts' as presented to our brains for
>>> analysis - trusting that consciousness uses a
>>> consistent, coherent and useful form in which to convey
>>> those 'facts' (i.e.deeper realities) to our mental
>>> processing circuits, given that consciousness and those
>>> processing circuits are all on the same side! In this
>>> respect, introducing consideration of how consciousness
>>> has processed those deeper realities in order to present
>>> those 'facts' to our brains in a more digestible format
>>> is to introduce an unnecessary and (IMO) unhelpful level
>>> of complexity to this issue. Certainly there is a time
>>> and a place for discussion of consciousness - but (again
>>> IMO) this is not it.
>>>
>>> However I find it very important to have a polite foil
>>> to discuss what I believe is the greatest of the grand
>>> challenges confronting science - i.e. the unification of
>>> subjective and subjective experience into a new
>>> integrated theory not of every thing, but of every action.
>>>
>>> I agree that that is indeed very important - but it's
>>> not the subject of the conversation that Albrecht and I
>>> were having - that's all I was trying to say.
>>>
>>> Graham2; Your second paragraph includes the typical
>>> words "an observer or measuring device moving with that
>>> object will draw conclusions (by human inference or
>>> solid-state logic) that the object is at rest (and
>>> therefore they are also) - wholly as a consequence of
>>> their/its own physical makeup being altered by that
>>> state of motion. Likewise that moving observer/device
>>> will assess an objectively static object (such as an
>>> atom) as being in a state of motion, for exactly the
>>> same reason." The key here is "observer or measuring
>>> device moving with" I am only talking about an observer.
>>> A measuring device only relays information someone must
>>> be at the end of the chain to realize the information.
>>> The observer is *in* the measuring device, he cannot get
>>> out. He receives information and translates it into his
>>> mental display. Both the apparently stationary object
>>> "moving with the observer" and any apparently moving
>>> object in his display will be subject to the Lonrentz
>>> transformations BECAUSE these appearances are always
>>> created in the medium of that observers mind. I believe
>>> it is a grave error to treat the properties of the mind
>>> as an objective independent reality. But everyone does
>>> it until Now!
>>>
>>> A measuring device provides information in a format
>>> determined by, and so capable of assimilation by, an
>>> observer. In that respect I fully agree that the
>>> observer (or a former observer who constructed the
>>> device) is *in* the measuring device, and what the
>>> observer takes away from that device is as much in the
>>> perception of that observer as it is in the device
>>> itself. However, I repeat: the consciousness that
>>> constructed the device is the *same* consciousness as
>>> that which is making use of the measurements it provides
>>> - and both are working to the same aim. So, just as one
>>> who knitted a sweater and one who wears the sweater are
>>> both well aware of the intrinsic composition of the
>>> sweater (interwoven strands of wool, taken from a sheep
>>> then cleaned and dyed and spun), but neither need to be
>>> troubled by that detail when selling or wearing the
>>> sweater, neither consciousness nor the brain need to
>>> agonise over *how* those data came to be served up in
>>> that form, they can simply be processed as facts - at
>>> the level of logical reasoning (again, see my piece on
>>> 'layers of reality'). The question of 'how those facts
>>> came to be in that form' is of great interest - but it's
>>> a separate question from the one currently at hand.
>>>
>>> I do not understand your logic. When referring to an observer
>>> riding along with the clock one assumes that observer measures
>>> the same reality as the conceiver of the thought experiment put
>>> into the space in which the clock and the observer is conceived.
>>> This equating the ride along observer's observations with the
>>> "reality" built into the thought experimenter's space is an
>>> example of the "naive reality' assumption. Einstein assumed his
>>> perceptive space was reality and of course the speed of light in
>>> that reality would be what ever it is "c" , and all observers
>>> must get the same result when they measure any quantity in that
>>> reality because that is the reality and there is only one
>>> correct one. There is nothing inconsistent or illogical about
>>> SRT or GRT once one accepts the assumption that the speed of
>>> light is an independent of the observer objective fact. That is
>>> the assumption I question and it is quite relevant to your
>>> discussion with Albrecht.
>>>
>>> Graham3: I have no disagreement with your reciprocity
>>> argument. I only wanted to point out that in both the
>>> cases the human observer experiences his motion relative
>>> to the radiation source in his own display space.
>>>
>>> Agreed. That's exactly why it's essential to consider
>>> what effect a state of motion has on that display space,
>>> in purely physical terms. This is what I have done.
>>>
>>> Graham 4: "philosophers arguing about how many angels
>>> can dance on the point of a needle!" makes perfect sense
>>> to people who believe in god, heaven, and angels as the
>>> stake your life on it truth. Physicists arguing about
>>> what two measuring objects will conclude about each
>>> other also makes perfect sense to people who believe
>>> observers can ride along with them and see them as
>>> independent external objects without recognizing that
>>> they (the observers) are doing the seeing that creates
>>> these objects.
>>>
>>> Wolf, there is the world of difference between 100%
>>> hypothetical entities such as angels and 100% physical
>>> experiences such as travelling alongside an object and
>>> taking measurements of it. Assuredly the latter is a
>>> level of perception that is unquestionably quite a few
>>> layers above that of ultimate reality (if such exists),
>>> however it is also something that falls within the remit
>>> of physical experience and is therefore fair game for
>>> physical analysis (even if we accept - as I do - that
>>> what we are analysing is an effect of an effect of an
>>> effect ... it is still self-consistent and so
>>> susceptible to analysis - unlike angels)
>>>
>>> I'll try to get a copy of the relativity myth , sounds
>>> like a good starting point for my 3d) effort introduced
>>> in paragraph 1 above.
>>>
>>> Wolf, I'm most flattered that you consider that my
>>> culmination of 20 years' work may be a good starting
>>> point for one of your hypotheses. As long as you give
>>> due attribution for every point of mine that you make
>>> use of, you can be as condescending as you like!
>>>
>>> G
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Wolf
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>>> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
>>> Wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>>
>>> <a
>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> </a>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
>>> of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
>>> grahame 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 at unquant at yahoo.com
>>> <mailto:unquant at yahoo.com>
>>> <a
>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.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 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 viv at universephysics.com
>> <a
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.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/20170718/c94c832f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Baer_JCS_Author_Proof.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 817701 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170718/c94c832f/attachment.pdf>
More information about the General
mailing list