[General] Fw: STR twin Paradox
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Mon Jun 5 23:19:52 PDT 2017
When we get the SRT argument with Albrecht straightened out i'll get to
discuss what you are alluding to and I agree with
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 6/5/2017 8:17 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> Hi:
> Whatever else, in our discussions on SRT John W. never decisively came
> down for either epistomological or ontological essence for
> time-dilation & space-contraction. Seems to me there many
> contributing aspects to this issue, but a central one, not found in
> the explantion below (or is it a TV screen play?), is due attention to
> the fact that the E&M interaction involves TWO SR-events: emission and
> absortion. By not carefully separating these two events, many
> paradoxes can be generated! Most reasonably, perhaps, it should be
> taken that these preternatural phenomena are manifest in the reception
> events, and not in the emission events. In plane text: they are
> appearances, not physical modifications. They result from a kind-of
> relativistic perspective.
> So, how about the muons? Well, maybe they were not, as assumed, all
> generated at the same altitude, but at various heights as the cosmic
> rays penetrte different depths of atm. I don't know the nuclear
> chemistry involved, but could it be that the x-section for the
> conversion grows as the cosmic ray penetrates more atm.? Like nutrons
> in flesh, say. Such would result in muon decays at much greater
> depths of atm than naively expected, thus busting the main empirical
> support for time-dilation. (Don't need a busting theory for
> lenght-contraction, it's never been seen anyway.)
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 04. Juni 2017 um 10:27 Uhr
> *Von:* "John Williamson" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>, "John
> Duffield" <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Fw: STR twin Paradox
>
> Gentlefolk,
>
> With the exception of Grahame, who I agree with here in every respect,
> you are just not thinking clearly enough.
>
> Paraphrasing Feynmann, you have to be careful not to fool yourself and
> the easiest person to fool is yourself.
>
> Firstly, Albrecht you are right, of course, that special relativity
> says nothing about acceleration: the equations contain only space,
> time and velocity. Putting oneself “inside the box” of special
> relativity then is, obviously, not going to enable one to understand
> it. This is why I used the special properties of “unphysicality”
> spaceships to simplify the argument and give an almost instantaneous
> acceleration. Understanding the maths must not be confused with
> understanding the physics!
>
> Grahame is right in that one passes continually through many frames if
> one considers uniform acceleration. The message is that special
> relativity is one of the many things that needs to follow from a
> deeper understanding of how the universe works, not act as a starting
> point for it. Also, showing that the mere mathematics of special
> relativity is incomplete as a starting point is so obvious as to be
> scarcely worth mentioning. It has been known for over a century, so
> why are you wasting your time talking about it? Actually, come to
> think of it, why am I wasting my time talking about it? Oh well …
>
> It is just not true that there is no basis for an “understanding” of
> SR. One can derive it in many ways from deeper principles, including
> from the principle of general covariance. This means that “relativity”
> is not the same as “special relativity”. There was a whole discussion
> on this earlier on this thread which I have neither the time nor the
> energy to repeat.
>
> I derived SR from the conservation of energy and the linearity of
> field in my 2015 SPIE paper (have you read this yet?). It can be, of
> course, derived from the experimental properties of light, as by
> Heaviside and Lorentz.
>
> To properly understand SR, though, you do need to expand your thinking
> to include acceleration and the variation between inertial frames. I
> have the impression that some of you think that relativity says that
> clocks elsewhere ACTUALLY speed up and slow down. They do not. Each
> observer observes their local clocks to be in harmony with all their
> local processes. Wolf, you are right about this, though it appears to
> be confusing you rather than helping for some reason, as you seem to
> contradict yourself in some of your statements.
>
> In the accelerated system, the observers clock is being wound up.
> Energy is being put into it. The effects of this can be seen. She can
> feel the force and knows it is there. The universe ahead is gradually
> becoming bluer (and shorter!) and the universe behind redder. It is
> the effect of the frame change that is shrinking the scale of the
> forward universe with respect to her own rulers and clocks in a way
> that is exactly consistent with a linear transformation to infinite
> velocity that is the underling physics of relativity. I realize that
> sentence will not make any sense at first. When you get it you will
> have got it.
>
> Let me try to explain: every single particle inside the local
> spaceship is equally “spun up” by the acceleration. The relative rate
> of local clocks with respect to the protons, electrons, neutrons and
> local lightbulb photons remains the same. The clocks act normally. It
> is the forward universe that appears to shrink as it “blues”. The
> operative word is, and always is “appears”. The universe is not
> actually shrinking at all! For the stay at home quintuplet, she also
> knows the spaceships clocks are all being wound up, yet she observes
> them to slow down. You need to understand this. You need to understand
> how the harmony of phases works. When you see things with light you
> have to understand the consequences of seeing things with light. You
> need to read de Broglie. Luckily, if you do not read French there is
> an English translation of this. Thanks Al! It is no good thinking
> inside a half understanding of relativity by restricting yourself to
> special relativity. In doing that you just will not get it. Albrecht
> is right in the fragment Wolf includes in his email (I do not have
> Albrecht’s whole reply as it has not appeared on my version of this
> forum).
>
> Just to finish up: I agree with Grahame about the first four
> paragraphs in Albrechts email but, not to be too British about it, not
> the last two. Here they are and here is why:
>
> Another point in this discussion: Acceleration *does not play any role
> *in relativity, neither in SRT nor in GRT. The reference to
> acceleration in case of e.g. the twin paradox comes from the
> (indirect) fact that in case of an acceleration of one party / one
> twin this one will leave his inertial frame. So the Lorentz
> transformation does not apply any longer. But, not to confuse it here,
> an acceleration does not give any quantitative contribution to the
> processes treated by SRT and GRT.
>
> Nonsense. See above. This is the effect of fooling oneself with a set
> of true assertions (nearly all of the above paragraph is true!) The
> missing link is precisely the fact that one leaves the inertial frame
> that is the whole point. It is the acceleration that adds energy to
> clocks, and it is the conservation of energy that requires space and
> time to appear to shrink. What is “indirect” about the kick in the
> pants the unphysicality spaceships need to accelerate you to near
> lightspeed in a second? Acceleration is that thing that changes your
> frame. Obviously! As you yourself say. This does not mean SR is wrong.
> SR does not purport to include acceleration. It deals with apparent
> transformations, from the point of view of an observer in one inertail
> frame, of another in another. Just and no more. It is no good just
> using SR in an argument involving accelerations. This is the same sort
> of thing as proving 1 is 2 by dividing by zero somewhere.
>
> Another comment to the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity:
> Following Lorentz makes relativity much better understandable than the
> one of Einstein, and it avoids all paradoxes which I know. This
> applies particularly to GRT which becomes so simple that it can be
> treated at school, whereas the Einsteinian is too complicated even for
> most students of physics.
>
> I will paraphrase this: You understand the Lorentz one but not the
> Einstein one. You are claiming ignorance of the symmetry which exists
> when one does particle physics, experiments in very different frames
> with respect to local space. This does introduce paradoxes for
> Lorentz. This is ok. It is alright to not know about certain things.
> Ignorance of something, however, is not an argument that it does not
> exist. One can get SR from Lorentz contraction, or general
> covariance,or a consideration that everything is made from light, or
> conservation of energy and momentum in waves. So what? In all these
> cases SR is a derivative, not a starting point. The Lorentz view of GR
> is contained in the Einstein view of GR, where the latter includes the
> observed transformations of space and time as well as the “curvature”.
> This does not, of course, mean that GR is true in every respect.
> Experimentally, however, so far so good. Or do you know otherwise?
>
> Sorry, it is Sunday morning and that is all I’m prepared to put in at
> the moment. There is a deeper discussion of this from a year or so ago
> which you may have missed Grahame, but can be downloaded from
> somewhere I think.
>
> Cheers, John.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 03, 2017 11:08 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Fw: STR twin Paradox
> Hi Albrecht,
> I agree fully with at least your first four paragraphs. It looks as
> if you may not have read my email in full: in my 4th-from-last
> paragraph I make two points, (1) and (2), which effectively summarise
> all that you say (in your reply) in your first 4 paras.
> I'm not sure that I agree, though, with your observation on
> acceleration. Constant acceleration is of course just a steady
> transition through inertial frames, so that transition has an effect
> on relationships between an accelerating frame and a non-accelerating
> frame (or another constantly-accelerating frame) that fits with
> principles of SR; I suppose it depends on what you mean by "does not
> play any role". I believe that the Equivalence Principle, equating
> effects of acceleration to effects of an equivalent gravitational
> field, has pretty good experimental credentials.
> For me, though, the important thing is the claimed *reciprocity* of
> SR, which in turn leads to the claim of frame symmetry. The fact is,
> that reciprocity is also borne out by experiment, including in
> particle accelerator experiments. The critical point here, though, is
> that this reciprocity is reciprocity of *measurement*. That's why I
> refer to aspects of SR as 'observer effects'.
> Apart from in my own writings I haven't seen *any* explanation for
> that observed reciprocity that doesn't depend on objective inertial
> frame symmetry. Such an explanation is essential to non-symmetric
> explanations of anomolous aberration of starlight, for example, as
> well as various particle accelerator experiments. I have fully
> explored this issue and have derived reciprocal relationships for
> observers on the move who observe events in a static frame: I have
> shown that for fully subjective reasons such observers (and
> instruments) will yield results that appear to show the Lorentz
> Transformation acting reciprocally - thus 'proving' objective frame
> symmetry. Without such an explanation any claim that SR is *not* an
> objective reality cannot hold water.
> I agree also that principles that establish SR as an explainable
> phenomenon can be extended to GR, including every aspect of the
> Equivalence Principle. But this of course depends on a rational
> explanation for gravitation that shows how 'at-a-distance' interaction
> of massive bodies and 'curvature of spacetime' by such bodies comes
> about. This I have also done, simply by reference to phenomena already
> discussed and widely agreed.
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Albrecht Giese <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
> *To:* general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 03, 2017 8:01 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Fw: STR twin Paradox
>
> Hi Grahame,
>
> fully agreement that Einstein's relativity is a working theory but
> does not have any causal explanation. This has to do with the
> general attitude of Einstein with respect to science when he
> developed relativity. But before Einstein, Hendrik Lorentz had
> already started to work on these problems, and his approach does
> in fact have causal physical explanations.
>
> Shortly after the Michelson-Morley experiment Oliver Heaviside
> presented a calculation (1888), deduced from Maxwell's theory of
> electromagnetism, that an electrical field necessarily contracts
> at motion. Fitzgerald concluded that if fields contract also
> objects will contract at motion. If this happens also the
> apparatus of the MM experiment would contract at motion. And if it
> contracts, so the conclusion of Lorentz, the null-result of the
> experiment is fully explained even if an ether should exist.
>
> Next step is dilation. It was (to my knowledge) already suspected
> by Lorentz and it was later found by Schrödinger (1930) that
> inside elementary particles there is a permanent motion with c,
> the speed of light. If this is assumed it follows geometrically
> that any elementary particle acts like a light clock and its
> internal motion and so its frequency is reduced in the way
> described by the Lorentz transformation. The reduction of the
> internal frequency propagates to all cases of motion in physics.
>
> This is special relativity. But the considerations of Lorentz can
> be also extended to general relativity, and the result is a
> mathematical model which fully conforms to the one of Einstein but
> is also based on physical explanations.
>
> Another point in this discussion: Acceleration *does not play any
> role *in relativity, neither in SRT nor in GRT. The reference to
> acceleration in case of e.g. the twin paradox comes from the
> (indirect) fact that in case of an acceleration of one party / one
> twin this one will leave his inertial frame. So the Lorentz
> transformation does not apply any longer. But, not to confuse it
> here, an acceleration does not give any quantitative contribution
> to the processes treated by SRT and GRT.
>
> Another comment to the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity:
> Following Lorentz makes relativity much better understandable than
> the one of Einstein, and it avoids all paradoxes which I know.
> This applies particularly to GRT which becomes so simple that it
> can be treated at school, whereas the Einsteinian is too
> complicated even for most students of physics.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 03.06.2017 um 19:43 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
>
> Hi Wolf, Albrecht, John W et al.,
> I want to express complete agreement with John W on the role
> of accel'n/grav'n in resolving any apparent paradox in the
> twins saga.
> I must first, though, draw attention to what appears to be an
> elementary error in Wolf's analysis (unless I've totally
> misunderstood you, Wolf - I can't see how this would be the case).
> Wolf, you propose (quite reasonably) that each twin is
> initially moving away from the other at speed 'v'. You then
> propose a variation in each twin's clock as perceived by the
> other, delta-t'. However your expression for that delta-t'
> shows the other twin's clock progressing FASTER than that of
> the observer-twin (13 months instead of 12 months) - whereas
> of course the whole point of SRT is that the moving clock
> progresses SLOWER than that of the static observer. This is
> due to a common fallacy, of applying the time-dilation factor,
> which gives the extended duration of each second, say, in the
> moving frame as observed from the static frame (hence the
> phrase 'time-dilation'), to the apparent time-passed in that
> moving frame. This makes the ratio of observed/observer
> clock-time the inverse of what it should be according to SRT.
> The perceived elapsed time in the moving frame should be
> observer time multiplied by the INVERSE of the Lorentz Factor.
> This doesn't totally destroy your argument (though it does
> render it rather less plausible), since you are implying that
> on re-meeting the apparent accumulated difference will not be
> shown on either clock - as of course it couldn't be. However,
> as John W points out, any apparent difference will be
> precisely wiped out by acceleration considerations: SRT is
> 100% internally self-consistent, it cannot be faulted on ANY
> application of its assertions with respect to time.
> However, the fact that it's internally self-consistent doesn't
> make it RIGHT. It's not difficult to envisage a set of
> mathematical rules - for instance, relating to trajectories
> - that give totally self-consistent results but don't accord
> with practical observations.
> Here's where it gets interesting. Because of course results
> of calculations in SRT DO fit with practical observations, and
> have done so for over a century. The question then arises as
> to why this should be so - since, unlike pretty well every
> other branch of physics, no causal explanation has been found
> (or even sought?) for effects in spacetime as given by SRT.
> It's been tacitly accepted by the mainstream physics community
> as "That's just how it is". This is a statement of belief,
> not of science - the prime directive of science is to ask "Why?"
> When I started on my own scientific investigations 20 years
> ago I took SRT totally at face value, totally uncritically. I
> didn't actually start by asking "Why?" in relation to SRT.
> As I progressed with my research, essentially into aspects on
> electromagnetic waves anf the fundamental nature of time, it
> gradually became apparent that there IS a "Why!". That 'why'
> rests on the fact that all material objects are formed from
> electromagnetic energy (hence E = Mc-squared); in a moving
> object that energy is travelling linearly as well as
> cyclically within the object - and this combined motion
> beautifully explains EVERY aspect of SRT.
> This explanation boils down to two considerations:
> (1) Material objects are affected by their formative
> energy-flows moving linearly as well as cyclically, giving
> rise to time-dilation precisely in accordance with the formula
> given by SRT and Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction as also
> 'imported' into SRT;
> (2) Material objects which happen to be (a) observers or (b)
> measuring instruments are likewise affected in both these
> respects when in motion, giving all other observed
> consequences detailed by SRT - as observer effects.
> [As a point of detail, it IS possible to show the fallacy in
> SRT only if you consider matters from the level of particle
> formation, rather than complete particles.]
> In other words, ALL observed phenomena that appear to confirm
> SRT (and also, in fact, GRT) can be fully explained WITHOUT
> the 'metaphysical' claim that "All inertial reference frames
> are equivalent" - that claim by SRT is a myth, one that has NO
> support in the evidence claimed for it. It is a totally
> superfluous add-on to our picture of physical reality.
> This being the case, the requirement (by mainstream physics)
> that all phenomena/fields/whatever MUST conform to that claim
> is arguably holding us back from making significant
> breakthroughs in our understanding of reality - breakthroughs
> that might even (dare I say it?) take us to the stars. We are
> fencing ourselves in with an imaginary boundary.
> Grahame
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *To:* general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 03, 2017 7:46 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
> Albrecht:
>
> Tell me why this is not thought experiment that shows
> Einsteins SRT interpretation gives rize to a paradox and
> therefore is wrong.
>
> Twin Paradox Experiment:
>
> 1) Somewhere in an intergalactic space far away from all local
> masses two identical twins are accelerated to opposite
> velocities so that each thinks the other is traveling away
> from themselves at velocity “v”.
>
> By the equivalence principle both feel the equivalent of a
> temporary gravitational force which slows their clocks the
> same amount. They are now drifting apart
>
>
>
>
> 2) Each of the twins feels he is standing still and the other
> twin is moving with a constant velocity “v” away. According to
> special relativity the relation between their own time Δt and
> the time they believe the other twins elapsed time Δt’ is; Δt’
> = Δt/ (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 .
>
>
>
>
>
> 3)
>
> After 1 year on Twin 1’sclock he believes twin two’s clock is
> Δt_1 ’ = Δt_1 / (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 After 1 year on Twin
> 1’sclock he believes twin two’s clock is Δt_2 ’ = Δt_2 /
> (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2
>
> Thus Δt_1 = Δt_2 = 12 months Lets assume the velocities are
> such that Δt_1 ’ = Δt_2 ’ = 13 months.
>
> 4) After one year on their own clock each twin fires a retro
> rocket that reverses their velocities. By the equivalence
> principle the both clocks experience a gravity like force and
> their clocks speed up. Lets assume the acceleration lasts 1
> day on their own clocks so now Δt_1 = Δt_2 = 12 months + 1day
> and knowing the plan Δt_1 ’ = Δt_2 ’ = 13m + 1d
>
>
>
>
>
> 5) Now the two twins are drifting with the same relative
> velocity but toward each other with opposite signs. Each twin
> thinks the others clocks are lowing down by the formula Δt’ =
> Δt/ (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 . They drift for exactly one year and
> now Δt_1 = Δt_2 = 24 months + 1day and they believing in
> special relativity think Δt_1 ’ = Δt_2 ’ = 26 months.+ 1.083days.
>
> 6) now the stop rocket fires for half a day on each twins
> clock and the twins come to rest exactly at the place they
> started. Their own clocks tell Δt_1 = Δt_2 = 24 months +
> 1.5day and they believing in special relativity think the
> others clock should be Δt_1 ’ = Δt_2 ’ = 26 months.+ 1.583days.
>
> They get out of their space ship/ coordinate frames and find
> that the two clocks tell exactly the same time so their belief
> in special relativity was wrong.
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>
> On 5/30/2017 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> before we enter discussions about details I send you a
> drawing of my experiment with some explanations. I think
> that it is simple enough so that we do not need too much
> philosophy about epistemology to understand it.
>
> My drawing: At the left side you see a part of the ring of
> the synchrotron in which the electrons cycle. They hit the
> target T (at 0 m) where they are converted into photons.
> The photons fly until the target H_2 where they are
> deflected by a small angle (about one degree) (at 30.5 m).
> The deflected photons meet the converter (KONV at 35 m)
> where a portion of the photons is converted into an
> electron- position pair. The pair is detected and analysed
> in the configuration of the magnet 2 MC 30 and telescopes
> of spark chambers (FT between 37.5 and 39.5 m). The rest
> of detectors at the right is for monitoring the basic
> photon beam.
>
> In the magnet and the telescopes the tracks of both
> particles (electron and positron) are measured and the
> momentum and the energy of both particles is determined.
>
> Here all flying objects are interpreted as being
> particles, there is no wave model needed. So, I do not see
> where we should need here any QM.
>
> The rest of the mail will be commented later.
>
> Albrecht
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish
> to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles
> General Discussion List at 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 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/20170605/25a11e22/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: annolkpbjibfihko.png
Type: image/png
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170605/25a11e22/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fcgpfghbnoelcelk.png
Type: image/png
Size: 398 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170605/25a11e22/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dphkpmbjiiehocpj.png
Type: image/png
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170605/25a11e22/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lofbekkjodhhggmd.png
Type: image/png
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170605/25a11e22/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: khaafabifmebbjgp.png
Type: image/png
Size: 418 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170605/25a11e22/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bgjehonfncgiabao.png
Type: image/png
Size: 421 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170605/25a11e22/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ojekfgodgcfajonj.png
Type: image/png
Size: 409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170605/25a11e22/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: iggaeejglikdnllp.png
Type: image/png
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170605/25a11e22/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fpoidflbmekchpgj.png
Type: image/png
Size: 403 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170605/25a11e22/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: enjpcgifnafebnpe.png
Type: image/png
Size: 417 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170605/25a11e22/attachment-0009.png>
More information about the General
mailing list