[General] STR

[Wolfgang Baer]

Andrew , Albrecht:

"physics happens by itself" Disagree  "an observer is not required for 
the universe to go on doing what it does. " Disagree

This is the old classic the world is the way we see it concept promoted 
by Aristotle, Aquinas, Newton, etc. and dominated thinking for 1000years

until quantum Mechanics began to realize that the in principle 
un-observable interior of matter was always a mental projection 
requiring an observer.


" governed and filtered by the laws which create the things" Baer's 
first law of physics is that the physicist created the law.


"space as a tensor medium and not empty" Agree it is not an empty  
medium, but a tensor description is a linear approximation

                         The medium can be completely torn apart only 
such processes involve life and death of self and are taboo in science. 
This is in fact the the path of development for quantum theory


Albrecht;

Do you have a diagram of your thesis experiment. Your descriptions are 
all on the theoretical "unknowable" side, which of course you believe 
describes physical reality,   and    no one would argue that our (your) 
theory is not self consistent, but to discuss the wave particle problem 
one needs to identify the vonNeuman cut between subjective personal 
observation and the un-observable domain described by the theory. Where 
are the detectors that tell you how the "unknowable" was stimulated and 
the detectors that tell you the "unknowable's" response and the 
detectors that tell you how some of the theoretical elements along the 
theoretical path inside the "unknowable" were controlled?

Once we have such transition points between theory and observations 
identified I think I can show you that the QM probability wave picture 
is self consistent but also does science a great disservice by hiding 
and ridiculing speculation, research and experiment in deeper causes for 
the probabilistic phenomena

A single atomic transition billions of light years away must be a 
particle to reach a similar atom and cause a transition in an atom in a 
detector on earth. And the fact that this particle transmission angle is 
random and exteeeeeeemly narrow (violating the uncertainty principle)   
and therefor just happens to hit our detector as purely random QM event 
leaving us with a Bohm guiding wave that controls the probabilities. It 
all makes sense only, *IF*you stop your analysis at the external 
objective aspect of reality and fail to realize that /beyond/ the 
emission at the distant galaxy and the absorption of the "photon" in 
your retina is the other half of the causal path which describes your 
subjective existence, *then* you will be blissfully happy with the self 
consistent QM explanation.

So lets all stop trying to think outside the BOX that  our quantum 
priests have built for us and just come up with more and more complex 
explanations within the BOX. Are we such cowards?

Is that what you are proposing?

Why not try to complete the picture and integrate what we know to be 
true by direct experience into our theories. Then you will begin to see 
events not particles, cycles not points, actions not states,  are the a 
better way to understand reality.

best wishes

wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432t
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 5/28/2017 2:17 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> where do you miss reciprocity at STR?
>
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 27.05.2017 um 09:07 schrieb ANDREW WORSLEY:
>> I have some problems with STR
>>
>> That physical laws should be the same for all observers is OK.
>>
>> But that implies reciprocity which is not OK.
>>
>>
>> Peoples' thoughts?
>>
>>
>> ========================================
>> Message Received: May 25 2017, 06:42 PM
>> From: "Chip Akins"
>> To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: [General] STR
>>
>> Hi Wolf
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to add a comment to this discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is my opinion that physics happens by itself, whether we think 
>> about it or not. And that an observer is not required for the 
>> universe to go on doing what it does.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also feel that our perception of what is going on is governed and 
>> filtered by the laws which create the things we call fields, 
>> particles, forces, and all the other,
>> relatively abstract things we have named in our studies of nature.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also think there is a version of what we call relativity which is 
>> without paradox, but that relativity is not SR or GR, but rather a 
>> relativity which is based on matter
>> being made of confined light speed energy in a fixed frame of space, 
>> with space as a tensor medium and not empty.
>>
>>
>>
>> The above comment is just my view or course, but I think it makes sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chip Akins
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: General 
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
>> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:13 PM
>> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> Subject: Re: [General] STR
>>
>>
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> I'll send this to you and the nature of light separately. then please 
>> check if it gets to you on both
>>
>> 1) regarding your Thesis it wold be necessary to see exactly where 
>> the Von Neuman cut takes place to evaluate the experiment from my 
>> observer inclusive
>> perspective. The problem is that so many "truths" are simply 
>> consistent results inside quantum theory. There are always two 
>> operations separating reality from
>> our observational experience and since science is operating under the 
>> assumption that quantum reality (i.e. anything that cannot be seen 
>> directly such as atomic
>> structure, electorons etc.) is reality. It is very likely that the 
>> two operations are adjusted to to make the quantum reality 
>> assumptions self consistent.
>>
>> 2) The force between charge and mass is infinite in current theory 
>> because if force and charge are treated as separate degrees of 
>> freedom and are in fact pulled
>> apart by external gravito-electric forces then in order to keep them 
>> at the same point the current theory would implicitly require an 
>> infinite force. relaxing this
>> requirement then allows current theory to be an approximation to one 
>> that does not require such an infinite force. Much like classical 
>> physics is an approximation
>> of quantum physics in the limit h->0. Quantum theory is an 
>> approximation to my Cognitive Action Theory when the force between 
>> mass and charge does NOT
>> approach infinity.
>>
>> 3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your statements the Twin Paradox 
>> gravitational explanation is in many text books. Here is wikipedia
>>
>> " Starting with Paul Langevin  in 1911, there have been various 
>> explanations of this paradox. These explanations
>> "can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of different 
>> standards of simultaneity in different frames, and those that 
>> designate the acceleration
>> [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason...".[5] Max 
>> von Laue
>> argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate 
>> inertial frames
>> , one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch 
>> is the reason for the aging difference, not the
>> acceleration per se.[6]  Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein
>> and Max Born  invoked gravitational time dilation
>> to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[7]
>> "
>>
>> i'm simply saying the these explanations explicitly select an 
>> experiment setup that eliminates the clock slow down due to velocity 
>> with the clock speed up due to
>> acceleration. The equivalence principle equates acceleration and 
>> gravity in Einsteins theory. My thought experiment simply has two 
>> twins in inter stellar space
>> accelerating and decelerating in opposite directions coming back to 
>> rest at the meeting point at the origin. If everything is symmetric 
>> one explanation is that
>> velocity ang gravity cancel and no effect exists at all. But by 
>> allowing an arbitrarily long coast time the relative velocity low 
>> down will always dominate and the twin
>> paradox is present. Each twin calculates the other's clocks must slow 
>> down according to SRT and GRT, so when theories reach a logical 
>> inconsistency they must
>> be improved.
>>
>> What I believe is happening is that the general relativity expression 
>> for Gamma *SQRT(m) = SQRT(m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*Xg) Now since m*c*c = 
>> m*G*Mu/ Ru =
>> the gravitational potential energy of a mass inside the mass shell of 
>> the universe Mu of radius Ru. We are living inside the a black hole 
>> of radius Ru according to
>> the Schwarzschield solution. Then the term in the brackets becomes;
>>
>> m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*X => .2 [ (1/2 *m*c*c + m*Xg) - 1/2*m*v*v ] => 2 
>> * L ; where L is the Lagrangian - (T-V)
>>
>> In other words the entire SRT and GRT theory calculates half the 
>> change of energy transfer from electric to gravitational energy. But 
>> it observes the change in
>> electromagentic energy as a slow down in clock rate. As I have often 
>> said on this issue the equations are correct it is the world view 
>> that is wrong. The error
>> started with Newton when he equated F=m*a. This confused a 
>> Theoretical force with an Observational experience. It happened 
>> because the observer was taken
>> out of physics and Observational experiences (i.e. the world in front 
>> of your nose) were taken to be reality instead of the mental 
>> experiences they are. Quantum
>> theory is the beginning of correcting this error but it will take a 
>> while to find the right interpretation. We must add the mind back 
>> into physics.
>>
>> best wishes
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
>>
>> On 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Hi Wolf,
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> I completely agree with Chandra EM waves are quantized during 
>> interaction with matter and then we project the quantized material 
>> state changes back into the
>> waves as a mathematical convenience
>>
>> We have discussed this topic earlier here and I have referred to my 
>> PhD experiment. In that experiment we have used electrons of a well 
>> defined energy to
>> convert them into photons. The photons were after a flight of several 
>> meters in the air detected by pair building in a thin layer of 
>> copper. The energy of the pair
>> was measured, and the measurement showed the energy of the original 
>> electron. So, how can we understand this result if it is not the 
>> photon which carries
>> exactly this energy and which is quantized with this energy?
>>
>> to answer some of Albrecht's comments on my 5,15,17 comment; I'm 
>> introducing some new ideas in order to include the mind in physical 
>> theory. Treated
>> individually one can reject them because anything new can be rejected 
>> when one assumes the old is correct. So have patience.
>>
>> 1) "That means a force between charge and mass?" yes it means what it 
>> says. Mass and charge are assumed to be properties of particles. 
>> Particles have been
>> assumed to be points and so mass and charge are located at points. I 
>> believe this is wrong. Mass and charge should be given separate 
>> degrees of freedom and
>> the force between them is not infinite.
>>
>> The force is indeed not infinite, on the contrary, there cannot be a 
>> force at all. If we look at the forces of charges, it is obvious (in 
>> the mind of physicists) that a
>> charge can only interact with a charge of the same type. So the 
>> electrical charge and the charge of the strong force will by common 
>> understanding not react in
>> any way. And if now mass is understood as some type of a charge 
>> (which is, however, not the understanding of present physics) then 
>> there should not be any
>> force between e.g. an electric charge and a mass.
>>
>> If we look deeper into what mass is by present understanding, then 
>> charges may influence the dynamical process which we call "inertia". 
>> But that is in that case a
>> complicated logical connection.
>>
>> 2)"The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or 
>> force?" The rest of your comments are simply addressing an incomplete 
>> presentation of my
>> theory. However I consider dynamics or simply change to be 
>> fundamental. Reality is action in a form. Action is the material of 
>> change. Form is the state in which it
>> is manifest. Action is fundamental , Energy is the rate of action 
>> happening, force is the experience of all finite particles in a non 
>> homogeneous action flow who all
>> want to experience more action. I think it is best to defer this 
>> discussion to either metaphysics or when I have complete presentation 
>> ready.
>>
>> Yes, then we should better wait. - But up to now I still follow this 
>> argument that action is something which the human brain needs to 
>> structure the world so that it
>> fits into our brains. Particles which react to each other do not have 
>> this need. They react to a force, and the force and also the reaction 
>> to it can be infinitesimal.
>> An action is (by my understanding) something which happens or does 
>> not happen. I do not see infinitesimal single steps which each can be 
>> understood as an
>> action. So, this is my argument that action is a typical case of 
>> "human understanding".
>>
>> SRT:
>>
>> "First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. 
>> Why do you connect it to gravity?" Because I have seen the twin 
>> paradox explained by
>> including gravity in text books. clocks slow down because of velocity 
>> but speed up because of acceleration the two cancel when two twins 
>> are accelerated with
>> constant acceleration for the first quarter of the trip, the ship 
>> turned around decelerated for the second quarter and continued to be 
>> accelerated toward the start
>> point, during the third quarter and then rocket reverses for the 
>> third quarter and come to rest rest at the origin where the second 
>> twin has been waiting at rest.
>> Now both twins will agree on the amount of time passing. The paradox 
>> is said to be resolved because Einstein's Srt is expanded to GRT and 
>> gravity is introduced.
>>
>> Can you please give me a reference to a text book which connects the 
>> twin paradox to gravity? I never heard about such an idea; and the 
>> discussion about
>> ageing refers to the time dilation in SRT. You can perform this twin 
>> paradox in an environment where no gravitational sources are around, 
>> and it would work as
>> usually described.
>>
>> According to SRT clocks slow down because of velocity. The degree of 
>> slow-down is related to the speed of the clocks and to nothing else. 
>> Acceleration or
>> deceleration have no influence to the behaviour of clock. This 
>> statement you will find uniformly in all textbooks.
>>
>> Then you write: "... and then rocket reverses for the third quarter 
>> and come to rest rest at the origin where the second twin has been 
>> waiting at rest." Now I am
>> confused. I have understood that both twins move and change their 
>> motion at exactly the same times. How can it then happen that on twin 
>> is at rest and expects
>> the other one?
>>
>>
>>
>> "And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely 
>> symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with 
>> there according ageing.
>> Where the hell do you see a paradox?" The paradox is that both twins 
>> see the other moving at a constant velocity for an arbitrarily long 
>> period of time
>>
>> why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only for the time 
>> until the other twin changes his speed.
>>
>> and each one would according to SRT calculate the other twin has aged 
>> relative to himself. both cannot be right. by making the acceleration 
>> period small and
>> symmetric the coast period large i eliminate the gravity explanation 
>> but retain an arbitrarily long constant velocity. SO SRT HAS A 
>> PARADOX AND IT CANNOT BE
>> RESOLVED IN GRT.
>>
>> Perhaps I understand now where you see the paradox. Assume the 
>> following case which is sometimes discussed. There are two observers, 
>> A and B, and both
>> have clocks with them. We assume that both observers move with 
>> respect to each other. Then observer A will find that the clock of 
>> observer B runs more slowly.
>> But as both observers are physically equivalent also observer B will 
>> find that the clock of observer A runs more slowly.
>>
>> This sounds like a paradox or even like a logical conflict. But it is 
>> not. To see why not we have to have a closer look on how clock speeds 
>> (or the time in different
>> frames) are compared. It is not as simple as it looks like.
>>
>> If the observer A will compare his clock run with the one of observer 
>> B, he will e.g. place two of his clocks, which we will call clock 1 
>> and clock 2 (and which he
>> has of course synchronized) along the path of observer B. Then he 
>> will compare the clock of observer B with his clock 1 and then with 
>> clock 2 in the moment
>> when the observer B passes these clocks. The result will be that the 
>> clock of observer B have run more slowly.
>>
>> But how now the other way around? The observer B can of course 
>> compare his clock with both clocks of observer A when he passes these 
>> clocks. But now a
>> difference: Both clocks of observer A have been synchronized in the 
>> frame of A. But in the frame of B they will not be synchronized (a 
>> fundamental fact in SRT).
>>  From the view of observer B the clock 1 of observer A will be 
>> retarded with respect to the clock 2. So, the observer B can 
>> reproduce the observation of observer
>> A in the way that observer A sees the clock of B slowed down. But 
>> observer B will use a different method to determine the speed of the 
>> clocks of observer A.
>> Observe B will also position two clocks along the path which observer 
>> A follows in frame B and he will synchronize these clocks in his 
>> frame B. And with his clocks
>> he will find that the clocks of A run slower compared to his own ones.
>>
>> This different clock synchronization follows from the time-related 
>> part of the Lorentz transformation:
>>
>> t = gamma*(t'-vx/c2) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 - v2/c2)). Regarding the 
>> example above v is the speed between the frames of A and of B.
>>
>> Is this understandable? (I have presented it in Porto Novo when I 
>> talked about the problem of de Broglie with SRT.) If not clear, 
>> please ask further questions I
>> and shall go into more details.
>>
>>
>>
>> do my Emails show up
>>
>> I CC'd you and you should get this directly and in 
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>
>> Let me know if you get them
>>
>> I have received your mail once. But last time also Chandra and Adrew 
>> have answered. So the general distribution seems to work
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
>>
>> On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew W.:
>>
>> Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is not a theory of physics. 
>> It is smart mathematics only.
>>
>> Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics, even though, quantization 
>> is postulated wrongly on EM waves, rather than on quantum 
>> mechanically bound
>> electrons!
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> ==================================
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: General 
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
>> On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY
>> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion  ;
>> Wolfgang Baer
>> Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>>
>>
>> STR is a complex subject - all observers are equal - but then implies 
>> reciprocity, that's the bit that's flawed actually
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ========================================
>>
>> Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM
>>
>> From: "Albrecht Giese"
>>
>>
>>
>> To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles - General 
>> Discussion"
>>
>> Cc:
>>
>> Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Wolf,
>>
>>
>>
>> again comments in the text.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>>> No Kc is the spring constant of the force holding charge and mass
>>> together
>> That means a force between charge and mass? To my understanding mass 
>> and charge are completely different categories as a wrote last time. 
>> Charge is a
>> permanent property of some object, whereas mass is a dynamical 
>> process which also changes when the object changes its motion state 
>> (which at the end is :
>> relativity).
>>
>>> In order to build a framework of a physical theory that properly
>>> includes the observer as a measurement model building and acting
>>> component I use a very simplified concept built on the classic
>>> metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time along with the forces
>>> between them are fundamental. Here are some of the differences between
>>> my cognitive action theory CAT and classic physics
>> Just a question at this point: to which set of "metaphysical ideas" 
>> do you refer? If we refer to main stream physics, at least mass is a 
>> different category. And also
>> time and space are most probably different categories from the 
>> others, at least for some of the physical community.
>>
>>> * Summary of Action Theory additions to Classic Physical Concepts*
>>> The examples provided in this section are intended to show how action
>>> theory is applied to well known and observable situations that can be
>>> compared with analysis using classical physics concepts. What CAT has
>>> added is summarized as follows:
>>> -Change involving transitions between states is where physics is
>>> happening.
>>> -Change, visualized as stable action patterns, propagates through
>>> material media.
>>> -The degrees of freedom of classical systems has been doubled by
>>> separating mass and charge.
>>> -Internal material forces between mass and charge are introduced as
>>> heuristic visualizations to augment understanding of the interior of
>>> matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum theory (see
>>> chapter 6)
>>> -Mach’s principle and the connection between the inertial field is
>>> introduced in place of the observational pseudo forces such as the
>>> centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s formulation. (See Appendix on
>>> Mach’s Principle)
>>> -Time is defined as the name of the state of the system adopted as a
>>> clock, and time intervals are measured as action required to change a
>>> state separated by a constant state distance.
>>> Action theory is being developed as the physical underpinnings of an
>>> event oriented world view and a description of reality which includes
>>> both the subjective and objective aspect of reality described by CAT.
>> The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or force?
>>
>> In the reductionist's world the fundamental processes are very simple 
>> but go on in a huge number. So, it is a tendency, or a good strategy 
>> of our brains to build
>> categories. For instance, there are billions of trees on our earth. 
>> No brain of a human being is able to register and to remember all 
>> these trees. So, our brain build
>> the category "tree".
>>
>> That is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no logical 
>> connection to the category-building, they follow fundamental rules.
>>
>>
>>
>> In an analogue way, there is a force between charges (else not!). If 
>> objects move which have charges the forces will cause that the motion 
>> of the objects is
>> influenced, the path changes accordingly. That is fundamental. A 
>> human brain can now build the category of an "action" to describe, or 
>> better: to categories this
>> process. This brain-related process is in my view a less fundamental 
>> view to the world, even though a helpful one.
>>
>>
>>
>> But again: mass and charge are not the same category. It is true that 
>> there would be no inertia if there would not be charges in the world.
>>
>> But taken in this was, mass is a consequence of charges (and a 
>> dynamical consequence). So one could say: a consequence on a higher 
>> level.
>>
>>
>>
>> And for "time" I agree that this is a structural way of humans to 
>> categorize motion. "Space" may be a structural way to treat the 
>> effect of charges.
>>
>>> *Twin Paradox:*
>>> You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by the Lorenz
>>> transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time dilation
>>> How do you avoid the paradox in the following experiment
>>> Two twins are accelerated with a small short pulse in opposite 
>>> directions.
>>> At some very long time they are both reversed with a double pulse
>>> when they meet they are stopped by a short pulse.
>>> The experiment is completely symmetric. both twins experience the same
>>> acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are equal and can be
>>> eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated is the arbitrarily
>>> long period where they are traveling with a velocity relative to each
>>> other. Since the time dilation formula only contains
>>> velocity squared the direction of relative travel does not make a
>>> difference. If the theory is correct there is a paradox and gravity
>>> cannot explain it.
>> First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Why
>>
>> do you connect it to gravity?
>>
>>
>>
>> And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
>>
>> symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with
>>
>> there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a paradox? I cannot
>>
>> see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it can be.
>>
>>> *do my Emails show up in the general discussion I keep only getting
>>> replies from people who send them directly and my E-mails do not show
>>> up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?*
>> To test it, you may sent this mail again without my address in the list;
>>
>> then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.
>>
>>> Best,
>>> wolf
>> Best
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Virenfrei.  www.avast.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of 
>> Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
>> <a 
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
> ---
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170529/f61962ea/attachment.htm>