[General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Mon Feb 26 14:07:09 PST 2018
Chandra,
Which "something physically" exists in case of the Coriolis force?
Answer: It is an inertial mass.
And which "something physically" exists in case of magnetism?
Answer: It is an electrical charge.
Albrecht
Am 26.02.2018 um 22:02 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> Albrecht and the rest of our colleagues::
>
> Albrecht: Thanks for your patience in guiding me to delve into
> magnetism that I never paid attention to before.
>
> Now I see that it has deep implications in understanding (further
> defining properties of) the Complex Tension Field (CTF).
>
> My current position is that nothing can be perceived by another “test
> object”, whether stationary or moving, unless something physically
> exists in the first place. */What is in the space around a charge that
> appears as a magnetic field when the test magnetic field is in
> “relative motion”?/* Is it the temporal gradient of a static
> charge-field? But, then we are back again to Maxwell! Yet, I agree
> that Maxwell has not given us the complete final physics.
>
> I hope this question alerts the enquiring minds of everybody in our
> group. I believe, it is of some fundamental importance. I will keep
> pondering.
>
> Right now I am looking for money to test the existence of a stationary
> CTF guiding linear EM waves via “epsilon-not” and “mu-not”.
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Monday, February 26, 2018 3:30 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable
> particles
>
> /Chandra:/
>
> Let's begin with your question at the end.
>
> It is a good and a challenging question in so far as we treat
> magnetism in our everyday live in a way which does not reflect the
> true physics behind it. Normally if we have to do it with magnetism,
> then it is a magnetic dipole. And when we measure a magnetic field we
> use another magnetic dipole, i.e. we measure the force or the angular
> momentum onto this test dipole.
>
> The clean way to measure a magnetic field is to use an electric test
> charge. If there is a force acting on the test charge we have to check
> whether this force can be explained by the presence of another charge
> using the Coulomb law. Then we have to build the difference between
> the force given by the Coulomb law and the real force observed. This
> difference is "magnetism".
>
> If we say that the earth has a magnetic field, we mean that it is a
> magnetic dipole. And we measure the field strength by the use of
> another magnetic dipole, we may call the latter one a "test-dipole".
>
> Now your question regarding the Earth. To measure the magnetic field
> of the Earth physically, one should use an electrical test charge and
> measure the force on it. Now, if the earth is not electrically
> charged, the result will be 0. That means no magnetic field is
> detected. Should now the observer move together with his charge in
> relation to the Earch, there will be a force. That means during his
> motion he will see a magnetic field. - This answers your question how
> it can be achieved that an observer does not see a magnetic field.
> Normally he will not see it anyway. Our daily experience is of course
> different. Because if someone starts to measure the magnetism of the
> earth he will use a dipole as said above; with the conclusion that
> there is a magnetic field. And it will be extremely difficult (I think
> impossible) to move a dipole so that it will not see a magnetic field.
> The reason is simple. In a magnetic dipole, which is generally a coil
> with a current in it, there are always charges at some position in the
> coil which are in a motion state to the moving charges in the Earth,
> so one will register magnetism.
>
> You mention a "magnetic body". I do not feel that this is a good way
> to name it. The magnetic body at the end is an electric charge. And
> that one is only "magnetic" if it is viewed from a certain perspective.
>
> Then you say: A propagating EM wave has oscillating E and B vectors. A
> dipole oscillation induces oscillating E, which generates its own
> restoring force B, ... Please have in mind that this is the
> understanding of Maxwell's theory. But Maxwell is good for the
> practical use of electromagnetism, but it does not reflect the cause
> of magnetism.
>
> If you have general doubts about my description of magnetism I should
> say that all this is not my idea but main stream physics, can be found
> in textbooks e.g. about SR. However ignored by most practising main
> stream physicists.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 26.02.2018 um 00:25 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> */Wolf:/*
>
> I think, I am more along the line of your thinking.
>
> *//*
>
> */Albrecht: /*
>
> Now I am realizing that magnetism is a very important field (pun
> intended Jthat I do not fully understand. Intuitively I disagree
> with the explanation that “magnetic field” EMERGES only due to
> RELATIVE VELOCITY between a charge and an */observer/*. Relative
> velocity may change the quantification by our instrument of what
> already exist in nature. I submit, I do not have good counter theory.
>
> On a different angle, we human are mere interpreters of data, send
> to our neural network, whether by our internal body-sensors or by
> reading “dials” of external sensors (instruments). */Interactants,
> inside our instruments that generate the data, are the real
> “observers”/*, if we must use this word..*/Humans are not the
> observers, just interpreters. /*Therefore, the job of humans
> should be to develop theories that directly tries to model the
> */interaction processes/* going on between the interactants inside
> the instruments, or in nature. Our interpretations can vary widely
> from person to person; but the physical transformations
> experienced by the interactants inside our instruments follow
> ontological (existing) rules of operation in nature. That is why
> we can get re-producible data for the same interaction process.
> This is the bedrock of causal physics. We can modify the strengths
> of interactions by introducing changes in the interaction
> parameter in diverse ways, including relative velocity.
>
> Unfortunately, my expertise on magnetism is quite limited.
> However, as of now, I am reluctant to accept that magnetism
> */appears/* only as SR implicates. In my stationary CTF model,
> everything observable and their properties do emerge due to
> dynamic movements. But they are real, not “relative”. Can we
> really claim that magnetism is like Doppler Effect? The measured
> frequency shift is solely dependent on the relative velocity.
> However, the frequency of the emitted radiation is the real
> physical parameter of a physical entity, an EM wave packet. That
> is why Doppler shift varies with the relative velocity.*/Does the
> strength of magnetic field changes with the relative velocity of
> the detector with respect to the magnetic body?/*
>
> Another angle. A propagating EM wave has oscillating E and B
> vectors. A dipole oscillation induces oscillating E, which
> generates its own restoring force B, thereby, generating the
> perpetually oscillating and propagating wave packet in the
> */stationary/* CTF. In the biological world, cellular magnetism
> plays wide ranges of important functions. I will have read up on
> these phenomena.
>
> Let me pose a question.
>
> Earth and many other planets have magnetic fields due to motions
> in their cores.
>
> Can an external magnetic sensor be forced to read “null magnetic
> field” by giving it the right velocity in the right direction?
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Friday, February 23, 2018 3:02 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field
> stable particles
>
> Hi Wolf, and hi Chandra,
>
> comments and answers down in the text:
>
> Am 23.02.2018 um 05:28 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> "Whenever an observer is in a magnetic field, he can find a
> motion state so that the magnetic field disappears."
>
> I've heard this many times but now that you said it, and I'm
> no longer a student so I have time to wonder ,
>
> there is a coil of wire in front of me I feel a magnetic field
> exactly how would I move to make it disappear? And what other
> forces would I experience to maintain that motion?
>
> This may be explainable stepwise. In the first step use a coil of
> wire with only one moving charge in it. Now have a test charge at
> the side outside the coil. This test charge will see the
> electrostatic force according to the Coulomb law, but nothing
> more. If this test charge is not at rest but moving then in the
> frame of the test charge nothing changes, Coulomb still applies.
> But if an observer at rest measures the electrostatic force
> between both in _his _frame, he will see a different force acting
> on the test charge. This can be also calculated using the Lorentz
> transformation with respect to force. This difference is called
> "magnetism". If now the observer moves with the test charge he
> will only see the electrostatic force like the test charge itself
> does, so no magnetism.
> If there in not only one charge in the coil but a lot of them,
> there will be a superposition of all applying forces. Now an
> observer who wants to escape the magnetic field will have to find
> a new frame which takes into account this superposition.
>
>
> The electron velocity in a wire is quite low and I can
> increase the current and keep the velocity the same thus
> increase the magnetic field so if I rotate around the center
> axis of the loop I can make the charges stand still and there
> should be no magnetic field - maybe but now we have to ask how
> do I measure the magnetic field to reach this conclusion?
>
> A magnetic field is generally measured in the way that the force
> on a charge is measured and the result is compared to the expected
> Coulomb force. If there is an excess of force, it is magnetism.
>
>
> well if I place another wire loop the electrons in both wires
> move at the same velocity and by the argument above they would
> not "see" the electrons in the other ring moving but they
> would certainly feel a magnetic field and the two loops would
> attract each other
>
> The electrons in one loop will of course "see" the electrons in
> the other one. If both wires are overcharged with electrons then
> there will be the repelling Coulomb force. But in the normal case
> in practise the wires are electrically neutral. And a current
> means that negative charges (here electrons) are moving into one
> direction and positive charges (the corresponding positive "holes"
> of charge) are moving into the other direction. Now, what will a
> test electron notice which moves outside along the wire? It will
> see the charges moving into the opposite direction
> relativistically contracted, the co-moving ones not (or precisely:
> extended). And so the test electron will see a different density
> of charges (for the positive and negative ones) and so a resulting
> field (which an electron at rest will not see). The resulting
> force which is only noticeable by a moving test charge is called
> magnetism.
>
> There is a video of Versitasium which shows this quite illustrative:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0
>
>
> What am I missing?
>
> Was this understandable?
> Albrecht
>
>
> Wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
> Research Director
>
> Nascent Systems Inc.
>
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> On 2/22/2018 11:26 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Chandra,
>
> I like very much what you have written here. Particularly
> what you say about "time" which physically means
> oscillations. That is what one should keep in mind when
> thinking about relativity.
>
> However in one point I have to object. That is your
> judgement of the parameter µ. I think that it is a result
> from the historical fact that magnetism was detected long
> time earlier than electricity. So magnetism plays a great
> role in our view of physics which does not reflect its
> role there. We know since about 100 years that magnetism
> is not a primary phenomenon but an apparent effect, a side
> effect of the electric field which is caused by the
> finiteness of c. If c would be infinite there would not be
> any magnetism. This is given by the equation c^2 =
> (1/ϵµ)which you have mentioned. This equation should be
> better written as µ = (1/c^2 ϵ) to reflect this physical
> fact, the dependency of the magnetism on c.
>
> The symmetry between electricity and magnetism is
> suggested by Maxwell's equation. These equations are
> mathematically very elegant and well usable in practice.
> But they do not reflect the physical reality. Easiest
> visible is the fact that we have electrical monopoles but
> no magnetic monopoles. Einstein has described this fact by
> saying: Whenever an observer is in a magnetic field, he
> can find a motion state so that the magnetic field
> disappears. - This is as we know not possible for an
> electric field.
>
> I think that we have discussed this earlier. Do you remember?
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 21.02.2018 um 00:00 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> /“We nee//d a geometry in which both space and time
> are curved back on themselves to provide a donut in
> which the forces Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self contained
> eigen states at each action quanta. /
>
> /Does any of this suggest a tension field you might be
> thinking about??”/
>
> Yes, Wolf, we need to model mathematically the “twists
> and turns” of different intrinsic potential gradients
> embedded in CTF (Complex Tension Field) to create
> stationary self-looped oscillations
> (*/field-particles/*). Maxwell achieved that for the
> propagating linear excitations using his brilliant
> observations of using the double differentiation –
> giving us the EM wave equation. We need to find
> non-propagating (stationary – Newton’s first law)
> self-looped oscillations – the in-phase ones will be
> stable, others will “break apart” with different
> life-times depending upon how far they are from the
> in-phase closed-loop conditions. The successes of the
> mathematical oscillatory dynamic model could be judged
> by the number of predicted properties the theory can
> find for the */field-particles,/* which we have
> measured so far. The physical CTF must remain
> stationary holding 100% of the cosmic energy.
>
> However, I would not attempt to keep the primacy
> of Relativity by trying to keep the Space-Time 4-D
> concept intact. If we want to capture the ontological
> reality; we must imagine and visualize the potential
> */foundational/* physical process and represent that
> with a set of algebraic symbols and call them the
> primary parameters of “different grades”. During
> constructing mathematical theories, it is of prime
> importance to introduce consciously this concept of
> “primary”, vs. “secondary”, vs. “tertiary”, etc.,
> physical parameters related to any observable physical
> phenomenon. The physical parameter that dictates the
> core existence of an entity in nature should be
> considered as primary. However, it is not going to be
> easy because of the complexities in the different
> interaction processes – different parameters take key
> role in transferring the energy in different
> interactions. Besides, our ignorance is still
> significantly broad compared to the “validated”
> knowledge we have gathered about our universe. Here is
> a glaring example. νλ = c = (1/ϵµ). If I am doing
> atomic physics, ν is of primary importance because of
> the quantum resonance with ν and the QM energy
> exchange rule is “hν”. “λ” changes from medium to
> medium. If I am doing Astrophysics, ϵ and µ for free
> space, are of primary significance; even though people
> tend to use “c”, while missing out the fundamental
> roles of ϵ and µ as some of the core building blocks
> of the universe. Funny thing is that the ϵ and µ of
> free space were recognized well before Maxwell
> synthesized Electromagnetism.
>
> With this background, I want underscore that the
> “running time, “t” is of critical importance in our
> formulation of the dynamic universe. And, yet “t’ is
> not a directly measurable physical parameter of any
> object in this universe. What we measure is really the
> frequency, or its inverse, the oscillation periods of
> different physical oscillators in this universe. So,
> frequency can be dilated or contracted by controlling
> the ambient physical parameter of the environment that
> surrounds and INFLUENCES the oscillator. The running
> time cannot be dilated or contracted; even though
> Minkowsky introduced this “dilation” concept. This is
> the reason why I have been pushing for the
> introduction in physics thinking the Interaction
> Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E).
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Monday, February 19, 2018 10:56 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions
> Tension field stable particles
>
> Candra:
>
> Let’s consider your tension filed is a medium
> underlying the experience of space composed of charge
> and mass density spread out in the cross-section of a
> time loop.. Coordinate frame cells of /small enough/
> sizes can be described by constant enough mass and
> charge densities in each cell. For small enough cells
> the mass and charge values concentrated at their
> centers may be used in stead of the densities. The
> resulting field of center values can take any pattern
> that satisfies the extended dAlambert principle.
> Besides the classic electro-magnetic Fem and
> gravito-inertial force Fgi I postulate forces tat hold
> charge and mass together Fcm, Fmc. This condition
> assures mass charge centers in each cell appear at
> locations of balanced forces. Each pattern which
> satisfies this condition represents a static state of
> the loop in which the patterns are fixed for the
> lifetime of the loop.
>
> **
>
> *The Charge-Mass Separation Vector and Equilibrium States*
>
> The physical size of the space is its volume. The
> volume (Vol) of space is the sum of the infinitesimal
> volumes dVol of each of the cells composing that
> space “Vol = ∫_all space dVol”. These infinitesimal
> volumes are calculated from the mass-charge density
> extensions in each cell when viewed externally as
> shown in figure 4.3-3a . The physical volume depends
> upon the mass charge separation pattern of the
> equilibrium state the system being modeled exists in.
>
> In CAT the extension of a cell can be
> calculated as follows. In each cell the distance
> between the center of charge and mass is a vector
> d*ζ.* The projection of this vector onto the degrees
> of freedom directions available for the charge and
> mass to move in the generalized coordinate space
> allows us to expansion this vector as,
>
> Eq. 4.3-1 *dζ =* dζ_t *∙u_t * + dζ_x *∙u_x *+ dζ_y
> *∙u_y *+ dζ_z *∙u_z +…* dζ_f *∙u_f +…,*
>
> **where the *u_f *’s are the unit vectors. A space
> limited to Cartesian 3-space is characterized by three
> x,y,z directions, but CAT models a generalized space
> that encompasses all sensor modalities not only the
> optical ones.
>
> The volume of a cell calculated from the
> diagonal expansion vector “*dζ”* by multiplying all
> non zero coefficients,
>
> Eq. 4.3-2 dVol = dζ_t *∙*dζ_x
> *∙*dζ_y *∙*dζ_z *∙…∙*dζ_f *∙… .*
>
> The shape of this volume is determined by
> the direction of the expansion vector which in turn is
> determined by the direction and strength of forces
> pulling the charge and mass apart. The direction of
> pull depends upon the number of dimensions available
> in the generalized coordinates of the media. The
> forces must be in equilibrium but exact equilibrium
> pattern depends upon which global loop equilibrium
> state “Ζ” the event being modeled is in.
>
> In the simplest equilibrium state the
> masses and charges are collocated. This implies the
> internal forward propagating in time forces F_cm ,F_mc
> , and backward propagating in time force F_mc *,F_cm *
> are zero, and if there are no internal force pulling
> the charges and masses together then sum of the
> remaining exterior gravito-electric forces pulling the
> charge and mass apart must separately be zero
> precisely at the collocation point. A trivial
> condition that satisfies these equations is when all
> forces are zero. In this case there is no action in
> the media and no action for expanding the coordinate
> frame defining a volume of space. We are back to a
> formless blob of zero volume, where all charges and
> masses are at the same point. This is the absolute
> ground state of material, one level of something above
> nothing. The big bang before the energy of action
> flow is added.
>
> To exemplify the methods we consider an equilibrium
> state of a single isolated cell whose only degree of
> freedom is the time direction. This means the volume
> in all space directions are infinitesimally small and
> the volume can be considered a single line of
> extension “ΔVol = ΔT_w = ∫dζ_t “ along the time
> direction as shown in the god’s eye perspective of
> figure 4.3-6. In this situation we can consider
> charges and masses to be point particles. Forces as
> well as action can only propagate along the material
> length of the line time line represented in space as
> “Qw”. We now list the sequence of changes that can
> propagate through around the equilibrium positions
> indicated by numbers in parenthesis.
>
> (1)The upper charge is pushed from its equilibrium
> position (filled icon) forward along the time line
>
> (2)It exerts a force “Fem” on the left charge pushing
> it forward while feeling a reaction force “Fem*” that
> retards it back to its equilibrium position
>
> (3)While the left charge is moved from equilibrium it
> exerts an internal “Fcm” force on the bottom mass
> while feeling a reaction force “Fcm*” which returns
> it to equilibrium.
>
> (4)While the bottom mass is moved from equilibrium it
> exerts a force “Fgi” on the right mass while feeling a
> reaction force “Fgi*” which returns it to equilibrium.
>
> (5)While the right mass is moved from equilibrium it
> exerts a force “Fmc” on the upper charge while feeling
> a reaction force “Fmc*” which returns it to
> equilibrium. We are now back to (1).
>
> If the system is isolated there is no dissipation into
> other degrees of freedom and the oscillation continues
> to move as a compression wave around the “Qw” time
> line circumference forever. The graph however is
> static and shows a fixed amount of action indicated by
> the shaded arrows around the time line. Motion in
> “block” models is produced by the velocity of the
> observer or model operator as he moves around the time
> line. From our god’s eye perspective an action density
> is permanently painted on the clock dial and thereby
> describes an total event. The last degree of freedom
> events are rather trivial
>
> We need a geometry in which both space and
> time are curved back on themselves to provide a donut
> in which the forces Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self
> contained eigen states at each action quanta.
>
> Does any of this suggest a tension field you might be
> thinking about??
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
> Research Director
>
> Nascent Systems Inc.
>
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> On 1/24/2018 7:20 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>
> 1. Yes, I have submitted an essay. FQXi has not
> sent the approval link yet.
>
> 2. Replacement of our SPIE conf. Without a
> supporting infrastructure to replace SPIE-like
> support, it is very difficult to manage. I will
> try NSF during the last week of May. Do you want
> to start negotiating with some out-of-box European
> groups?
>
> 3. Re-starting afresh from the bottom up is the
> only way to start re-building a unified field
> theory. It is futile to force-fit whole bunch of
> different theories that were structured
> differently at different states of human cultural
> epoch.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 24, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Wolfgang Baer
> <wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Chandra:
>
> Just rereading your 2015 paper "Urgency of
> evolution..."
>
> I love the sentiment " This is a good time to
> start iteratively re-evaluating and
> restructuring all the foundational postulates
> behind all the working theories"
>
> Did you write a paper for FQXi?
>
> I sent one in
> https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043
>
> Is there any chance to get a replacement for
> the SPIE conference, one that would expand the
> questions
>
> beyond the nature of light?
>
> Wolf
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
> Research Director
>
> Nascent Systems Inc.
>
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication
> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List at
> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?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 <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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 <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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/cc33dcce/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 807 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/cc33dcce/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list