<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Gentelmen:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. (Albrectht?)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail@a-giese.de><br/>
<b>An:</b> "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier@gmail.com>, phys@a-giese.de<br/>
<b>Cc:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] research papers</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">Hello Richard,<br/>
<br/>
according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence.<br/>
<br/>
As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schrödinger and of Wilczek based on QM.<br/>
<br/>
I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations.<br/>
<br/>
Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have.<br/>
<br/>
All the best to you<br/>
Albrecht<br/>
<br/>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div> Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac’s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon’s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc.</div>
<div> all the best,</div>
<div> Richard</div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div>On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <<a href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div>
<div>
<div>Dear Richard,<br/>
<br/>
thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek.<br/>
<br/>
He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron.<br/>
This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schrödinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schrödinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron.<br/>
<br/>
In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schrödinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles.<br/>
<br/>
Thank you again and best wishes<br/>
Albrecht<br/>
<br/>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>This 2013 Nature comment “The enigmatic electron” by Frank Wilczek at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a> is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models.</div>
<div> Richard</div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div>On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_parent">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<div><span style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);float: none;display: inline;">I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight.</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"/>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);float: none;display: inline;">I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well.</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"/>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);float: none;display: inline;">If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper.</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"/>
<br style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"/>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);float: none;display: inline;">best wishes,</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"/>
<br style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"/>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);float: none;display: inline;">Wolf</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"/>
<pre class="moz-signature" style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: "Courier New";font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="wolf@NascentInc.com" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_parent">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix" style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"><font size="-1">John,<br/>
<br/>
You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text.</font><br/>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken:</div>
<blockquote>
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Hello David and Albrecht,</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term “energy”. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single “spacetime field” which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">David</span></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">, you asked about the words</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>quantum, quantifying and quantizing</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">. I did a word search and I did not use the word “quantizing” in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether</i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word “quantization”. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://onlyspacetime.com/" target="_blank">http://onlyspacetime.com/</a></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Albrecht</span></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word “quantify” and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe “quantifies” particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not “quantify” particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls “charges of the strong force”. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component?</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br/>
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height: 17.12px;">Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br/>
<br/>
The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle.<br/>
<br/>
The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br/>
<br/>
The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result.<br/>
<br/>
As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes.</span>
<blockquote>
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle’s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron’s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon’s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics.<br/>
<br/>
Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics).
<blockquote>
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"> </div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ½<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">ħ</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>e</i>, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
How do you get the value<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">½<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">ħ</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? >From alpha? How do you then get alpha?<br/>
<br/>
I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity).
<blockquote>
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle’s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density).</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"> </div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10<sup>120</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c<sup>3</sup>/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>you</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the “background noise” of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>c,</i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>G</i>,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">ħ</span></i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>ε<sub>o</sub></i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>testify that spacetime is not an empty void. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point.<br/>
<br/>
The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern.<br/>
<br/>
The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"><i>ε<sub>o</sub></i></span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background.
<blockquote>
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"> </div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>c</i>? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>c</i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>c</i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>c</i>. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime.<span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>
<blockquote>
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">John M.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid.<br/>
<br/>
Albrecht
<blockquote>
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"> </div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div style="border-style: solid none none;border-top-color: rgb(225,225,225);border-top-width: 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in 0.0in;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><b><span style="color: windowtext;">From:</span></b><span style="color: windowtext;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Dr. Albrecht Giese [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent">mailto:genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br/>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM<br/>
<b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>John Macken<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="john@macken.com" target="_parent"><john@macken.com></a>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br/>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] research papers</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"> </div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 12.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;">Hello John,<br/>
<br/>
great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you.<br/>
<br/>
There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is.<br/>
<br/>
In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results.<br/>
<br/>
To your questions in detail:<br/>
The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts.<br/>
<br/>
The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schrödinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br/>
<br/>
With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions.<br/>
<br/>
This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail.<br/>
<br/>
The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br/>
<br/>
So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions.<br/>
<br/>
Best regards<br/>
Albrecht<br/>
</p>
<div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;">Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken:</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top: 5.0pt;margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Hello Albrecht and All,</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Albrecht:</span></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two “basic particles”. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Albrecht</span></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">John M.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div style="border-style: solid none none;border-top-color: rgb(225,225,225);border-top-width: 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in 0.0in;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><b><span style="color: windowtext;">From:</span></b><span style="color: windowtext;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_parent">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Dr. Albrecht Giese<br/>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM<br/>
<b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br/>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] research papers</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"> </div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;">Dear John Macken,<br/>
<br/>
I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions".<br/>
<br/>
We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 3.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;text-align: justify;"><span>>Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< ,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 12.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.)<br/>
<br/>
As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br/>
<br/>
You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a><br/>
<a href="http://www.ag-physics.org/electron" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">www.ag-physics.org/electron</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>.<br/>
<br/>
You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years.<br/>
<br/>
If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion.<br/>
<br/>
With best regards<br/>
Albrecht Giese</span><br/>
<br/>
</p>
<div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top: 5.0pt;margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Martin,</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article “Light Is Heavy” to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">John M.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div>
<div style="border-style: solid none none;border-top-color: rgb(225,225,225);border-top-width: 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in 0.0in;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><b>From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_parent">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Mark, Martin van der<br/>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM<br/>
<b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br/>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[General] research papers</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"> </div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 10.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="color: rgb(31,73,125);">Dear all,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 10.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="color: rgb(31,73,125);">My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 10.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="color: rgb(31,73,125);"><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 10.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="color: rgb(31,73,125);">In particular you will find the most recent work:</span></p>
<ul style="margin-bottom: 0.0in;margin-top: 0.0in;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 10.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color: rgb(31,73,125);">On the nature of “stuff” and the hierarchy of forces</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 10.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color: rgb(31,73,125);">Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields</li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 10.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="color: rgb(31,73,125);">Very best regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 10.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="color: rgb(31,73,125);">Martin</span></p>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"> </div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="color: navy;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">Prof. Holstlaan 4</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">Tel: +31 40 2747548</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"> </div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;text-align: center;">
<hr align="center" size="3" width="100%"/></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: gray;">The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
</div>
<pre style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: "Courier New";">_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: "Courier New";">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="phys@a-giese.de" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_parent">phys@a-giese.de</a></pre>
<pre style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: "Courier New";"><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>></pre>
<pre style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: "Courier New";">Click here to unsubscribe</pre>
<pre style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: "Courier New";"></a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 12.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><br/>
<br/>
</p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;text-align: center;">
<hr align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" style="color: rgb(144,144,144);" width="99%"/></div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding: 0.0in 11.25pt 0.0in 6.0pt;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><span style="border: 1.0pt solid windowtext;padding: 0.0in;text-decoration: none;"><span id="cid:part14.06070503.06030006@nascentinc.com"><Mail Attachment.jpeg></span></span></a></span></div>
</td>
<td style="padding: 0.75pt;">
<p style="margin-right: 0.0in;margin-left: 0.0in;font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color: rgb(61,77,90);">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br/>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.0in 0.0in 12.0pt;font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><br/>
</p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;text-align: center;">
<hr align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" style="color: rgb(144,144,144);" width="99%"/></div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding: 0.0in 11.25pt 0.0in 6.0pt;">
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><span style="border: 1.0pt solid windowtext;padding: 0.0in;text-decoration: none;"><span id="cid:part14.06070503.06030006@nascentinc.com"><Mail Attachment.jpeg></span></span></a></span></div>
</td>
<td style="padding: 0.75pt;">
<p style="margin-right: 0.0in;margin-left: 0.0in;font-size: 12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color: rgb(61,77,90);">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br/>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr style="border: none;color: rgb(144,144,144);background-color: rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width: 1280.0625px;"/>
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;border: none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none;padding: 0.0px 15.0px 0.0px 8.0px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank"><img alt="Avast logo" border="0" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"/></a></td>
<td>
<p style="margin-right: 0.0in;margin-left: 0.0in;font-size: 12.0pt;font-family: Calibri , Verdana , Arial , Helvetica;color: rgb(61,77,90);">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br/>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: "Courier New";">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="Wolf@nascentinc.com" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_parent">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" style="color: purple;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"/>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);float: none;display: inline;">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"/>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);float: none;display: inline;">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_parent">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"/>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);float: none;display: inline;"><a href="</span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);float: none;display: inline;">"></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"/>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);float: none;display: inline;">Click here to unsubscribe</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"/>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: 12.0px;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;word-spacing: 0.0px;background-color: rgb(255,255,255);float: none;display: inline;"></a></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr style="border: none;color: rgb(144,144,144);background-color: rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width: 99.0%;"/>
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;border: none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none;padding: 0.0px 15.0px 0.0px 8.0px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><img alt="Avast logo" border="0" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"/> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color: rgb(61,77,90);font-family: Calibri , Verdana , Arial , Helvetica;font-size: 12.0pt;">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br/>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr style="border: none;color: rgb(144,144,144);background-color: rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width: 99.0%;"/>
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;border: none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none;padding: 0.0px 15.0px 0.0px 8.0px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><img alt="Avast logo" border="0" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"/> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color: rgb(61,77,90);font-family: Calibri , Verdana , Arial , Helvetica;font-size: 12.0pt;">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br/>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br/>
_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer@web.de <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>