<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Dear John,<br>
<br>
<font color="#006600">no, in my understanding I did not invent
anything fundamentally new but use known physical rules.</font><br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Am 13.11.2015 um 12:35 schrieb John Williamson:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C91471893E@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">Dear Albrecht,<br>
<br>
You asked, so I will answer. I think you are managing to fool
yourself. You have had to, to keep your initial postulate,
invent several rules not found in other physics. Comments below.<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF73710"><font size="2"
color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 13, 2015 11:11 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what
a model
<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>Hi Al,<br>
<br>
if we look to charges you mention the law 1/r<sup>2</sup>.
Now we can perform a simple physical experiment having an
electrically charged object and using it to measure the
electric field around us. I say: it is very weak. Now look
to the distance of the two half-charges within the particle
having a distance of 4*10<sup>-13</sup> m. This means an
increase of force of about 25 orders of magnitude compared
to what we do in a lab. And the difference is much greater
if we refer to charges acting from the universe. So I think
we do not make a big mistake assuming that there is nothing
outside the particle.<br>
<br>
Regarding my model, the logic of deduction was very simple
for me:<br>
<br>
1.) We have dilation, so there must be a permanent motion
with c<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">ok</font><br>
<br>
2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise the momentum law
is violated; 3 are not possible as in conflict with
experiments.
<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Not so .. there must be at least two
elements for a wave, indeed, but it does not need to be
two "particles". In ordinary textbook EM for example,there
are six field components. Six is enough!<br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">What I
have called sub-particles here are in fact charges of the strong
force. In my view (which I think is very traditional) the basic
entities are charges and not fields. What we call field is the
fact that in the vicinity of a charge there acts a force on
another charge. This fact has got the name "field". Nothing else.<br>
<br>
On the other hand: six components for an EM field are anyway too
many. We only have to describe an electric field, magnetism is
merely a result of relativity as I have explained here several
times.<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C91471893E@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><font color="0000FF"><font color="#006600" face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">
</font><br>
Also 2 particles are just as much in conflict with
experiment as are 3! As I have said before.</font><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The two
particle structure is not in conflict with experiments. The
conflict normally seen results from the missing success of the
attempt to decompose an electron by bombardment. But that is not a
conflict here as a system of 2 massless objects can never
decomposed in this way. - I have discussed this matter with a
former research director of the DESY who was responsible for this
type of experiments and he did not have objections to my position.</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C91471893E@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div>
<br>
3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less, otherwise c is not
possible<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Mass-less means they must be made of
something other than "particles". No? What then?<br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">These
objects which I have called "basic particles" are in fact
constellations of charges of the strong force. </font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C91471893E@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><font color="0000FF">
</font><br>
4.) The whole particle has mass even though the
sub-particles are mass-less. So there must be a mechanism to
cause inertia. It was immediately clear for me that inertia
is a consequence of extension. Another reason to assume a
particle which is composed of parts. (There is no other
working mechanism of inertia known until today.)<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">This is absolutely right. So you can
either invent a mechanism to give inertia (outside of
physics) - or reject the initial hypothesis that there are
two particles.</font><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The fact
that an extended object (like the particle in my model) has
inertia is not an invention but an unavoidable consequence of an
extension. That is very basic physics.</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C91471893E@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div>
<br>
5.) I had to find the binding field for the sub-particles. I
have taken the simplest one which I could find which has a
potential minimum at some distance. And my first attempt
worked.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">You need a force, indeed, to confine
your postulate of two particles. So you can either invent
a
<font color="0000FF">new <font color="0000FF">force</font></font>
(outside of physics) - or reject the initial hypothesis
that there are two particles.</font><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">There is
of course a force which is not a new one. It is the strong force.
This is unfamiliar at the first glance. But in the 1990ies it was
found at DESY that the electron reacts on the strong force. So
this assumption is compliant with the experiment. </font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C91471893E@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div>
<br>
That is all, and I do not see any possibility to change one
of the points 1.) thru 5.) without getting in conflict with
fundamental physical rules. And I do not invent new facts or
rules beyond those already known in physics.
<br>
<br>
So, where do you see any kind of arbitrariness or missing
justification?<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">The point you go into the mist is the
initial step of demanding the only way to conserve
momentum is to have two objects (true) and that the only
kind of object allowed is a particle (not true in my
view). I think even if it were true one is still just left
with the problem of explaining just what the (<font
color="0000FF">now two) particles a<font color="0000FF">re.</font></font></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="0000FF"><font color="#006600" face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">I think that I have explain</font><font
color="0000FF"><font color="#006600" face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">ed that. Or what is missing?</font><br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF"><font color="#006600" face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">Regards<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
</font></font></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C91471893E@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><font color="0000FF">
<br>
</font><br>
<br>
<br>
Tschüß!<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Regards, John.</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">
af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrect:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We are making some progress. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>To your remark that Swinger & Feynman
introduced virtual charges, I note that they used
the same term: "virtual charge/particle," in spite
of the much older meaning in accord with the charge
and mirror example. In the finest of quantum
traditions, they too ignored the rest of the
universe and instead tried to vest its effect in the
"vacuum." This idea was suitably mystical to allow
them to introduce the associated plaver into the
folk lore of QM, given the sociology of the day.
Even in spite of this BS, the idea still has merit.
Your objection on the basis of the 1/r² fall-off is
true but not conclusive. This fall-off is matched
by a r² increase in muber of charges, so the
integrated total interaction can be expected to have
at least some effect, no matter what. Think of the
universe to 1st order as a neutral, low-density
plasma. <span style="">I (and some others) hold that
this interaction is responcible for all quantum
effects. In any case, no particle is a universe
unto itself, the rest have the poulation and time
to take a toll! </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span
style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif,Arial,'Trebuchet
MS'; font-size:13px; line-height:1.6em">BTW, this
is history repeating itself. Once upon a time
there was theory of Brownian motion that posited
an internal cause known as "elan vital" to dust
specks observed hopping about like Mexican jumping
beans. Ultimately this nonsense was displaced by
the observation that the dust spots were not alone
in their immediate universe but imbededded in a
slurry of other particles, also in motion, to
which they were reacting. Nowadays atoms are
analysed in QM text books as if they were the only
object in the universe---all others being too far
away (so it is argued, anyway). </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span
style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif,Arial,'Trebuchet
MS'; font-size:13px; line-height:1.6em">Your
model, as it stands, can be free of contradiction
and still unstatisfying because the inputs seem to
be just what is needed to make the conclusions you
aim to make. Fine, but what most critics will
expect is that these inputs have to have some kind
of justification or motivation. This is what the
second particle lacks. Where is it when one
really looks for it? It has no empirical
motivation. Thus, this theory then has about the
same ultimate structure, and pursuasiveness, as
saying: 'don't worry about it, God did it; go
home, open a beer, pop your feet up, and forget
about it---a theory which explains absolutely
everything!</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span
style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif,Arial,'Trebuchet
MS'; font-size:13px; line-height:1.6em">Tschuß,
Al</span></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">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0"><b>Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag,
12. November 2015 um 16:18 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments
from what a model
</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font
size="-1">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
I have gotten a different understanding of
what a virtual particle or a virtual charge
is. This phenomenon was invented by Julian
Schwinger and Richard Feynman. They thought
to need it in order to explain certain
reactions in particle physics. In the case
of Schwinger it was the Landé factor, where
I have shown that this assumption is not
necessary.<br>
<br>
If there is a charge then of course this
charge is subject to interactions with all
other charges in the universe. That is
correct. But because of the normal
distribution of these other charges in the
universe, which cause a good compensation of
the effects, and because of the distance law
we can think about models without reference
to those. And also there is the problem with
virtual particles and vacuum polarization
(which is equivalent), in that we have this
huge problem that the integrated energy of
it over the universe is by a factor of
10^120 higher than the energy measured. I
think this is a really big argument against
virtual effects.<br>
<br>
Your example of the virtual image of a
charge in a conducting surface is a
different case. It is, as you write, the
rearrangement of charges in the conducting
surface. So the partner of the charge is
physically the mirror, not the picture
behind it. But which mirror can cause the
second particle in a model if the second
particle is not assumed to be real?<br>
<br>
And what in general is the problem with a
two particle model? It fulfils the momentum
law. And it does not cause further
conflicts. It also explains why an
accelerated electron sometimes radiates,
sometimes not. For an experimental evidence
I refer again to the article of Frank
Wilczek in "Nature" which was mentioned here
earlier:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>:
</font><br>
<div class="t m88 x28 h2 y37 ff1 fs1 fc0 sc0
ls3 ws2"><small><span><span
class="current-selection">He writes:
"By co</span></span><span
class="current-selection">mb</span><span
class="current-selection">ining fragmen</span><span
class="current-selection">tatio</span><span
class="current-selection">n with su</span><span
class="current-selection">per</span><span
class="ls0 ws0 current-selection">-</span><span
class="current-selection">con</span><span
class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span
class="current-selection">, w</span><span
class="current-selection">e can get
half-electro</span><span
class="current-selection">ns tha</span><span
class="current-selection">t
</span></small><small><span
class="current-selection">ar</span><span
class="current-selection">e their o</span><span
class="current-selection">wn an</span><span><span
class="current-selection">tiparticles."
</span><br>
</span></small></div>
<font size="-1">For Wilczek this is a
mysterious result, in view of my model it is
not, on the contrary it is kind of a proof.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="-1">Am
12.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx"
target="_blank">
</a><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</font></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:Verdana;
font-size:12.0px">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Virtual particles are proxys for an
ensemble of real particles. There is
nothing folly-lolly about them! They
simply summarize the total effect of
particles that cannot be ignored. To
ignore the remainder of the universe
becasue it is inconvenient for theory
formulation is for certain leading to
error. "No man is an island," and no
single particle is a universe! Thus,
it can be argued that, to reject the
concept of virtual particles is to
reject a facit of reality that must be
essential for an explantion of the
material world.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For example, if a positive charge
is placed near a conducting surface,
the charges in that surface will
respond to the positive charge by
rearranging themselves so as to give a
total field on the surface of zero
strength as if there were a negative
charge (virtual) behind the mirror.
Without the real charges on the
mirror surface, the concept of
"virtual" negative charge would not be
necessary or even useful. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The concept of virtual charge as
the second particle in your model
seems to me to be not just a wild
supposition, but an absolute
necessity. Every charge is, without
choice, in constant interaction with
every other charge in the universe,
has been so since the big bang (if
such were) and will remain so till the
big crunch (if such is to be)! The
universe cannot be ignored. If you
reject including the universe by means
of virtual charges, them you have a
lot more work to do to make your
theory reasonable some how else. In
particular in view of the fact that
the second particles in your model
have never ever been seen or even
suspected in the various experiments
resulting in the disasssmbly of
whatever targert was used. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>MfG, Al</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px; padding:10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px; border-left:2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229)">
<div style="margin:0 0 10.0px 0"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
11. November 2015 um 22:37 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx"
target="_blank">
</a><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx"
target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General]
Reply of comments from what a
model
</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
if we think in categories of a
virtual image, then we are in my
understanding fully on the path
of present main stream QM. I
have understood that we all want
to do something better than
that.<br>
<br>
Regarding virtual phenomena I
would like to remind you again
of the history of such ideas. In
the 1940ies Julian Schwinger has
introduced vacuum polarization
(which is equivalent to virtual
particles according to Feynman)
to determine the Landé factor
for refining the Bohr magneton.
This was the birth of it.<br>
<br>
On the other hand I have shown
that I can deduce the Bohr
magneton as well as the Landé
factor in a classical way if I
use my particle model. And that
is possible and was done on a
pure classical way. For me this
is a good example that we can do
things better than by QM. In
particular I try to have correct
results without using any
virtual objects.<br>
<br>
Back to your question: If we
build a particle model on a
classical basis then there is no
place for a virtual image, and
so I see the need for two
sub-particles.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
11.11.2015 um 17:27 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">
</a><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:Verdana;
font-size:12.0px">
<div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:10.0px
5.0px 5.0px 10.0px;
padding:10.0px 0
10.0px 10.0px;
border-left:2.0px
solid
rgb(195,217,229)">
<div style="margin:0 0
10.0px 0"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
11. November 2015 um
11:54 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx"
target="_blank">
</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] Reply of
comments from what a
model
</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font
color="#006600">You
said: A model
with only one
particle is in
my view also
not possible
as it violates
the
conservation
of momentum. A
single object
can never
oscillate.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font
color="#006600">I
ask: </font><span
style="color:rgb(0,102,0);
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:12.0px;
line-height:19.2px"> Why can't a single particle oscillate against, or
in consort
with, its own
virtual image.
(Presuming
there is
charge complex
around---mirror
in 2d,
negative
sphere (I
think) in
3d)? </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span
style="color:rgb(0,102,0);
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:12.0px;
line-height:19.2px">ciao, Al</span></div>
<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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast
logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
border="0">
</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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></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
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
border="0">
</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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" alt="Avast
logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
border="0">
</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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr style="border:none; color:#909090;
background-color:#B0B0B0; height:1px; width:99%">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border:none; padding:0px 15px 0px 8px"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0">
</a></td>
<td>
<p style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt">
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software
auf Viren geprüft. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>