<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
the following sounds interesting. But of course I have comments.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.11.2015 um 14:54 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""> Of your 5 listed points that you said form the
basis of your 2-circling-massless-particles electron model, 4
can be covered by a model (I am not proposing this as a viable
model but there are a few doubts about your model also) of two
circling charged photons, each with energy E = 1/2 mc^2 where m
is the electron’s rest mass, and each has electric charge -1/2 e
. They could get their charge by circling each other.</div>
</blockquote>
Questions: 1.) How do you explain the energy of the photon? Where
does the equation come from? 2.) How can a charge be generated by
motion? How is motion defined in this case, motion with respect to
what?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">1) There is permanent motion with c since both
photons move at c.</div>
</blockquote>
ok.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">2) There are 2 sub-particles (though experiment so
far rules this out as with your model) since the sub-particles
are two circling photons.</div>
</blockquote>
2 sub-particles are NOT ruled out. All those experiments have
assumed that constituents of an electron, if any, have an individual
mass. That is in fact falsified. But with mass-less constituents no
problem. Was confirmed by the research director of DESY.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">3) Each photon is massless since a single photon
having energy E = 1/2 mc^2 = hf normally has no rest mass (as
commonly understood).</div>
</blockquote>
This is commonly understood, true, but never deduced. (My model BTW
deduces it.)<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">4) The 2-photon system has rest mass m even though
the sub particles are massless. This is because the two photons
together, each of energy E = 1/2 mc^2 and moving in opposite
directions, have zero total momentum, (i.e. p total = 0) so by
the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2
c^4 this means m = Etotal/c^2 so the system of 2 photons has a
total rest mass and inertia m .</div>
</blockquote>
If the photon has energy it also has mass. That is in fact the
general understanding. But why follows mass from energy? I know that
Einstein has stated it and I have no doubts that it is correct in
the general case. But it was never deduced up to now. Physical
understanding means that everything can be deduced except some very
fundamental facts. I do not see this as a very fundamental fact, as
can be deduced. I have shown how this can be done. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div class="">5) There is no clear binding force for the two
circling charged photons. You invoke the strong nuclear force
for binding your two particles into an electron, but there is no
experimental evidence that the strong force acts on electrons. </div>
</blockquote>
There IS experimental evidence, which was discussed here earlier. In
the 1990ies it was found at DESY that the electron reacts to the
strong force. - I go a step further and assume that the strong force
is the universal one, also acting on photons.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">But you could also invoke the strong nuclear force
to hold these two circling charged photons together. Perhaps
they are not circling charged photons but circling charged
gluons (which are also light-speed particles) and so your point
5 will also be covered in this model!. So I think that this
two-looping-charged-photons-or-charged-gluons model of the
electron is just as good a model as your electron model, or even
better since photons and gluons are known particles while your
two circling particles are purely hypothetical. You’re welcome.</div>
</blockquote>
I also think that gluons and my basic particle are the same. But we
may shock the community by saying that gluons are in the electron. -
How can the photons circle in opposite directions without causing
problems (collisions etc)?<br>
<br>
Yes, we are getting closer. <br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 13, 2015, at 3:35 AM, John Williamson
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" class="">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); direction: ltr;
font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10pt;" class="">Dear
Albrecht,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size:
16px;" class="">
<hr tabindex="-1" class="">
<div id="divRpF73710" style="direction: ltr;" class=""><font
class="" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b class="">From:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class=""><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></a>]
on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>]<br
class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday,
November 13, 2015 11:11 AM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
[General] Reply of comments from what a model…<br
class="">
</font><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
if we look to charges you mention the law 1/r<sup
class="">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 class="">-13</sup><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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
class="">
<br class="">
Regarding my model, the logic of deduction was very
simple for me:<br class="">
<br class="">
1.) We have dilation, so there must be a permanent
motion with c<br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">ok</font><br class="">
<br class="">
2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise the
momentum law is violated; 3 are not possible as in
conflict with experiments.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" 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 class="">
<br class="">
Also 2 particles are just as much in conflict with
experiment as are 3! As I have said before.</font><br
class="">
<br class="">
3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less, otherwise c
is not possible<br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">Mass-less means they
must be made of something other than "particles".
No? What then?<br class="">
</font><br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" 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
class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">You need a force,
indeed, to confine your postulate of two particles.
So you can either invent a<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font
class="" color="0000FF">new<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font
class="" color="0000FF">force</font></font><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>(outside of
physics) - or reject the initial hypothesis that
there are two particles.</font><br class="">
<br class="">
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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br
class="">
<br class="">
So, where do you see any kind of arbitrariness or
missing justification?<br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" 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 class=""
color="0000FF">now two) particles a<font class=""
color="0000FF">re.</font></font><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
</font><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Tschüß!<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">Regards, John.</font><br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51
schrieb<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><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>:<br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrect:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">We are making some progress. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif, Arial, 'Trebuchet MS';
font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.6em;"
class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif, Arial, 'Trebuchet MS';
font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.6em;"
class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif, Arial, 'Trebuchet MS';
font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.6em;"
class="">Tschuß, Al</span></div>
<div class="">
<div name="quote" style="margin: 10px 5px 5px
10px; padding: 10px 0px 10px 10px;
border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style:
solid; border-left-color: rgb(195, 217,
229); word-wrap: break-word;" class="">
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class=""><b
class="">Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag, 12.
November 2015 um 16:18 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese"<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><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
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <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><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</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
class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re: [General]
Reply of comments from what a model…</div>
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" class=""><font class=""
size="-1">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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
class="">
<br class="">
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
class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
<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>:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><br
class="">
<div class="y37 t h2 fc0 sc0 ls3 ws2 m88
x28 ff1 fs1"><small class=""><span
class=""><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
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></small><small
class=""><span
class="current-selection">ar</span><span
class="current-selection">e their
o</span><span
class="current-selection">wn an</span><span
class=""><span
class="current-selection">tiparticles."<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br
class="">
</span></small></div>
<font class="" 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 class="">
<br class="">
Grüße<br class="">
Albrecht</font><br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font
class="" size="-1">Am 12.11.2015 um
03:06 schrieb<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><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>:</font></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 12px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">MfG, Al</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 10px 5px 5px
10px; padding: 10px 0px 10px
10px; border-left-width: 2px;
border-left-style: solid;
border-left-color: rgb(195,
217, 229);" class="">
<div style="margin: 0px 0px
10px;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
11. November 2015 um 22:37
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht Giese"<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><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
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="x-msg://116/UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>,<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="x-msg://116/UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br
class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] Reply of comments
from what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);"
class="">Hi Al,<br
class="">
<br class="">
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
class="">
<br class="">
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
class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Ciao, Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
11.11.2015 um 17:27
schrieb<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><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>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana; font-size:
12px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
10px 5px 5px
10px; padding:
10px 0px 10px
10px;
border-left-width:
2px;
border-left-style:
solid;
border-left-color:
rgb(195, 217,
229);" class="">
<div
style="margin:
0px 0px 10px;"
class=""><b
class="">Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
11. November
2015 um 11:54
Uhr<br
class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese"<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><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 class="">
<b class="">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
class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);"
class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><font
class=""
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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><font
class=""
color="#006600">I
ask:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><span
style="color:
rgb(0, 102,
0);
font-family:
Verdana;
font-size:
12px;
line-height:
19.2px;"
class=""> 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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span
style="color:
rgb(0, 102,
0);
font-family:
Verdana;
font-size:
12px;
line-height:
19.2px;"
class="">ciao,
Al</span></div>
<br class="">
<table
style="border-collapse:
collapse;
border: none;"
class="">
<tbody
class="">
<tr class="">
<td
style="border:
none; padding:
0px 15px 0px
8px;" class=""><br>
</td>
<td class=""><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
_______________________________________________
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><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><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" class="">Click here to unsubscribe<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size:
12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal;
widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);
float: none; display:
inline !important;"
class=""></span><br
style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size:
12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal;
widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);"
class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;" class="">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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></a><br
style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;" class=""><a href="</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a></a><span
style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;" class="">"></span><br
style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;" class="">Click here to
unsubscribe</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;" class=""></a></span><br
style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>