<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Al,<br>
<br>
Why do we need a background? If I assume only local forces (strong
and electric) for my model, the calculation conforms to the
measurement (e.g. between mass and magnetic moment) with a precision
of 2 : 1'000'000. This is no incident. Not possible, if a poorly
defined and stable background has a measurable influence. - And if
there should be such background and it has such little effect, which
mistake do we make if we ignore that?<br>
<br>
For the competition of the 1/r<sup>2</sup> law for range of charges
and the r<sup>2</sup> law for the quantity of charges we have a
popular example when we look at the sky at night. The sky is dark
and that shows that the r<sup>2</sup> case (number of shining stars)
does in no way compensates for the 1/r<sup>2</sup> case (light flow
density from the stars).<br>
<br>
Why is a 2 particle model necessary?<br>
<br>
1.) for the conservation of momentum<br>
2.) for a cause of the inertial mass<br>
3.) for the radiation at acceleration which occurs most time, but
does not occur in specific situations. Not explained elsewhere.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-2e6a9c3e-920b-46a2-88f1-7a35993ea472-1447443107144@3capp-webde-bap05"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your proposed experiment is hampered by reality! If you do
the measurement with a gaget bought in a store that has knobes
and a display, then the measurement is for certain for signals
under a couple hundred GHz and based on some phenomena for
which the sensitivity of man-made devices is limited. And, if
limited to the electric field, then there is a good chance it
is missing altogether oscillating signals by virtue of its
limited reaction time of reset time, etc. etc. The vast
majority of the background will be much higher, the phenomena
most attuned to detecting might be in fact the quantum effects
otherwise explained with mystical hokus-pokus! Also to be
noted is that, the processes invovled in your model, if they
pertain to elementray entities, will have to be at very small
size and if at the velocity (c) will be very high energy, etc.
so that once again, it is quite reasonable to suppose that the
universe is anything but irrelavant! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, there is then the issue of the divergence of the
this SED background. Ameliorated to some extent with the
realization that there is no energy at a point in empty space
until a charged entity is put there, whereupon the energy of
interaction with the rest of the universe (not just by itself
being there and ignoring the universe---as QM theorists, and
yourself, are wont to do) is given by the sum of interactions
over all particles not by the integral over all space,
including empty space. Looks at first blush to be finite. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Why fight it? Where the hell else will you find a credible
2nd particle? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, 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,
13. November 2015 um 12:11 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>An:</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>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what
a model…</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">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>
2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise the momentum
law is violated; 3 are not possible as in conflict with
experiments.<br>
3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less, otherwise c is
not possible<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>
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>
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>
Tschüß!<br>
Albrecht<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="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<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>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: 13.0px;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: 13.0px;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: 13.0px;line-height:
1.6em;">Tschuß, Al</span></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> 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="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><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="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent">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);"><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="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent">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="genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_parent"><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"><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">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"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></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="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><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="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><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="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><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>
<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>
</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>