<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<small><small><big>Hi Al,<br>
<br>
there is in fact a difference between my second sub-particle
and a virtual particle. As you write, a virtual particle can
never be seen as it does not exist as such. My particle does
exist as such in a better way than a quark, as I have
explained earlier. And it could be experimentally presented if
we find an appropriate experiment. I did not find it yet. But
as mentioned here several times, Frank Wilczek has roughly
described an electron experiment where it was seen (as
half-electron). Now there was the argument stated here that
Frank Wilczek is a bit peculiar. This might be a good physical
argument, but in my understanding there are better arguments.
<br>
<br>
You have mentioned this interesting case of dipoles caused by
electrical influence. This is also the case, as I have
mentioned here ealier, for the van der Waals force. Similarly
in my model the attraction of both sub-particles is done in
the same way as in the case of the van der Waals forces. So,
there is nothing fundamentally new in this model.<big><br>
</big><br>
The same process as a reaction in a plasma is much more
complicated. Do not forget that we have something like 10^86
elementary particles in the universe. Every of these has at
least one charge. How can we handle a system built by the
superposition or by the mirroring of 10^86 charges? Maybe it
is easier and more practical to think about the reaction of
just 1 or 2 particles.<br>
<br>
Chiao, Albrecht</big><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</small></small>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small><small>Am 27.11.2015 um 03:34
schrieb <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</small></small><br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-d47441b5-1ce1-40a3-b559-33d58661d4b7-1448591649406@3capp-webde-bap38"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrect:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The basic problem your model addresses is based on the
fact that the current party-line models are defective.
Thus, you cannot argue that insofar as the 'party' gets
away with defiective arguments, that you too are entitled to
do so. Of course, there is no moral or other reason behind
this, just "best practice" type ideas.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The virtue of a virtual particle idea is that virtual
particles are, like your 2nd particle, never "seen" (in any
meaning of the word) becasue they as such do not exist.
They are hypothetical proxies for all the other particles
surrounding the one of interest, i.e., the universe.
Virtual particle storys start with the hypothetical
premise: consider the universe to be a neutral plasma. Now
in your mind's eye place a charge of interest inside it,
then consider how all the other charges react. What they do
is rearange themselves so as to nutralize to the newcomer.
To first order this total effect is the same as if a
particle of oppsite gender were placed on top of the
newcomer. The story gets interesting when delay is taken
into account. If the origianl particle moves, the other
particles in the universe get the message that it has done
so only after a delay, thus the virtual effect of
reafrranging no longer sits on top of the particle
engendering it, but tails it. The two form a virtual dipole
chasing each other, as it were. Since the vitual particle
is a nutralizer, its properties are the compliments of the
original particle. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is just a "story" of course. As are all theories in
the end. It's virtue is consistency with what (little) is
empirically known, not preternatural certainty.</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> Donnerstag,
26. November 2015 um 16:59 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "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>
what empirical evidence you are looking for?<br>
<br>
We never see elementary particles by our eyes. But
even worse: Both stable quarks, the Up- and the
Down-quark, have not only failed to be seen, it was
never possible to isolate them. The only argument in
favour of them is the fact that some mathematical
evaluations of particle reactions are easier with the
assumption of these quarks. And the quarks are given
properties like a mass and an electrical charge (i.e.
1/3 electron charge) which was never based on
measurements. The only argument also in this case is
the easier mathematics if this model is used. But they
are these days the central particles for the
understanding of hadrons. Nobody questions this. - In
comparison to this situation my second sub-particle in
the electron has in my view much more evidence beyond
mathematical advantages.<br>
<br>
And another example, from astronomy: Planets outside
our solar system are not visible in the normal cases.
But astronomers observe that some stars, which are
assumed to be central stars, show small periodical
motions. From these it is concluded that there are
planets, and also properties of these planets are
derived from this visible motion.<br>
<br>
Why not assume that the second particle in the
electron is a virtual one? Ok, but then one has to
explain how this virtual particle is caused. Something
like a mirror in the electron? Or a different
mechanism? And what is about the electrical charge?
Does the real particle carry the full charge or is the
charge distributed between the real and the virtual
constituent? In the former case there would be a
problem to deduce the Landé factor in a classical way
which is possible by my model.<br>
<br>
Anyway, if you have such a model with a virtual one in
mind and you can tell all necessary arguments for its
existence, and the quantitative evaluation has correct
results, AND this model is simpler that the model with
2 sub-particles, that would be a great outcome. So,
please give details ....<br>
<br>
Chiao<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.11.2015 um 18:40
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 Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your responce has little relaiton to my
previous comments. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I qubble not with your results, nor even
the inputs: except to point out that one of
them is unjustified or unmotivated by any
emperical evidence---AS YOU TELL THE STORY! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>What I'm failing to get you to consider, is
that the 2nd particle is a virtual image of
the 1st in a delayed position. WHY NOT?
[Don't tell me there's no empirical evidence!]</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </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> Dienstag,
24. November 2015 um 18:18 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "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);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
I have nothing better to answer than to
point again to the fact that this set up
of two particles not only explains the
fact of inertia, but also yields very
precise results. I have not heard yet
about another theory which is even able
to provide the first point.<br>
<br>
And there is no experiment (no one has
given an argument into that direction)
which is in conflict with this
assumption.<br>
<br>
What else can one expect from a theory?
Right, if another theory, which is
simpler by being based on a smaller
number of assumptions, yields the same
result. So, which one??<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
18.11.2015 um 20:04 schrieb <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>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have and had nothing to say
about your motivation <em>per
se</em>. I tried to say that,
I see no physical-empirical
justification for the 2nd
particle. The issue is not that
I do not, or can not, follow
your arguments, but that I find
them incomplete (as just
mentioned). I note that others
have made the same objection.
Obendarauf, I have made my own
suggestion for a motivation for
the 2nd particle, namely a
virtual image. If you don't
like this idea, fine! It would
be easier to swallow, however,
if you gave a sensible reason,
but that is secondary.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTW, <em>a postiriori </em>success
could justify a search for
empirical support for the 2nd
particle, but not a complete
theory---until empirical
evidence is found. There are
literally hundreds of candiate
theories for everything, Few are
taken at all seriously because
they are jumbeled up in their
fundamentals: primative element
selction, and whatnot. That
fact that, histrical celeberties
got away with it, is part luck
and a lot of sociological
guerilla warfare---techniques
not availble to us in the
trenches.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Another result of formal
logic is that, within an
inconsistent logical sturture
(theory) all theorems, right or
wrong, can be proven. Thus, too
much success is suspicious!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best regards, 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,
18. November 2015 um 11:03
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><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"><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);"><small>Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
<font color="#006600">I
completely disagree
with your conclusions
about the motivation
towards my model
because my intention
was not to develop a
particle model. My
intention was to
develop a better
understanding of time
in relativity. My
present model was an
unexpected consequence
of this work. I show
you my arguments again
and ask you to
indicate the point
where you do not
follow.</font></small><br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix"><small>Am
17.11.2015 um 19:18
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>:</small></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrect:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Comments² <strong>IN
BOLD</strong></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> Dienstag,
17. November
2015 um 18:41
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</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);"><small>Hi Al,<br>
<br>
again some
responses.</small><br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix"><small>Am
14.11.2015 um
18:24 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>:</small></div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Answers
to your
questions:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1) The
SED background
explains the
Planck BB
distribution
without
quantization.
It explans why
an atom
doesn't
collapse: in
equilibrium
with
background, In
fact, just
about every
effect
described by
2nd
quantization
has an SED
parallel
explantion
without
additional
considerations.
With the
additional
input of the
SED origin of
deBroglie
waves, it
provides a
direct
derivation of
the
Schröedinger
eq. thereby
explainiong
all of 1st
Quantization.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><small>Maybe
you achieve
something when
using SED
background. I
do not really
understand
this
background,
but I do not
see a
stringent
necessity for
it. But SED as
an origin to
the de Broglie
waves is of
interest for
me. I am
presently
working on de
Broglie waves
to find a
solution,
which does not
have the
logical
conflicts
which we have
discussed
here.</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>See
No. 11 (or 1)
@ <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a></a> for suggetions and
some previous
work along
this line.</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600"><small><strong>Thank
you, will have a
look.</strong></small></font>
<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>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>2)
Olber's logic
is in conflict
with Mach's
Principle, so
is obviously
just valid for
visible light.
Given a
little
intergalacitc
plasma (1
H/m³), not to
mention
atmossphere
and
interplanatary
plama, visible
light
disappears to
Earthbound
observers at
visitble freqs
to reappear at
other, perhaps
at 2.7° even,
or at any
other long or
hyper short
wave length.
'The universe
matters'---which
is even
politically
correct
nowadays!</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><small>Olber's
logic is
simple in so
far, as it
shows that the
universe
cannot be
infinite. I
have assumed
the same for
all background
effects. Or
are they
infinite?</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>The
fly in the
ointment is
absorbtion.
An inf.
universe with
absorbtion in
the visible
part of the
spectrum will
still have a
largely dark
sky. </strong></small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600"><small><strong>And
the other way
around: Even if
there is no
absorption, the sky
will be dark. And
the general opinion
is that, even if
there is a lot of
radiation absorbed,
this absorbing
material will heat
up by the time and
radiate as well. So
an absorption should
not change too much.</strong></small></font>
<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>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">
<div><br>
<small>What is
the conflict
with Mach's
principle?</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Mach
says: the
gravitational
"background
radiation" is
the cause of
inertia. This
effect is
parallel to
the SED
bacground
causing QM
effects.
Conflict: if
Olber is
right, then
Mach is
probably wrong
(too weak).</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600"><small><strong>In
my understanding,
what Mach means is
completely
different. Mach's
intention was to
find a reference
system which is
absolute with
respect to
acceleration. He
assumed that this is
caused by the stars
in our vicinity. He
did not have a
certain idea how
this happens, he
only needed the
fact. (Einstein
replaced this
necessity by his
equivalence of
gravity and
acceleration - which
however is clearly
falsified as
mentioned several
times.)</strong></small></font>
<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>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>3) The
(wide spread)
criticism of 2
particles is
that there is
neither an <em>a-priori</em>
intuative
reason, nor
empirical
evidence that
they exist.
Maybe they do
anyway. But
then, maybe
Zeus does too,
and he is just
arranging
appearances so
that we amuse
ourselves.
(Try to prove
that wrong!) </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><small>I
have explained
how I came to
the conclusion
of 2
sub-particles.
Again:<br>
<br>
1) There is
motion with c
in an
elementary
particle to
explain
dilation<br>
2) With only
on particle
such process
is
mechanically
not possible,
and it
violates the
conservation
of momentum<br>
3) In this way
it is the only
working model
theses days to
explain
inertia. And
this model
explains
inertia with
high
precision.
What more is
needed?</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>These
assumtions are
"teleological,"
i.e., tuned
to give the
desired
results. As
logic,
although often
done, this
manuver is not
legit in the
formal
presentation
of a theory.
For a physics
theory,
ideally, all
the input
assuptios have
empirical
justification
or motivation.
Your 2nd
partical
(modulo
virtual
images) has no
such
motivatin, in
fact, just the
opposite. </strong></small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600"><small><strong>My
logical way is just
the other way
around. I had the
plan to work on
relativity (the
aspects of time),
not on particle
physics. The
particle model was
an unplanned
spin-off. I shall
try to explain the
logical path again:<br>
<br>
<u>1st step:</u> I
have calculated the
4-dimensional speed
of an object using
the temporal part of
the Lorentz
transformation. The
surprising fact was
that this 4-dim.
speed is always the
speed of light. I
have then assumed
that this constant
shows a permanent
motion with c in a
particle. I have
accepted this as a
probable solution,
but I have never
assumed this, before
I had this result.
It was in no way a
desired result. My
idea was to describe
time by a vector of
3 of 4 dimensions. -
I have then </strong></small></font><font
color="#006600"><small><strong>no
further </strong></small></font><font
color="#006600"><small><strong>followed
this idea.<br>
<u>2nd step:</u> If
there is some motion
in the particle, it
cannot be caused by
one constituent.
This is logically
not possible as it
violates the
conservation of
momentum. Also this
was not a desired
result but logically
inevitable.<br>
<u>3rd step:</u> If
the constituents
move with c, then
they cannot have any
mass. Also this was
not a result which I
wished to achieve,
but here I followed
my understanding of
relativity.</strong></small></font><br>
<strong><small><font
color="#006600"><u><strong>4th
</strong></u><u>step:</u>
The size must be
such that the
resulting frequency
in the view of c
yields the magnetic
moment which is
known by
measurements.<br>
<u>5th step:</u> I
had to find a reason
for the mass of the
electron in spite of
the fact that the
constituents do not
have any mass. After
some thinking I
found out the fact
that any extended
object has
necessarily inertia.
I have applied this
insight to this
particle model, and
the result was the
actual mass of the
electron, if I
assumed that the
force is the strong
force. It could not
be the electric
force (as it was
assumed by others at
earlier times)
because the result
is too weak.<br>
<br>
None of the results
from step 1 thru
step 5 was desired.
Every step was
inevitable, because
our standard
physical
understanding (which
I did not change at
any point) does not
allow for any
alternative. - <u>Or
at which step
could I hav</u><u>e
had an alternative
in your opinion?</u><br>
<br>
And btw: which is
the stringent
argument for only
one constituent? As
I mentioned before,
the experiment is
not an argument. I
have discussed my
model with the
former research
director of DESY who
was responsible for
this type of
electron
experiments, and he
admitted that there
is no conflict with
the assumption of 2
constituents.</font></small></strong>
<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>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">
<div><br>
<small>I know
from several
discussions
with particle
physicists
that there is
a lot of
resistance
against this
assumption of
2
constituents.
The reason is
that everyone
learn at
university
like with
mother's milk
that the
electron is
point-like,
extremely
small and does
not have any
internal
structure.
This has the
effect like a
religion.
(Same with the
relativity of
Hendrik
Lorentz.
Everyone
learns with
the same
fundamental
attitude that
Lorentz was
nothing better
than a senile
old man how
was not able
to understand
modern
physics.) -
Not a really
good way, all
this.</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>Mystical
thinking is
indeed a major
problem even
in Physics!
But, some of
the objectiors
to a 2nd
particle are
not basing
their
objection of
devine
revelation or
political
correctness. </strong></small></div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>4) It is
ascientific to
consider that
the desired
result is
justification
for a
hypothetical
input. OK,
one can say
about such
reasoning, it
is validated <em>a
posteriori</em>,
that at least
makes it sound
substantial.
So much has
been granted
to your
"story" but
has not
granted your
story status
as a "physics
theory." It
has some
appeal, which
in my mind
would be
enhansed had a
rationalization
for the 2nd
particle been
provided.
That's all
I'm trying to
do. When you
or whoever
comes up with
a better one,
I'll drop
pushing the
virtual
particle
engendered by
the
background.
Maybe, it
fixes too many
other things.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><small>My
history was
following
another way
and another
motivation. I
intended to
explain
relativity on
the basis of
physical
facts. This
was my only
intention for
this model.
All further
properties of
the model were
logical
consequences
where I did
not see
alternatives.
I did not want
to explain
inertia. It
just was a
result by
itself.<br>
So, what is
the problem? I
have a model
which explains
several
properties of
elementary
particles very
precisely. It
is in no
conflict with
any
experimental
experience.
And as a new
observation
there is even
some
experimental
evidence. -
What else can
physics expect
from a theory?
- The argument
that the
second
particle is
not visible is
funny. Who has
ever seen a
quark? Who has
ever seen the
internal
structure of
the sun? I
think you have
a demand here
which was
never
fulfilled in
science.</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>The
problem,
obviously, is
that the
existence of
the 2nd
particle, as
you have
presented it,
is not a fact,
but a
Wunschansatz.
[BTW: "See"
in this
context is not
meant
occularly, but
figuratively
for
experimental
verification
through any
length of
inferance
chain.] So,
my question
is: what
problem do you
have with a
virtual mate
for the
particle? In
fact, it will
be there
whether you
use it or not.</strong><br>
<br>
And see again
Frank Wilczek.
</small><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></span></small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><span><span
class="current-selection"><strong>A "straw in the wind" but sure seems
far fetched!
Superconductivity
is already a
manybody
phenomenon,
It's theory
probably
involves some
"virtual"
notions to
capture the
essence of the
average effect
even if the
virtual actors
do not really
exist. </strong></span></span></small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small><strong><font
color="#006600">This
was a nice
confirmation in my
understanding. So as
the whole article of
Wilczek. The
electron is in fact
enigmatic if one
follows main stream.
It looses a lot of
this property if my
model is used. - But
even without this
experimental hint I
do not see any
alternative to my
model without
severely violating
known physics.<br>
<br>
Ciao<br>
Albrecht</font></strong></small><br>
<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>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">
<div><small><span><span
class="current-selection"><strong> </strong></span></span></small><br>
<br>
<small>Guten
Abend<br>
Albrecht</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>Gleichfalls,
Al</strong></small></div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Have a
good one! 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> Samstag,
14. November
2015 um 14:51
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</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);">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>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
13.11.2015 um
20:31 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>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
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> Freitag,
13. November
2015 um 12:11
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</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);">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"><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>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>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>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>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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</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);"><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"><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">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a></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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</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"
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>
</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>
</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>