<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hi Albrecht,</div><div class=""> I’ll let someone else check your work on inertia if they want. Anyone who thinks they can derive the electron’s mass from two circling light-speed particles having no mass, energy or momentum is I think probably fooling themselves on other subjects also. I’m not much interested in someone asking me to read their ‘book’ or website and telling them where they might be wrong. Life is too short. </div><div class=""> Richard</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
your say:<br class="">
<br class="">
"As for your explanation that the ‘inertia’ of an object is due to
an object being “extended” and therefore that since extended objects
have inertia, the inertia problem is solved. This type of
explanation is just too “cheap” to be believable."<br class="">
<br class="">
Yes, this is my statement that any extended object has necessarily
inertia. "Cheap" is not bad if it is in the sense of "simple". Good
solutions are normally simple in physics as history has shown.<br class="">
<br class="">
But you say, you cannot follow. My point here is: I have explained
the kinetic process which causes inertia as a step by step process
(explicitly on my website). Any step is mathematically described and
stated and the whole job ends with an equation for inertia. If there
is an error in my way, as you assume, it should be quite easy for
you to follow this deduction and to find at least one step which is
not logical or at which the mathematical treatment is incorrect. <br class="">
<br class="">
Please do this and tell me, where you found an incorrect step. Then
we can continue talking about it. (You would be the first one in 15
years to find a bug, but I assure you that I would appreciate such
information.)<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 01.02.2016 um 21:03 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:2DEE7E73-DA66-483F-A9EA-06491B644E2C@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""> Replying your last comment first: </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">To your last
comment: Momentum is the product of inertial mass and speed,
as you surely know. Mass is scalar, that is right, but speed
is a vector and so it is unavoidable that the product,
called momentum, is a vector. But just from this definition
of momentum it is visible that momentum is not fundamental
but a combination of two other units. Isn't it?</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Just because momentum is measured in units of mass x
velocity = mass x distance/time does not mean that momentum is
not a fundamental physical quantity, perhaps more fundamental
than mass or distance or time. The international kilogram
standard for mass is a chunk of platinum-iridium metal enclosed
in a double glass container in Paris. That hardly indicates that
mass is more fundamental than momentum, does it? By the way, the
units of energy are mass x distance^2/ time^2 . Does this mean
that energy is also less fundamental than mass or distance or
time? You need to distinguish between physical quantities like
momentum and units of measurement like mass.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">As for your explanation that the ‘inertia’ of an
object is due to an object being “extended” and therefore that
since extended objects have inertia, the inertia problem is
solved. This type of explanation is just too “cheap” to be
believable. It is circular reasoning of the crudest type, and I
would personally be ashamed if I continually claimed this
defective explanation of inertia for almost 20 years. If no one
has previously pointed out this defective logic to you in nearly
20 years of your advocating it, so much the worse. Rather, I
would be pleased to have my defective logic pointed out to me,
the sooner the better. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Furthermore, you claim that inertia and momentum are
basically the same thing (there may be some truth to this, as my
article on the electron’s inertia suggests). But you say that
the two circulating particles in your 2-particle model of the
electron neither individually contain mass, momentum, nor
energy, yet you claim that this composite model of the electron
has inertia. Unbelievable!</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Richard </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jan 30, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> Hello
Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
yes, we have to assume fundamentals in physics, and which
those are, may be different for different physicists. In
my view, forces are fundamental phenomena where I do not
see an explanation on a lower level, at least at present.
I follow QM at this point in so far, as forces are
realized by exchange particles which are mass-less, move
with c and have a distance law of 1/r^2. .<br class="">
<br class="">
Momentum and inertia are in my view the same phenomenon.
Someone said it earlier in this discussion: Momentum is
the motion of an inertial mass. So, to explain inertial
mass by momentum or momentum by inertia as general
explanation are in my view tautological statements. There
is something explained essentially by itself, nothing new
about it.<br class="">
<br class="">
Inertia is caused in my view (I think explained here
several times) by a very fundamental process. Every
extended object must have inertia. This is caused by
nothing than the finiteness of the speed of light by which
the internal forces in an object propagate. And without
internal forces an extended object cannot exist. This is
true for any type of force, so in our world the strong
force and the electric force. In an elementary particle
the strong force dominates, so I have restricted my
explanation mostly to the strong force. To be precise, the
electric force must not be overlooked. In my model the
consideration of the electric force in the electron causes
the Landé factor (very precisely!)<br class="">
<br class="">
So, the fact that an extended object behaves inert, is
not a possibility or some special theory, but it is
completely unavoidable that an extended object is inert.<br class="">
<br class="">
Only because you mention it: In my model there does not
exist a gravitational mass because gravity has nothing to
do with mass. But this is another topic. If you are
interested you can find it explained on my web site
"origin of gravity" (which is the no. 1 in the internet
about this topic since 12 years).<br class="">
<br class="">
About Newton's law: As I have understood, Newton has
defined mass as F/a. 'F' is in his view an elementary
quantity visible e.g. by stretching a spring. 'a' is
defined by length and time, both are also elementaries for
him in the way that length is given by a prototype ruler
and time by some sufficiently defined oscillators like a
pendulum. We have better definitions now using means of
higher precision, but that does not change the idea
behind.<br class="">
<br class="">
One can of course have a lot of cognition-related thoughts
about the understanding of these quantities, but that
seems to me to be beyond the level which we need here.<br class="">
<br class="">
One famous American physicist ones wrote: Mass is a great
mystery. I know that many understand it this way. But I am
very sure that my finding that every extended object has
inertial mass solves this "mystery" completely. It is my
intention to convince my colleagues about this since more
than 15 year on conferences and by the internet. And I
have never got a refuting argument. Most main stream
physicists refer to Higgs and say that one does not need
another explanation. But never something more substantial.<br class="">
<br class="">
My model of inertia is in some way similar to the Higgs
mechanism. According to the Higgs theory there are virtual
particles intermediately generated in the Higgs field.
These virtual particles couple to the real particle in
view and keep staying at rest in the same inertial system
as the real particle. If now the real particle is
accelerated to any direction, it moves off the virtual
Higgs and that needs a force. This force is inertia. - The
similarity to my model is that in my model the role of the
virtual Higgs is realized by the other (real) sub-particle
in the elementary particle. <br class="">
<br class="">
My model does not explain why there are certain masses in
particles realized and others not. Otto Greulich has found
a numerical relation for the existing particles but no
explanation why it works. In his algorithm the factor
alpha plays an important role. And I have the impression
that the relation of strong force and electric force,
which is described by alpha, plays an essential role in
the question if a particle is stable. Otto is looking for
a possible mechanism, but up to now he has no solution. I
also think about it, but presently also with no success.<br class="">
<br class="">
To your last comment: Momentum is the product of inertial
mass and speed, as you surely know. Mass is scalar, that
is right, but speed is a vector and so it is unavoidable
that the product, called momentum, is a vector. But just
from this definition of momentum it is visible that
momentum is not fundamental but a combination of two other
units. Isn't it?<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 28.01.2016 um 01:33
schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:32A31459-EDB2-4B1B-922F-4C838FEB7CD1@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> You want to explain inertia and
therefore momentum (in your view) by the strong force.
But what is your “mechanism” or explanation for the
strong force? You have not explained or even tried to
explain the strong force so you are actually doing
what you are accusing me of doing — not explaining
what momentum is or what is its “mechanism”. But I’m
not trying to explain momentum, I’m trying to explain
inertial mass or inertia in terms of momentum. If
inertia can be explained in terms of momentum, I would
say that is progress. If this leads to a greater
insights into why inertial mass equals gravitational
mass (if it does), that would be further progress.
Scientific progress occurs in steps, it’s not all or
nothing.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Newton’s F=ma is actually a
tautological or circular relationship. A force F does
not CAUSE acceleration. Acceleration is observed and
measured. “Force" is DEFINED as ma, never observed. Or
m is DEFINED as F/a. “Mass" is also never observed.
Physical objects are hypothesized, observed, measured
or inferred. None of Newton’s laws have ever been
experimentally proved, at least according to MIT
physics lecturer Walter Lewin (introduction to
mechanics). You can’t prove or disprove a definition.
F=ma is a circular relationship that works within
certain limits without knowing what either force or
mass is fundamentally.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> The cause of the inertia of the
electron is considered to be one of the deepest
mysteries of physics. Frank Wilczek in his article
“The origin of mass” at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_03_wilczek_originofmass.pdf">http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_03_wilczek_originofmass.pdf</a> concludes: </div>
<div class="">
<div class="page" title="Page 12">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column"><p class=""><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt;
font-family: 'Granjon'" class="">"Still, as
I’ve already mentioned, our understanding of
the origin of mass is by no means complete.
We have achieved a beautiful and profound
understanding of the origin of </span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family:
'Granjon'; font-style: italic" class="">most
</span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt;
font-family: 'Granjon'" class="">of the mass
of ordinary matter, but not of </span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family:
'Granjon'; font-style: italic" class="">all
</span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt;
font-family: 'Granjon'" class="">of it. The
value of the electron mass, in particular,
remains deeply mysterious even in our most
advanced speculations about unification and
string theory. And ordinary matter, we have
recently learned, supplies only a small
fraction of mass in the Universe as a whole.
More beautiful and profound revelations
surely await discovery. We continue to
search for concepts and theories that will
allow us to understand the origin of mass in
all its forms, by unveiling more of Nature’s
hidden symmetries." </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="">And Wilczek is talking about the origin of
the magnitude of the electron’s mass, not the cause of
the electron’s inertia.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> I am not claiming, as you do, to derive
the electron’s mass m = 0.511 MeV/c^2 in a circular
way from the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m which isn’t even
the electron’s experimental magnetic moment, only an
approximation calculated from the known measured
values of e, h and m. But it is not tautological or
circular to derive the electron’s inertial mass m =
0.511Mev/c^2 from a circulating photon model of an
electron where this circulating photon has (for no
known reason) energy hf = 0.511MeV and momentum p =
0.511MeV/c . After all, a photon’s rest mass (0
Mev/c^2) is not the same as a photon’s inertial mass
(hf/c^2). And the rest mass m of a moving electron is
not the same as the inertial mass gamma m of this
moving electron. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">As far as what you say about the Higgs
mechanism and inertia, here’s an interesting quote
from Bernhard Haisch in <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html">http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html</a> .
Haisch and his colleagues have been studying inertia
and its possible explanation for years: <span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: small;
text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);" class="">"But the Higgs mechanism does not
explain why mass, or its energy equivalent, resists
motion or reacts to gravity," says Bernard Haisch of
the California Institute for Physics and
Astrophysics in Palo Alto. He believes instead that
inertia and gravity are manifestations of far more
familiar effects. </span></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">So the Higgs field, while it may “explain”
why some particles have rest mass and others don't,
apparently doesn’t explain the inertia of mass. So
your explanation of inertia is apparently not in
competition with the Higgs mechanism of mass. But I
would say that your explanation of inertial mass in
terms of the strong nuclear force IS in competition
with the derivation of inertial mass from momentum.
And Occam’s razor and physical facts do apply.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">One more comment. Momentum is a vector
quantity, with both magnitude and direction. Inertial
mass is a scalar quantity, with magnitude only. So
Inertia cannot be the same as momentum unless inertia
is also a vector quantity, having direction as well as
magnitude. Perhaps inertia IS a vector quantity after
all, subject to vector addition (and cancellation).
That would be interesting.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jan 27, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Albrecht
Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
there is not necessarily a hierarchy between
mass and momentum. But the origin of all is the
resistance against a change of the motion state.
That resistance is called inertia. And this
resistance causes momentum as well as mass. <br class="">
<br class="">
If you understand the momentum as on the top of
the hierarchy, you have to explain which
mechanism causes momentum. There must be one.
What is it?<br class="">
<br class="">
My explanation of inertia is the only working
one which I know. And which of course is not a
tautological explanation. The other explanation
followed by main stream is the Higgs model. That
is derived from QM, and that is something which
I personally do not like very much. But the
strong argument against the Higgs model is the
fact that the necessary Higgs field does not
exist as far as we know. And again, I have never
heard about another model of inertial which is
not tautological. <br class="">
<br class="">
My model for leptons and for quarks has to
function as it does, under the assumption that
inertia has to be explained. And we may not ask
for Occam's Razor if there is no alternative. I
do not see any. <br class="">
<br class="">
My model explains the photon in a fundamentally
similar way as a lepton and a quark. But for the
photon something has to be added to explain its
constant speed, i.e. the fact that it cannot be
found at rest. And the fact of twice the spin.
This letter point seems to me not too serious. <br class="">
<br class="">
The relativistic increase of the particle mass
at motion (not only the electron, but all) is
easily and straight explained by the model. Take
the calculation of the inertial mass and adjust
the distance of the sub-particles for the
relativistic contraction. Then the straight
result is the new mass increased by the factor
gamma. Your find it in my web site about "origin
of mass". And the relation energy to mass:
E=mc^2 follows immediately from the same
calculation. Who else has ever deduced the
famous formula of Einstein? I do not know any
else deduction which refers to a physical
mechanism. <br class="">
<br class="">
Strong force? In the 1940s calculations of the
electron have been made in Germany which were
based on the assumption that there are only
electrical forces in the particle. The resulting
mass turned out to be too low by a factor of ca.
300. This is about the factor by which the
strong force is stronger than the electrical
one. So there is no surprise that with the
assumption of the strong force the results are
correct. I think this is a good argument. Isn't
it?<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 26.01.2016 um
01:50 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:7DEA6DFD-C1EB-4058-99AF-D71BF4807606@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" class="">
Hello Albrecht,
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class=""> I know that you object to
my derivation, but I am proposing that
momentum is primary and inertia is
secondary. You have got it backwards. The
inertial mass of an electron is (in my
approach) quantitatively due to the
circulating internal momentum of its
charged (or uncharged) photon. By
extension, the inertial mass of all
particles with rest mass is likely due to
internally circulating momenta. It is true
as you say that in a world without inertia
(or inertial mass) there would be no
momentum, but in a world without momentum
there would also be no inertia (or
inertial mass). Inertia (or inertial mass)
is due to momentum (in my approach).
Momentum is not due to inertia. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> I know that your electron
hypothesis attempts to derive the inertia
of an electron differently. But I think
you will have to admit that my derivation
of the electron’s inertial mass from the
electron’s proposed circulating internal
photon momentum is very much simpler than
yours (which is by the way based on highly
questionable premises since there is no
accepted experimental evidence for the
strong nuclear force influencing electric
charges, zero experimental evidence for
two sub-particles in an electron, and your
electron model’s apparently negative rest
mass due to its negative internal
potential energy), and thus by Occam's
Razor, much to be preferred. Plus, your
model doesn’t derive the inertial mass of
a photon as hf/c^2 or the inertial mass of
a relativistically moving electron as
gamma m, does it?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:33
AM, Albrecht Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> Dear
Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
you know that I object to your
derivation of inertial mass. You
deduce it from momentum. That is
mathematically possible by using
the known relations. But it is not
logical in so far as momentum
depends on inertia. In a world
without inertia there would be no
momentum.<br class="">
<br class="">
So we have to explain first the
mechanism of inertia itself, then
we can derive the momentum and the
inertial mass.<br class="">
<br class="">
Best<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
24.01.2016 um 20:42 schrieb
Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:0907288F-7DBF-486D-B8E1-30751A151F73@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" class="">
<div class="">Hello Vladimir and
Chandra and all,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Yes, I
definitely support the idea of
the ether as material space,
and that all physical
particles are derived from
this ether. This ether can
also be called a plenum or
Cosmic Tension Field.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> I don’t however
think that it is necessary to
explain the inertial mass of
particles in relation to a
"coefficient of inertia” or
"the amount of momentum the
ether resists." I have shown (<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia">https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia</a> )
by a very simple derivation
that the inertial mass m of an
electron may be derived from
the momentum of the circling
photon in a circulating-photon
model of the electron, whose
circling photon has momentum
mc where m = Eo/c^2 = hf/c^2 ,
where Eo is the rest energy
0.511 MeV of the electron and
f is the frequency of the
circulating photon in the
resting electron. Secondly, in
a similar way I derived a
linearly moving photon's
inertial mass to be M-inertial
= hf/c^2 , where f is the
photon’s frequency, even
though a photon has zero rest
mass. Thirdly, I derived the
inertial mass of a
relativistic electron, whose
momentum is p=gamma mv, to be
M-inertial = gamma m , even
though the moving electron's
rest mass is m. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> I present these
derivations below, taken from
the <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://academia.edu/" class="">academia.edu</a> session
on my electron inertia article
at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.academia.edu/s/a26afd55e0?source=link">https://www.academia.edu/s/a26afd55e0?source=link</a> :</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="js-non-expanded-comment" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(73, 72, 72); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; white-space: pre-wrap;">"One reason people don’t think that a photon has any inertial mass (because it has no rest mass) is that how do you get a photon to change its momentum (i.e. accelerate) in order to measure its inertial mass. It can’t go faster or slower than c in a vacuum, so it can’t accelerate in a linear direction, and in normal physics a photon doesn’t follow a curved path (except with gravity), which would make it possible to measure its centripetal acceleration c^2/R . But as I showed in my short el</span><span class="js-expanded-comment" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(73, 72, 72); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; white-space: pre-wrap;">ectron inertia article at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.academia.ed
u/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Elect%0Arons_Inertia" class="">https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia</a> , the electron model in a resting electron has the photon going in a circle, with momentum mc and speed c, and the electron's inertial mass is then calculated to be M-inertial =(dp/dt)/Acentrifugal =wmc/(c^2/r)= m which is the inertial mass of the electron. But this calculation of the circling charged photon's inertial mass is independent of the radius of the charged photon’s circular orbit. Let that circular radius go towards infinity and you get a photon traveling in essentially a straight line, still having its inertial mass M =hf/c^2 (where the photon frequency f decreases as the radius of the circle increases) . So according to this logic, a linearly moving photon DOES have inertial mass M-inertial =hf/c^2 even though a photon has zero rest mass. And when a relativistic electron with momentum p=gamma mv travels in a circle with speed v, the inert
ial mass c
alculation
above gives M
-in
ertial = gamma m for a circling relativistic electron, and not just m the electron’s rest mass . Extending the radius here towards infinity also gives a linearly moving electron an inertial mass M = gamma m and not just the electron's rest mass m."</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="js-expanded-comment" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(73, 72, 72); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="js-expanded-comment" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(73, 72, 72); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; white-space: normal;" class=""> As far as I know these are all original derivations of the inertial mass of a resting electron, a photon and a relativistic electron based on a circulating photon model of an electron. I would be pleased to be shown otherwise.</span></span></div>
<div class=""><span class="js-expanded-comment" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(73, 72, 72); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; white-space: normal;" class="">
</span></span></div>
<div class=""><span class="js-expanded-comment" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(73, 72, 72); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; white-space: normal;" class=""> Richard</span></span></div>
<div class=""><span class="js-expanded-comment" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(73, 72, 72); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jan 24,
2016, at 6:42 AM,
Roychoudhuri, Chandra <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page:
WordSection1;
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;">
<div style="margin: 0in
0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size:
11pt;" class="">Yes,
Vlad, that is also
my viewpoint.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in
0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size:
11pt;" class="">I do
not remember whether
I have attached this
paper while
communicating with
you earlier. I call
the “plenum” Cosmic
Tension Field (CTF),
to be descriptive in
its essential
properties.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in
0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size:
11pt;" class="">Chandra.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in
0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;" class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" name="_MailEndCompose" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""> </span></a></div>
<div class="">
<div style="border-style:
solid none none;
border-top-color:
rgb(181, 196, 223);
border-top-width:
1pt; padding: 3pt
0in 0in;" class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Tahoma,
sans-serif;" class="">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Tahoma,
sans-serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Vladimir
Tamari<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Saturday, January 23, 2016 7:00 PM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles -
General
Discussion<br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] (no subject)<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in
0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;" class="">Hi Richard <o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;" class="">I barge
into your discussion
without knowing your
views on a "plenum
field" but if it is
an ether I
definitely think
there is one. A
"coefficent of
inertia" might be
defined as the
amount of momentum
the ether resists.
In a charged or
gravitational field
this coefficent
would increase...I
think of this in
terms of my
Beautiful Universe
ether of dielectric
nodes, except this
may give the wrong
idea it is something
matter wades in..
not so. Matter and
ether are made if
the selfsame nodes
of energy!<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;" class="">Cheers<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;" class="">Vladimir<br class="">
<br class="">
_____________________<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif;" class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://vladimirtamari.com/" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;" class="">vladimirtamari.com</a><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in
0in 12pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif;"><br class="">
On Jan 21, 2016, at
7:41 AM, Richard
Gauthier <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:
5pt; margin-bottom:
5pt;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;" class="">Hi
Hodge,<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;" class=""> I
don’t remember
asking that. But
if I did, I’m
glad the
question was
helpful.<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;" class=""> I’m
thinking about
inertia these
days. Do you or
others have any
insights about
its nature?<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;" class="">
Richard<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
<div class="">
<blockquote style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;" class="">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;" class="">On
Jan 20, 2016,
at 1:43 PM,
Hodge John
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com">jchodge@frontier.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2533" class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
background-color:
white;" class=""><span style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;" class="">Richard
Gauthier:<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2535" class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
background-color:
white;" class=""><span style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;" class="">You
asked if the
galaxy
redshift,
Pioneer
anomaly,
Pound--Rebka
experiment
model had a
velocity term.
I looked at
redshift data
for 1 galaxy
and found no
indication of
a velocity
term.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2537" class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
background-color:
white;" class=""><span style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2539" class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
background-color:
white;" class=""><span style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;" class="">I had
not noticed
this in the
equations.
Your
suggestion
that the
plenum field
can look like
the Higgs
field seems
valid. That
is, the
acceleration
of the plenum
field looks
like it adds
energy (mass)
is a Higgs
Field
characteristic.
Thus, the
plenum is
closer to the
idea of a
quantum field
and Higgs
field (weak
force).<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2541" class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
background-color:
white;" class=""><span style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2543" class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
background-color:
white;" class=""><span style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;" class="">Thanks
for the
insight.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2545" class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
background-color:
white;" class=""><span style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2579" class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman', serif;
background-color:
white;" class="">Hodge<span style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin:
0in 0in
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;" class="">_______________________________________________<br 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><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></a><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>"><br class="">
Click here to
unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:
5pt; margin-bottom:
5pt;" class="">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif;" class="">_______________________________________________<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:vladimirtamari@hotmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vladimirtamari@hotmail.com">vladimirtamari@hotmail.com</a><br class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">
Click here to
unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<span id="cid:DFC5E2FD-311C-4B12-8ECB-B23546E6F065@hsd1.ca.comcast.net." class=""><2012.2_JMP_Space
as real field.pdf></span><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; 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;" 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; 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" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</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;" 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; float: none;
display: inline
!important;" class=""><a
href="</span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></a><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><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; 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;" 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; 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;" 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; 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;" class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre class="" wrap="">_______________________________________________
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:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<table style="border-top: 1px
solid #aaabb6; margin-top:
30px;" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="width: 105px;
padding-top: 15px;" class=""> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" class=""><img moz-do-not-send="true" src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png" style="width:
90px; height:33px;" class=""></a> </td>
<td style="width: 470px;
padding-top: 20px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;" class="">Diese E-Mail
wurde von einem
virenfreien Computer
gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird. <br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;" class="">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;
margin-top: 30px;" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="width: 105px; padding-top:
15px;" class=""> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" class=""><img moz-do-not-send="true" src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png" style="width: 90px; height:33px;" class=""></a> </td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top:
20px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien
Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird. <br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color:
#4453ea;" class="">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6; margin-top:
30px;" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien
Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. <br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;" class="">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;" class="">
<tbody class=""><tr class="">
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. <br class=""><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;" class="">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>