<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD>
<STYLE id=eMClientCss>BLOCKQUOTE.cite {
PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #cccccc 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px
}
BLOCKQUOTE.cite2 {
PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #cccccc 1px solid; MARGIN-TOP: 3px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px
}
.plain PRE {
FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: monospace; WHITE-SPACE: pre-wrap; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal
}
.plain TT {
FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: monospace; WHITE-SPACE: pre-wrap; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal
}
A IMG {
BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px
}
#x27ab5ca749844cea86f0cdf15e10c35c {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
.plain PRE {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
.plain TT {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
BODY {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 P {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline; COLOR: blue
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline; COLOR: purple
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 LI.MsoAcetate {
FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 P.MsoAcetate {
FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
</STYLE>
<STYLE>#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 P {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 A:link {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline; COLOR: blue
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline; COLOR: blue
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 A:visited {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline; COLOR: purple
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline; COLOR: purple
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 PRE {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 DIV.MsoAcetate {
FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 LI.MsoAcetate {
FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 P.MsoAcetate {
FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 SPAN.HTMLPreformattedChar {
FONT-FAMILY: Consolas
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 SPAN.EmailStyle23 {
COLOR: black
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 SPAN.BalloonTextChar {
FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 SPAN.EmailStyle26 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 .MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
#x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2 P {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US scroll=auto link=blue bgColor=white vLink=purple fpstyle="1" ocsi="0" class>
<DIV>Dear John, </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Good luck with the exams and negotiations, and rest assure the WcdM equations will be there when you got the time and energy back! </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN id=x27ab5ca749844cea86f0cdf15e10c35c style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: white">I think the main reason people don't understand is that they can't follow the maths unless it is given 100% attention and at least a full workweek, and that may only result in an understanding similar to yours if there are also tools to visualize and experiment with during that time. Some of this is missing for all the people on the discussion list, including me...</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I believe that to understand this apparently simple <SPAN id=xac39d5498edb42ebb54cb394f579ce08 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: white">GdG = 0 equation at any deeper level, there </SPAN>needs to be a PhD-level course with use pf proper math tools and exercises to it so that it can be explored and discussed in more detail. At least until there is research funding for it enough to support a team with many competences for at least a year. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I guess you would be able to get a lot of students to sign up for such an international PhD course, could you try? Not sure what it could be called but looking at the mathemathical content in the full <SPAN id=x022b75692412458dbe639be9f775814d style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: white">WvdM </SPAN>equation it does result in most engineering formulas used in contemporary continuum analysis today. It does also open the possibility to extend the continuum to relativistic velocities or energy densities when used as a complete set, but the FEM grid to calculate it on would be enormous so the course would need access to lots of resources on a supercomputer for such exercises if even possible, so maybe it should not be part of the course even though that is what we are trying to discuss here... It takes time to get the grips on this!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best wishes,/joakim</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>------ Originalmeddelande ------</DIV>
<DIV>Från: "John Williamson" <<A href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</A>></DIV>
<DIV>Till: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<A href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>></DIV>
<DIV>Kopia: "Mark, Martin van der" <<A href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</A>></DIV>
<DIV>Skickat: 2016-02-04 20:00:22</DIV>
<DIV>Ämne: Re: [General] (no subject)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV id=x053ceb0b2b2f4c28ab888e008682cba2>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite2 cite=7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C91477B270@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk type="cite">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; COLOR: #000000; DIRECTION: ltr">
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB'>Dear All,</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB'> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB'>Albrecht – I must apologise for being so direct in my criticism of your work. As I have said before, there is much which is good in it. You just did not seem to properly take on board some aspects of well-established fact. Perhaps there is a deeper level to your thinking where these are properly balanced.<BR><BR>To do something positive ...<BR><BR>Chip is right that I simple calculation shows that the photon confinement force would be (if the electron was a localised photon) of the order of the "strong" interaction in magnitude. Though this picture is not quite so simple- the electron is no more simply a confined photon, simply, that the “photon” is just given by the retarded potentials). Neither picture is complete.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB'> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB'>There ARE forces sufficient to the task in my new theory of light and matter. They are given by a generalisation of the Lorentz force. These were first outlined in my talk in 2008 at CYBCOM, and you can hear them talked about there as the talk is up on the CYBCOM website hosted by Nick Green. The full set are given by multiplying the left hand side of the WvdM equations by the generalised field. The WvdM equations (which contain the Maxwell equations as a special case, may be written dG=0, as in the SPIE paper. This contains the four coupled Maxwell equations (for the field alone), and also four new equations relating current and quantum spin. As is said there, the generalised force is just GdG. These ARE big enough to confine light - that is the point. It is easy to see this if one sets the total generalised force to zero one writes the 1024 coupled terms of the set of coupled first order differential general equation GdG = 0. Clearly this is zero (force free motion) if either the sixteen terms of G are all zero - in which case one has nothing, or if the 64 terms of dG are zero. That condition is expressed mathematically by writing dG = 0. Those 64 terms ARE the WvdM equation. There are forces - big forces - forces as strong as the strong force - but the net force on each and every element - field and masses - is zero in the WvdM equation. There are lots of heavy forces – all beautifully balanced in the new theory. All described by a set of coupled differential equation in (ONLY!) space and time.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB'> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB'>I have said this many times, I have written this in the papers I submitted, there has been lots of discussion about this - that we need forces. I have argued that one needs a theory of these forces – not a bunch of opinions – a theory with equations, forces, quantities such as current, quantum spin, rest mass and field. We have such a theory! </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB'> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB'>After all that I have the distinct impression that none of you seem to know what I am talking about at all. My friend Weaver says this is just because it is just hard – but it isn’t if you just follow the logic properly.<BR><BR>I must apologise for not contributing much to the group discussion over the last couple of months and if I’m being a bit short and rude now. This has been mainly because the University has started a program to try to fire me (just before Christmas) based on the fact that I am not considered to be research active! This has been, as one might expect, causing me a lot of stress and has been taking up a lot of my time over the last couple of months. Also, I have an exam (actually four separate exams – to combat copying) for tomorrow, with 400 folk taking it - and have just discovered that the university has booked the room in which I will be holding it of another event (In which I am also involved, by pure chance, which is the only reason I have heard about it at all!). This may or may not be a problem depending on when it finishes. This semester I will have more than a thousand scripts to mark – the 400 from the exam tomorrow plus more than 600 in April, plus hundreds of logbooks and dozens of masters theses (four years ago I would have had a couple of hundred scripts in a whole year, <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>which felt like a lot at the time!) I have a (teaching) work program that has quadrupled in four years. Overall, I’m feeling a bit abused and very very tired! Sorry guys!<BR><BR>Regards, John.</SPAN></P>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
</DIV>
<DIV id=divRpF192419 style="DIRECTION: ltr"><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> General [<A href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>] on behalf of Roychoudhuri, Chandra [<A href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</A>]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, February 04, 2016 4:09 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] (no subject)<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black">HI Everybody: </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black">I am in general agreement with Chip regrading all stable particles as being emergent excitation properties of the same Complex Tension Field (CTF); which also supports the perpetually propagating linear excitations as the EM waves. “Linear excitation” also mathematically and physically imply Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW). Particles are local excitations and EM waves are perpetually propagating excitations of the same stationary CTF. The core “quantumness” arises from classical <B><I>self-resonant</I></B> self-looped harmonic oscillations. QM is not at all fundamentally different from CM. QM appeared as a “revolution” because it has been such an incomplete theory from its original formulation and yet it succeeds in predicting so many diverse properties of the micro universe! <B><I>The key incompleteness of QM lies with its inability to guide us to understand and visualize the details of the interaction processes.</I></B></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><I><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black">The CTF is also the universal stationary reference frame.</SPAN></I></B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"> Atoms in the stars and inside my He-Ne discharge tube are moving randomly in the same stationary CTF. That is why the characteristics of the emission and absorption spectra of atoms in the stars and in earth-based laboratories can be des cribbed by the same rules of QM. The atoms in the stars are confined by Gravitational Potential Gradients of the stars and atoms in my He-Ne tube are essentially confined mechanically by the walls of the discharge tube [the tube held by the earth’s gravity gradient. The space between all atoms and particles everywhere in this universe is the same stationary CTF. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><I><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black">There are no “forces”.</SPAN></I></B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"> But there are diverse “Potential gradients” of the CTF (“Curvatures” a la Einstein) generated around localized (finite size, not a point) self-looped oscillations, depending upon their internal oscillations (movements) characteristics. Stationary CTF also implies Cosmological Redshift is definitely not due to Doppler Velocity Effect. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black">Yes, developing the mathematical structure for self-resonant self-looped oscillation has been the <B><I>“elephant in the physics edifice” </I></B>for quite some time! We just need to anchor our thinking to visualize the invisible interaction processes that give rise to the measurable data. Mathematical theory, supported by measured data, is not sufficient to keep us anchored in perpetually excavating ontological realities. Interaction processes, if we can visualize, give us a glimpse of some aspects of the ongoing ontological realities. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black">The philosophical thinking behind the “Special Relativity” and the “Copenhagen School” have slowed down the progress of physics quite severally. We need to “stand on the shoulders” of these “giant” philosophies and see further out; rather than bowing down to them out of our Messiah Complex; and, thereby, keep our knowledge horizon stagnant, or even reduced!</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black">Sincerely,</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black">Chandra.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><A name=_MailEndCompose><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'> </SPAN></A></P>
<DIV>
<DIV style="BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"'> General [mailto:<A href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Chip Akins<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:51 AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] (no subject)</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi All</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Many of us, probably most of us, believe that fermionic particles are confined energy in the form of waves.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Regarding inertia, I think that Richard is dead on, as have been many of us and several before us, and that inertia is quite easy to explain once we accept that fermionic particles are (principally circularly) confined waves of energy traveling at c (or the sqrt(2) c).</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Then inertia is simply the consequence of the fixed velocity and the momentum of the waves when confined.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">As an aside, the most economical solution for gravity is to assume that it is the diffraction of these waves due to changes in the density of space (permittivity and permeability) in the vicinity of concentrations of energy (mass being one example of the concentration of energy).</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Of course the real puzzle is the method and nature of the confinement. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Confinement of these waves, with their known momentum, to make fermions, requires a force <B>at least equal to</B> the Strong Nuclear force. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">This confinement force is at least 1/a (137 times) stronger than the E field forces… and about 1/(6.0E-39) = (</SPAN><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>1.66667E+38) </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black">stronger than gravity.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">(So the Higgs field or gravity is in no way a cause of inertial mass, but rather gravity is an effect of the concentration of energy. And the Higgs Field may be just imaginations.)</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">So while the “cause for inertia” might be stated as the momentum of the confined wave-- <I>that is not an adequately complete explanation.</I> For we must then explain how it is that these waves can be confined against such a strong force of momentum. The centripetal force required is in the range of 0.42 kg for the electron.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">This confinement force yields only specific fermionic results. We do not see rest masses of fermions throughout the full energy spectrum, but only sparsely distributed through this spectrum.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">When we really understand this confinement force we will then understand why it is that the particles have the exact inertial masses they have.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">This confinement force is the elephant in the room.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">For me this is the largest remaining piece of the puzzle.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">We still have some discovery ahead. Work to do. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">If any of you have insight or information that may help in this quest it would be so very appreciated.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Chip</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV style="BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'> General [<A href="http://redir.aspx/?REF=Z9-ei8mBEfLkqGoQ2f3seJOFyumgjlNj6xviPc0iBZ87zlrOii3TCAFtYWlsdG86Z2VuZXJhbC1ib3VuY2VzK2NoaXBha2lucz1nbWFpbC5jb21AbGlzdHMubmF0dXJlb2ZsaWdodGFuZHBhcnRpY2xlcy5vcmc.">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>] <B>On Behalf Of </B>John Williamson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, February 04, 2016 1:36 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<A href="http://redir.aspx/?REF=MJlnaSfLyMCVbdDQk842rVO6zy3NKOUZHY7s_UzZcU47zlrOii3TCAFtYWlsdG86Z2VuZXJhbEBsaXN0cy5uYXR1cmVvZmxpZ2h0YW5kcGFydGljbGVzLm9yZw..">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>>; <A href="http://redir.aspx/?REF=UQ9-QD-bfvtL_xOrqhUnEOzLVZvX20WkvjRoJeJY35Q7zlrOii3TCAFtYWlsdG86cGh5c0BhLWdpZXNlLmRl">phys@a-giese.de</A><BR><B>Cc:</B> Mark, Martin van der <<A href="http://redir.aspx/?REF=aR93N9FaN1KxBtChsPujEJE3x4ON-Idi6pl3fw-vR6I7zlrOii3TCAFtYWlsdG86bWFydGluLnZhbi5kZXIubWFya0BwaGlsaXBzLmNvbQ..">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</A>><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] (no subject)</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Dear Albrecht,<BR><BR>Sorry to be so direct - but you are quite simply wrong in much of what you say. This is not wrong in the senso fo a matter of opinion - but just wrong in that your view are simply contradicted by experiment.<BR><BR>Going on with this is sucking oxygen out of what should be a constructive debate - and driving people away.<BR><BR>For example on momentum you say ....<BR><BR>"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><BR>This is just bullshit.<BR><BR>Photons have no inertial mass. Photons carry momentum. Ergo - bullshit.<BR><BR>No?<BR><BR>Even in classical electromagnetism the momentum density is the cross product of the E and B fields. Even at this level it is bullshit.<BR><BR>More: there is no sign of a force between parts of the electron not an electromagnetic force and certainly not a strong force. Experimentally. End of story.<BR><BR>So more bullshit...<BR><BR>All you are doing is diverting debate into dead ends ... dead ends with no theory, no equations, no explanations, no dynamics - nothing ....<BR><BR>Please stop!<BR><BR>JGW.</SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><SPAN style="COLOR: black">
<DIV>
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</DIV></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=divRpF912975>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><B><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> General [<A href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>] on behalf of Wolfgang Baer [<A href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">wolf@nascentinc.com</A>]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, February 03, 2016 9:51 PM<BR><B>To:</B> <A href="http://redir.aspx/?REF=UQ9-QD-bfvtL_xOrqhUnEOzLVZvX20WkvjRoJeJY35Q7zlrOii3TCAFtYWlsdG86cGh5c0BhLWdpZXNlLmRl">phys@a-giese.de</A>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] (no subject)</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: black">albrecht;<BR>Your paragraph in bold below is a very nice and concise way to summarize your point, especially if the Lande factor can be fit.<BR>I have "Relativity Based on Physical Processes Rather Than Space-Time" and the "can a photon be described...." article from SPIE 2015<BR>I can see after eq. 2.6 the words "<I>this is now the inertial mass</I>...'<BR><BR>this calculation makes sense but works out because you have <BR>1) defined a specific binding field as a multipole bond<BR>2) assumed mass-less particles which react individually to some "external agent" <BR><BR>Is there a reference or can you explain both of these assumptions or else one might think you backed into them.<BR>I mean your requirements for the sub-particles and their fields may be more complicated than the effects they explain.<BR><BR>"for example you say the internal motion must be circular in order to account for angular momentum"<BR><BR>Does that not imply an inertial mass when the particles are in their equilibrium orbits? <BR>If it takes an external agent force to show the properties of inertial mass, how does this equilibrium field have a minimum.<BR>in the planetary orbit model the minimum is produced by a a coulomb force pulling in and a centripetal force pulling out<BR>how did you get your minimum?<BR><BR>best wishes<BR>wolf</SPAN></P><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Research Director</SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Nascent Systems Inc.</SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black">E-mail <A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">wolf@NascentInc.com</A></SPAN></PRE>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">On 1/30/2016 1:22 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:</SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hello Richard,<BR><BR>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><BR>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><BR><B>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!)</B><BR><BR>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><BR>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><BR>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><BR>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><BR>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><BR>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><BR>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><BR>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><BR>Albrecht</SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Am 28.01.2016 um 01:33 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hello Albrecht,</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> 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.</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> 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.</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> 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 href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_03_wilczek_originofmass.pdf</A> concludes: </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Granjon; COLOR: black">"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 <I>most </I>of the mass of ordinary matter, but not of <I>all </I>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><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">And Wilczek is talking about the origin of the magnitude of the electron’s mass, not the cause of the electron’s inertia.</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> 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. </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">As far as what you say about the Higgs mechanism and inertia, here’s an interesting quote from Bernhard Haisch in <A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html</A> . Haisch and his colleagues have been studying inertia and its possible explanation for years: </SPAN><SPAN style='FONT-FAMILY: "Verdana","sans-serif"; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: black'>"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><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">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.</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">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.</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Richard</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">On Jan 27, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese <<A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">genmail@a-giese.de</A>> wrote:</SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hello Richard,<BR><BR>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><BR>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><BR>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><BR>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><BR>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><BR>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><BR>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><BR>Albrecht<BR><BR></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Am 26.01.2016 um 01:50 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hello Albrecht, </SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> 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. </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> 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?</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> Richard</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Albrecht Giese <<A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">genmail@a-giese.de</A>> wrote:</SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Dear Richard,<BR><BR>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><BR>So we have to explain first the mechanism of inertia itself, then we can derive the momentum and the inertial mass.<BR><BR>Best<BR>Albrecht</SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Am 24.01.2016 um 20:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hello Vladimir and Chandra and all,</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> 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.</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> 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 href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">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. </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> I present these derivations below, taken from the <A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">academia.edu</A> session on my electron inertia article at <A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">https://www.academia.edu/s/a26afd55e0?source=link</A> :</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN class=js-non-expanded-comment><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Georgia","serif"; COLOR: #494848'>"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><SPAN class=js-expanded-comment><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Georgia","serif"; COLOR: #494848'>ectron inertia article at <A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">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 iner tia l 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></SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN class=js-expanded-comment><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: #494848'> 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><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN class=js-expanded-comment><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: #494848'> Richard</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:42 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <<A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</A>> wrote:</SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Yes, Vlad, that is also my viewpoint.</SPAN><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>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.</SPAN><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Chandra.</SPAN><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'> </SPAN><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN class=apple-converted-space><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>General [<A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>]<SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><B>On Behalf Of<SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></B>Vladimir Tamari<BR><B>Sent:</B><SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Saturday, January 23, 2016 7:00 PM<BR><B>To:</B><SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B><SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re: [General] (no subject)</SPAN><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Hi Richard </SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>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!</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Cheers</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Vladimir<BR><BR>_____________________</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'><A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/"><SPAN style="COLOR: purple">vladimirtamari.com</SPAN></A></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><BR>On Jan 21, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Richard Gauthier <<A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">richgauthier@gmail.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi Hodge,</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> I don’t remember asking that. But if I did, I’m glad the question was helpful.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> I’m thinking about inertia these days. Do you or others have any insights about its nature?</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> Richard</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>On Jan 20, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Hodge John <<A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">jchodge@frontier.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2533>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Richard Gauthier:</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2535>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>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.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2537>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> </SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2539>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>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).</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2541>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> </SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2543>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Thanks for the insight.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2545>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> </SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2579>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>Hodge</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>_______________________________________________<BR>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 href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">richgauthier@gmail.com</A><BR><a href="<A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</A>"><BR>Click here to unsubscribe<BR></a></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'> </SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">vladimirtamari@hotmail.com</A><BR><a href="<A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</A>"><BR>Click here to unsubscribe<BR></a></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><2012.2_JMP_Space as real field.pdf></SPAN><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>_______________________________________________<BR>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><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">richgauthier@gmail.com</A></SPAN><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'><BR><a href="</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</A></SPAN><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; COLOR: black'>"><BR>Click here to unsubscribe<BR></a></SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><BR><BR></SPAN></P><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black">_______________________________________________</SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">phys@a-giese.de</A></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><a href=<A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</A>></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Click here to unsubscribe</SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></a></SPAN></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="BORDER-TOP: #aaabb6 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none" cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 border=1>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; WIDTH: 78.75pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-TOP: 11.25pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt" width=131>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 22.5pt"><A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/"><SPAN style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"><IMG id=_x0000_i1026 border=0 src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png"></SPAN></A></P></TD>
<TD style="BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; WIDTH: 352.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-TOP: 15pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt" width=588>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 22.5pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13.5pt"><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; COLOR: #41424e'>Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. <BR><A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/"><SPAN style="COLOR: #4453ea">www.avast.com</SPAN></A> </SPAN></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="BORDER-TOP: #aaabb6 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none" cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 border=1>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; WIDTH: 78.75pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-TOP: 11.25pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt" width=131>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 22.5pt"><A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/"><SPAN style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"><IMG id=_x0000_i1027 border=0 src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png"></SPAN></A></P></TD>
<TD style="BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; WIDTH: 352.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-TOP: 15pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt" width=588>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 22.5pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13.5pt"><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; COLOR: #41424e'>Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. <BR><A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/"><SPAN style="COLOR: #4453ea">www.avast.com</SPAN></A> </SPAN></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P>
<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="BORDER-TOP: #aaabb6 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none" cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 border=1>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; WIDTH: 352.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-TOP: 15pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt" width=588>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 22.5pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 13.5pt"><SPAN style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; COLOR: #41424e'>Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. <BR><A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/"><SPAN style="COLOR: #4453ea">www.avast.com</SPAN></A> </SPAN></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black">_______________________________________________</SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">Wolf@nascentinc.com</A></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><a href=<A href="http://urlblockederror.aspx/">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</A>></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Click here to unsubscribe</SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN style="COLOR: black"></a></SPAN></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"> </SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>