<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="">Albrecht and all,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Here’s a email I just sent to a group of about 30 scientists and engineers deeply interested in inertia, starting with Jim Woodruff, Jack Sarfatti and Kip Thorne. Any comments? I would particularly like to hear Martin’s take on the inertial mass of a photon, which seems consistent with his ideas in “Light is Heavy”.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">Thank you for including me in this larger conversation about inertia. I hope I can add something significant to the discussion.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> First of all, there has been significant progress in the last few years in modeling a relativistic electron as a double-looping (and therefore spin 1/2) charged photon-like object with a double-loop radius of the Compton wavelength divided by 4pi, or R= hbar/2mc, whose helical radius decreases dramatically (as 1/gamma^2) with increasing electron speed. This modeling was done without thoughts of how to explain the electron’s inertia, but rather in order to get a quantum-based electron model that generates the electron’s de Broglie wavelength and also fits Dirac’s Nobel Prize lecture description of an electron as a light-speed particle that (because of its small amplitude and high frequency) can only be measured as moving at less than light speed. The helically circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model of the relativistic electron, still a work in progress, is described at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength" class="">https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength</a> and was presented at the SPIE Photonics and Optics conference in San Diego last August in the sub-Conference “What are Photons?” and is included in the SPIE conference proceedings. As the speed of this electron model increases, the radius of the charged photon's helical trajectory, which is hbar/2mc for a resting electron, is found to relativistically decrease as 1/gamma^2 , so the electron model is well within the maximum size of 10^-18 m found for electrons in high energy electron scattering experiments (at around 30 GeV). </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> I recently noticed that the relativistic electron model of a helically-circulating charged photon is relevant for a possible explanation for the origin of the inertial mass of an electron, as being due to the inertial mass derived from the momentum of the circulating charged photon composing the electron. This result is simply derived in my short article <a href="https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia" class="">https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia</a> . </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Here is the main idea: The inertial mass M of a moving object with momentum p is given by dp/dt = M a , or M = (dp/dt)/a . For an object with momentum p moving circularly at a constant speed with angular frequency w, dp/dt = w p , while the centripetal acceleration is a= w^2 r . So M = (dp/dt) / a = wp / (w^2 r) = p/(wr) = p/v where v is the speed of the object with momentum p. A slow object of mass m with p=mv moving in a circle has inertial mass M= p/v = mv/v = m as expected. A mass m moving relativistically in a circle with p = gamma mv has inertial mass M = (gamma mv)/v = gamma m . A photon with momentum hf/c moving in a circle has inertial mass M= (hf/c)/c = hf/c^2. This is getting interesting. A circling photon (if it can circle with a radius r for any reason) with the energy mc^2 = hf of a resting electron has momentum p = (mc^2)/c = mc and inertial mass M = (mc)/c = m . My relativistic helically-moving light-speed charged photon model of the electron moving forward at speed v is found by the same calculation to have inertial mass M = gamma m , the same inertial mass M = gamma m as a relativistic electron moving in a large circle. (The relativistic mass M of a circling object is independent of the radius of the circle, so this inertial mass result essentially applies to straight line motion of an electron also.) . Also, just as when a relativistic electron accelerated in the direction of its linear motion has an effective longitudinal inertial mass M=(gamma^3) m, so does the helically circulating charged photon model of the relativistic electron when accelerated in the direction of its longitudinal velocity.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> So, my inertia proposal for an electron is that the the inertial mass M of a resting electron is derived from the circling momentum mc of the charged spin 1/2 photon composing the electron. The inertial mass M=gamma m of a relativistically moving electron is derived from the circulating charged photon model of the relativistic electron in the same way.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> It can be argued, what is the nature of the force that can cause a photon of momentum p= hf/c = (mc^2)/c = mc to move in a circle of radius hbar/2mc ? It’s a force easily calculated as F= wmc where w = (2mc^2)/hbar (for the electron's zitterbewegung angular frequency) and is on the order of 1 Newton. The answer is "I don’t know". But such a force on a circulating charged photon may exist.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> It can also be argued, there is no such thing as a circulating spin 1/2 charged photon that constitutes an electron. I will ask, how do you know? It could be an overlooked variety of photon, overlooked because it curls up and acts like an electron.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Richard</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> </div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:06 AM, 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="">
Hi Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
to say it again: The origin of inertia is the fact that <i class="">any
extended object inevitably has inertia</i>. This assumption does
not need more assumptions than the fact that c is finite.<br class="">
<br class="">
Nobody is forcing you to investigate my deduction of it. But if you
are talking about it here and you have an opinion, you should know
what you are talking about. Isn't this the normal way?<br class="">
<br class="">
Regarding the momentum of the photon once again: Momentum is defined
as <i class="">p = m * v</i>, where m is the dynamical mass of the object
in motion. This is physics on school level. Really too complicated?
- The photon does have dynamical mass, and consequently it has
momentum.<br class="">
<br class="">
Have a nice Sunday!<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.02.2016 um 05:58 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:DED93942-F44D-44A5-A0A6-A468A6601AB0@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" 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 class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:46 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="">
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" 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"></a><a 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"></a><a 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"></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="">
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" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></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" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia"></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"></a><a 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.a
cademia.ed%0Au/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">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"></a><a 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=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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="">
</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>