<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Chip,</p>
<p>I fully agree to what John Bell has written about relativistic
phenomena. I had the same ideas 17 years ago when I started to
think about relativity. Then I learned that this way is called (at
least in Germany) the "Lorentzian interpretation of relativity".</p>
<p>So, is it only a matter of words? Should we invent a new word for
it? I do not feel that this would be practical. If the engineers
who work on the GPS system say that they have to take relativity
into account, everyone knows what it means. So, why invent a new
name or notion?</p>
<p>We are so far here that even the leading professors for
relativity and gravitation say that the Lorentzian relativity is a
possible way as well as the Einsteinian relativity, so equivalent
regarding the results. - They still say that they find the
Einsteinian way mathematically more elegant than the Lorentzian
(where I personally strictly disagree). But the question again:
Should we really invent a new name if everyone, the follower of
Einstein and those of Lorentz, know what one means if he /she
speaks about "relativity"?</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 05.07.2016 um 20:11 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:001101d1d6e8$a35d1c00$ea175400$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lorentz had worked all this out before
Einstein’s SR. Lorentz based his observations and conclusions
on the behavior of waves moving at a fixed velocity through a
fixed medium.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lorentz transformations are required if
matter is made of the same light speed energy light is made
of.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none">John Stuart
Bell said this regarding relativity…, <i>“I would say that
the cheapest resolution is something like going back to
relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like
Lorentz and Poincar´e thought that there was an aether – a
preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring
instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we
could not detect motion through the aether. Now, in that way
you can imagine that there is a preferred frame of
reference, and in this preferred frame of reference (some)
things do go faster than light.”,” Behind the apparent
Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level
which is not Lorentz invariant, a pre-Einstein position of
Lorentz and Poincar´e, Larmor and Fitzgerald, was perfectly
coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory.
The idea that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald
contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a
result the instruments do not detect motion through the
aether – that is a perfectly coherent point of view.”</i><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SR postulates that all inertial frames are
completely and symmetrically relative. But there is no cause
given for this basis, it is based solely on philosophy. The
“relativity” that Chandra, Grahame, and I have been discussing
does show a basis and cause. It is simply based on the
inevitable results of matter being made of the same
light-speed energy that light is made of.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Such an endeavor can be legitimately called
a scientific pursuit. In contrast to SR. The facts of the
requirements for transformations for rapidly moving bodies
were well known before SR, and SR is not a requisite for those
facts being valid. If we look at these issues from the causal
basis mentioned, many of the perplexing or puzzling things
about SR disappear.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, while I would not have stated it in
quite the same way, I must agree with Chandra that SR is not
scientific, is not even physics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 05, 2016 10:00 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double photon cycle,
subjective v objective realities<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">you say: "SR is not even
Physics". Don't understand why.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">If we keep a little distance
to the more mystical foundations of Einstein ("space-time"),
then relativity is easy and simple. SR comprises the
following facts:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">1.) Oscillations slow down at
motion<br>
2.) Fields contract at motion</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Fact 1.) can easily be
measured and easily be understood with regard to its cause.
<br>
Fact 2.) can also easily be understood with regard to its
cause; the experimental proof is indirect but existent.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">All the rest is quite simple
logic (like the constancy of the measured "c").</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">That's all, and what is your
specific reason to deny it?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Am
05.07.2016 um 02:27 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Many
thanks, Grahame, for the excellent complement on the
philosophy of thinking, which I have been developing for
over several decades. I am now in the process of applying
that mode of thinking (Evolution Process Congruent
Thinking) to political economy and the politics of
money-driven elected governments, the model of the West,
being imposed on the rest of the world.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I will
read carefully your thinking on Relativity (SR). I think
we are on the same page. SR is not even Physics. In
contrast, QM has a lot of valuable physics (captured some
realities) that will give us guidance to evolve forward
towards a next higher level theory.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 04, 2016 7:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double photon cycle,
subjective v objective realities</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Hi Richard, Chip, Chandra (et al),</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">I have attached at Richard’s request a copy
of the first 10 pages of my book (after index etc); this
comprises the first section of my book, the
Introduction. I believe you’ll see from this my
philosophy and my objectives in undertaking my own line
of scientific research. This is not to identify or
define a suitable model for a photon-formed electron –
though that is to a limited extent an inevitable
by-product of my investigations – but rather to resolve
what I have come to see, over some years, as
inconsistencies, incompleteness or scope for further
understanding in the generally-accepted model of
physical reality. [Note that, whilst holding firmly to
scientific principles, this book is intended to be
comprehensible for the most part by non-specialists;
this introduction should be read with that in mind.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Chandra, I was most impressed (I might even
say ‘excited’) by your paper presented last year at the
SPIE conference, which you have just circulated (I found
myself saying “yes!” out loud several times whilst
reading it). I’d like to think that the contents of my
book are in the spirit of the outward-looking ‘Perpetual
Scout’ scientific approach that you advocate*; I have
for some time been concerned by the attitude of science
that appears to take the line: “We’ve got it all correct
to date, now we just need to fill in the fine detail”
(whilst happily accepting the unexplained ‘fact’ of
Special Relativity and the unexplained apparent
serendipity of Quantum Mechanics). I’m also very
enthused by your view that we need to be thinking NOW
about how we can ensure that we’re still around beyond
our parent star’s main sequence; alignment with cosmic
evolution, rather than trying to force our will on it,
seems to be a patently obvious strategy.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">[* The concept of reverse engineering both
physical reality and the evolutionary process is one
that I believe has been central to my research.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Richard, no matter how much I try I can't
find any common ground between our respective
understandings of the terms ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’
as applied to material reality. For me the term
‘subjective’ is crystal clear in its meaning: it relates
to a situation, event or scenario as experienced by an
individual or group (possibly a very large group) of
individuals – including ‘experience by proxy’ through
instrumentation. In this situation the sensors of
this/those individual(s) – including possibly
electromechanical sensors – mediate that experience and
thereby provide input to (i.e. variation of) that
experience over and above the actuality of the
(objective) event or scenario being experienced.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">By contrast the term ‘objective’ refers to
the object – the situation, event or scenario itself.
With regard to that object it matters not one iota what
people think – even a great number of highly intelligent
people – it will not re-shape itself to conform to their
thoughts. For example, everyone in the world could
think that the earth was flat, it would make absolutely
no difference to the shape of our planet – but it <b>would</b>
make a great deal of difference with respect to their
effectiveness in navigating from one place to another!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">If a mathematician proposed that one plus
one was equal to two, would you dismiss that as just a
personal philosophy of mathematics? I’m not in any way
suggesting that my view of reality is the right one, or
the only possible one – but I <b>am</b> absolutely
adamant that if we regard subjective impressions as
convertible to objective truth just by sheer weight of
numbers then the future of science is doomed.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">That’s a major reason why I don’t
participate in discussing the pros and cons of various
models of the electron, as you say you’d wish me to –
it’s not actually possible for me to separate ‘my
philosophy’, as you call it, from my perception of what
constitutes a better or less good model. You’ve
proposed (below) that I “point out any defects or
limitations in different models” – surely that’s what
I’ve tried to do, totally consistently, in a logical way
that hopefully doesn’t give offence? But it seems
that’s what you object to, since you regard my approach
as simply my [personal] philosophy of science and
therefore (presumably) not acceptable as a valid
contribution to this discussion.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">I’ll continue to participate in this
debate, in the only way that makes sense to me (and
hopefully makes some sense to some others). If that
doesn’t work for you, fine, give it a miss – but I’m
afraid I can’t set aside what I see as facts just to
join in a conversation on any model that, for what seem
to me to be very good reasons, I can’t believe in.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-----
Original Message ----- </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
title="richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature
of Light and Particles - General Discussion</a> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
Sunday, July 03, 2016 3:01 PM</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> Re:
[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective
realities</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Grahame,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> You seem unwilling to present the
first few pages of your book to help give us more
background and context to your particle model and
approach. So I think I’ll pass for now on commenting on
your distinction between subjective and objective
realities, which is more of a statement of your
philosophy of science, and how to know what is “real” in
physics. Physicists try to interpret, understand and
predict aspects of the physical world, based on ideas,
concepts, mathematics, models and objective physical
measurements and observations. I think we are all
engaged in this in one way or another, despite any
differences in our philosophies about the nature of
reality.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I think your model of the electron
and other particles should be separable from your
particular philosophy of science, so that others who may
not share your philosophy of science, as well as those
who do, may be able to decide if your model is useful or
better than other physical models, for “doing physics”.
One way is to look at the models themselves
quantitatively and to compare and contrast one model
with other models to see how well these models (all
relating to photons and particles in our discussion
group) stand up to critical scrutiny as well as to
experimental support. I think that’s partly what this
discussion group is about. I hope you are willing to
join in this effort, to point out any defects or
limitations in different models, to encourage
improvement of weaker models, and to acknowledge any
strengths in these or other models, since none of them
is perfect.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>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" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt" border="1"
cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt
.75pt .75pt" width="55">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1025"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png"
height="29" border="0" width="46"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt
.75pt .75pt" width="470">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Virenfrei.
<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"><span style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a 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;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>