<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>This sounds good!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I've said for a while (and in my
book) that 'quantum randomness' is attributable to chaotic background
electromagnetic field effects that are everywhere and include the extended
fields of (not) 'local' particles, i.e. the EM field effects of the photons that
form particles. This necessarily includes the notion that 'locality' is
(at a higher level - or a more fundamental level, depending on how you look at
it) an illusion; we won't fully understand matter-energy interactions until we
can get our heads past this perception that matter is local.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>The non-randomness of quantum effects
(but rather consequences of chaotic environment - the universe is represented by
one mega-wave-equation!) in my view follows totally logically from the wave
function - the ideas of "God playing dice" OR "many worlds" don't stack up, in
my view, when one considers the wave function logically. This also ties in
with the idea of nonlocality - I really like the concept of atoms as 'resonant
antennas' !</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=wolf@nascentinc.com href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolfgang
Baer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 08, 2016 12:06
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] photon
definition</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>Another answer is that atoms act like resonant antennas and the Em
radiation is absorbed from a larger area</P>
<P>and is seen as a point interaction and falsly assumed to be a point like
particle. The randomness would come from noise in the detector and
Sommerfeld's Loading theory which says the atoms are preloaded randomly and
then pushed over to absorption. Depending upon the EM wave intensity.<BR></P>
<P>Eric is trying to prove this with his experiment, I have some problems with
his experiment analysis but the concept looks good and it gets rid of both
wave particle duality and fundamental randomness. <BR></P><PRE class=moz-signature cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</A></PRE>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>On 7/7/2016 9:29 AM, <A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</A> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:trinity-378da15d-31b8-442b-8b12-b5de24f9b216-1467908992220@3capp-webde-bs21
type="cite">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 12px">
<DIV>
<DIV>Q: What can do that?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A: Possible answer: classical particles surfacing waves.
Especially likely when the wave character can be seen only in the
behavour of an ensemble (statistically); and, all single detections are
point-like.</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-LEFT: #c3d9e5 2px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; MARGIN: 10px 5px 5px 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; WORD-WRAP: break-word; PADDING-TOP: 10px; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
name="quote">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px"><B>Gesendet:</B> Mittwoch, 06. Juli
2016 um 07:07 Uhr<BR><B>Von:</B> "Eric Reiter" <A
class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:unquant@yahoo.com"><unquant@yahoo.com></A><BR><B>An:</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>Betreff:</B> Re:
[General] photon definition</DIV>
<DIV name="quoted-content">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); FONT-FAMILY: times new roman , new
york , times , serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px">
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747><SPAN
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_18463>Hello Nature of Light...
people.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747><SPAN
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19588>My two cents. Concerning the
photon as seen by Einstein. I expect you to agree that Bohr can be
trusted to relay Einstein's definition of the photon. This is from
Bohr's book, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, 1958:</SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_18886>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747><SPAN
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_16595>"If a semi-reflecting mirror is
placed in the way of a photon, leaving two possibilities for its direction
of propagation, the photon may either be recorded on one, and only one, of
two photographic plates situated at great distances in the two
directions in question, or else we may, by replacing the plates by
mirrors, observe effects exhibiting an interference between the two
reflected wave-trains."</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747><SPAN
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_18560>So you see, the model of the photon
is not just about acting like a particle, it is simultaneously about acting
like a wave. Now what can do that? It is inherently paradoxical
and contradictory. Particles do not act like waves and waves do not
act like particles. The photon is a model that is not
understandable.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747><SPAN
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_18884>I attached a scan from the book so
you can see for yourself. I have a terrific library at home.
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747> </DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747><SPAN
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19725>For what it is worth,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747><SPAN
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19723>Eric Reiter</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15748
class=qtdSeparateBR><BR> </DIV>
<DIV style="DISPLAY: block" id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15755
class=yahoo_quoted>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-TOP: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15754>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman , new york ,
times , serif; FONT-SIZE: 16px"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15753>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: HelveticaNeue , Helvetica
Neue , Helvetica , Arial , Lucida Grande ,
sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 16px"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15752>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15751>
<HR id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15749 SIZE=1>
<FONT id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15750 size=2 face=Arial><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">"af.kracklauer@web.de"</A> <A
class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><af.kracklauer@web.de></A><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></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
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19837><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19836>Sent:</SPAN></B> Tuesday, July 5,
2016 4:14 PM<BR><B id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19840><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19839>Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [General]
double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities</FONT></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15759 class=y_msg_container>
<DIV id=yiv3533120733>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15763>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 12px"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15762>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15761>Hi:</DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15765> </DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15767>My 2 cents: It would
be good if participants in discussion of this nature FIRST focused on the
purely lexicographical issues. Some disagreements result form
disparate uses of specific terms. "Photon" is the classic
expample. Einstein meant more or less discreet chunks of niddle
radiation whereas many QM-mechanicens nowadays mean mode of the free
E&M field (no neddles, just chunks). Also, the term
"field" has no meaning except in terms of how it is measured; i.e., what
is the "test charge". And so on. Any meaning might be useful,
but without explicite definitions, readers are left to/required to
imagine what is/are the subject(s). Just by accident they will very
seldom be the same.</DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15769> </DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19631>For what it's worth,
Al K</DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19595>
<DIV
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(195,217,229) 2px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; MARGIN: 10px 5px 5px 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 10px"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19594>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19635><B>Gesendet:</B> Dienstag,
05. Juli 2016 um 23:21 Uhr<BR clear=none><B
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19634>Von:</B> "Roychoudhuri,
Chandra" <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"><chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu></A><BR
clear=none><B>An:</B> <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">"phys@a-giese.de"</A> <A
class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><phys@a-giese.de></A>, "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
clear=none><B>Betreff:</B> Re: [General] double photon cycle,
subjective v objective realities</DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19593>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: white"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19592>
<DIV id=yiv3533120733yqt74471 class=yiv3533120733yqt4173211933>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19591
class=yiv3533120733WordSection1>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19720
class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19719>Albrecht and interested others:
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">I am sorry, I do not want to
spend time refuting “experimental validations”, one by one. To, me that is
not a productive approach. That is a never ending game without a
possible final conclusion. Bohr-Einstein debate never reached a final
conclusion even though political decision was made that Bohr one it; which
I do not believe! I am trying to use Einstein’s own public
pronouncements and arguments well after he had been canonized as the most
famous physicists to develop my model of thinking that would allow me to
-- ride on his shoulder to increase my knowledge horizon -- (a la
Newton!). Einstein was the best scientist of the 20<SUP>th</SUP> century
because he never gave up the natural and spontaneous evolution of his own
enquiring mind. Here are some examples that keeps me inspired constantly.
[My
papers are available from: <A href="http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/"
target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/</A>
]</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19590
class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19598
class=yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN>1.<SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></B><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">On “measurements” and “unified
field theory”: </SPAN></B><SPAN style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19597>Einstein repeated many times that
a theory dictates and defines the measurable parameters. So, we design
experiments to “fulfill our desires to find it.” When a theory has
captured a partial segment of nature’s ontological reality; the recorded
results may corroborate the theory. That does not mean that the theory has
definitively captured the reality. Since we already know by following the
evolution of diverse scientific theories that none are; and none of them
can be, the final theories; it is better to train some out-of-box thinkers
to keep on challenging the foundational postulates and keep on iteratively
re-constructing better theories with greater and greater capacity to
integrate more and more phenomena. This is the true mind set of scientist.
So, Einstein developed the concept of “unified field theory”. Neither
Einstein, nor his followers, have yet succeeded in this dream. My
analysis behind this continuing failure is that we are too scared to
create new foundational steps (postulates) that can harmoniously integrate
all the theories. If we maintain that the foundational postulates behind
the successes of SR, GR, QM, QED, QCD, etc., are all sacrosanct and
“untouchable”; then we are never going to succeed. Because each set of
“successful set of postulates” helped define a “successful” but fairly
rigid mathematical logic. We cannot keep on superficially manipulating the
mathematical logics of different theories on the peripheries, out of
religious respect and/or out fear of being ostracized; but we will not
succeed in merging them into one harmonious theory. For that we need to
start with a one single harmonious field, like Complex Tension Field, with
a new set of postulates that allows both the perpetually propagating
linear waves and localized “stationary” oscillations as particles that can
move under the influence of secondary gradients (forces) generated by the
particle-oscillations themselves. Fortunately, our web participants are
trying to do that. So, I am happy. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN></B> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN>2.<SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">On “photon”:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> After 50 years of brooding,
Einstein was still unhappy about this own model of “indivisible photon”.
In spired by this statement, I have initiated the conference series, “The
nature of light: What are photons?” starting in 2005, the centenary of
Einstein’s miraculous year. And, I am grateful that all of you have become
persistent contributors and have expanded the conference into modeling
particles also. So, this group is doing truly next generation physics;
even though I am not as good as most of you in theoretical physics.
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> I
am also now convinced that all atoms and molecules radiate “photons” at
the moment of quantum transition with the exact “quantum cupful” of
energy, as prescribed by QM; but they evolve into classical wave packet
propagating out diffractively that is modeled by Huygens-Fresnel’s
diffraction integral. There are no other guiding equation for propagating
light through optical instruments that is better than this HF integral.
Radio antenna (“Hertz oscillators) directly keep on radiating EM waves as
long as the oscillator is kept fed by electric current (energy).
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19602
class=yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19601> So,
we modeled “photons”, after the “h-nu” quantity of energy is released, as
dominantly-exponential wave packet that propagates out following the HF
integral. This model also corroborates Lorentzian natural line width of
atomic sources as a physical consequence of the exponential pulse. This
also required me to develop a causal formulation of spectrometry by
propagating a finite pulse envelope through spectrometers. These are all
in my book, “Causal Physics” (CRC, 2014). I am attaching relevant older
(2006) paper on the shape of an evolved “photon”. [If you google for my
book, you might find a couple of web sites that allow you to down load the
book free.]</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN>3.<SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></B><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">On Ether:
</SPAN></B><SPAN style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">While the
entire world had bought “ether does not exist”, Einstein gave talks and
written comments, that ether as form of cosmic field, must at the
foundation of the of the universe. Unfortunately, Einstein never attempted
to re-construct the founding postulates of the QM that could be allowed by
the novel field (modified ether) and model for particles as manifestation
of the same field which would have completely removed the fallacy of
staying stuck with the Michelson-Morley experiments.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN>4.<SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></B><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Time: </SPAN></B><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">As far as I remember reading
here and there, it was Minkowski who introduced the concept of time as the
“real” fourth dimension of nature. The concept of dimension in mathematics
and in the physical nature are very different. We already know that from
the five to thirteen dimensional string theories going nowhere after some
30/40 years of endeavor by some the best and the brightest of
physics; What waste of human talent!</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19607
class=yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
</SPAN></B><SPAN style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19606>I consider only those parameters
in a theory as physically meaningful and can be related to nature’s
functional behavior which can be related to the physical processes that
facilitates the relevant phenomena to emerge as some measurable data. No
physical entity display the capability of keeping track of the running
time, “t”. Simply on this argument, I believe that running time “t” cannot
be a physical dimension of nature. Our perception of time and its
inclusion in our theories arise because every interaction process has a
finite reaction time, and a “rate of change” , [d(parameter)/dt] during
the interaction process. Also, note that the parameter “frequency” is
ubiquitous in nature. Manifest nature is built out of diverse oscillators
with their characteristic frequencies, exp(iwt). The biggest mistake of
our QM founders was that they erroneously assumed exp(iwt) represents a
“plane wave”. Even for light waves, a “plane wave” does not exist in this
universe. Waves are always diffractively diverging; even after we focus
them. Yes, at the focal plane, the focused wave does display uniform phase
across its focused spot. This is the only transient “plane wave” that
exist in nature! There is no wave-particle duality. But, thousands of
papers are still being published every month on interference of “single
indivisible photon”, proving wave-particle duality. It is futile and
meaningless to find mistakes either in their experiments, or in their
interpretations. Frozen belief system makes us design experiments and
extract theory validating data to realize from the function of beam
combiner in any two-beam interferometer that two separate signals from the
opposite sides of the beam combiner must be present to “activate” the
mathematical superposition relation we all use [I am attaching a short
segment out of my book.] I am sorry to repeat, see my book; or, go
to the web to down load the relevant papers : <A
href="http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/</A></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19611
class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19610>To repeat, I am of the strong
opinion that if we keep believing that the foundational postulates of the
“working and validated theories” are untouchables; then physics will not
progress any further to discover the ontological realities. We will keep
telling nature, as we are doing now, how she ought to behave based on
human invented mathematical theories and human designed “successful”
experiments to validate those “God’s Equations”. These are, of course, the
prime tools to advance our scientific understanding, period. But, we are
forgetting the third leg of the “stool of investigation”. <B><I>It is to
keep on iterating the foundational postulates of the working theories to
find higher and higher levels of conceptual continuity among more and more
diverse natural phenomena (a unified field theory).</I></B></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19613
class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19612> Nature
has given us the un-ending challenge so our brain can keep on evolving
forever! It is high time for us to re-introduce this original intention of
nature in the name of evolution process congruent thinking! </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19615
class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">This is not philosophy. We have
evolved into a thinking species. So, we must learn to master and manage
our personal thinking logics. Logically self-consistent set of
mathematical symbols cannot do the thinking for us. They are the product
of our “limited” thinking. It is high time for us to invigorate our
progress in the name of evolution process congruent thinking!</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Chandra. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: rgb(225,225,225) 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri , sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri , sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">
General [<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Albrecht Giese<BR clear=none><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday,
July 05, 2016 11:00 AM<BR clear=none><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
clear=none><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v
objective realities</SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Chandra,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">you say: "SR is not even Physics".
Don't understand why.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">1.) Oscillations slow down at motion<BR
clear=none>2.) Fields contract at motion</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Fact 1.) can easily be measured and
easily be understood with regard to its cause.<BR clear=none>Fact 2.) can
also easily be understood with regard to its cause</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Times , serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">; the experimental
proof is indirect but existent.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">All the rest is quite simple logic
(like the constancy of the measured "c").</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">That's all, and what is your specific
reason to deny it?</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Albrecht</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Am
05.07.2016 um 02:27 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:</SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19623>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Chandra.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri ,
sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: rgb(225,225,225) 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> General
[</SPAN><A href="" moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri ,
sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">]<B>On Behalf
Of </B>Dr Grahame Blackwell<BR clear=none><B>Sent:</B> Monday, July 04,
2016 7:02 PM<BR clear=none><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion </SPAN><A href="" moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri ,
sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></SPAN></A><BR
clear=none><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><B>Subject:</B>
Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective
realities</SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal> </DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19622>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi
Richard, Chip, Chandra (et al),</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">[*
The concept of reverse engineering both physical reality and the
evolutionary process is one that I believe has been central to my
research.]</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19621
class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
id=yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19620>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></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Best
regards,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Grahame</SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: navy 1.5pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0in">
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">-----
Original Message ----- </SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228)"
class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><A
title=richgauthier@gmail.com href="" moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Richard
Gauthier</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
</SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org href=""
moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Nature of
Light and Particles - General Discussion</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
</SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> Sunday, July
03, 2016 3:01 PM</SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial , sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> Re:
[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective
realities</SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal>Hello Grahame,</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal> 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.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal> 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.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal>
Richard</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><BR clear=none><BR
clear=none> </DIV><PRE>_______________________________________________</PRE><PRE>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <A href="" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</A></PRE><PRE><a href=<A href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</A>></PRE><PRE>Click here to unsubscribe</PRE><PRE></a></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal> </DIV>
<TABLE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: rgb(211,212,222) 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none"
class=yiv3533120733MsoNormalTable border=1 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; WIDTH: 41.25pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 13.5pt"
width=83>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><A
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 1pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext 1pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 1pt solid; TEXT-DECORATION: none; PADDING-TOP: 0in"><IMG
id=yiv3533120733Picture_x0020_1 border=0
alt="Image
removed by
sender."
src="cid:8A612B40097A4FEFB8B55057D09EFAEF@vincent" width=46
height=29></SPAN></A></DIV></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; WIDTH: 352.5pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 12.75pt"
width=705>
<DIV style="LINE-HEIGHT: 13.5pt" class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial ,
sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(65,66,78); FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Virenfrei.
</SPAN><A
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial ,
sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(68,83,234); FONT-SIZE: 10pt">www.avast.com</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial ,
sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(65,66,78); FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
</SPAN></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<DIV class=yiv3533120733MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: windowtext"></SPAN> </DIV></DIV></DIV>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</A> <A
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true">Click here to unsubscribe
</A></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=yqt90728
class=yqt4173211933>_______________________________________________<BR
clear=none>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <A
href="unquant@yahoo.com" target=_parent
moz-do-not-send="true">unquant@yahoo.com</A><BR clear=none><a href="<A
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</A>"><BR
clear=none>Click here to unsubscribe<BR
clear=none></a></DIV><BR> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</A> <A
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true">Click here to unsubscribe
</A></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>
<FIELDSET class=mimeAttachmentHeader></FIELDSET> <BR><PRE wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</A>
<a href=<A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</A>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer
wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at grahame@starweave.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>