<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Albrecht,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> You write "In a physical world without massive objects momentum would not exist”. I agree with this if by "massive objects" you include photons (which have momentum) carrying inertial mass Mi=E/c^2 even though normal photons have no invariant mass. When a hypothesized photon-like object (a spin 1/2 charged photon for example) with energy Eo and momentum Eo/c and carrying inertial mass Eo/c^2 curls up to become a resting electron, the photon-like object's inertial mass Eo/c^2 becomes the electron's invariant mass m=Eo/c^2 equal to the photon-like object's inertial mass Eo/c^2 (which is then derivable from the circling photon-like object’s circling momentum Eo/c by Newton’s 2nd law F=dp/dt = ma where a is the centripetal acceleration of the circling photon-like object.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> I think you understand that physics is not a popularity contest. Your lectures have been highly appreciated by growing audiences over the years and that is all very well and good. But this obviously does not mean that your physics hypothesis is correct. A celebrity may grow more and more famous just because he or she is already famous and so becomes even more famous. Plus your hypothesis about inertial mass, even if it is correct for extended bodies, does not apply to a circling pointlike body which the electron and other fundamental particles may be. There is no experimental evidence that I know of that the electron (when it is detected) is an extended body, except in a probabilistic sense (although it may move in an extended volume of space).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Richard</div><div class=""> </div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 2, 2017, at 1:46 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><p class="">Richard,</p><p class="">perhaps it was an imprecise wording. By inertia I mean inertial
mass . And what it means as an outcome is clearly defined by
Newton's law F=ma. Momentum is an application of inertia or
inertial mass, (how ever you like it). In a physical world without
massive objects momentum would not exist. <br class="">
</p><p class="">For Newton, the ORIGIN of inertial mass has been a mystery, that
is truly correct. But inertial mass of a resting particle is
clearly defined, why not? The equation F=ma is also defined for an
initially resting object. <br class="">
</p><p class="">The basic mechanism of inertia is no longer a mystery but
explained by the mechanism which I have explained frequently:
Every extended object built by mass-less constituents has inertia.
This is not only a funny idea but I have presented the
calculations which show, for instance for leptons, that it has
precisely correct results. - This is the fundamental mechanism.</p><p class="">I see a lot of positive appreciation for this model. Since many
years I give talks at the annual physical conferences in Germany
about this mechanism, and the auditory is growing from year to
year. Meanwhile the auditory fills the bigger lecture halls at
those occasions.</p><p class="">And since the year 2001 I have a website explaining it. The site
can be called by its title "origin of mass", and since the year
2003 til today it is the number one in the results of search
engines. Permanently since 14 years without any interruption. The
Higgs theory has never had a chance to come close to it. Not even
in the year when the Higgs boson was found and the excitement
about that finding was great. So, I think that this attention
means something. It shows that it makes sense to understand this
mechanism. And I would like to encourage you for it.</p><p class="">Albrecht.</p>
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 31.12.2016 um 07:25 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:87D26769-21BE-4909-8F7D-89417CF9616C@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class="">Albrecht, </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> You think there is nothing to be gained by
explaining the inertial mass of an resting electron as the
derived inertial mass of a circling photon-like object composing
the resting electron. You think that inertia is basically the
same as momentum. I disagree. “Inertia" is a vague and
non-quantitative word which is somehow related to momentum, as
in the “law of inertia” meaning Newton’s first law. The term
“inertial mass” however is well-defined by the relation F=ma in
Newtonian mechanics, but the ORIGIN of inertial mass has been a
mystery. The inertial mass of a resting particle is currently a
quantity without explanation. The relation Eo=mc^2 while factual
does not in itself explain the origin of the inertial mass m of
a resting particle. Why should energy have inertial mass? It
would be a big increase in the understanding of the electron if
it could be established that it is composed of a circling
photon-like object from whose circling momentum the inertial
mass of the electron could be derived.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""> Richard </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Dec 30, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Roychoudhuri,
Chandra <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" class="">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; background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Albrecht,
your remark is important: “We have first to understand
(and it is written in every text book about relativity)
that Einstein's relativity is pure geometry, it is not
physics.”<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><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; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: windowtext;" class="">Albrecht:
I agree and that is also the point, “pure geometry”. I
rest my case for this ongoing debate on SR.<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; color: windowtext;" class=""> Physics
is not about elegant mathematics or geometry. The key
purpose of physics is to understand and visualize the
invisible interaction processes going on in nature.
The skills in utilizing the nature-allowed processes
in various permutations and combinations to create new
techniques and technologies, have been behind the
successful emergence of the human as the top species
today.<b class=""><i class="">Elegant geometry and
mathematical constructs, by themselves, will not
save the human species from going extinct if we
blindly keep on following the same current success
tracks, both in science and in socio-economic
philosophy.</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> <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; color: windowtext;" class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: windowtext;" class="">Further,
let us not ignore that in many undergraduate text
books, SR is still presented as one of the core
foundation that is holding the “Edifice of Physics”
(meaning, thou shall not be challenge this platform of
thinking”)! This has to be turned around.<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; color: windowtext;" class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: windowtext;" class="">This
collective psychology of modern physicists (“messiah
complex”) has to be turned around toward<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class=""><i class="">perpetual critical enquiry</i></b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>of the
“working theories”. Because, “working theories” have
already captured some ontological realities of nature;
so they must be leveraged, through deeper enquiry, to
extract even deeper ontological realities. I am trying
to initiate such an approach through OSA. Further,
before the end of 2017, I will write a full paper
accommodating and explaining some of the key PHYSICAL
PROCESS known to be related to SR, but as old
fashioned classical physics.<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; color: windowtext;" class=""> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: windowtext;" class="">Chandra. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div class="">
<div style="border-style: solid none none;
border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225);
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: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
windowtext;" class="">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: windowtext;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">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>Albrecht
Giese<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday,
December 29, 2016 11:33 AM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of
Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
[General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE
conference.<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><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><i class="">Chandra</i>,<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">you
have again made some statements about SRT. And I feel
that I should comment that.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">I
fully agree with you regarding what you say about the
"running time". Also about "space-time" and about the
necessity of a kind of an inertial frame. But in the
other hand one cannot deny that for instance clocks are
running more slowly when in motion. So, what about SRT
in general?<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">In
my view there is a solution for this which reflects your
concern. We have first to understand (and it is written
in every text book about relativity) that Einstein's
relativity is pure geometry, it is not physics. But the
relativistic phenomena can in fact be based on physics.
That was done for instance by Lorentz prior to
Einstein's first publication. Oliver Heaviside in 1888
derived from Maxwell's theory that fields contract at
motion. And also Lorentz and Larmor found out - before
Einstein's paper - that there must be a permanent motion
in elementary particles to explain dilation. All this is
real physics, not geometry. Further Einstein's famous
relation E = mc<sup class="">2</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>was found by
others before Einstein and before Einstein declared
relativity. For instance by Thomson and Wien (where the
result was a bit different but the connection of both
notions was seen).<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Perhaps
you remember it (or you have missed it): In all my talks
in Mexico and in San Diego I have recommended to use
Lorentz' relativity rather than the one of Einstein. And
I have also undertaken to develop General Relativity
following the concept of Lorentz in order to understand
it at a task in physics, not in geometry. That explains
gravity without any space-time curvature; it is in that
view a weak side effect of the strong force. It is much
simpler than the view of Einstein, because no need for
four-dimensionality and Riemannian geometry. It explains
dark matter quantitatively (for an example which I have
calculated), and it has no need for dark energy.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">The
other point: Your idea to maintain the discussion forum
may be a usable replacement of the meeting, also the use
of the forum of Physics Essays. But it may have the risk
that this discussion will slowly come to an end. A
meeting is a higher challenge for all who contribute and
who attend, so it keeps all active. But if meetings are
not possible any more, this will be better than to give
up.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><i class="">Richard</i>:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">You
know my opinion regarding your way of explaining
inertia. In my view that explanations are tautological
statements, as you explain the mass of an electron by
the mass of its constituents. Or you explain the mass of
an object by its momentum, where momentum is essentially
the same as inertia, just in a different context. - In
contrast to that the mechanism that two objects bound to
each other at a distance have inevitably inertia does
not need any other assumptions or preconditions than the
existence of a binding field and the existence of c.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;
margin-bottom: 12pt;" class="">Sincerely<br class="">
Albrecht<o:p class=""></o:p></p>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Am
26.12.2016 um 22:24 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;" class="">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Good thinking,
Richard!</span><o:p class=""></o:p></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 like your
approach, especially that the derivation does not
need SR.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></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 have expressed
in many of my earlier publications, my book, “Causal
Physics” and many comments in this forum that SR
does not represent good Physics.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> To me, the
first criterion of a good physics theory is that it
must guide us to understand and visualize the
invisible interaction processes going on nature. In
theorizing such interaction processes, the “primary”
parameters must relate to the inherent
behavior-representing property of the object whose
interaction process is being modeled. The
interaction process is guided by nature’s rule
(logic) that allows the entity to exist and/or
interact with other cosmic entities (large or
small). Our perceptible and observable universe is
elusive but is not an illusion. This is because we
can never measure (acquire) complete information
about anything with all the necessary details. We
are always “information starved”. So, we must not
also describe the universe as “It from bit”.
Interaction between “bits” generate data; which
human minds interprets as information. Subjective
interpretations of data by human minds as
information, cannot be the ontological foundation of
the universe.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> The running
time “t” is not a parameter of any object in this
universe. Everything in this universe is oscillatory
from very short to very long periods. We measure the
frequency of an oscillator (primary parameter) and
then invert it to generate a new secondary
parameter, “Delta-t”. While we do need the running
time “t” as a mathematical parameter; it is not a
physical parameter and hence the assertion that
“space-time” is the new physical order of the
universe, will only divert us away from fathoming
nature’s ontological reality.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> There are
many other reasons that SR is not a physical theory.
For example, there are no physical inertial frame in
this universe that can be used to validate SR
postulates. All planetary platforms are undergoing
accelerated motion in closed loop orbits!<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> However, I
have postulated that the space itself is the
stationary inertial frame of reference filled with
Complex Tension Field (CTF), which allows ITS linear
excitation to perpetually propagate as EM waves;
and ITS phase-resonant self-looped high-energy
oscillations are the particles we experience. Their
inertial properties have been modeled by us as
“Mass”. But there are no “Mass” in this universe in
the Newtonian sense of “matter”. Only energy exists
in motion (as EM waves and particles) or in
quiescent form (as the prime CTF). And 100% of the
energy is contained by the CTF. No need to postulate
separate Dark Energy and Dark Matter. There are no
exchange particles to facilitate various forces.
“Forces” are the physically extended potential
gradients generated in the CTF due to the complex
physical motions of the CTF, which represent various
particles. To develop a unified field theory, we
need a single field that is capable of generating
everything. The necessary postulates for unified
field theory cannot be generated while accepting the
primacy of the existing but self-contradictory,
postulates behind the existing “working” theories.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Happy New Year!</span><o:p class=""></o:p></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 am sorry that I
failed to re-instate our out-of-box SPIE San Diego
Conference, in spite of a lot of quiet appeals.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;
text-indent: -0.25in;" class=""><span class="">1.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height:
normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><b class=""><i class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">This Forum:</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>We will
maintain this discussion forum.</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Although, in
future, I am thinking of splitting it up into
several parallel discussions on well-identified
problem. I am open to suggestions from all of you.
[As before, the discussion forums do not need to be
based upon the unified field, CTF only.]</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;
text-indent: -0.25in;" class=""><span class="">2.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height:
normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><b class=""><i class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Physics Essays:</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>You could
also utilize the forum of Physics Essays. This
out-of-box concept-promoting journal has been
running for over 25 years. It has page charge. But,
then you can re-post it anywhere in the web after
publication. The page-charge is much less than
attending the conference. </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class=""> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt;" class="">Sincerely,</span><o:p class=""></o:p></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.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="">
<div style="border-style: solid none none;
border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225);
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: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Richard
Gauthier<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Monday,
December 26, 2016 3:05 PM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature
of Light and Particles - General Discussion<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class=""><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>;
Mark, Martin van der<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class=""><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
[General] nature of light particles &
theories</span><o:p class=""></o:p></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 style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Hello
all,<br class="">
Yes, happy holidays and happy new year to all.<br class="">
<br class="">
Here's what I just added to a discussion on Inertia
and Momentum at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/momentum-vs-inertia.854092/page-2" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/momentum-vs-inertia.854092/page-2</a> .
It is I think relevant to all who have
circling-photon-like-object models of the electron and
other particles.<br class="">
<br class="">
What if a fundamental particle like a resting
electron is composed of a circling photon-like object
with energy Eo and vector momentum p = Eo/c where c is
the speed of light? If we start with Newton's second
law of motion F = dp/dt = MA where dp/dt is the time
rate of change of the circling vector momentum p =
Eo/c, M is the inertial mass of the circling
photon-like object, and A is the centripetal
acceleration c^2/R of the circling photon-like object
(where R is the radius of its circle), we find with
very easy math (and using the circling vector relation
dp/dt = pc/R) that the inertial mass M = (dp/dt)/A =
(pc/R)/(c^2/R) = p/c = (Eo/c)/c = Eo/c^2. That is, the
inertial mass M of an electron (if it is composed of a
circling photon-like object) is derived from the
circling photon-like object's energy Eo and its
circling vector momentum Eo/c to be M = Eo/c^2 or Eo =
Mc^2 , which is Einstein's equation for the energy
content Eo of a resting electron of inertial mass M. <br class="">
<br class="">
This result is published at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.academia.edu/29799123/Inertia_Explained" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">https://www.academia.edu/29799123/Inertia_Explained</a> .
This derivation of the relation of the energy content
of a resting fundamental particle to its inertial mass
is done without using Einstein's special theory of
relativity. Note: Einstein's 1905 article in which he
first derived m = E/c^2 or E = mc^2 for a resting
object by using his special theory of relativity is
titled "Does the inertia of a body depend on its
energy-content?”<br class="">
<br class="">
Richard<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=""> <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 Dec 15, 2016, at 2:07 AM,
Burinskii A.Ya. <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bur@ibrae.ac.ru" style="color:
purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">bur@ibrae.ac.ru</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 style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Dear John,<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Thank you very much for very good explanations
and reference to good review.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
I wish also to you and all colleagues Merry
Christmas and Happy New Year,<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Alex<br class="">
<br class="">
________________________________<br class="">
От: Dr Grahame Blackwell [<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">grahame@starweave.com</a>]<br class="">
Отправлено: 14 декабря 2016 г. 12:48<br class="">
Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br class="">
Копия: Stephen Leary; Vera Biryukova; Darren
Eggenschwiler; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth;
Pete Delaney; Innes Morrison; Alexander
Afriat; Phil Butler; Michael Wright; Ariane
Mandray; Solomon Freer; Manohar .; Mike
Mobley; Niels Gresnigt; Mark, Martin van der;
AmancioHasty<br class="">
Тема: Re: [General] nature of light particles
& theories<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi John,<br class="">
<br class="">
Many thanks indeed for this very thorough
round-up of the 'evidence' on quarks.<br class="">
Very much appreciated.<br class="">
<br class="">
Wishing all colleagues a great Christmas and
an excellent New Year.<br class="">
Grahame<br class="">
----- Original Message -----<br class="">
From: John Williamson<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br class="">
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br class="">
Cc: Stephen Leary<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk</a>>
; Darren Eggenschwiler<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com</a>>
; Nick Bailey<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>
; Anthony Booth<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org" style="color:
purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">mailto:abooth@ieee.org</a>> ;
Pete Delaney<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:piet.delaney.2@gmail.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:piet.delaney.2@gmail.com</a>>
; Innes Morrison<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life</a>>
; Alexander Afriat<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:afriat@gmail.com" style="color:
purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">mailto:afriat@gmail.com</a>> ;
Phil Butler<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz</a>>
; Michael Wright<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk</a>>
; Ariane Mandray<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>>
; Solomon Freer<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:slf@unsw.edu.au" style="color:
purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">mailto:slf@unsw.edu.au</a>> ;
Manohar .<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:manohar_berlin@hotmail.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:manohar_berlin@hotmail.com</a>>
; Vera Biryukova<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:biriukovavera@gmail.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:biriukovavera@gmail.com</a>>
; Mike Mobley<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Mike.Mobley@gcu.edu" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:Mike.Mobley@gcu.edu</a>>
; Niels Gresnigt<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Niels.Gresnigt@xjtlu.edu.cn" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:Niels.Gresnigt@xjtlu.edu.cn</a>>
; Mark,Martin van der<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>>
; AmancioHasty<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ahasty@gmail.com" style="color:
purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">mailto:ahasty@gmail.com</a>><br class="">
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 4:13 AM<br class="">
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light
particles & theories<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi everyone,<br class="">
<br class="">
Have been meaning to explain a bit more about
the proton internal structure for some time in
answer to an earlier question from John D
about the evidence for quarks inside the
proton. I did reference the literature, but
this is hard to understand if you are not in
the field and the field anyway tries to hide
the pure truth with a lot of dense and
well-established undergrowth. I had not got
round to this earlier due to two things:
pressure of other work and the fact that I
forgot to note the source for a useful chapter
I found on the internet. Just tracked it down
and it is at:<br class="">
<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter4.pdf" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter4.pdf</a><br class="">
<br class="">
Did not want to send you my copy of it without
crediting the source.<br class="">
<br class="">
Anyway,the main thing I wanted to do was cut
the through some of the jargon and help
explain what the proton structure functions
(in fig 4.6 in the above) mean. This is the
essence of what is known experimentally about
the internal structure of the proton – and
contains the main evidence for the
quark-parton model. The quark-parton model is
the association of hard bits in the proton,
the partons, with the pattern of existing
particles explained by Gell-Mann’s quark
model. This also helps to explain some things
about Richard’s question in the recent email –
hence the choice to spend time on this in the
early hours of this morning.<br class="">
<br class="">
Now I’m not going to explain this in detail –
the chapter referenced above does a better job
of this – but I want to cut the experiment a
bit free from the embedded story of the QCD
quark-gluon etc etc model (and it is just a
model remember) and explain what the
EXPERIMENT tells you.<br class="">
<br class="">
The experiment gives the structure functions
in terms of two variables Qsquared and x.
Briefly, Qsquared is the measured 4-momentum
transfer squared of the interaction in GeV
squared. How hard you hit it (squared). To
give you an idea of the scale of the hit –
100GeV squared is roughly ten times the
mass-energy of the proton itself. And so the
data extends out to about a 100 protons worth
of “hit”. That is hard!<br class="">
<br class="">
Now x is a more interesting variable. It is
the measured fraction of the proton’s
4-momentum carried by whatever you hit.
Thinking of the proton in its rest-frame –
this is just its rest mass. So x tells you how
much of the proton mass was carried by
whatever you hit. x is 1 and you got the whole
proton. This is what you would always measure
if you hit a simple object like the electron.
The electron is a single object and it carries
all of its mass localized to the electron.
This is how you know. The proton is not like
that. At the quark-parton models simplest,
with no forces and no confinement one thinks
of it as three quarks. If each of these
carried a third of the proton mass one would
have data at only x = 0.33. Note that there is
not even any structure there.<br class="">
<br class="">
What one actually sees is completely different
to this, or to any three-hard-bits-in-a-bag
model. In the vast majority of collisions the
effective “mass” of whatever you hit was very
very low. Look at the scale for F2. It goes
over 12 orders of magnitude. One is hundreds
of millions times more likely to hit a
“quark-parton” with a practically zero x of
0.000063 than one with a (simple model) x of
0.3 ish. Now precisely zero x would be hitting
a rest-massless (photon-like) object, one
third x would be simple rest-massive quarks in
a massless bag with binding energy (gluons if
you like) of the same order as the mass. A
sixth x would be 3 equal mass quarks with some
confinement at the same kind of energy as the
quark mass-energy. You get nothing like this.
What you get is gloop. There is almost no
discernable structure at all.<br class="">
<br class="">
So why do people think there are hard bits in
the proton. The evidence for this comes from
scaling – a flat distribution with Q squared
then. This IS evidenced by the curves in the
middle of the figure. At x = 0.08 it is pretty
flat. Think about it. If the proton contained
hard billiard-ball like bits, how likely you
were to hit them with another flung billiard
ball does not depend on how hard you fling it,
but on the “impact parameter”. This is what is
characteristic of single-hard-object
scattering.<br class="">
<br class="">
Note that this simple scaling does not apply
at low x, where the data shows that it becomes
rapidly more likely to find a photon-like
object as one hits it harder, and at high x
where it becomes rapidly less likely to hit a
high-mass constituent. Explain that in a model
of a bag of bits. You should resolve the hard
bits better, instead it seems they break. Not
very hard then. Ok, you are walloping them
with a 4-momentum squared many times their
mass squared, but one is doing this at lower x
as well. The other thing is that, if you
integrate over all the bits you hit in deep
inelastic proton scattering, you only get
about half the proton mass. The rest is
something else, something unhittable with
charges and photons. This is the meaning of
equation 4.77. This is interpreted as arising
from the binding. Could well be, but whatever
they are binding is mostly, experimentally, a
whole pile of really low mass bits (if bits
indeed) – more and more of it as one looks
harder and harder. Remember, to make up the
proton mass there must be (at least) hundreds
of millions of them. Hundreds of millions is
not 3. One talks about “valence quarks and sea
quarks, but this is mostly bullshit. One sees
what one sees, not what one would like to see.
Also the number in eq. 4.77 is so near 50
percent I favour something much more radical
and far simpler. That will eventually become
another paper. Quarks, why there are three and
what they really are is what comes next.<br class="">
<br class="">
If you want to see how bad it gets for the
standard model (and why I left particle
physics) the bullshit about the standard model
picture gets (much!) worse in the next section
about the “proton spin crisis” so read on if
you dare …<br class="">
<br class="">
I’m not quite up to speed with who is or is
not on the general maiing list, so some of you
may get this twice – apologies!<br class="">
<br class="">
Thats it for now.<br class="">
<br class="">
Cheers, John.<br class="">
________________________________<br 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" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">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>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<pre style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';" class="">_______________________________________________<o:p class=""></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';" 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" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p class=""></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';" class=""><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" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p class=""></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';" class="">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p class=""></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';" class=""></a><o:p class=""></o:p></pre>
</blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br class="">
<br class="">
<o:p class=""></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;
text-align: center;" align="center">
<hr style="color: rgb(144, 144, 144);" class="" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="2" width="99%"></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:
collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="padding: 0in 11.25pt 0in 6pt;" 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="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class=""><span style="border: 1pt
solid windowtext; padding: 0in;
text-decoration: none;" class=""><span id="cid:~WRD000.jpg" class=""><~WRD000.jpg></span></span></a><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</td>
<td style="padding: 0.75pt;" class=""><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;" class=""><span style="font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(61, 77, 90);" class="">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" style="color: purple; text-decoration:
underline;" class="">www.avast.com</a><o:p class=""></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<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;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); 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;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" 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;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); 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" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" style="color: purple;
text-decoration: underline; 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;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">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;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" 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;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;" class=""><a href="</span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;
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; background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">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;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); 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;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" 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;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); 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;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" 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;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); 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;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class=""> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;" class="">
<tbody class=""><tr class="">
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;" class=""><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" class=""><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" class=""></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">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;" class="">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>