<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1483800992392_4510" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1483800992392_4631">How could the particle/photon models you're discussing form a diffraction pattern in Young's experiment or Hodge's experiment?</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1483800992392_4510" dir="ltr"><span>I think the diffraction is one of the very first criteria for a photon model.</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1483800992392_4510" dir="ltr"><span>Hodge</span></div> <div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div dir="ltr"><font size="2" face="Arial"> On Friday, January 6, 2017 11:26 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv@etpsemra.com.au> wrote:<br></font></div> <br><br> <div class="y_msg_container"><div id="yiv9782489083"><base><div><span style="font-size:13px;">Grahame, Richard and All,</span><div style="font-size:13px;"><br clear="none"></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;">Grahame, </span><span style="font-size:13px;">regarding your thought experiment below. It is a meaningless exercise because there is no material from which such an aperture can be constructed. If you know of one, please let me know what it is. On the premise that such an aperture could be constructed, the result of the experiment would be the same, irrespective of the position or velocity of the observer. An observer at rest wrt the aperture will see the electron pass through it at 0.9 c. At 0.1 c the electron would be blocked in the classical sense. </span><div style="font-size:13px;"><br clear="none"></div><div style="font-size:13px;">Now what happens when the observer is moving with the electron? The answer will still be the same. At 0.9 c the electron will pass through the aperture. At 0.1 c, it will be blocked. When travelling at 0.9 c, the observer will have very different mass, dimension and time frames of reference. Under the moving observers reference frame, the electron appear to him to still have the dimensions it has at rest. That reference frame is different from that of the observer at rest with respect to the aperture. </div><div style="font-size:13px;"><br clear="none"></div><div style="font-size:13px;"> Everything is measured relative to the observer. Observers in different frames of reference see the same thing differently. An observer at rest wrt the aperture sees a small diameter particle coming towards the aperture. An observer moving with the electron at 0.9 c will see the electron approaching a larger aperture. </div><div style="font-size:13px;"><br clear="none"></div><div style="font-size:13px;">Regarding your suggestion below that the aperture has to change dimensions. It doesn't! In the real world, observers looking at the same scene from a different angle will see it from a different perspective. One observer looking at the rear end of a bull elephant will see a bulging body with large legs and a floppy appendage in what is a relatively harmless posture. Another observer looking at the front end of the same elephant would see a large body with similar legs, a big head with large tusks and a dangerous appendage in what could be a very threatening posture. That does not mean that the elephant transformed from a harmless posterior end to a threatening frontal end when an observer goes from the rear to the frontal view. The event is what it is. How it is perceived depends upon the position of the observer. </div><div style="font-size:13px;"><br clear="none"></div><div style="font-size:13px;">I repeat! The event is what it is. What is seen is different for different observers. Everything is relative to the observer. I venture to suggest that is why the theory is called relativity. At least with the relativity theories, special and general (black holes and related phenomena excluded), we can calculate what an observer in a different reference frame will observe. As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with Einstein's special relativity theory. I have not come across any situation in which his calculations do not match experiment. Despite what others may say, I am satisfied that special relativity is soundly based upon the rotating photon model of fundamental matter particles such as the electron in the manner I described. </div><div style="font-size:13px;"><br clear="none"></div><div style="font-size:13px;">Richard G, you are introducing the moving frame of reference of a "train". Your analogy is not what I was describing. My calculations apply entirely to an observer at "rest" wrt the the photon passing it at c. A moving observer will see a different situation. If one uses the special relativity corrections, it is possible to calculate what the observer in a different reference frame will observe. When you start with a moving reference frame to calculate a relativistic effect and assume it is a rest frame calculation, you will get a different answer than if you start with a rest frame an calculate the answer. I started with a rest frame and get the corrections I obtained. Suggesting that I am wrong because you introduce a moving frame to calculate a similar result and get a different answer has some problems. </div><div style="font-size:13px;"><br clear="none"></div><div style="font-size:13px;">Both sets of mathematics can be correct and different answers are obtained from different starting points. It is not necessary to introduce a moving frame of reference to calculate special relativity effects. As far as I am concerned my calculations from a rest frame are correct and it is the "rotating photon" model of matter that gives rise to the special relativity corrections of matter. I have invited you many times to give me an example of where my calculations do not match observation. I have made several testable predictions, including the rate at which the radius of a particle will diminish with velocity. I am wrong when my predictions don't match observation, If you wish to resume this discussion, the <b>ONLY</b> reason for it is that my work doesn't match observation. </div><div style="font-size:13px;"><br clear="none"></div><div style="font-size:13px;">All, I note a tendency of contributors to use theoretical arguments, sometimes supported by mathematics. I must state again that the <b>ONLY</b> arbiter of scientific knowledge is matching observation or experiment. IMHO, every action or event that occurs has a scientifically based reason for happening. If you want to propose something different to describe an action, you should first explain the science behind the action. Then use mathematics to establish the magnitude of the science just described. Follow that with a description of how your new presentation matches some known properties of whatever you are describing. That should be followed by a testable prediction of some new property or action associated with that type of event. Then you have something concrete upon which discussion can be meaningful. </div><div style="font-size:13px;"><br clear="none"></div><div style="font-size:13px;">Forwarding different opinions on aspects of someone else's work without showing how the work impacts upon observation makes for good banter. But it doesn't do anything to "advance the cause". I suggest that if you want to show the value of your work, do it by referring to experiment or observation. </div><div style="font-size:13px;"><br clear="none"></div><div style="font-size:13px;">Sincerely,</div><div style="font-size:13px;"><br clear="none"></div><div style="font-size:13px;">Vivian Robinson</div><div style="font-size:13px;"><br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"><div><div>On 07/01/2017, at 10:30 AM, "Dr Grahame Blackwell" <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a>> wrote:</div><br clear="none" class="yiv9782489083Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;orphans:2;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word;"><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;">Dear Richard, Chip et al.,</font></div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;"></font> </div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;">I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling relativistically-decreasing transverse radius of an electron with the postulates of Special Relativity (I believe you're not a fan of SR, Chip, so presumably this isn't an issue to you).</font></div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;"></font> </div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;">Let's consider a simple thought experiment - call it 'Threading the needle':</font></div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;"></font> </div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;">An aperture is just of sufficient size to permit the passage through it of an electron moving with a relative speed of 0.9c.</font></div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;">Now we consider same aperture, same electron, but now with a speed of 0.1c relative to each other.</font></div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;">From the viewpoint of an observer moving with the aperture that electron will now not pass through it (if we work on the premise that transverse radius of electron decreases with speed); however, unless we propose that the transverse measurements of an aperture INcrease with speed (and so reduce with decreasing speed), an observer moving with the electron will not see the passage of that electron through the moving aperture as being obstructed. So does the electron pass through the aperture in the 0.1c case - or doesn't it??</font></div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;"></font> </div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;">It appears that if we hold on to both speed-reduced transverse radius of an electron and the postulates of SR, we have a problem - one that can only be resolved by finding a compelling argument for an aperture increasing in size with increasing speed (whatever the nature of its composition). I've never seen or heard of such a proposition.</font></div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;"></font> </div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;">I'd be glad of any clarification as to how this apparent contradiction can be resolved.</font></div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;"></font> </div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;">Best regards,</font></div><div style="font-size:14px;"><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial" style="font-size:12px;">Grahame</font></div><div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:arial;">----- Original Message -----<div style="background-color:rgb(228, 228, 228);"><b>From:</b><span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" title="richgauthier@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">Richard Gauthier</a></div><div><b>To:</b><span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</a></div><div><b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, January 06, 2017 3:53 PM</div><div><b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.</div></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Hi Chip,</div><div> I agree with you. But Vivian’s derivation is still incorrect because there is nothing in his particle model that suggests the particle's radius is microscopic. Suppose his particle on the train had a radio wave diameter equal to the height H of the train. His calculation would predict that this particle's diameter would also contract in the moving train to become H/gamma ..</div><div> In my electron model, the contraction of the transverse radius of the electron is R=Ro/gamma^2 , but it is through a different derivation than Vivian’s. In my electron model the wavelength of the charged photon reduces as L = Lcompton/gamma while the energy of the charged photon increases as E=Eo x gamma . The result geometrically is that the radius R of the helical trajectory of the moving electron model has to decrease as R=Ro/gamma^2. Remember that this radius R is the helical radius of the trajectory of the circling charged photon. The charged photon itself (in my detailed charged photon model) has a radius that is inversely proportional to the energy E of the charged photon, so the radius of the electron model as a whole will actually decrease as R=Ro/gamma at relativistic velocities (as E increases), even as the radius of the helical trajectory of the charged photon decreases as R=Ro/gamma^2 ..</div><div> Richard</div><br clear="none"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jan 6, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Chip Akins <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br clear="none" class="yiv9782489083Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div class="yiv9782489083WordSection1" style="text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;white-space:normal;letter-spacing:normal;word-spacing:0px;"><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span>Hi Richard</span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span></span> </div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span>Contraction of an elementary fermion does<span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:14pt;">not mean contraction of objects made of these particles</span><span>. If the particles are held in atoms and molecules by the electromagnetic force, then the contraction of the<span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:14pt;">objects</span><span><span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span>would be simply longitudinal even if the particles themselves are experiencing transverse contraction.</span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span></span> </div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span>For several reasons I think that Rv=Ro/gamma may well be correct for the radius of a moving particle.</span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span></span> </div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span>Chip</span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span></span> </div><div><div style="border-style:solid none none;padding:3pt 0in 0in;border-top-color:rgb(225, 225, 225);border-top-width:1pt;"><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><b><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:11pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:11pt;"><span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:39 PM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b><span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span>Vivian Robinson <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">viv@universephysics.com</a>><br clear="none"><b>Cc:</b><span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br clear="none"><b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.</span></div></div></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;">Hello Vivian, </div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"> I’m going to try one more time for the benefit of you and others reading this. (See relevant snapshot from your article below.) Your model of a circling light speed photon with a transverse radius of Ro is like a small light clock on a moving train with an observer traveling with the light clock on the moving train who sees the light make one round trip of circumference 2 pi Ro with the light traveling at c in time t (the Proper Time as measured by the person traveling on the train with the light clock.) So 2 pi Ro = ct for the traveler on the train for one “tick” of the light clock. But an observer watching the train and the light clock go by at speed v to the right measures the light in the light clock to make one full helical turn (for one “tick” of the moving light clock.) This light traveling at c for a time t’ (as measured by the observer watching the train go by) for a helical distance c t’ which is the length of the helically curving hypotenuse of the light-clock triangle. In the mean time the train moves to the right a distance vt’ as measured by the stationary observer watching the train go by. This helical distance ct’ measured by the train watcher is given by (2 pi Ro)^2 + (vt’)^2 = (ct’)^2 where t’ > t since the transverse radius of a light clock on a moving train is not different from the transverse radius of the light clock on a stationary train, and the light travels further (taking more time) during one full tick as seen by the observer watching the moving train. According to special relativity, space contraction for a macroscopic object is only in the longitudinal direction of the moving train, not in the transverse direction. There is nothing in your particle model that implies that this non-contraction rule in the transverse direction will not also apply to your particle model’s microscopic transverse radius Ro. When you substitute 2 pi Ro = ct into the above equation with t’ you get (ct)^2 = (vt’)^2 + (ct’)^2 which when you solve this equation for t’ gives t’ = gamma t which is the standard time dilation result for an observer watching 1 tick of the moving light clock during the train passing, compared to the time t measured for 1 tick by the person traveling with the light clock on the train. There is no contraction in the transverse direction so Rv = Ro not Rv=Ro/gamma as you found. If your particle radius contracted as Ro/gamma, then the whole transverse height H of the moving train should also contract as H/gamma according to your calculation, which it does not according to special relativity. So your particle’s transverse radius contraction result Rv = Ro/gamma (equation 7 below) is unfortunately mistaken.</div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"> Richard</div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span><image002.png></span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"></div></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"></div><div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt;"><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;">On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:14 PM, Vivian Robinson <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">viv@universephysics.com</a>> wrote:</div></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;">Richard,</span></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;"></span> </div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;">I have acknowledged several times the error you pointed out in my derivation of the electron's magnetic moment. I have corrected it in my further work, acknowledging you. I have not yet published that and will do so some time in the future. </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;"></span> </div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;">Regarding what you call my error in the .. <span style="color:rgb(64, 56, 255);">time of travel of light over the hypotenuse of a right triangle ..</span>, I am not sure that you read or understood my paper properly on that part. The "hypotenuse" is not fixed. It has a forward linear motion as well as its spiralling helical motion. This is necessary to maintain the photon's axis at constant speed c. It is that which gives rise to the relativistic corrections. I am satisfied that it is the electron's structure that is responsible for the special relativity corrections through the mechanism proposed. If you have another physical reason for the existence of the special relativity corrections please let us know. In your opinion my mathematics is wrong. In my opinion my mathematics is correct and you have misread or not understood the physical processes involved in my model. Experiment is the best arbiter. </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;"></span> </div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;">You are very wrong about my use of the spin of a photon in an electron. In that paper I made no reference to the the photon's intrinsic spin. i have done that in the article I sent this group last year where I derived the wave equations psi for photons. The spin I derived of the electron was the angular momentum of the photon caused by the mass of the photon (m = hnu/c^2) rotating at c on an axis with a radius r = hbar/2mc, giving angular momentum = half hbar. Due to the reduction in radius I determined, that value of angular momentum is maintained at all relativistic velocities. That is one of the reasons "standard model" physicists insist that spin is not angular momentum as originally proposed by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit. They could not visualise how a point particle (r < 10^-17 m) could have angular momentum. Despite your opinion, I am suggesting that is why a "point particle" can have angular momentum. It matches observation.</span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;"></span> </div></div><div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;">As for the rest of what you call fatal errors, I suggest you refer to experiment. I have made sixteen statements on how the rotating photon model matches observed electron properties and seven predictions of unknown or unrecognised properties. I am wrong when those predictions don't match observation. </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;"></span> </div></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;">Richard, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I suggest you are wrong because you misread my paper. You suggest I am wrong because I don't use your calculations, or whatever other reason. Experiment is the only arbiter. I have invited you several times to point out where my model does not match observation. If you still insist I am wrong, why don't you point out where my predictions don't match observation. That is really all you need to do. </span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;"></span> </div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;">I suggest we end this discussion unless you point out where my work does not match observation.</span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;"></span> </div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;">Sincerely,</span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;"></span> </div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;">Vivian Robinson</span></div></div><div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;"></span></div><div> </div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div>_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="yiv9782489083Apple-converted-space"> </span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" target="_blank" href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a><br clear="none"><a href="<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><div class="yiv9782489083yqt9366425189" id="yiv9782489083yqtfd37308"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a><br clear="none"></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="yiv9782489083yqt9366425189" id="yiv9782489083yqtfd58009"><br clear="none"></div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="yqt9366425189" id="yqtfd09502">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com">jchodge@frontier.com</a><br clear="none"><a href="<a shape="rect" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a><br clear="none"></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>