<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>What I know about retarded potentials exactly corroborates my
point</p>
<p>The potential is retarded yes but go backwards from the 4Oklock
location of the advancing lower particle you will see the force
vector no longer goes through the orbit center. It comes from the
retarded position of the source, which was at 12Oclock.</p>
<p>Does retarded potential not mean one must calculate the potential
from the point sources were in the past ? I'm reading Jackson p468
right now</p>
<p>Its a typical formula first section with no explanation of what
they mean, but it is clear that my diagram is non relativistic and
that may be my error.<br>
</p>
<p>However a very slow moving particle very far away moving
transversely would have almost no relativistic correction and
still be seen. So in this case would the observer ( big circle)
not see the source at the retarded past position. And if that is
the case would he not "see" the force vector from the retarded
past position?<br>
</p>
<p><img src="cid:part1.381E7D07.DBF4A10E@nascentinc.com" alt=""></p>
<p>And that is exactly Flanders Argument regarding the motion of the
sun relative to an observer on the earth. The EM force vector
points to the retarded position not the current position. But
gravity orbits are calculated as though the force vector points to
the actual Now position. <br>
</p>
<p>In my diagram the past upper particle is at 12Oclock and when the
Light(EM INFLUENCE) gets to the lower particle at 4 Oclock it sees
the upper particle at its past 12O'clock position. Thus the force
vector is no longer radially symmetric but has a tangential
component. <br>
</p>
<p>How your dual orbiting charge model traveling at "c" works out I
do not know. But if the E filed is squeezed in the velocity
direction then <br>
</p>
<p><img src="cid:part2.7763DE22.DCC36E6F@nascentinc.com" alt="">then
the two particles would never influence each other since the flat
plane of E fileds would rotate and always miss the</p>
<p>other particle. So what creates the field holding the particles
in orbit? <br>
</p>
<p>best<br>
</p>
<p>wolf<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 2/8/2017 12:34 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c816e475-f979-9708-efd1-9b5490991f46@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Hi!</p>
<p>No, it is not the point that 'Albrecht has some other ideas'.
But it is the situation solved by the treatment of "retarded
potential" as I have already written. This is classical Main
Stream physics. <br>
</p>
<p>I can only repeat to refer to textbooks about retarded
potential which is besides my favourite French the well known
Landau&Lifschitz about the so called Lienard-Wiechert
potential (and I think also in Jackson). From that calculation
follows that the forces arrive in a radial direction at the
particles / charges and so there is no tangential component. <br>
</p>
<p>Van Flanders has obviously overlooked this fact which is - to
say it again - standard classical physics.</p>
<p>Best, Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 08.02.2017 um 20:02 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ddf67d39-119e-0554-1273-7b3f4610e861@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>I agree one must integrate the effect, but since the
instantaneous snapshot shown below generate a small but not
zero tangential force along the trajectory if you rotate the
entire diagram by an infinitesimal angle the same force will
move around the cycle in the same direction , so there would
be no cancellation but an accumulation of the tangential force
build up.</p>
<p>I believe the only way to avoid the problem is to have an
attractive force at the center so only radial force fields are
encountered, or have infinite propagation speed which is what
TOm Vam Flandern's paper tried to prove.</p>
<p>Albrecht has some other ideas</p>
<p>Best, wolf<br>
</p>
<p><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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/5/2017 5:26 PM, <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-f11d112e-e338-4304-9917-5b7634fc0a8c-1486344379031@3capp-webde-bs15"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hey Wolf:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The actual force at any reception point is not just
that from one position of the sending charge, but an
integral over all positions of the sending charge
intersecting the past light cone of the sender. I don't
know what the answer is and I'm too tired at the moment
to do the math. Looks too like it might be very
involved! Cone intersecting a spiral, etc. 3/4-D, lots
of unknown integrals....</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, a positron-electron pair should be essentiall
invisible as it is charge nutral, i.e., won't interact
with our only agent of "seeing." Except ...??</div>
<div> </div>
<div>---Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid
#C3D9E5; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
05. Februar 2017 um 21:47 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Wolfgang Baer" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous
gravity force</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I do not see how your example with electric
forces applies to the gravitational example.in
van Flanders 1998 paper , or for that matter to
your model of an elementary particle. Has anyone
ever seen positron electron orbiting each other?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Consider two particles instantly at 10 and 6
Oclock send out a force that propagates radially
from their instantaneous position</p>
<p><img alt=""
src="cid:part7.C53835A8.E99A283A@nascentinc.com"
height="295" width="392"></p>
<p>A time of flight delay caused by field
propagating spherically to reach the other
particle after it has moved around the orbit.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This means there is an angle
between the purely radial from orbit center
direction by an angle<span style="font-size:
18.0pt;"> Θ</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>This angle will give a force vector along the
orbit path would this not change the momentum??</p>
<p>The only way I know Bohr atom works is because
the proton is at the center of the electron
orbit so no matter where the electron moves
around the orbit it will experience a radial
only force.</p>
<p>I believe van Flanders 1998 paper claims that
ephemerus data was calculated assuming
instantaneous gravity force projection and which
seem to match visual position when corrected for
the time delay between sources and observer. And
if the time delay for gravity were introduced it
would show up in orbit corrections not actually
seen. Is he making a mistake?</p>
<p>best,</p>
<p>Wolf</p>
<pre class="moz-signature">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/31/2017 1:35 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>regarding the <i>speed of gravitational
influence</i>:</p>
<p>I have looked into the mentioned paper of Van
Flanders in 1998 and particularly his
arguments why gravitational influences must
propagate instantly, not at the speed of
light. I do not follow his arguments because
he has overlooked an important point.</p>
<p>His argument (also that one cited from
Eddington) is: If the speed of gravitational
propagation is limited (e.g. to c) then in the
case of two celestial bodies each body would
not see the other one at its actual position
but at a past position. This would destroy the
conservation of momentum. - However, this is
not the case.</p>
<p>One simple example to see that this argument
cannot be true. We can imagine a set up of two
<i>massive </i>bodies which orbit each other
and which are bound to each other by an
electrical force; this is easily possible by
putting an appropriate electrical charge of
different sign onto both bodies. Also the
electrical force is, as we know, restricted to
the speed of light. But it is very clear that
this set up would keep the momentum of both
bodies and would steadily move in a stable
way.</p>
<p>How does this work? The phenomenon is the so
called "retarded potential". It has the effect
that, even though both charges are seen at a
past position by the other charge, the force
vector points to the <i>actual </i>position
of the other one.</p>
<p>If we now assume that gravity is a force
(independent of what Einstein talks about
curvature of space), then the same rules of
retarded potential apply to gravity. And so
there is no change of momentum even though the
effect of gravity is limited to the speed of
light.</p>
<p>Does this provide some clarification?</p>
<p>Albrecht</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.01.2017 um
20:52 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote>
<p>Al:</p>
<p>I think the "where is the evidence"
argument is no longer powerful because so
many things happening in physics have little
or even contradictory evidence. I'm just
reading Van Flanders 1998 "the speed of
gravity" Physics Letters A250 1-11 which
makes a good case for gravity influences
influences moving instantly - not at the
speed of light.</p>
<p>However I like your idea of only
interactions - in fact I'm developing a
theory along those lines by modeling nothing
as an empty page and requiring material
formatting of the page as an explicit field
of space cells. This still allows fields as
a shortcut for calculating interactions
from multiple distant cells, but nothing
remains nothing, if there are no cells to
host interactions i.e. sources and sinks,
then there is no influence propagating. It
takes some material to propagate influences.</p>
<p>I would be very curious to read how your
"one way out" formulates this problem.</p>
<p>One of my hang ups is that any
visualization of material basis for space
implies a kind of permanent structural
relationship between sources and sinks - but
objects do seem to move fairly fluidly from
place to place. Do sources and sinks move in
your vision, If so what do they move in?</p>
<p>best,</p>
<p>Wolf</p>
<pre class="moz-signature">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com'; return false;" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/21/2017
10:20 PM, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='af.kracklauer@web.de';
return false;" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Challenge for proponents of fields
(all kinds: E&M, Gravity, Tension,
whatever): If the universe is finite,
then the field sources on the outer
rind will be pumping field energy into
the void, the material universe would
be cooling down, etc. So, where is the
evidence for such? If the universe is
finite but topologically closed, then
it will have certain "Betti numbers"
for various forms which will be
closed, (see: algebraic topology
texts), again there should be some
observable consequence from the these
closed forms. So (again) where's the
evidence? Granted, current tech may
not be up to the task; but that would
imply that field theories have to be
reduced in status to be virtually
religion.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One way out: there are no fields,
but interactions between sources and
sinks. Where one is missing, there's
nothing! In particular nothing
emminating from sources without regard
for target-like sinks. Advantage: the
math works out without internal
contradictions (divergencies, etc.).
Another advantage: from this
viewpoint, there are no waves, and
associated divergencies. They are
just cocek the ptual Fourier
components for the interactions.
Useful, but strictly hypothetical. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>For what it's worth, Al</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
22. Januar 2017 um 04:19 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Roychoudhuri,
Chandra" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu';
return false;" target="_blank"><chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;" target="_blank"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General]
light and particles group</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(0,51,0);">John M.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(0,51,0);">I am not the
right person to give you
decisive answers as I have
not followed the math
relevant to the origin of
Gravitational Wave (GW)
and its spontaneous
propagation. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(0,51,0);"> First,
you can find out the
current state of
technology in the
measuring precision of (i)
fringe fraction, F (i.e.,
180-degree/F) vs. (i)
polarization angle
fraction F (90-degree/F).
As I recall, much better
than thousandth of a
fringe-shift is now
measurable. I do not know
what is the current best
value of F for
polarization measurement.
You can look up
Gravitational Faraday
Effect also. I did “poke
my nose” there in the
past; but could not find
anything measurable.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(0,51,0);"> Second,
more fundamental physics.
All material based waves
and light waves require a
continuous tension field
that steadily gets pushed
away from the original
site of perturbation
induced on the field;
provided the perturbation
does not exceed the
restoration linearity
condition (“Young’s
Modulus”, or equivalent).
For, stretched material
string, the mechanical
tension is T and the
restoration force is the
“inertial mass” “Sigma”
per unit length; then
string-wave v-squared
=T/Sigma. For light,
c-squared =
Epsilon-inverse/Mu.
Epsilon-inverse is the
electric tension and Mu is
the magnetic restoration
force. These analogies are
explained in some of my
papers; I have sent
earlier.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(0,51,0);"> Now my
very basic question for
the experts in GW: <b><i>How
do you define the
GW-tension field?</i></b>
All spontaneously
propagating waves require
a steady and continuous
tension field in which a
suitable perturbation
triggers the original
wave. What is the velocity
of GW and what are the
corresponding tension and
restoration parameters? If
you say, it is the same
velocity as “c”, for the
EM wave; then <b><i>we
have some serious
confusion to resolve</i></b>.
Are the tension and
restoration parameters
same as those for EM
waves? Then, why should we
call it GW; instead of
pulsed EM waves? Or, <b><i>are
the two parameters
really physically
different for GW</i></b>(should
be); but GW-velocity
number just happens to
coincide with “c”?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(0,51,0);"> I took
Einstein’s explanation for
the origin of Gravity as
the “Curvature of Space”
literally, as the
Potential Gradient
generated around any
assembly of Baryonic
Particles. So, a pair of
rotating binary stars will
generate a periodically
oscillating potential
gradient. Whatever the
value of the effective
gravity of a “stationary”
binary star around earth
is; it would be
oscillating slightly when
the “stationary” binary
stars start rotating
around themselves. But,
this is not Gravity Wave
to me. It is a phenomenon
of “locally” changing
value of the “curvature of
space”; not a passing by
wave. Imagine the typical
“trampoline demo” for
Einsteinian gravity with a
heavy iron ball at the
depressed center. If you
periodically magnetically
attract the iron ball to
effectively reduce the
trampoline curvature; we
are not generating
propagating GW; we are
periodically changing the
local “curvature”! </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(0,51,0);"> These
comments should give you
some pragmatic “food for
thought”! </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(0,51,0);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(0,51,0);">Chandra.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(0,51,0);"> </span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top: solid
rgb(181,196,223)
1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Tahoma ,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Tahoma , sans-serif;">
General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John
Macken<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday,
January 21, 2017 4:14
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of
Light and Particles -
General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[General] light and
particles group</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Chandra,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">I have
one quick question for you
and the group to
consider. You mention
that Maxwell connected the
speed of light to the
properties of space
(epsilon and mu). To
explain my question, I
first have to give some
background which is
accomplished by quoting a
short section of the
previously attached paper.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align: justify;"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">“Gravitational
waves (GWs) propagate in
the medium of spacetime.
They are transverse
quadrupole waves which
slightly distort the
“fabric of space”. For
example, a GW propagating
in the “Z” direction would
cause a sphere made from
baryonic matter such as
metal to become an
oscillating ellipsoid.
When the sphere expands in
the X direction it
contracts in the Y
direction and vice versa.
The GW produces: 1) no
change in the total volume
of the oscillating sphere
2) no change in the rate
of time, 3) no
displacement of the center
of mass of the oscillating
sphere. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align: justify;"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Point
#3 addresses an important
point. If there are two
isolated masses such as
two LIGO interferometer
mirrors suspended by wires
[17], the passage of a GW
does not move the mirror’s
center of mass. Instead
of the mirrors physically
moving, the GW changes the
properties of spacetime
producing a redshift and a
blue shift on LIGO’s laser
beams. This difference in
wavelength is detected by
the interferometer as a
fringe shift…”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">With this
introduction, the
questions are:</span></p>
<ol start="1"
style="margin-top: 0.0in;"
type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Should a
GW effect the permeability
and permittivity of free
space?</li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Should
the two orthogonal
polarizations of a GW
produce opposite effects
on the permeability and
permittivity of free
space?</li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Since
epsilon and mu determine
the speed of light, should
a GW produce a different
effect on the two
orthogonal polarizations
of light?</li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">If the
answer to question #3 is
yes, then this suggests
that it should be possible
to detect GWs by
monitoring the
polarization of a laser
beam. It is vastly
simpler to detect a slight
difference in the
polarization of a single
beam of light than it is
to detect the same optical
shift between two arms of
an interferometer. The
interferometer encounters
vibration noise to a much
greater degree than is
encountered in the
polarization of a single
laser beam. Also,
multiple laser beams could
identify the direction of
the GW much better than an
interferometer.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Perhaps
this is off the subject of
the discussion group. But
it is an example of a
subject which might be low
hanging fruit that could
make a historic
contribution to physics.
In the past I have made
the suggestion that GWs
produce a polarization
effect, but this
suggestion is lacking
additional insight and
analysis to be taken
seriously. Is there
anyone in this group with
the expertise to
contribute to this study?
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">John M. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225)
1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri , sans-serif;">
General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Roychoudhuri,
Chandra<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday,
January 21, 2017 11:56
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of
Light and Particles -
General Discussion
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[General] light and
particles group</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(153,51,102);">“Gravitational
waves indicate vacuum
energy exists”, paper by
John Macken</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(153,51,102);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(153,51,102);">John M.:
Thanks for attaching your
paper. <b><i>The title
clearly indicates that
we really are in basic
agreement. The cosmic
space has physical
properties.</i></b> I
have expressed my views a
bit differently, that the
cosmic space is a <b><i>stationary
</i></b>Complex Tension
Filed (CTF), <b><i>holding
100% of the cosmic
energy</i></b> in the
attached papers and in my
book, “Causal Physics”. <b><i>If
the so-called vacuous
cosmic space and the
CTF were not
inseparable, the
velocity of light
would have been
different through
different regions of
the cosmic space</i></b>!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(153,51,102);"> I
just do not like to
continue to use the word
“vacuum” because, in the
English language, it has
acquired a very different
meaning (“nothing”) for
absolute majority of
people over many
centuries. It is better
not to confuse common
people by asserting new
meanings on very old and
very well established
words. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(153,51,102);"> Further,
in your support, the
quantitative values of at
least two physical
properties,</span> <span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(153,51,102);">Epsilon
& Mu, of the comic
space have already
presented as quantified
properties by Maxwell
around 1867 through his
wave equation. Recall
(c-squared)=(1/Epsilon.Mu).
These properties of the
cosmic space were already
quantified before Maxwell
by the early developers of
electrostatics and magneto
statics.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(153,51,102);"> I
assume that you are
suggesting us that we need
to postulate and quantify
other physical properties
possessed by this cosmic
space (<b><i>Maxwellian or
Faraday Tension Field</i></b>?),
so that the “emergent
dynamic particles” out of
this cosmic space would
display all the properties
we have already been
measuring for well over a
century.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(153,51,102);">
However, I disagree, as of
now, that cosmic space is
“space-time” four
dimensional. Because, the
“running time” is not a
measurable physical
parameter of any physical
entity that we know of in
this universe. So, I
assert that the “running
time” cannot be altered by
any physical process. <b><i>Humans
have smartly derived
the concept of
“running time” using
various kinds of
harmonic oscillators
and/or periodic
motions.</i></b> We
can alter the frequency of
a physical oscillator by
changing its physical
environment. Of course,
this is my personal
perception, <b><i>not
supported by the
entire group</i></b>.
But, that is precisely the
purpose of this free and
honest discussions so we
can learn from each other.
As my understanding
evolves; I might change
back my mind and accept
space as four- or even
thirteen-dimensional.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(153,51,102);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(153,51,102);">Chandra.</span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top: solid
rgb(181,196,223)
1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Tahoma ,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Tahoma , sans-serif;">
General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John
Macken<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday,
January 21, 2017 1:37
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of
Light and Particles -
General Discussion';
'Andrew Worsley'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'M.A.'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[General] light and
particles group</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">Dear
Chandra and All,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">You have
said “</span><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">We
definitely have advanced
our <b><i>collective
understanding</i></b>
that <b><i>space is not
empty and the
particles are some
form of emergent
properties of this
same universal cosmic
field.</i></b></span><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">” The
idea that space is not an
empty void has not been
quantified in any model of
spacetime proposed by
members of the group. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">I have
concentrated in defining
and quantifying the
properties of the vacuum
and the results are
presented in the attached
paper. This paper
analyzes the properties of
spacetime encountered by
gravitational waves. The
conclusion is that
spacetime is a sea of
Planck length vacuum
fluctuations that
oscillate at Planck
frequency. This model can
be quantified, analyzed
and tested. It is shown
that this model gives the
correct energy for virtual
particle formation. It
also gives the correct
energy density for black
holes, the correct zero
point energy density of
the universe (about 10<sup>113</sup>
J/m<sup>3</sup>) and
generates the Friedmann
equation for the critical
density of the universe
(about 10<sup>-26</sup>
kg/m<sup>3</sup> = 10<sup>-9</sup>
J/m<sup>3</sup>). </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">The
reason for mentioning this
to a group interested in
the structure of
electrons, photons and
electric fields is that
the quantifiable
properties of spacetime
must be incorporated into
any particle or field
model. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(32,24,140);">John M.</span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225)
1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri , sans-serif;">
General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Roychoudhuri,
Chandra<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday,
January 21, 2017 8:45
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Andrew
Worsley <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:worsley333@gmail.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='worsley333@gmail.com';
return false;"
target="_blank">worsley333@gmail.com</a>>;
Light & particles.
Web discussion <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org';
return false;"
target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> M.A. <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu';
return false;"
target="_blank">ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[General] light and
particles group</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Dear
Andrew Worsely: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> This
is a platform for ethical,
serious and honest
discussions on scientific
issues that the prevailing
mainstream platforms have
been shunning. We
definitely do not want to
sow unsubstantiated
distrust within this
group. <b><i>This not a
political forum where
sophisticated
deceptions are highly
prized; which has been
intellectualized as
“post-truth”!</i></b>
This is not a “post-truth”
forum.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">
So, please, <b><i><span
style="color:
rgb(192,0,0);">help
us</span></i></b><span
style="color:
rgb(192,0,0);"> </span>by
getting help from computer
professionals before
repeating any further
unsubstantiated
accusations.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">
If you can definitively
identify anybody within
our group carrying out
unethical and destructive
activities; obviously, we
would bar such persons
from this group
discussion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Chandra.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Dear
All Participants: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Please
be vigilant in maintaining
the essential ethics
behind this discussion
forum – honestly accept or
reject others’ opinions;
preferably, <b><i>build
upon them. This is the
main objective of this
forum as this would
advance real progress
in physics out of the
currently stagnant
culture</i></b>. While
we have not come to
realize any
broadly-acceptable major
break-through out of this
forum; we definitely have
advanced our <b><i>collective
understanding</i></b>
that <b><i>space is not
empty and the
particles are some
form of emergent
properties of this
same universal cosmic
field.</i></b> This,
in itself, is significant;
because the approach of
this group to particle
physics is significantly
different from the
mainstream. I definitely
see a better future for
physics out of this
thinking: Space is a real
physical field and
observables are
manifestation (different
forms of excited states)
of this field.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">
Most of you are aware
that our SPIE conference
series, which was
continuing since 2005, has
been abruptly shut down
without serious valid
justifications (complains
from “knowledgeable
people” that “bad apples”
have joined in). We
certainly do not want
something similar happen
to this web discussion
forum due to internal
dissentions and internal
unethical behavior.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Many
thanks for your vigilance
and support.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Respectfully,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Chandra.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Tahoma , sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma
, sans-serif;"> Andrew
Worsley [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:worsley333@gmail.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='worsley333@gmail.com'; return
false;" target="_blank">mailto:worsley333@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday,
January 21, 2017 4:49 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Duffield<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Roychoudhuri,
Chandra; ANDREW WORSLEY<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Andrew
Worsley, light and
particles group</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi
John,</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Could
be a coincidence, but
some damn troll from the
discussion group (called
Vladimir) has screwed up
my email which I have
had problem free for the
last 20 years- and my
computer is now going
suspiciously slow.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at
7:44 PM, John Duffield
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='johnduffield@btconnect.com';
return false;"
target="_blank">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Chandra:
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Please
can you add Andrew
Worsley to the
nature of light
and particles
group. I’ve met
him personally,
and think he has a
valuable
contribution to
make. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Apologies
if you’ve already
done this, but
Andrew tells me
he’s received a <i>blocked
by moderator</i>
message. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>John
Duffield</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>7
Gleneagles Avenue</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Poole</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>BH14
9LJ</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>UK</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top:
solid
rgb(225,225,225)
1.0pt;padding:
3.0pt 0.0in 0.0in
0.0in;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
John Duffield
[mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='johnduffield@btconnect.com';
return false;"
target="_blank">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 09
January 2017
08:34<br>
<b>To:</b>
'Roychoudhuri,
Chandra' <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu';
return false;"
target="_blank">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b>
'ANDREW WORSLEY'
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk';
return false;"
target="_blank">member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk</a>>; 'John Williamson'
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk';
return false;"
target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>>; 'Martin Van Der
Mark' <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martinvandermark1@gmail.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='martinvandermark1@gmail.com';
return false;"
target="_blank">martinvandermark1@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Andrew Worsley,
light and
particles group</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Chandra:
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Please
can you add Andrew
Worsley (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:worsley333@gmail.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='worsley333@gmail.com';
return false;"
target="_blank">worsley333@gmail.com</a>)
to the nature of
light and
particles group.
I’ve met him
personally, and
think he has a
valuable
contribution to
make. He has
described the
electron as being
what you might
call a quantum
harmonic
structure. The
electron in an
orbital is
described by
spherical
harmonics, the
electron itself
might be described
by spherical (or
toroidal)
harmonics. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>JohnD</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles
General Discussion List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='af.kracklauer@web.de';
return false;" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to
unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com'; return false;" target="_blank">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de'; return false;" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<hr style="border: none;color:
rgb(144,144,144);background-color:
rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width: 99.0%;">
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;border:
none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none;padding: 0.0px
15.0px 0.0px 8.0px;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" alt="Avast
logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
border="0"> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color:
rgb(61,77,90);font-family: Calibri ,
Verdana , Arial , Helvetica;font-size:
12.0pt;">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com'; return false;" target="_blank">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"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>
_______________________________________________ If
you no longer wish to receive communication from
the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr style="border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0;
height: 1px; width: 99%;">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"> <img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"> </a> </td>
<td>
<p style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;"> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<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>
</body>
</html>