<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Wolf, and hi Chip and All,<br>
</p>
<p>it is correct that the solution is a relativistic calculation. In
the figure below, the lower circuit "now" gets the field from the
direction of the higher (small) circuit "now". Not so easily
understandable by visualisation but theoretically confirmed. It
has to do with relativistic contraction (of space / fields) and
with relativistic time synchronization.</p>
<p>If I look into Jackson, to the mentioned p486 and p487, then eq.
(14.17) describes (unfortunately only) the transverse field. But
if in this equation the product (kappa*R) is replace by the value
given in (14.16) then the result does not depend on the retarded
position P'. - It would be better to have here the field
component for the longitudinal direction. But even this is an
indication that the retarded position has no effect.<br>
</p>
<p>Regarding the two charges in my model I assume that both charges
are getting the field of the respective other charge by similar
considerations. If we assume that charges permanently emit
exchange particles for the corresponding field following QM in
this respect, then there are exchange particles leaving the one
charge and reaching the other one. So there is a field (a binding
field) at the locations of both charges. - But this statement is
of course not a precise one and I am going to present a detailed
calculation taking all this into account mathematically.</p>
<p>And by the way with respect to gravity: This discussion which we
have started here has kept the physicists busy during the entire
19th century (which can be found at Wikipedia) The discussion used
the arguments of Van Flanders, Wolf, and also myself (in the
beginning) about the influence of retardation to the perspective
of the gravitational force; but this discussion ended when Special
Relativity was introduced.</p>
<p>Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.02.2017 um 21:32 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:d0077ef8-27a4-c466-66dc-35ac309cf91c@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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:part1.75AD6497.0223452E@a-giese.de" 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:part2.0AAB9098.6E283F44@a-giese.de" 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 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 2/8/2017 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:part8.84661BF8.54468EBF@a-giese.de"
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 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a 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;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</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 href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>