<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>it is in fact not necessary to follow Einstein's version of SRT.
I for myself follow the version of Hendrik Lorentz as it is based
on known physical facts, not on fictitious assumptions about
space-time. However there are relativistic facts which are obvious
and independent of any formal version of SRT. That is the
contraction of fields and the dilation of periodic processes. And
these are for sure. The calculations according to Lienard-Wiechert
are based on these fact to my knowledge. At present I have started
to follow this derivation step by step but will need a bit of
time.<br>
</p>
<p>Do we indeed see the sun in a position which is about 8 minutes
retarded? From the view of the Earth the Sun can be taken as being
in a fixed position without making a big mistake. But even if the
sun would be moving in relation to our planetary system that would
not matter in this case The point is that the vectors of any
fields originating at
a moving object do not point to (or from) the visible position of
its source but from the advanced position, where the object is
when the field is received. </p>
<p>As far as I understand what you write (or van Flanders writes)
about the US naval data, these date describe the visible position
of the sun, so the direction from which the photons arrive. That
is obviously not a field. And if the direction of the
gravitational field would be towards the retarded position then
the orbital speed of the Earth would in fact change with time.
Which is not the case - But independent of this consideration,
this case seems particularly simple to me. As stated above, from
the view of the Earth the Sun can be taken as being in a fixed
position. With respect to this position the Sun has a constant
gravitational field in all directions. If now the Earth orbits the
sun then this steady field will reach the Earth as always coming
from the centre of the sun. The motion of the Earth is of no
influence. - The interesting case for this problem discussed at
other places is the one of a double star. If both stars orbit each
other then the position of one star changes permanently as seen
from the other star. In that case the direction of the field and
the propagation speed of the field are of relevance. But also for
these cases the relativistic calculation seems to show that the
fields are pointing towards the centre of the orbit following the
Lienard-Wiechert calculation of potential.<br>
</p>
<p>I shall come back here as soon as I am more familiar with this
case.</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 11.02.2017 um 20:30 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0460a32c-368f-27e5-9f84-1c875600a1e7@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I'll admit that I do not follow the consequences of Special
Relativity Theory (SRT) as it is worked out in the
Lienard-Wiechert potential. And since I identified at least a
half dozen derivations of these results in the internet I
assume the math is correct. However we have been to the Vigier
Conference and seen several presentations criticizing Special
Relativity <br>
</p>
<p>So rather than go through a derivation again, which I do not
doubt, I'm trying to make sense of the predicted results. Its
kind of like seeing SRT calculations and coming up with the twin
paradox. Something is wrong with SRT<br>
</p>
<p>The VanFlanders paper ( I can send another copy for anyone who
needs it) in the paragraph above "3.3 the solar eclipse test"
clearly claims that experimental data from the Astronomical
Almanac produced by the US naval observatory shows that the
earth is attracted to a point 8.5 min. ahead of its optical
position. This means the earth is gravitationally attracted to
where the sun is <i>Now</i> not where the sun was when light
was emitted.</p>
<p>The drawing below shows a simple example of how a light emitted
from a non-relativistic particle ( 30km/sec) at the upper past
position will not hit a parallel traveling lower particle at
some distance achieved during the flight time of light and
therefore will receive light at an angle pointing to the
retarded position. For earth orbit (30Km/sec) which is 10^4 less
than the speed of light relativistic effects are 10^-8 ,
i.e.very very small.compared with Newtonian thinking, but the
displacement in 8.5 minutes is 15,300km nearly 3 earth diameters
offset which should be measurable.<br>
</p>
<p>I've just gotten some visitors and need to go, but we are
questioning SRT and the assumption that gravity may move at a
different speed. so just citing more SRT derivations is not
convincing. <br>
</p>
<p>Why is My diagram and "Eddington" and Flanders wrong? Is
Flanders lying about his Ephemeris data and its experimental
content? <br>
</p>
<p>Or are we just so brow beaten by SRT that whatever derivations
we develop from it must be right? <br>
</p>
<p>Got to go</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baerecht
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 2/10/2017 12:33 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b26e6913-7ce4-42e8-2da3-c9e2b9f2ad58@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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:part2.46EF58B6.90E2C2AE@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:part3.17C709AE.9D4DA38B@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:part9.48A5088B.833AA65C@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 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>