<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Al Kracklauer;</p>
<p>Per your recommendation I just got a copy of Jefimenko's
GRavitation and CoGravitation</p>
<p>It is a well written book with lots of examples of problems with
both Newton and Einstein and give some approximation he derives
the gravitational equivalent of the Maxwell equations a la
Heaveside and Lorenz <br>
</p>
<p>Besides the corresponding equivalent to the magnetic field Vector
Potential he has 3 other forces that will take some time to
understand</p>
<p>He points out that Newtonian Gravity will not conserve angular
momentum as pointed out by an Flanders.</p>
<p>However there are other gravity forces that may compensate so
Lienard-<o:p></o:p>
Wiechert potential may be an alternative <br>
</p>
<p>p341 However he does say "c" may not be the speed of light but
has not been measured <br>
</p>
<p>p327 " Spherical Black holes Cannot exist and gravity collapse is
impossible" <br>
</p>
<p> p337 suggests that Einstein's derivation of the 43 sec of arc
Mercury orbit residual Precession is "highly questionable"</p>
<p>This is getting to be a research project all its own. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I myself plan to work more on space time models like Bohm's in
which material cells "dvol" underlies our perception of space so
that any "warping" of space is explained by an interaction between
material mass and charge - so that if electromagnetic objects are
used to parameterize space the interaction between charge and mass
( gravito-inertial and Electro-magnetic forces) show up as space
warping in our measurements. But such a conclusion is another
example of falsely projecting properties of our measuring
instruments onto a supposed objective real world - it is
understanding the confusions arising from such false projections
that I believe can shed light on the physical problems we are
encountering.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I'm specifically looking at the situation of an isolated system
that repeats it evolution in some lifetime. Such an evolution can
be mapped onto a cycle with space as the cross section of parallel
cycles. Visualized as a torus, or doughnut (yum). The question
then is if action flows around the doughnut would the radius of
the cross section be limited by an attractive force holding the
torus together? <br>
</p>
<p>Parallel charge currents attract , but Jefimenko suggests
anti-parallel mass currents attract - If I am traveling at "c"
through a block universe of material then my material and the
Universe would travel in opposite directions and produce an
attractive force that holds us together? <br>
</p>
<p>As Jefimenko points out P328 "these are fascinating and
intriguing conclusions. Are they true or false? Only time will
tell."</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Best</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/16/2017 9:28 AM, Roychoudhuri,
Chandra wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB32348F19635BE5B2A3774A90935A0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">Appreciate your compliment, Andrew
Worsley!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY<br>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 9:39 AM<br>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
Subject: Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Well said Roychoudhri<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On gravity: the graviational potential
exists becuase of the interaction between matter and the
substance of space time. Actually enistein equations can also
relate to an energy density gradient and of course that would
be the "dark energy" gradient present in space-time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Andrew<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">========================================<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Message Received: Feb 15 2017, 07:42 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: "Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion" <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General] Albrecht
Instantaneous gravity force<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thank you, Wolf, for re-stating Plato:
“We only see the shadows of reality not reality itself.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">And we interpret those shadows based
upon our individual neural networks that are different from
each other and also differs from one time to another depending
upon the state of our health (hormonal changes, diseases,
depressions, etc., etc.).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">This is where comes the Indian story on
how five blinds, working together, not individually, construct
the model of the cosmic elephant with better realism than they
could do individually.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thus, we must learn to appreciate that
all current working theories represent no more than a current
model of the “Cosmic Elephant”; which we must keep on changing
and improving with consistent iterations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">We, “the blind sapiens”, must learn to
cooperatively and iteratively improve upon the interpretations
of the observed “shadows” (experimental data) and keep on
enhancing the stories believed by the sapiens; but not by
other animals! We must not remain so arrogant as to believe
that we are the observers. We are mere interpreters (using our
varied sets of neural networks) of the data. Actual
“observers” are our sensors and instruments generating data
for us to interpret. And no instruments can ever gather all
the exhaustive information about any interactants that are
participating in our instruments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">PS: If I accept Einstein’s view that the
gravity is a “curvature of the space”, then it exists since
the beginning when the massive body has been formed. If that
body moves with a finite velocity; there should not be any
“Gravity Wave” to propagate; only the existing “curvature” to
follow the moving body. There should be some motion-induced
distance dependent variations (distortions) in this
“curvature” (“Retarded Potential”?!), but minimal when the
main massive body moves with a velocity much slower than that
of EM waves. That is what my neural network has generated now!
It could be different tomorrow!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:50
PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General] Albrecht
Instantaneous gravity force<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I think I need more time as well to
investigate , this claim.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I need to get more information for the
claim that the instantaneous center of mass position of the
sun is 8 minutes ahead in its orbit from the apparent optical
position. I'll see if I can contact Van flanders and get the
details of this calculation. Although he says ephemera are
calculated from Newtonian non relativistic physics with
infinite gravity propagation and then the optical correction
for light flight is applied to get the observed location. Any
astronomer should know the answer , but most just deal with
the optical right ascension and declination and do not ever
consider the gravity effects.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"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." obviously this is not true for
sound , and I believe would also not be true if there were an
"ether"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"From the view of the Earth the Sun can
be taken as being in a fixed position" , You are taking a
theoretical view point , not an observational view point. The
sum and earth move relative to each other in your theoretical
view point, it looks as though the sun is moving<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"direction from which the photons
arrive. That is obviously not a field." Are you taking the QM
approach? Photons are particles their wave properties are
debroglie waves not EM waves. Otherwise Em waves are traverse
field disturbances are they not.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Lastly I feel there is a confusion in
relativity discussions between local experiments like the
Michelson Morely that happen inside a physical structure,
which
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">correspond to coordinate frames in SRT
vs. when we look outside the coordinate frame. The statement
that one cannot tell if we are moving is obviously not true
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">when we look outside our own frame, i.e.
our motion relative to the cosmic background. As you know from
my Vigier 10 paper. I am working on the possibility that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">space is an internal perceptual
phenomena like any other personal appearance, and therefore
connected the material background from which we are built.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Therefore as long as we compare
observations made within one space attached to one
configuration of material we get the maxwell, Lorenz , SRT,
and now
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Lienard-Wiechert as consistent
mathematical formulations. Thus as my Vigier paper points out
SRT is derivable by Einstein because the thought experiments
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">leading to the derivatin were carried
out in Einsteins imagination space which is hosted in the
material of his brain. Classic EM is formulated in the
assumption that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">there is an independent classical
background space. If this assumption is wrong, Maxwell may be
an over simplification as well.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Do you have a reference for the
derivation of the Lorenz transforms from Maxwells Equations?
What I've found in my texts are usually statements that say it
is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">true. I have not seen the actual
derivation that defines the coordinate frames independently of
the assumption that the physical laws in all frames should be
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">identical. Once you make this
independent reality assumption then one starts with the
assumption that Maxwell equations have the same form in two
coordinate
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">frames and asks what transformations
between these frames make that assumption true? But that is
circular reasoning.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">This reasoning is especially irritating
for people like me who are exploring the possibility that
Aristotle was wrong and Plato was right. We only see the
shadows of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">reality not reality itself.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">best wishes,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Research Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 2/14/2017 1:12 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">fictitious assumptions about space-time.
However there are relativistic facts which are obvious and
independent of any formal version of SRT. That is the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">knowledge. At present I have started to
follow this derivation step by step but will need a bit of
time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">received.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">relativistic calculation seems to show
that the fields are pointing towards the centre of the orbit
following the Lienard-Wiechert calculation of potential.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I shall come back here as soon as I am
more familiar with this case.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Am 11.02.2017 um 20:30 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">presentations criticizing Special
Relativity<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">coming up with the twin paradox.
Something is wrong with SRT<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">means the earth is gravitationally
attracted to where the sun is Now not where the sun was when
light was emitted.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">displacement in 8.5 minutes is 15,300km
nearly 3 earth diameters offset which should be measurable.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">derivations is not convincing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Why is My diagram and "Eddington" and
Flanders wrong? Is Flanders lying about his Ephemeris data and
its experimental content?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Or are we just so brow beaten by SRT
that whatever derivations we develop from it must be right?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Got to go<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dr. Wolfgang Baerecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Research Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 2/10/2017 12:33 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi Wolf, and hi Chip and All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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".
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Not so easily understandable by
visualisation but theoretically confirmed. It has to do with
relativistic contraction (of space / fields) and with
relativistic time
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">synchronization.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">(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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">for the longitudinal direction. But even
this is an indication that the retarded position has no
effect.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">charges permanently emit exchange
particles for the corresponding field following QM in this
respect, then there are exchange particles leaving the one
charge and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">present a detailed calculation taking
all this into account mathematically.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the gravitational force; but this
discussion ended when Special Relativity was introduced.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Am 09.02.2017 um 21:32 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">What I know about retarded potentials
exactly corroborates my point<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">orbit center. It comes from the retarded
position of the source, which was at 12Oclock.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="cid:image001.png@01D28799.BEB9CF40"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">cid:image001.png@01D28799.BEB9CF40</span></a>]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the current position. But gravity orbits
are calculated as though the force vector points to the actual
Now position.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">12O'clock position. Thus the force
vector is no longer radially symmetric but has a tangential
component.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="cid:image002.png@01D28799.BEB9CF40"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">cid:image002.png@01D28799.BEB9CF40</span></a>]then
the two particles would never influence each other since the
flat plane of E fileds would rotate and always miss <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">other particle. So what creates the
field holding the particles in orbit?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Research Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 2/8/2017 12:34 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">classical Main Stream physics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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-<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tangential component.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Van Flanders has obviously overlooked
this fact which is - to say it again - standard classical
physics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best, Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Am 08.02.2017 um 20:02 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">accumulation of the tangential force
build up.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">which is what TOm Vam Flandern's paper
tried to prove.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht has some other ideas<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best, wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Research Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 2/5/2017 5:26 PM, <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hey Wolf:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">intersecting a spiral, etc. 3/4-D, lots
of unknown integrals....<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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 ...??<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">---Al<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. Februar 2017 um
21:47 Uhr<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Von: "Wolfgang Baer" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">An: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Betreff: Re: [General] Albrecht
Instantaneous gravity force<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">elementary particle. Has anyone ever
seen positron electron orbiting each other?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Consider two particles instantly at 10
and 6 Oclock send out a force that propagates radially from
their instantaneous position<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="cid:image003.jpg@01D28799.BEB9CF40"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">cid:image003.jpg@01D28799.BEB9CF40</span></a>]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">A time of flight delay caused by field
propagating spherically to reach the other particle after it
has moved around the orbit.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">This means there is an angle between the
purely radial from orbit center direction by an angle Θ<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">This angle will give a force vector
along the orbit path would this not change the momentum??<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">experience a radial only force.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I believe van Flanders 1998 paper claims
that ephemerus data was calculated assuming instantaneous
gravity force projection and which seem to match visual
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">actually seen. Is he making a mistake?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Research Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 1/31/2017 1:35 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">regarding the speed of gravitational
influence:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">speed of light. I do not follow his
arguments because he has overlooked an important point.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">One simple example to see that this
argument cannot be true. We can imagine a set up of two
massive bodies which orbit each other and which are bound to
each
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">charge, the force vector points to the
actual position of the other one.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">And so there is no change of momentum
even though the effect of gravity is limited to the speed of
light.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Does this provide some clarification?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Am 22.01.2017 um 20:52 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Al:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">speed of light.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">influences.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I would be very curious to read how your
"one way out" formulates this problem.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Research Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 1/21/2017 10:20 PM, <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">reduced in status to be virtually
religion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">sources without regard for target-like
sinks. Advantage: the math works out without internal
contradictions (divergencies, etc.). Another advantage: from
this
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">viewpoint, there are no waves, and
associated divergencies. They are just cocek the ptual Fourier
components for the interactions. Useful, but strictly
hypothetical.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">For what it's worth, Al<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Gesendet: Sonntag, 22. Januar 2017 um
04:19 Uhr<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Von: "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">An: "Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion" <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Betreff: Re: [General] light and
particles group<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">John M.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">propagation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">(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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">measurement. You can look up
Gravitational Faraday Effect also. I did “poke my nose” there
in the past; but could not find anything measurable.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Second, more fundamental physics. All
material based waves and light waves require a continuous
tension field that steadily gets pushed away from the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">original site of perturbation induced on
the field; provided the perturbation does not exceed the
restoration linearity condition (“Young’s Modulus”, or
equivalent).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">=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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">explained in some of my papers; I have
sent earlier.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Now my very basic question for the
experts in GW: How do you define the GW-tension field? All
spontaneously propagating waves require a steady and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">restoration parameters? If you say, it
is the same velocity as “c”, for the EM wave; then we have
some serious confusion to resolve. Are the tension and
restoration
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">parameters same as those for EM waves?
Then, why should we call it GW; instead of pulsed EM waves?
Or, are the two parameters really physically different for
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">GW(should be); but GW-velocity number
just happens to coincide with “c”?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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”
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">propagating GW; we are periodically
changing the local “curvature”!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">These comments should give you some
pragmatic “food for thought”!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
On Behalf Of John Macken<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:14 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: 'Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion'<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General] light and
particles group<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To explain my question, I first have to
give some background which is accomplished by quoting a short
section of the previously attached paper.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">“Gravitational waves (GWs) propagate in
the medium of spacetime. They are transverse quadrupole waves
which slightly distort the “fabric of space”. For
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">change in the rate of time, 3) no
displacement of the center of mass of the oscillating sphere.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">shift on LIGO’s laser beams. This
difference in wavelength is detected by the interferometer as
a fringe shift…”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">With this introduction, the questions
are:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">1. Should a GW effect the permeability
and permittivity of free space?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">2. Should the two orthogonal
polarizations of a GW produce opposite effects on the
permeability and permittivity of free space?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">3. Since epsilon and mu determine the
speed of light, should a GW produce a different effect on the
two orthogonal polarizations of light?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">identify the direction of the GW much
better than an interferometer.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">seriously. Is there anyone in this group
with the expertise to contribute to this study?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">John M.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:56
AM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion ><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General] light and
particles group<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">“Gravitational waves indicate vacuum
energy exists”, paper by John Macken<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">John M.: Thanks for attaching your
paper. The title clearly indicates that we really are in basic
agreement. The cosmic space has physical properties. I have
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">expressed my views a bit differently,
that the cosmic space is a stationary Complex Tension Filed
(CTF), holding 100% of the cosmic energy in the attached
papers
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">and in my book, “Causal Physics”. If the
so-called vacuous cosmic space and the CTF were not
inseparable, the velocity of light would have been different
through
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">different regions of the cosmic space!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Further, in your support, the
quantitative values of at least two physical properties,
Epsilon & Mu, of the comic space have already presented as
quantified
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">properties by Maxwell around 1867
through his wave equation. Recall (c-squared)=(1/Epsilon.Mu).
These properties of the cosmic space were already quantified
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">before Maxwell by the early developers
of electrostatics and magneto statics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I assume that you are suggesting us that
we need to postulate and quantify other physical properties
possessed by this cosmic space (Maxwellian or Faraday
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Tension Field?), 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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">century.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">physical entity that we know of in this
universe. So, I assert that the “running time” cannot be
altered by any physical process. Humans have smartly derived
the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">concept of “running time” using various
kinds of harmonic oscillators and/or periodic motions. We can
alter the frequency of a physical oscillator by changing its
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">physical environment. Of course, this is
my personal perception, not supported by the entire group.
But, that is precisely the purpose of this free and honest
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
On Behalf Of John Macken<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 1:37 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: 'Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion'; 'Andrew Worsley'<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: 'M.A.'<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General] light and
particles group<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dear Chandra and All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">You have said “We definitely have
advanced our collective understanding that space is not empty
and the particles are some form of emergent properties of this
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">same universal cosmic field.” The idea
that space is not an empty void has not been quantified in any
model of spacetime proposed by members of the group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">properties of spacetime encountered by
gravitational waves. The conclusion is that spacetime is a sea
of Planck length vacuum fluctuations that oscillate at Planck
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">correct energy density for black holes,
the correct zero point energy density of the universe (about
10113 J/m3) and generates the Friedmann equation for the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">critical density of the universe (about
10-26 kg/m3 = 10-9 J/m3).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">be incorporated into any particle or
field model.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">John M.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 8:45 AM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: Andrew Worsley >; Light &
particles. Web discussion <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: M.A. ><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General] light and
particles group<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dear Andrew Worsely:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">This is a platform for ethical, serious
and honest discussions on scientific issues that the
prevailing mainstream platforms have been shunning. We
definitely do
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">not want to sow unsubstantiated distrust
within this group. This not a political forum where
sophisticated deceptions are highly prized; which has been
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">intellectualized as “post-truth”! This
is not a “post-truth” forum.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">So, please, help us by getting help from
computer professionals before repeating any further
unsubstantiated accusations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you can definitively identify anybody
within our group carrying out unethical and destructive
activities; obviously, we would bar such persons from this
group
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dear All Participants:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Please be vigilant in maintaining the
essential ethics behind this discussion forum – honestly
accept or reject others’ opinions; preferably, build upon
them. This is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the main objective of this forum as this
would advance real progress in physics out of the currently
stagnant culture. While we have not come to realize any
broadly-<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">acceptable major break-through out of
this forum; we definitely have advanced our collective
understanding that space is not empty and the particles are
some
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">form of emergent properties of this same
universal cosmic field. This, in itself, is significant;
because the approach of this group to particle physics is
significantly
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">(different forms of excited states) of
this field.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Most of you are aware that our SPIE
conference series, which was continuing since 2005, has been
abruptly shut down without serious valid justifications
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">(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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">internal dissentions and internal
unethical behavior.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Many thanks for your vigilance and
support.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Respectfully,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: Andrew Worsley [<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:worsley333@gmail.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:worsley333@gmail.com</span></a>]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:49 AM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: John Duffield<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: Roychoudhuri, Chandra; ANDREW
WORSLEY<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: Andrew Worsley, light and
particles group<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi John,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">years- and my computer is now going
suspiciously slow.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Andrew<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John
Duffield > wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Apologies if you’ve already done this,
but Andrew tells me he’s received a blocked by moderator
message.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">John Duffield<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">7 Gleneagles Avenue<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Poole<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">BH14 9LJ<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">UK<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: John Duffield [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a>]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: 09 January 2017 08:34<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: 'Roychoudhuri, Chandra' ><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: 'ANDREW WORSLEY' >; 'John
Williamson' <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>; 'Martin Van Der Mark' <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Andrew Worsley, light and
particles group<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Please can you add Andrew Worsley (<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:worsley333@gmail.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">worsley333@gmail.com</span></a>)
to the nature of light and particles group. I’ve met him
personally,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">orbital is described by spherical
harmonics, the electron itself might be described by spherical
(or toroidal) harmonics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">JohnD<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
of Light and Particles General
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Discussion List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a>
Click here to unsubscribe
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">phys@a-giese.de</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[Avast logo]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">www.avast.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
of Light and Particles General
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Discussion List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a>
Click here to unsubscribe
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">phys@a-giese.de</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[Avast logo]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">www.avast.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">phys@a-giese.de</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[Avast logo]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">www.avast.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">phys@a-giese.de</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[Avast logo]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">www.avast.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>