<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Al;</p>
<p>Yes it's quite a good book and given that he expands
gravitational interactions to include 5 forces not just
gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic that would show up in a
Lorentz force there is a lot there. <br>
</p>
<p>A review of the book is at<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Annales-Fond-Louis-de-Broglie-V32-p117-120(2007).pdf">http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Annales-Fond-Louis-de-Broglie-V32-p117-120(2007).pdf</a></p>
<div style="left: 120px; top: 286.156px; font-size: 16.605px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(1.20857);">GravitationGravitation
Gravitation and Cogravitation: Developing Newton’s Theory</div>
<div style="left: 635.0733333333333px; top: 306.08113000000026px;
font-size: 16.604999999999997px; font-family: sans-serif;">of
Graof Gravitation to Its Physical and Mathematical Conclusion,</div>
<div style="left: 120px; top: 328.995px; font-size: 16.605px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(1.18929);">Oleg D. J
Oleg D. Jefimenko</div>
<div style="left: 280.55px; top: 326.006px; font-size: 16.605px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(1.02609);">, 367 pp.
Electret Scientific Company, Star City,</div>
<div style="left: 120px; top: 345.931px; font-size: 16.605px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.987641);">2006.
Hardcover. ISBN: 0-917406-00-1. Price: 22.00 dollars.<br>
<br>
<br>
The question Which lead me to wonder is whether Jefimenko's
Cograviation is the what Sciama addresses as The Origin Of Inertia<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/">https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1953MNRAS.113...34S">http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1953MNRAS.113...34S</a> for a copy of
Sciama's paper<br>
</div>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><font size="+1">Furthermore Sciama points out that newton gravity falls of as 1/r^2 while the inertia effect falls of as 1/r
Since the event horizon and black holes are related to the 1/r^2 does this imply we might be inflenced by a
longer range force that penetrates event horizons both in black holes and our universe (assuming we are in a black hole)
Now that people are discussing Multi-verses might it be possible that universes outside of our event horizon may
communicate with our universe through inertial long range forces?
What do you think?
Wolf
</font>
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 3/22/2017 3:40 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-bce084f4-ec50-4f37-80af-ce0e34878361-1490179201933@3capp-webde-bap61"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Wolf,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I tried to encourage/arrange for him to come to San
Diego, but in stead got the message that his health was
very bad and, as best I now recall, heard shortly thereafter
that he died! Too bad! Seems to me his work merits much
more attention than it got or gets! But ,like you say:
digestiong it all is a full project all by itself.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, 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> Dienstag,
21. März 2017 um 19:52 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Wolfgang Baer" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a 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>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</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- Wiechert potential may be an
alternative</p>
<p>p341 However he does say "c" may not be the speed
of light but has not been measured</p>
<p>p327 " Spherical Black holes Cannot exist and
gravity collapse is impossible"</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.</p>
<p> </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> </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?</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?</p>
<p>As Jefimenko points out P328 "these are fascinating
and intriguing conclusions. Are they true or false?
Only time will tell."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Best</p>
<p>Wolf</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </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 2/16/2017 9:28 AM,
Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<style type="text/css"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: rgb(5,99,193);
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: rgb(149,79,114);
text-decoration: underline;
}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
span.PlainTextChar {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Appreciate your compliment, Andrew
Worsley!</span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Chandra.</span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: 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>]
On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY<br>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 9:39 AM<br>
To: 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>
Subject: Re: [General] Albrecht Instantaneous
gravity force</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Well said Roychoudhri</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Andrew</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">========================================</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Message Received: Feb 15
2017, 07:42 PM</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: "Roychoudhuri,
Chandra"</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: "Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion"</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General]
Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thank you, Wolf, for
re-stating Plato: “We only see the shadows of
reality not reality itself.”</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.).</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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.</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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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!</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: 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"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Wednesday, February
15, 2017 1:50 PM</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: <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"> <span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General]
Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I think I need more time
as well to investigate , this claim.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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"</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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</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.</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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">there is an independent
classical background space. If this assumption
is wrong, Maxwell may be an over simplification
as well.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">frames and asks what
transformations between these frames make that
assumption true? But that is circular reasoning.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">reality not reality
itself.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">best wishes,</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wolf</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Research Director</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nascent Systems Inc.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">E-mail <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 2/14/2017 1:12 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wolf,</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">knowledge. At present I
have started to follow this derivation step by
step but will need a bit of time.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">received.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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,</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</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</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</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</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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I shall come back here as
soon as I am more familiar with this case.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Am 11.02.2017 um 20:30
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">presentations criticizing
Special Relativity</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">coming up with the twin
paradox. Something is wrong with SRT</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">displacement in 8.5
minutes is 15,300km nearly 3 earth diameters
offset which should be measurable.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">derivations is not
convincing.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Why is My diagram and
"Eddington" and Flanders wrong? Is Flanders
lying about his Ephemeris data and its
experimental content?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Or are we just so brow
beaten by SRT that whatever derivations we
develop from it must be right?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Got to go</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wolf</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dr. Wolfgang Baerecht</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Research Director</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nascent Systems Inc.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">E-mail <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 2/10/2017 12:33 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi Wolf, and hi Chip and
All,</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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".</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">synchronization.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">for the longitudinal
direction. But even this is an indication that
the retarded position has no effect.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">present a detailed
calculation taking all this into account
mathematically.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the gravitational force;
but this discussion ended when Special
Relativity was introduced.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Am 09.02.2017 um 21:32
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">What I know about retarded
potentials exactly corroborates my point</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">orbit center. It comes
from the retarded position of the source, which
was at 12Oclock.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[<a moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">cid:image001.png@01D28799.BEB9CF40</span></a>]</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the current position. But
gravity orbits are calculated as though the
force vector points to the actual Now position.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">12O'clock position. Thus
the force vector is no longer radially symmetric
but has a tangential component.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[<a moz-do-not-send="true"><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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">other particle. So what
creates the field holding the particles in
orbit?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">best</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">wolf</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Research Director</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nascent Systems Inc.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">E-mail <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 2/8/2017 12:34 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi!</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">classical Main Stream
physics.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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-</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tangential component.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Van Flanders has obviously
overlooked this fact which is - to say it again
- standard classical physics.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best, Albrecht</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Am 08.02.2017 um 20:02
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">accumulation of the
tangential force build up.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">which is what TOm Vam
Flandern's paper tried to prove.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht has some other
ideas</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best, wolf</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Research Director</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nascent Systems Inc.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">E-mail <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 2/5/2017 5:26 PM, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='af.kracklauer@web.de';
return false;" target="_blank"> <span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a>
wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hey Wolf:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">intersecting a spiral,
etc. 3/4-D, lots of unknown integrals....</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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 ...??</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">---Al</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Gesendet: Sonntag, 05.
Februar 2017 um 21:47 Uhr</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Von: "Wolfgang Baer"</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">An: <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"> <span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Betreff: Re: [General]
Albrecht Instantaneous gravity force</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">elementary particle. Has
anyone ever seen positron electron orbiting each
other?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Consider two particles
instantly at 10 and 6 Oclock send out a force
that propagates radially from their
instantaneous position</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[<a moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">cid:image003.jpg@01D28799.BEB9CF40</span></a>]</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">This means there is an
angle between the purely radial from orbit
center direction by an angle Θ</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">This angle will give a
force vector along the orbit path would this not
change the momentum??</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">experience a radial only
force.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">actually seen. Is he
making a mistake?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">best,</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wolf</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Research Director</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nascent Systems Inc.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">E-mail <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 1/31/2017 1:35 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wolf,</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">regarding the speed of
gravitational influence:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">speed of light. I do not
follow his arguments because he has overlooked
an important point.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">charge, the force vector
points to the actual position of the other one.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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.</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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Does this provide some
clarification?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Am 22.01.2017 um 20:52
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Al:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">speed of light.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">influences.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I would be very curious to
read how your "one way out" formulates this
problem.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">best,</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Wolf</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Research Director</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nascent Systems Inc.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">E-mail <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='wolf@NascentInc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 1/21/2017 10:20 PM, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='af.kracklauer@web.de';
return false;" target="_blank"> <span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a>
wrote:</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</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,</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">reduced in status to be
virtually religion.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">For what it's worth, Al</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Gesendet: Sonntag, 22.
Januar 2017 um 04:19 Uhr</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Von: "Roychoudhuri,
Chandra"</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">An: "Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion"</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Betreff: Re: [General]
light and particles group</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">John M.</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">propagation.</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</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</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.</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</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).</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">explained in some of my
papers; I have sent earlier.</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</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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">GW(should be); but
GW-velocity number just happens to coincide with
“c”?</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</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”</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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">propagating GW; we are
periodically changing the local “curvature”!</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">These comments should give
you some pragmatic “food for thought”!</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: 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"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
On Behalf Of John Macken</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Saturday, January
21, 2017 4:14 PM</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: 'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General]
light and particles group</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra,</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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).</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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">change in the rate of
time, 3) no displacement of the center of mass
of the oscillating sphere.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">shift on LIGO’s laser
beams. This difference in wavelength is detected
by the interferometer as a fringe shift…”</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">With this introduction,
the questions are:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">1. Should a GW effect the
permeability and permittivity of free space?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">2. Should the two
orthogonal polarizations of a GW produce
opposite effects on the permeability and
permittivity of free space?</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?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">identify the direction of
the GW much better than an interferometer.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">seriously. Is there anyone
in this group with the expertise to contribute
to this study?</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">John M.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: 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"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Saturday, January
21, 2017 11:56 AM</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion ></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General]
light and particles group</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">“Gravitational waves
indicate vacuum energy exists”, paper by John
Macken</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">different regions of the
cosmic space!</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</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.</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">before Maxwell by the
early developers of electrostatics and magneto
statics.</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">century.</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</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</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</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</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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: 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"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
On Behalf Of John Macken</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Saturday, January
21, 2017 1:37 PM</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: 'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'; 'Andrew
Worsley'</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: 'M.A.'</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General]
light and particles group</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dear Chandra and All,</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">critical density of the
universe (about 10-26 kg/m3 = 10-9 J/m3).</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">be incorporated into any
particle or field model.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">John M.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: 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"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]
On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Saturday, January
21, 2017 8:45 AM</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: Andrew Worsley >;
Light & particles. Web discussion</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: M.A. ></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General]
light and particles group</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dear Andrew Worsely:</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">intellectualized as
“post-truth”! This is not a “post-truth” forum.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">So, please, help us by
getting help from computer professionals before
repeating any further unsubstantiated
accusations.</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">discussion.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dear All Participants:</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</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-</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</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">(different forms of
excited states) of this field.</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</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">internal dissentions and
internal unethical behavior.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Many thanks for your
vigilance and support.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Respectfully,</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: 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"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">mailto:worsley333@gmail.com</span></a>]</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Saturday, January
21, 2017 4:49 AM</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: John Duffield</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: Roychoudhuri, Chandra;
ANDREW WORSLEY</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: Andrew
Worsley, light and particles group</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi John,</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">years- and my computer is
now going suspiciously slow.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Andrew</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at
7:44 PM, John Duffield > wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Apologies if you’ve
already done this, but Andrew tells me he’s
received a blocked by moderator message.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Regards</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">John Duffield</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">7 Gleneagles Avenue</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Poole</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">BH14 9LJ</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">UK</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: 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"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com</span></a>]</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sent: 09 January 2017
08:34</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: 'Roychoudhuri,
Chandra' ></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: 'ANDREW WORSLEY' >;
'John Williamson'</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>; 'Martin Van Der
Mark'</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Andrew Worsley,
light and particles group</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Chandra:</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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"><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,</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</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">orbital is described by
spherical harmonics, the electron itself might
be described by spherical (or toroidal)
harmonics.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Regards</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">JohnD</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication
from the Nature of Light and Particles General</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Discussion List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='af.kracklauer@web.de';
return false;" target="_blank"> <span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a> Click
here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">phys@a-giese.de</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[Avast logo]</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Diese E-Mail wurde von
Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">www.avast.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication
from the Nature of Light and Particles General</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Discussion List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='af.kracklauer@web.de';
return false;" target="_blank"> <span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a> Click
here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">phys@a-giese.de</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[Avast logo]</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Diese E-Mail wurde von
Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">www.avast.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">phys@a-giese.de</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[Avast logo]</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Diese E-Mail wurde von
Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">www.avast.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='phys@a-giese.de';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">phys@a-giese.de</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">[Avast logo]</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Diese E-Mail wurde von
Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">www.avast.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='Wolf@nascentinc.com';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> </p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________</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"
onclick="parent.window.location.href='chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu';
return false;" target="_blank"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</span></a></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"
target="_blank"><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>"></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"></a></p>
</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>
<br>
_______________________________________________ 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: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 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>