<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<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 5/3/2017 1:36 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Hi Wolf,</p>
<p>some comments and answers in the text below<font size="+1">:</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 01.05.2017 um 03:47 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/29/2017 12:38 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p><u>Grahame,</u></p>
<p>you say: " ... <font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">
the 'effects of gravity' are in fact the consequences of
those distributed entities ALREADY being present to some
degree at every point in the cosmos</font> ... "<br>
</p>
<p> But look at the following cases: 1.) There may be two twin
stars which orbit each other. Their distance is rapidly
changing during an orbit. So the gravitational influences to
their environment will change. And for this change I see the
question justified which the propagation speed of this
influence is. I think that your statement above does not
cover this case, true? 2.) An even less regular case: I
know a colleague (professor) who has built and performs an
experiment to determine again the gravitational constant. In
doing this he has two massive objects which he moves towards
each other or apart from each other and measures the force
between them. This process depends on his momentary
decisions, so it is completely irregular compared to other
physical processes. So, also in this case, nothing is
constant or even predetermined.</p>
</blockquote>
Perhaps Grahame was thinking more of a Block universe were
everything is already determined and therefore in one state
determined by the initial conditions, actually any single
description in a time instance. Then we are talking about events
in dynamic states which interact with other events also in
dynamic states and the interactions change both states. <br>
</blockquote>
The original topic here was the question whether gravity
propagates at infinite speed. I have understood Grahame in the way
that in his view everything in the universe is already determined
(as you write it). And as a counter argument I have given examples
of gravitational processes which are not already determined but
permanently changing. Particularly the experiment which I
described depends on the ideas and intention of the experimenter.
And his mind is by general understanding not determined for all
times.<br>
</blockquote>
In classic physics the universe is determined from beginning to end
given the initial conditions. This determinism includes your brain
which determines the decisions of your mind. Quantum mechanics
provides a way out by evoking the uncertainty principle which I
think is not fundamental.<br>
Instead I am building an event oriented physics in which Isolated
systems are fully determined until they interact with each other.
The interactions change the state from one completely determined
clock like system to another. So like atoms these systems stay in a
completely determined state and are undetectable until interactions.
Since independent systems are not determined by the same universal
clock measurements of their state give random results.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p><u>Wolf,</u></p>
<p>there was an interesting development in our understanding
of the physics of gravity. About a hundred years ago it was
the general opinion that gravity is the simplest and most
fundamental force in physics. This may also have been the
reason that gravity is a fundamental parameter in the
definition of the Planck units. At present, however, the
representatives of the German Einstein Institute say that
gravity is the least understood and perhaps most complicated
force. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Newtonian gravity is still pretty simple but now we have learned
more specifically that inertia is not just an intrinsic property
a la N's 1st Law, but perhaps the result of a vector potential
or a side effect of other forces like your theory.<br>
</blockquote>
But gravity has nothing to do with inertia. Newton may have
believed this but present physics has a different position. And
Einstein's gravity depends on energy, not on inertia.<br>
</blockquote>
Does not Mach's principle suggest inertia is a gravitational effect
? <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>The idea to connect gravity in some way to the electric
force comes up again and again. The reason is most probably
that both follow the dependence of range of 1/r<sup>2</sup>.
(But this dependence can be explained geometrically if we
assume that forces are generally mediated by exchange
particles.) The idea of Jefimenko that there is a
cogravitation as a kind of different charge sign to make it
compatible with electricity is a new and severe assumption.
I find it better not to permanently introduce new - an
unobserved - phenomena than to try to live with the existing
ones (= Occam's razor). <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree and Jefimenko goes beyond adding a cross product force
to Newton he also adds a gravitational force to the field since
it contains energy and ends up with 5 forces. However Sciamma's
vector potential explaining inertia is Jefimenko's main point.<br>
</blockquote>
Again: I do not see any connection of gravity with inertia.<br>
</blockquote>
I now your theory attempts to explain inertia but does not address
gravity and this biases you against acknowledging a connection but
there is no such connection is the fact that m*a =m*g , with the
same "m" not extremely coincident, beyond belief I would say?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>Einstein has described gravity as a geometrical phenomenon,
changing the understanding of space and time. On the other
hand Theodor Kaluza has irritated Einstein with his hint
that any force in physics can be explained by a specific
geometry of space and time. (Einstein has accepted that but
was not happy with it.) So, why not go back to physics and
to forces in gravity rather than using space-time.</p>
</blockquote>
Yes I agree. It is best to remember that all theories and models
are written drawn or imagined on a background space that is both
fixed and meaningless as anything but a structural support. I
Found it impossible to to imagine space time warping so from a
heuristic necessity it is simply easier to imagine particles and
forces between them. However there is clearly a tendency in
physics to be proud of theories that no one understands. <br>
</blockquote>
For those who believe that they understand theories like GRT or QM
it is surely essential to feel that they are superior to most of
the mankind regarding understanding. However, I do not believe
that this was Einstein's motivation to develop a space-time
related theory. He believed that it was the true nature. In my
view he did not see that his space-time is nothing than a
mathematical trick. <br>
</blockquote>
The shortest distance, the minimum action principle, canonical
transformations, and Einsteins formulation are alternative coding
schemes for the same phenomena - since I cannot visualize curved 3d
space and when I see two dimensional rubber surfaces curved inward
to a weight in the middle that causes the rubber sheet to bend and
shortest distances to be curved, I and others ask, what causes the
central mass to push down? somewhere it is easier to imagine forces
in a Cartesian flat space Why? because our minds are built with this
capacity.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p>Regarding the instantaneous propagation of gravity: To my
knowledge this was carefully investigated in past decades
with the result that also gravity is limited to c. I do not
go back to the details. Should there be new arguments which
are not covered by the past discussions then this would be
a good reason to investigate this case again. But are there
new arguments? <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
The fact that Newtonian action at a distance works and is used
by astronomers and orbital space engineers with great success
yet requires the speed of light to be infinite or at least
several orders of magnitude larger than "c" has never to my
knowledge been explained. </blockquote>
Why this? I do not see the logical necessity for this.<br>
</blockquote>
If we calculate the force of gravity on the earth from a retarded
potential that emanates at the speed of light a small tangential
force would exist that would make the earth slowly spiral outward,
this would have been noticed over the several thousand years
observations have been made. No Newtons model requires gravity to
come from where objects are seen at infinite speed and it seems to
work.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">It like the twin paradox and the inconsistency of
the perihelion of Mercury precession is brought up and then
ignored and brought up again by the next generation and then
ignored. <br>
</blockquote>
The twin paradox is in fact very simple. With respect to SRT it is
nothing else than a change of the reference system. Look at the
time-related Lorentz transformation:<br>
tau = gamma(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)<br>
When the travelling twin turns to come back, the sign in front of
"v" changes and so the proper time tau jumps to a new time. - That
is not very physical but it is what the Lorentz formalism tells
us.<br>
</blockquote>
It is my understanding that both observers conclude the others
clocks must slow down. The slow down is due to v squared over c
squared in Gamma<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> <br>
The case of the Mercury is not my knowledge thoroughly
investigated with the result that gravity propagates with c. <br>
</blockquote>
One would think so and I've admired Einstein since I learned about
the 4'th dimension in Mr. Andersons Science class in the 9th grade,
but now I have had a chance to do more investigation and much of
what I was taught is not as sold as it was taught. The argument
Jefmenko put forward is quite simple. the 43 deg precession per
century was a well known error in the residual calculation of the
effects of planet and Sun motion on Mercury <br>
using Newtron's instantaneous gravity forces, If it were calculated
( but I understand it cannot) using Einsteins equations the answer
for the residual would be different, therefore the fact that
Einstein explains the 43seconds is an inconsistency. Perhaps it has
been thoroughly discussed but this as well as many other
contradictions and paradoxes have been thoroughly ignored from what
I know. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>If we want progress in the realm of gravitation, I expect
an answer to at least one question: what is the cause of the
weak equivalence principle, i.e. the fact that all objects
are having the same gravitational acceleration independent
of their inertial mass. Newton's theory of gravity does not
answer this, Einstein's does not answer it as well. Gravity
has to answer it!<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
I agree but does the gravitational vector potential i.e Mach's
principle not answer this question?<br>
</blockquote>
What has Mach's principle to do with vector potential? For my
feeling Mach's principle is mostly incorrectly interpreted. The
name "Mach's principle" was created by Einstein, but it is not a
proper title. <br>
Mach's question and argument was how in the absence of an aether
acceleration can be defined (or equivalently what a straight
motion is). In his view an aether is necessary to define
acceleration. And, to give this aether (which was nothing more
then a frame of reference) a spatial reference or orientation, he
referred it to our environment of fixed stars. That sounds
reasonable to me but it does not explain why or how this reference
is realized in the universe.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein and Mach had a falling out when Mach did not like Einsteins
formulation.<br>
See
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list 27.0pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">Sciama D. W.
(1953) “On the Origin of Inertia”, M.N.R.A.S., Vol.113,1953 p.34
URL:<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20-%20On%20the%20origin%20of%20inertia.pdf">http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20-%20On%20the%20origin%20of%20inertia.pdf</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list 27.0pt">I think someone showed this derivation was
compatible with Einsteins formulation but I have not found the
reference yet<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<link rel="File-List"
href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cbaer%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1457599964;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:884526342 1008339786 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:27.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:27.0pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-style:normal;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> In my view it would be plausible to refer this frame
not to the fixed stars around but to the origin of the Big Bang.
And in some way the material in our universe still remembers the
position of the Big Bang.<br>
<br>
To those who refer gravitation to the electric force my question
is how the gravitational constant can be deduced from the electric
field; quantitatively!<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 29.04.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Dr
Grahame Blackwell:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7B2170EF96E8400C91DE997FA3D54D85@vincent"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Wolf et al,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">You will
note that my proposal re gravity in my
recently-circulated paper, as the 'extended being' of
spatially distributed entities that we (with our limited
senses) perceive as localised 'particles', implicitly
proposes that the 'propagation speed of gravity' is in
fact infinite - since there is in actuality NO
propagation involved, the 'effects of gravity' are in
fact the consequences of those distributed entities
ALREADY being present to some degree at every point in
the cosmos. I.e. 'everything is everywhere', to put it
in simple terms; as a 'physical massive object' moves
(again, a simplistic term), the WHOLE of its extended
being moves with it and is immediately in a position to
manifest 'gravitational' effects of that object
consistent with its changed position, no matter how far
spatially removed (more simplistic concepts!) from what
we perceive as the 'massive object' itself.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">This points
to a far deeper truth - that 'locality' and 'time' are
both over-simplifications of deeper concepts, foisted on
us by an evolutionary process that's more interested
that we (a) breed, (b) find lunch and (c) don't become
lunch - than it is in us fathoming the underlying
principles of cosmic structure.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Best,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Grahame</font></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid;
PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4;
font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="wolf@nascentinc.com"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolfgang Baer</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="af.kracklauer@web.de"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
; <a moz-do-not-send="true" title="phys@a-giese.de"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a> ; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, April
28, 2017 11:11 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re:
[General] HA: Gravity</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p>Al:</p>
<p>I'm too concerned with gravity and charge as the
fundamental characteristics of mater in classic physics
to appreciate deeper explanations until the
discrepancies or simpler questions have been answered.</p>
<p>Is not Einstein's connection between gravity and space
time based on the use of EM wave phase measurements that
define space time? In other words masses interact with
charges and EM propagation so that the definition of a
meter and a second with which we measure space and time
are the cause of the warping.</p>
<p>Even more important for me right now is the question of
the speed of gravity. I now had more of a chance to read
Jefimenko's Gravitation and Cogravitation which Al
recommended, where he expands on the idea that the
equations correcting Newton's look more like EM with a
gravitational scalar and vector potential and a Lorenz
like force replacing newtons. In his chapter 20 he
points out that the 43 seconds of arc precession of
Mercury rather than being a proof of Einstein's theory
is actually a cause for questioning the validity of
Einstein's equations, Because Gerber's formula for the
43secnds was based upon planetary calculations based
upon Newton's Action at a distance i.e. gravity goes the
speed of infinity. Jefimenko points out that if Newton's
theory was wrong and gravity is not instantaneous than
if Einstein's theory explaning somthing wrong (the 43sec
precession) is wrong and Einstein's theory coming up
with 43 seconds actually proves Einstein's theory is
wrong. Jefimenko calculates the value of the precession
from his theory is 14 arc sec. <br>
</p>
<p>If gravity propagates instantly we are talking about a
completely different beast than Einstein's theory, and
trying to explain an error that is assumed correct just
leads to more errors although the errors may be self
consistent.</p>
<p>Wolf</p>
<p> </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1"> </a></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>