<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>No Kc is the spring constant of the force holding charge and mass
together</p>
<p>In order to build a framework of a physical theory that properly
includes the observer as a measurement model building and acting
component I use a very simplified concept built on the classic
metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time along with the
forces between them are fundamental. Here are some of the
differences between my cognitive action theory CAT and classic
physics <br>
</p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><!--[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]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:2;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 268435456 0 0 -2147483648 0;}
/* 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:1402830538;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:2021824260 433099698 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:4;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:-;
mso-level-tab-stop:.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
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]-->
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> Summary
of
Action Theory additions to Classic Physical Concepts<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The
examples provided in this section are intended to show how
action theory is
applied to well known and observable situations that can be
compared with
analysis using classical physics concepts. What CAT has added
is summarized as
follows:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:45.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times
New Roman"">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Change involving transitions
between states is where
physics is happening.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:45.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times
New Roman"">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Change, visualized as stable
action patterns, propagates
through material media. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:45.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times
New Roman"">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->The degrees of freedom of
classical systems has been
doubled by separating mass and charge.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:45.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times
New Roman"">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Internal material forces between
mass and charge are
introduced as heuristic visualizations to augment
understanding of the interior
of matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum theory
(see chapter 6) </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:45.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times
New Roman"">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Mach’s principle and the
connection between the
inertial field is introduced in place of the observational
pseudo forces such
as the centrifugal force and <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>“m∙a”
in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Newton</st1:city></st1:place>’s
formulation. (See
Appendix on Mach’s Principle)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list .75in"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times
New Roman"">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Time is defined as the name of
the state of the system
adopted as a clock, and time intervals are measured as action
required to
change a state separated by a constant state distance.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Action theory is being developed as
the physical
underpinnings of an event oriented world view and a
description of reality
which includes both the subjective and objective aspect of
reality described by
CAT. <br>
</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><br>
</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><b><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Twin Paradox:</span></o:smarttagtype></b></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">You mentioned the twin paradox is
explained by the Lorenz transformation since
t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time dilation <br>
</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">How do you avoid the paradox in the
following experiment</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Two twins are accelerated with a
small short pulse in opposite directions.</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">At some very long time they are both
reversed with a double pulse <br>
</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">when they meet they are stopped by a
short pulse.</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">The experiment is completely
symmetric. both twins experience the same acceleration pulse
so gravity clock effects are equal and can be eliminated from
a comparison but not eliminated is the arbitrarily long period
where they are traveling with a velocity relative to each
other. Since the time dilation formula only contains</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">velocity squared the direction of
relative travel does not make a difference. If the theory is
correct there is a paradox and gravity cannot explain it.</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><b>do my Emails show up in the
general discussion I keep only getting replies from people
who send them directly and my E-mails do not show up in the
discussion forum, so I'm wondering?</b><br>
</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Best,</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">wolf<br>
</span></o:smarttagtype></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 5/11/2017 2:41 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:dcdf431e-a590-574a-ec02-0e6a9bb83659@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Hi Wolf,</p>
<p>my original mail failed in some way. Now the answer to yours.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 07.05.2017 um 08:52 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>See comments below.</p>
<p>I've also just made progress on a chapter I'm writing for my
book "Cognitive Action Theory" in which I do not assume the
charge and mass of particles are collocated, but instead treat
charge and mass as two different degrees of freedom connected
by a force that is not infinite. I then treat inertia as a
field which specifies the expected location of a particle mass
by the rest of the Universe. In other words a particle moving
at velocity v and position x should be expected to be at
x+v*dt a time dt later by the rest of the masses in the
Universe. However if an external force is applied the mass
will not be at x+vdt but at x+v*dt + dx. The deviation from
the universe's expected position generates,for small
deviations, an attractive force Fi = -Kc*dx which exactly
balances the applied force. This implements Mach's principle
be replacing Newtons second Law with dAlambert's formula</p>
<p>0= F - m*a and by replacing m*a with Kc*dx <br>
</p>
<p>I should have the chapter ready cleaned up enough for
comments in a few weeks and with your permission will send it
to you</p>
<p>best <br>
</p>
<p>wolf<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
To your introduction above: <br>
<br>
It is surely true that charge and mass are not collocated. But
they are - also by MainStream understanding - different categories
of entities. Charge is a static object. It is a permanent property
of something. In contrast, mass is a dynamical process. This is
true for MainStream (i.e. the Higgs model) as well as for my
model. The force related to a charge depends on the amount of the
charge and also from the distance between the involved charges.
The force related to a mass is dependent on the mass (of course)
and on the acceleration. Where the essential question is, to which
object or to which motion state the acceleration is related. The
latter is the question which Mach wanted to discuss, and his idea
(that it is the motion state of the fixed stars) was called Mach's
principle (by Einstein). I think, it is a too big word related to
the object; and I think that this is not only my opinion but it
was also the opinion of Mach himself.<br>
<br>
Question to your considerations above: what do you mean by "Kc" or
by "K" if c is the speed of light.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </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 5/6/2017 11:42 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p>Hi Wolf,</p>
<p>again some comments.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 05.05.2017 um 05:56 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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 5/3/2017 1:36 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<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">
<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">
<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>
</blockquote>
Even without the uncertainty "principle" it would be
interesting for us to determine the further development of our
universe. And that is logically open for us except that we are
religious and assume that some "creator" has decided the final
development during creation.<br>
</blockquote>
But are we not the creator of our universe. Do we not live in
the model we create?<br>
</blockquote>
Our present understanding of natural science is that there is an
universe independent of any human individual and of his/her
fantasies and intentions. Maybe that this understanding is not
correct. But any alternative assumption about the world would
discourage us to investigate this world (at least in my opinion).
And in the case that also our human decisions are predetermined
and so are fixed then these predetermined decisions are not
correlated to the ongoing of the universe. Except - as I said -
that there is a creator which has correlated all this
intentionally to cause a specific goal for the world. - But that
is definitely religion.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> <br>
Regarding the "uncertainty principle" I have a very bad
feeling as in my understanding this is not a true uncertainty
but a limited knowledge of the state of particles. Heisenberg
clearly has not studied high frequency electronics; those
engineer know this effect from every-day work for the
measurement of pulses. Some call it the Nyquist effect. It is
exactly the same like Heisenberg's but less exciting. Did you
look at the paper of Chandra which he attached some days ago
about uncertainty? I did not work through it completely but it
seems to have some good points.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
limited knowledge yes I agree, perhaps a limit on the accuracy
of our measurement recording capability, but reality probably
has sub quantum structure<br>
No I just realized the Emails from the group is getting trashed.
Will check out the paper<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> Where do you see isolated systems in our world
which occasionally interact? And why would such interaction
counteract determinism? - By the way I do not believe that we
need QM to believe in a world where we can see some freedom of
development. As I wrote earlier, QM has not helped physics. It
has caused a lot of confusion and it has discouraged the
physicist in their intend to understand our world.<br>
</blockquote>
I agree. But do you think there may be a political structure
behind its popularity?<br>
</blockquote>
There is an interesting book of Paul Forman:<br>
"Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory, 1918-1927:
Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile
Intellectual Environment"<br>
<br>
In Forman's opinion the political situation in Germany in the
1020s has promoted Quantum Mechanics - not by the intention of
someone but by the spirit of that time: World War I was lost for
Germany and most people did not understand it. And there was the
economical crisis which seemed to be out of control. So, a
physical theory which says that the development of the physical
world is generally not predictable did fit into the general
expectation. Forman says that this was a good condition for the
acceptance of QM.
<div style="left: 83.3333px; top: 340.43px; font-size: 18.3333px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(1.12141);">Author(<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <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>
Mach's questions which resulted in the so called "Mach's
principle" were about inertia and rotation. Not about gravity.
Now, as he related inertia and rotation to the background of
fixed stars, one could ask the question how a logical
connection between this background and our close environment
could work. And that could make us conclude that gravity is
involved. This is possible but not for sure and I did not find
it in any statement of Ernst Mach.<br>
</blockquote>
Again the main reason is that mass appear in the equivalence
principle m*a =m*g <br>
There are two main divisions of long range forces forces, those
which have charge as source and those which have mass.<br>
</blockquote>
Mach has asked the question whether inertia and rotation can be
defined if there is no kind of an aether. If aether is taken as
the existence of a fixed reference system as Hendrik Lorentz has
assumed it, then one can ask the question which physical fact or
situation defines the motion state of this aether. He thought that
it may be defined by the position of our fixed star background.
There is nothing more contained in the so called Mach's principle.<br>
<br>
Regarding forces there are four, besides gravity there are the
strong, the weak, and the electric force. The strong and the weak
force are understood as short range forces. But in my view they
are long range forces like the electrical one, but they are
realized in the particles as multi-pole forces and that explains
the short range. And this assumption can yield good results in the
understanding of particles.<br>
<br>
And in my view gravity is not a force at all but a refraction
process (which means a side effect of other forces). Best visible
at the deflection of particles at the sun which is best explained
as a refraction process (this is my personal idea but also assumed
and calculated by well known cosmologists like Roman Sexl. And in
so far also presented in text books.)<br>
<br>
The weak equivalence is completely non-understood by Main Stream
physics. The refraction model can explain it as the refraction
overrules the inertia. This works and it is the only workable
explanation these days.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
Main Stream physics say that there is an inertial mass and a
gravitational mass in the world. The cause of this concept is
the fact that any object has the same gravitational
acceleration independent of its mass. But we should be aware
that this position is also an interpretation. Another
interpretation could be that gravity has nothing to do with
mass. In that view, it may not care about mass. Gravity in
this view is a refraction process which is quite easily
visible in the case of deflection of particles at the sun. -
But this is now my position.<br>
</blockquote>
What causes the refraction field?<br>
</blockquote>
The speed of light is reduced in a gravitational field. The degree
of reduction depends on the distance from the centre of gravity
and on the size (mass?) of the source. This applied to the
internal oscillation of c in a particle yields the Newtonian
gravity in the non-relativistic case and the Einsteinian gravity
(i.e. GRT) in the relativistic case. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> <br>
For Main Stream this "coincidence"as you call it is a complete
mystery. No one has an idea why this is as it is. Also Mach
has to my knowledge not given any statements about it.<br>
</blockquote>
Sciama's derivation of inertia as the gravitational version of
the magnetic field in EM<br>
</blockquote>
This is not a workable explanation in my view by the following
reason. The magnetic field is only existing for an observer (or a
charge) in certain motion states. If there is a magnetic field
noticed by an observer (or by a charge) then the observer (or
charge) can go into a motion state in which the magnetic field
disappears. In case of inertia this is not possible. If there is
inertia, an observer may change to any motion state and the
inertial mass will never disappear. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
There are specific situations where it is possible to describe
a situation by a curved space or space-time. And in specific
situations there is a level of presentation which looks simple
and elegant. And that has surely encouraged Einstein to
understand this as a good way to do physics. But in the
general case it makes things unnecessarily complicated. That
is particularly true for GRT. I have as a demonstration shown
(in talks) two ways to deduce the Schwarzschild solution. The
way of Einstein (which I have copied from textbooks) is a
sequence of more than 80 equations, very complicated as they
need Riemannian geometry (i.e. 4-dim curved space geometry);
and alternatively the concept of gravity as a refraction
process. The exactly same result using a sequence of ca. 20
equations and Euclidean geometry. Can be taught at school. But
the leading persons in GRT tell me that they find the way of
Einstein "more elegant". So, just a matter of taste. No idea
how to argue in this case. <br>
</blockquote>
I agree, you have a short and elegant process. Why is it not
main stream? my only explanation besides politics is that your
basic premise involves two particles, perhaps charges, that
rotate at the speed of light and produce a potential that has a
minimum at the orbital radius and that initial postulate seems
complicated and contrived and does not explain anything beyond
what has already been explained. So you are offering a simpler
derivation in exchange for a complicated Ansatz <br>
</blockquote>
To understand my model one has to understand (and also visualize)
the process of inertia. If this is achieved all the rest is very
simple. If this is not done, all the rest is open and my
statements look arbitrary.<br>
<br>
Can my model of inertia be understood? I am presenting it since 16
years now and my experiences are very different. If I explain it,
some of the people say that they are unable to understand this
mechanism, even professors of theoretical physics have said it.
Others (physicists and engineers) react with total enthusiasm and
wonder why no one has found this mechanism earlier. It is in fact
a funny situation.<br>
<br>
There are two typical reactions are in favour of this mechanism.
My web site about "origin of mass" is since 15 years permanently
the no. 1 in the search engines (only sometimes it was overtaken
by Noble price laureate Frank Wilczek). And when I present the
model at the conferences of the German Physical Society, my
auditory is always about 10 times the auditory of comparable
talks. So, many seem to understand it, and just at the last
conference some told me explicitly that they are really
enthusiastic about the model. <br>
<br>
I am surprised about the non-understanding because I do not only
describe the model qualitatively but present a quantitative
calculation. What else can one do?<br>
<br>
But those who do not understand the model or do not take their
time to follow it, those have arguments that an electron cannot
have sub-constituents. Because in that case there is a clear
conflict with the experiments. It is essential for the
conflict-free functionality that the constituents do not have any
mass at all. <br>
<br>
If this model is, however, understood and accepted, then the rest
is very simple and straight ahead. Particularly if it is compared
with the complicated (and anyway not working) Higgs model. In
detail: there must be two constituents to fulfil conservation of
momentum. There must be this motion with c to explain relativistic
dilation. There must be a circular motion to make a spin and a
magnetic moment possible.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
How do you calculate this? Which causes the tangential force?
Would it be also this way if the binding force would not be
gravity but an electrostatic field? For the electric field the
theory tells us that there is no tangential force. Why just
for gravity? (Didn't we discuss this earlier?)<br>
</blockquote>
Yes Newtons action at a distance calculates the observed
position of planets sun moon etc with great accuracy using the
assumption that the gravity force comes from the location of the
light not from a retarded position . Yes we talked about this
and the van Flanders paper calculates the the effect. A small
tangential force that would slowly make the earth and all
planets spiral outwards at a rate not actually observed.<br>
</blockquote>
We have discussed this earlier. One can build a planetary model
where the attraction is not caused by gravity but by electric
charges. And in that case one could also argue that there is a
tangential force, as the potential of the partner is seen as a
retarded one. But for this electric case I have referred you to
calculations in text books showing that this does not happen. The
field vector of the attracting (or repelling) field does not point
to the position where the charge was when the field was emitted,
but it points to the actual position of the charge.
(Lienard-Wiechert Potential). As gravitational and electric fields
propagate in the same way there is no reason not to accept the
same mechanism. <br>
<br>
Maybe another argument: If there would be an accelerated or
decelerated rotation this would violate the conservation of
energy. - Perhaps I can find an argument which can be easier
visualized. I am looking for it. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
It can be understood in the way that this is a symmetrical
situation as long as there is only straight motion. But in the
moment when one twin turns to come back he changes the frame
of reference. And in that moment symmetry is no longer the
case. As I have shown above, the new frame of the returning
twin has an offset in time with respect to the earlier frame.
But only this one has the offset, the other one not! <br>
<br>
For an easier understanding: If one believes that there is an
absolute frame at rest, then only the twin not travelling can
stay in that frame. If the other one would initially be in the
frame at rest, he leaves it as soon as he turns.<br>
</blockquote>
Yres I've seen explanations that include the gravitational
acceleration and deceleration for one of the twins, but one can
set up a situation in which the completely symetric impulses are
felt by both observers and and the coast time is as long as one
wants <br>
i do not understand what you mean by an observer leaving his
reference frame.<br>
Each observer measures the world through his reference frame how
can he leave? Unless you are talking about a transcendental god
like point of view?<br>
</blockquote>
The twin paradox is an example of Special Relativity. Special
relativity is only about non-accelerated motion. The frame of each
observer is the frame in which he is at rest. For this case we can
apply the Lorentz transformation. As soon as one observer is
accelerated he is no longer at rest in the same frame. And then
the relativity principle does not apply any longer. So, there is
no argument that both twins should experience the same physics,
e.g. the same behaviour of time.<br>
<br>
Acceleration is the fact that an observer leaves his frame as
described above. But the different speed of time for the twins is
not caused by the acceleration. According to SRT acceleration does
not influence time. (There are some confusing statements of
Einstein saying something different).<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
I did not follow this calculation for Mercury myself. But as
far as I know many have done it. And one point has also to be
taken into account. There are a lot of corrections to be done
if the orbit of Mercury is calculated. Einstein's correction
was only a small contribution, but it was the contribution
which made the result perfect. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
No. Einstein calculated the precession of Mercury itself and
found it to be 43sec/cent different from the Newtonian
calculation which calculated a value using the perturbations
from the outer planets <br>
but Einstein did not calculate the precession using the
perturbation from the outer planets i fact according to
Jefimenko Einsten should have calculated the precession using
his theory to calculate the effect of the outer planets. If he
had done so the error would no longer be 43 seconds. so the fact
that Enstein explaind the 43seconds without taking into account
the outer planets is a mistake and his exact 43seconds/ century
calculation is proof that his theory was specifically designed
to give the impression of accuracy when it is not.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein has calculated the additional contribution to the
precession caused by GRT. So the final result which fits to the
measurement is the sum of the Newtonian and the Einsteinian
consideration. His correction is a correction (using GRT) applied
to the normal elliptical motion of the Mercury. This elliptical
motion contains already the classical precession according to
Newton. The perturbation from the other planets is taken as they
result from Newton. What do you find missing? Should Einstein have
corrected the perturbation from the other planets also by means of
GRT? To my knowledge this was not done and I guess that this would
cause a negligible correction, much smaller than the GRT
correction of 43 arc-seconds.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> In my view it should not be necessary to use
curved space-time. But there is one influence which was of
course not taken into account before Einstein. When Mercury is
passing the perihelion then it is faster than in the other
positions. And there it has to be taken into account that the
mass of Mercury increases. I expect that this could be
sufficient to have the right correction.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1; tab-stops:list 27.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</p>
</blockquote>
Would be interesting, but I cannot find / open this URL.<br>
</blockquote>
See two papers attached<br>
</blockquote>
Where do I find these two papers? - Well, now I found them.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1
lfo1; tab-stops:list 27.0pt"> <span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></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">
<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">-<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</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>
</body>
</html>