<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Wolf,<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>I completely agree with Chandra EM waves are quantized during
interaction with matter and then we project the quantized
material state changes back into the waves as a mathematical
convenience</p>
</blockquote>
We have discussed this topic earlier here and I have referred to my
PhD experiment. In that experiment we have used electrons of a well
defined energy to convert them into photons. The photons were after
a flight of several meters in the air detected by pair building in a
thin layer of copper. The energy of the pair was measured, and the
measurement showed the energy of the original electron. So, how can
we understand this result if it is not the photon which carries
exactly this energy and which is quantized
with this energy?
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>to answer some of Albrecht's comments on my 5,15,17 comment;
I'm introducing some new ideas in order to include the mind in
physical theory. Treated individually one can reject them
because anything new can be rejected when one assumes the old is
correct. So have patience.</p>
<p>1) "That means a force between charge and mass?" yes it means
what it says. Mass and charge are assumed to be properties of
particles. Particles have been assumed to be points and so mass
and charge are located at points. I believe this is wrong. Mass
and charge should be given separate degrees of freedom and the
force between them is not infinite.</p>
</blockquote>
The force is indeed not infinite, on the contrary, there cannot be a
force at all. If we look at the forces of charges, it is obvious (in
the mind of physicists) that a charge can only interact with a
charge of the same type. So the electrical charge and the charge of
the strong force will by common understanding not react in any way.
And if now mass is understood as some type of a charge (which is,
however, not the understanding of present physics) then there should
not be any force between e.g. an electric charge and a mass. <br>
<br>
If we look deeper into what mass is by present understanding, then
charges may influence the dynamical process which we call "inertia".
But that is in that case a complicated logical connection.
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> 2)"The question here is again: what is more fundamental,
action or force?" The rest of your comments are simply
addressing an incomplete presentation of my theory. However I
consider dynamics or simply change to be fundamental. Reality is
action in a form. Action is the material of change. Form is the
state in which it is manifest. Action is fundamental , Energy
is the rate of action happening, force is the experience of all
finite particles in a non homogeneous action flow who all want
to experience more action. I think it is best to defer this
discussion to either metaphysics or when I have complete
presentation ready.</p>
</blockquote>
Yes, then we should better wait. - But up to now I still follow
this argument that action is something which the human brain needs
to structure the world so that it fits into our brains. Particles
which react to each other do not have this need. They react to a
force, and the force and also the reaction to it can be
infinitesimal. An action is (by my understanding) something which
happens or does not happen. I do not see infinitesimal single steps
which each can be understood as an action. So, this is my argument
that action is a typical case of "human understanding".
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>SRT:</p>
<p>"First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with
gravity. Why do you connect it to gravity?" Because I have seen
the twin paradox explained by including gravity in text books.
clocks slow down because of velocity but speed up because of
acceleration the two cancel when two twins are accelerated with
constant acceleration for the first quarter of the trip, the
ship turned around decelerated for the second quarter and
continued to be accelerated toward the start point, during the
third quarter and then rocket reverses for the third quarter and
come to rest rest at the origin where the second twin has been
waiting at rest. Now both twins will agree on the amount of time
passing. The paradox is said to be resolved because Einstein's
Srt is expanded to GRT and gravity is introduced.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Can you please give me a reference to a text book which connects the
twin paradox to gravity? I never heard about such an idea; and the
discussion about ageing refers to the time dilation in SRT. You can
perform this twin paradox in an environment where no gravitational
sources are around, and it would work as usually described.<br>
<br>
According to SRT clocks slow down because of velocity. The degree of
slow-down is related to the speed of the clocks and to nothing else.
Acceleration or deceleration have no influence to the behaviour of
clock. This statement you will find uniformly in all textbooks. <br>
<br>
Then you write: "... and then rocket reverses for the third quarter
and come to rest rest at the origin where the second twin has been
waiting at rest." Now I am confused. I have understood that both
twins move and change their motion at exactly the same times. How
can it then happen that on twin is at rest and expects the other
one? <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>"And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and
with there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a
paradox?" The paradox is that both twins see the other moving at
a constant velocity for an arbitrarily long period of time</p>
</blockquote>
why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only for the time
until the other twin changes his speed.
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> and each one would according to SRT calculate the other twin
has aged relative to himself. both cannot be right. by making
the acceleration period small and symmetric the coast period
large i eliminate the gravity explanation but retain an
arbitrarily long constant velocity. SO SRT HAS A PARADOX AND IT
CANNOT BE RESOLVED IN GRT.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Perhaps I understand now where you see the paradox. Assume the
following case which is sometimes discussed. There are two
observers, A and B, and both have clocks with them. We assume that
both observers move with respect to each other. Then observer A will
find that the clock of observer B runs more slowly. But as both
observers are physically equivalent also observer B will find that
the clock of observer A runs more slowly. <br>
<br>
This sounds like a paradox or even like a logical conflict. But it
is not. To see why not we have to have a closer look on how clock
speeds (or the time in different frames) are compared. It is not as
simple as it looks like. <br>
<br>
If the observer A will compare his clock run with the one of
observer B, he will e.g. place two of his clocks, which we will call
clock 1 and clock 2 (and which he has of course synchronized) along
the path of observer B. Then he will compare the clock of observer B
with his clock 1 and then with clock 2 in the moment when the
observer B passes these clocks. The result will be that the clock of
observer B have run more slowly. <br>
<br>
But how now the other way around? The observer B can of course
compare his clock with both clocks of observer A when he passes
these clocks. But now a difference: Both clocks of observer A have
been synchronized in the frame of A. But in the frame of B they will
not be synchronized (a fundamental fact in SRT). From the view of
observer B the clock 1 of observer A will be retarded with respect
to the clock 2. So, the observer B can reproduce the observation of
observer A in the way that observer A sees the clock of B slowed
down. But observer B will use a different method to determine the
speed of the clocks of observer A. Observe B will also position two
clocks along the path
which observer A follows in frame B and he will synchronize these
clocks in <i><b>his</b></i> frame B. And with his clocks he will
find that the clocks of A run slower compared to his own ones.<br>
<br>
This different clock synchronization follows from the time-related
part of the Lorentz transformation:<br>
<br>
t = gamma*(t'-vx/c<sup>2</sup>) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)).
Regarding the example above v is the speed between the frames of A
and of B.<br>
<br>
Is this understandable? (I have presented it in Porto Novo when I
talked about the problem of de Broglie with SRT.) If not clear,
please ask further questions I and shall go into more details.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </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"><b>do my Emails show up</b></span></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"><b>I CC'd you and you should get this
directly and in <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></b></span><br>
</p>
<p>Let me know if you get them</p>
</blockquote>
I have received your mail once. But last time also Chandra and Adrew
have answered. So the general distribution seems to work<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:05ecf7f7-399f-eab5-8117-200aa00efd3d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri,
Chandra wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB32340A2A0F83E4D195FB878A93FA0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Andrew W.: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Yes, I
basically agree with you that STR is not a theory of
physics. It is smart mathematics only.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Whereas,
photoelectric equation is physics, even though,
quantization is postulated wrongly on EM waves, rather
than on quantum mechanically bound electrons!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">==================================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></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">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY<br>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 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"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>;
Wolfgang Baer <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi all<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">STR is a complex subject - all
observers are equal - but then implies reciprocity, that's
the bit that's flawed actually<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">========================================<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34
PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: "Albrecht Giese" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light
and Particles - General Discussion" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">again comments in the text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> No Kc is the spring constant of
the force holding charge and mass <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> together<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">That means a force between charge and
mass? To my understanding mass and charge are completely
different categories as a wrote last time. Charge is a
permanent property of some object, whereas mass is a
dynamical process which also changes when the object changes
its motion state (which at the end is : relativity).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> In order to build a framework of
a physical theory that properly <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> includes the observer as a
measurement model building and acting <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> component I use a very simplified
concept built on the classic <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> metaphysical ideas that
mass,charge, space, time along with the forces <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> between them are fundamental.
Here are some of the differences between <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> my cognitive action theory CAT
and classic physics<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Just a question at this point: to
which set of "metaphysical ideas" do you refer? If we refer
to main stream physics, at least mass is a different
category. And also time and space are most probably
different categories from the others, at least for some of
the physical community.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> * Summary of Action Theory
additions to Classic Physical Concepts*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> The examples provided in this
section are intended to show how action <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> theory is applied to well known
and observable situations that can be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> compared with analysis using
classical physics concepts. What CAT has <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> added is summarized as follows:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Change involving transitions
between states is where physics is <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> happening.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Change, visualized as stable
action patterns, propagates through <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> material media.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -The degrees of freedom of
classical systems has been doubled by <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> separating mass and charge.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Internal material forces between
mass and charge are introduced as <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> heuristic visualizations to
augment understanding of the interior of <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> matter which is conventionally
the domain of quantum theory (see <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> chapter 6)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Mach’s principle and the
connection between the inertial field is <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> introduced in place of the
observational pseudo forces such as the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> centrifugal force and “m∙a” in
Newton’s formulation. (See Appendix on <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Mach’s Principle)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Time is defined as the name of
the state of the system adopted as a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> clock, and time intervals are
measured as action required to change a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> state separated by a constant
state distance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Action theory is being developed
as the physical underpinnings of an <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> event oriented world view and a
description of reality which includes <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> both the subjective and objective
aspect of reality described by CAT.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The question here is again: what is
more fundamental, action or force? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">In the reductionist's world the
fundamental processes are very simple but go on in a huge
number. So, it is a tendency, or a good strategy of our
brains to build categories. For instance, there are billions
of trees on our earth. No brain of a human being is able to
register and to remember all these trees. So, our brain
build the category "tree". <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">That is helpful. But the cells in the
trees have no logical connection to the category-building,
they follow fundamental rules.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">In an analogue way, there is a force
between charges (else not!). If objects move which have
charges the forces will cause that the motion of the objects
is influenced, the path changes accordingly. That is
fundamental. A human brain can now build the category of an
"action" to describe, or better: to categories this process.
This brain-related process is in my view a less fundamental
view to the world, even though a helpful one.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">But again: mass and charge are not the
same category. It is true that there would be no inertia if
there would not be charges in the world. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">But taken in this was, mass is a
consequence of charges (and a dynamical consequence). So one
could say: a consequence on a higher level.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">And for "time" I agree that this is a
structural way of humans to categorize motion. "Space" may
be a structural way to treat the effect of charges.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> *Twin Paradox:*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> You mentioned the twin paradox is
explained by the Lorenz <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> transformation since
t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time dilation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> How do you avoid the paradox in
the following experiment<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Two twins are accelerated with a
small short pulse in opposite directions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> At some very long time they are
both reversed with a double pulse<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> when they meet they are stopped
by a short pulse.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> The experiment is completely
symmetric. both twins experience the same <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> acceleration pulse so gravity
clock effects are equal and can be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> eliminated from a comparison but
not eliminated is the arbitrarily <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> long period where they are
traveling with a velocity relative to each <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> other. Since the time dilation
formula only contains<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> velocity squared the direction of
relative travel does not make a <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> difference. If the theory is
correct there is a paradox and gravity <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> cannot explain it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">First: this whole process has
absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Why <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">do you connect it to gravity?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">And second: the whole process as you
describe it is completely <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">symmetrical. Both twins make the same
experience with time and with <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">there according ageing. Where the hell
do you see a paradox? I cannot <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">see a paradox and the whole thing is
as simple as it can be.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> *do my Emails show up in the
general discussion I keep only getting <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> replies from people who send them
directly and my E-mails do not show <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> up in the discussion forum, so
I'm wondering?*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To test it, you may sent this mail
again without my address in the list; <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">then I can tell you (if informed) if I
got it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></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 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>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>