<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hello Wolf,<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 30.05.2017 um 04:40 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e673c0a-81c1-1f1d-f837-86553102fd9e@nascentinc.com">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/28/2017 2:05 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>following my attempts to answer.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 25.05.2017 um 19:12 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Albrecht: <br>
</p>
<p>I'll send this to you and the nature of light separately.
then please check if it gets to you on both</p>
<p>1) regarding your Thesis it wold be necessary to see
exactly where the Von Neuman cut takes place to evaluate the
experiment from my observer inclusive perspective. The
problem is that so many "truths" are simply consistent
results inside quantum theory. There are always two
operations separating reality from our observational
experience and since science is operating under the
assumption that quantum reality (i.e. anything that cannot
be seen directly such as atomic structure, electorons etc.)
is reality. It is very likely that the two operations are
adjusted to to make the quantum reality assumptions self
consistent.</p>
</blockquote>
Here it was about the question whether the photon is in deed a
particle. In the experiment we have converted electrons into
photons as a spectrum with a cut-off at its high end, and then
reconverted these photons into an electron-positron pair which
can be easily measured. And the measurement reproduced the
spectrum with its specific cut-off at its high end. Where do you
see questions of quantum reality in this process?<br>
</blockquote>
As I mentioned in my last E-mail your description above is of a
quantum reality, i.e. what you believe is real. At the vonNeuman
cut this reality touches your observables. It is these observables
you explain with a theory which in specific application cases,
such as your thesis becomes a model, which you project into the
workings of your equipment. This is and always has been a mental
projection. That photons are particles is a mental projection that
satisfies an explanation of certain observable facts. Like my
distant bilin miles away star light. However I believe thisa
projection has outlived its usefulness and we should look for
alternatives - the one I suggested at the San diego conference is
that EM waves produce an energy threshold field but physical
disturbances due to gravito-inertial fluctuations produce
fluctuations in detector material that then meet or not the
threshold at what appear to be random absorption events.<br>
</blockquote>
Well, now I see a new problem. When I have read your mails up to
now, I was always naive enough to believe that what I read here is
that what you have written to me. Now it seems an unavoidable
necessity that I first understand what the vonNeumann cut in my
brain does with the letters on my screen to make them enter my
consciousness. And this seems to be a terrible task which is at
present an overload for me.<br>
<br>
But back to a naive view. If a photon (whether being an EM wave or
not) is converted into a particle pair, there is no threshold for
this process. There was never any threshold observed except of
course that the energy must be sufficient to produce the pair. But
above this minimum. there is nowhere a threshold. So, if we measure
a certain energy as we do it in this experiment, this energy is
purely determined by the incoming particle, i.e. the photon, and by
NOTHING else. <br>
<br>
And, btw., what are gravito-inertial fluctuations? To say it
clearly: gravity and inertia have absolutely nothing to do with each
other. Historically it is understandable that Newton did have a
different opinion, but since that time we have had some real
progress in physics. So, forget it! <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e673c0a-81c1-1f1d-f837-86553102fd9e@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>2) The force between charge and mass is infinite in current
theory because if force and charge are treated as separate
degrees of freedom and are in fact pulled apart by external
gravito-electric forces then in order to keep them at the
same point the current theory would implicitly require an
infinite force. relaxing this requirement then allows
current theory to be an approximation to one that does not
require such an infinite force. Much like classical physics
is an approximation of quantum physics in the limit h->0.
Quantum theory is an approximation to my Cognitive Action
Theory when the force between mass and charge does NOT
approach infinity. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Is current theory a specific theory?<br>
We have particles without electric charge like a neutron or a
neutrino. We do not have particles without mass, however with
little mass like the electron and (again) the neutrino. Between
a neutron and an electron there is no infinite force, between an
electron and a neutrino almost zero force. So where do you see
in practice an infinite force or at least an approximation to an
infinite force? I cannot see any connection between the
phenomenon mass and the phenomenon electric charge. <br>
</blockquote>
Yes it is the copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory.<br>
what holds charge and mass together? <br>
When an electric force pulls an electron in one direction and a
gravitational force pulls it in the other does the electron not
distort in shape so that charge and mass centers are pulled apart?
and if we assume both charge and mass ar always located at the
same point does this not require an infinite force? <br>
I'm not syaing there is an infinite force I'm saying the physical
assumptions of point particles implies an infinite force and
therefore there cannot be point particles - I know you agree with
this.<br>
</blockquote>
What is a particle? In my view it is a collection of charges. There
is nothing else existing than charges.<br>
<br>
Maybe a charge is a point, which is my view but questioned by main
stream physics. On the other hand, mass is not a point but, as I
have said here several times, it is a dynamic process. To say that a
point of charge and this dynamical process is at the same or at a
different position is something which one can say in the way that
one issues words about it in an appropriate sequence. But
physically it does not mean anything usable. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e673c0a-81c1-1f1d-f837-86553102fd9e@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your statements the Twin
Paradox gravitational explanation is in many text books.
Here is wikipedia <br>
</p>
<p>" Starting with <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin"
title="Paul Langevin">Paul Langevin</a> in 1911, there
have been various explanations of this paradox. These
explanations "can be grouped into those that focus on the
effect of different standards of simultaneity in different
frames, and those that designate the acceleration
[experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason...".<sup
id="cite_ref-Debs_Redhead_5-0" class="reference"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Debs_Redhead-5">[5]</a></sup>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue"
title="Max von Laue">Max von Laue</a> argued in 1913 that
since the traveling twin must be in two separate <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frames"
class="mw-redirect" title="Inertial frames">inertial
frames</a>, one on the way out and another on the way
back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging
difference, not the acceleration <i>per se</i>.<sup
id="cite_ref-6" class="reference"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-6">[6]</a></sup>
Explanations put forth by <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein"
title="Albert Einstein">Albert Einstein</a> and <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born" title="Max
Born">Max Born</a> invoked <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation"
title="Gravitational time dilation">gravitational time
dilation</a> to explain the aging as a direct effect of
acceleration.<sup id="cite_ref-Jammer_7-0" class="reference"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Jammer-7">[7]</a>"</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><sup>There have been a lot of discussions in the
beginning of SRT and there were a lot of errors about it.
Should we reopen the whole history of errors and discussions
here?<br>
What you mention about Paul Langevin is quite exactly what
our present understanding is. And similarly the explanation
of Max von Laue. On the other hand acceleration cannot be an
explanation for the twin situation (which is indeed not a
paradox). Assume the two twins and one twin moves off at
speed 0,87c . That means that if he travels off and comes
back after 20 years he will be aged - compared to his twin
at home, only by 10 years. Now assume that he has travelled
- in the view of his twin at home - 10 years and then he
accelerated to return to home, and assume that he had a soft
acceleration which took a week, and then assume that during
the acceleration the time in his frame stood still (which is
extreme and physically senseless) then there after his
return his ageing will have been 1 week less. But thhe
reduction of ageing is in fact, in this example, 10 years.
So it is very clear that acceleration, even if it would have
an influence in SRT, would in no way be able to explain the
ageing of the travelling twin. <br>
<br>
So we should really forget acceleration in this case. And
even more we should forget gravitation. (And btw. I did not
find any statement of Einstein in this sense).<br>
</sup></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p><sup id="cite_ref-Jammer_7-0" class="reference">i'm simply
saying the these explanations explicitly select an
experiment setup that eliminates the clock slow down due
to velocity with the clock speed up due to acceleration.
The equivalence principle equates acceleration and gravity
in Einsteins theory. My thought experiment simply has two
twins in inter stellar space accelerating and decelerating
in opposite directions coming back to rest at the meeting
point at the origin. If everything is symmetric one
explanation is that velocity ang gravity cancel and no
effect exists at all. But by allowing an arbitrarily long
coast time the relative velocity low down will always
dominate and the twin paradox is present. Each twin
calculates the other's clocks must slow down according to
SRT and GRT, so when theories reach a logical
inconsistency they must be improved.</sup></p>
</blockquote>
So. let's look at this case where both twins travel to different
directions in a symmetric way. Twin 1 moves to the left and
twin 2 moves to the right. Seen from an observer in the middle
they move with speed v<sub>1</sub>. After a well defined time
they turn and move back to their starting point. - This is
symmetric and simple.<br>
</blockquote>
Yes the observer in the middle would say both twins will have aged
because both in the outgoing and incoming drft period they are
moving with a same velocity squared<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> <br>
Now we take the view of twin 1. And we understand his initial
frame as the frame at rest. For him the other twin moves with
respect to this frame. Then twin 2 moves to the right with <br>
speed v<sub>2</sub> which is the relativistic sum: v<sub>2 </sub>=
(v<sub>1</sub> plus v<sub>1</sub>)<font size="+1">. <br>
</font>Now when the time has come to return, both change their
motion so that they move back towards their starting point as
seen by the observer in the middle at rest. That means for the
twin 1 that he has now to move with speed v<sub>2</sub> to the
right, for twin 2 it means that he stays at speed 0, both
related to the original frame of twin 1. <font size="+1"><sup><br>
</sup></font></blockquote>
<sup><font size="+1">No twin one remaind in his own frame and
believes he is not moving all he has felt is a bit of gravity
during the turn around period. so during the second period
both twins still believe the other is moving relative to them
at the </font></sup>relativistic sum: v<sub>2 </sub>= (v<sub>1</sub>
plus v<sub>1</sub>)<font size="+1">. </font><br>
<sup><font size="+1">each carries his own frame according to SRT </font></sup><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><sup><b>NO NO NO! </b>Twin one accelerates after
half of the time, so he leaves his frame. That is essential for
this experiment. SRT is about motions without acceleration. So,
what you assume here has nothing to do any more </sup></font><font
size="+1"><sup>with SRT. Any conflict which you see here is not a
conflict of relativity.<br>
<br>
And it has nothing to do with gravity. I have given you a
numerical example above which shows clearly this fact.<br>
</sup></font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e673c0a-81c1-1f1d-f837-86553102fd9e@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><sup> <br>
Now, what about the time progress of both twins? Twin 1
moves in the first period with speed 0, in the second with
speed v<sub>2</sub>.<br>
Twin 2 moves in the first period with speed v<sub>2 </sub>and
in the second period with speed 0. <br>
If summed up, both will have at the end experienced the same
delay of time. And when they meet, they will have aged less
compared to a state without motion, but they will have aged
in exactly the same way.<br>
<br>
So now: where is a paradox? There is none. It is at the end
the same symmetry as if viewed from the observer in the
middle.<br>
</sup></font></blockquote>
<sup><font size="+1">The paradox is that both twins believe they
are stationary and the other twin as well as the third
observer is always moving except for the acceleration periods,
which can be made small relative to the drift periods</font></sup><br>
</blockquote>
<sup><font size="+1">Twin one does NOT believe that he is stationary
because he decides to accelerate. That's it!!</font></sup><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e673c0a-81c1-1f1d-f837-86553102fd9e@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite"><font size="+1"><sup> </sup></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p><sup id="cite_ref-Jammer_7-0" class="reference"> What I
believe is happening is that the general relativity
expression for Gamma *SQRT(m) = SQRT(m*c*c - m*v*v +
m*2*Xg) Now since m*c*c = m*G*Mu/ Ru = the gravitational
potential energy of a mass inside the mass shell of the
universe Mu of radius Ru. We are living inside the a black
hole of radius Ru according to the Schwarzschield
solution. Then the term in the brackets becomes; <br>
</sup></p>
<p>m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*X => .2 [ (1/2 *m*c*c + m*Xg) -
1/2*m*v*v ] => 2 * L ; where L is the Lagrangian - (T-V</p>
</blockquote>
Why gravity here? There is no reason for it.<br>
</blockquote>
yes this is the schwarzschild solution for a moving particle in a
single central force field. and the GR correction to SR. ( Xg is
the gravitational potential )<br>
</blockquote>
I have given the numerical example above that no acceleration and,
even more, no gravity can have any influence here. What else can I
do than to present a calculation to eliminate these obvious errors
??<br>
<br>
A GR correction to SR is necessary in the case of a gravitational
field. So, following Einstein, it is necessary in the vicinity of
mass or of energy. But all this has nothing NOTHING! to do with the
twin paradox. The latter works as described in any empty space. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e673c0a-81c1-1f1d-f837-86553102fd9e@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>In other words the entire SRT and GRT theory calculates
half the change of energy transfer from electric to
gravitational energy. But it observes the change in
electromagentic energy as a slow down in clock rate. As I
have often said on this issue the equations are correct it
is the world view that is wrong. The error started with
Newton when he equated F=m*a. This confused a Theoretical
force with an Observational experience. It happened because
the observer was taken out of physics and Observational
experiences (i.e. the world in front of your nose) were
taken to be reality instead of the mental experiences they
are. Quantum theory is the beginning of correcting this
error but it will take a while to find the right
interpretation. We must add the mind back into physics.</p>
</blockquote>
I don't understand: Is this still about the twins? The so called
twin paradox has nothing to do with energy or with fields and
even less with quantum mechanics. Or do you mean something
different here? Then please explain. I else do not understand
what your arguments are about.<br>
</blockquote>
It is about SRT being wrong because each observer predicts any
other observer moving with v^2 (independent of sign) will have
slowing clocks<br>
</blockquote>
No, the observers do not predict this. Please look at the situation
carefully. It is really not complicated. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e673c0a-81c1-1f1d-f837-86553102fd9e@nascentinc.com"> <br>
and the GR being overly complex and incomplete. Both theories
start with the assumption that the speed of light is constant and
pile complexity upon complexity on top of this initially bad
assumption.<br>
</blockquote>
That is in some way true for the way Einstein has chosen for
relativity. If one follows relativity in the way of Hendrik Lorentz,
it is simple enough to be taught at school, and it is free of
logical conflicts. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e673c0a-81c1-1f1d-f837-86553102fd9e@nascentinc.com"> <br>
The speed of light is NOT constant as Shapiro's experiment
measured and as you yourself have shown me when you do your
refraction calculation on light bending around the sun.<br>
</blockquote>
The speed of light is in fact not constant if we measure the speed
form a distant position. Einstein's statement about the speed of
light is related to an altered space in the vicinity of a massive
(or energetic) object. That is also possible and conflict-free but
unnecessarily complicated.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e673c0a-81c1-1f1d-f837-86553102fd9e@nascentinc.com"> My
calculation shows that the speed f light depends upon the
Lagrangian energy field and therefore clocks slow down in a valley
and speed up on a mountain top. It is a simple gravity effect on
electromagnetic material. space warp is a complicated and
misleading way of explaining something simple. <br>
</blockquote>
Speed of light is in fact reduced in a gravitational field. Why a
Langrarian field? - And the reduction of the speed of light causes
clocks to slow down, here I agree. Whereas the mechanism which makes
speed of c to be reduced is not given by Einstein and also not given
by anyone of mainstream physics. -<br>
<br>
I have a model for this and have described it quantitatively, but
that is not main stream and so not accepted by the community.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e673c0a-81c1-1f1d-f837-86553102fd9e@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>best wishes<br>
Wolf <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Best wishes back<br>
Albrecht
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e673c0a-81c1-1f1d-f837-86553102fd9e@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote
cite="mid:934bbb1a-0121-2927-e1d1-da6737c4861d@a-giese.de"
type="cite"><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b0cbc3e4-135d-2137-3dcd-6565f644cb2b@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </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 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:784808e1-6179-df38-1ef7-07f5b8e936a9@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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;">
<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"
alt="" 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>
<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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a 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>
</body>
</html>