<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Albrecht,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I agree fully with at least your
first four paragraphs. It looks as if you may not have read my email in
full: in my 4th-from-last paragraph I make two points, (1) and (2), which
effectively summarise all that you say (in your reply) in your first 4
paras.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'm not sure that I agree, though,
with your observation on acceleration. Constant acceleration is of course
just a steady transition through inertial frames, so that transition has an
effect on relationships between an accelerating frame and a non-accelerating
frame (or another constantly-accelerating frame) that fits with principles of
SR; I suppose it depends on what you mean by "does not play any role". I
believe that the Equivalence Principle, equating effects of acceleration to
effects of an equivalent gravitational field, has pretty good experimental
credentials.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>For me, though, the important thing
is the claimed <STRONG>reciprocity</STRONG> of SR, which in turn leads to
the claim of frame symmetry. The fact is, that reciprocity is also borne
out by experiment, including in particle accelerator experiments. The
critical point here, though, is that this reciprocity is reciprocity of
<STRONG>measurement</STRONG>. That's why I refer to aspects of SR as
'observer effects'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Apart from in my own writings I
haven't seen <STRONG>any</STRONG> explanation for that observed reciprocity that
doesn't depend on objective inertial frame symmetry. Such an explanation
is essential to non-symmetric explanations of anomolous aberration of starlight,
for example, as well as various particle accelerator experiments. I have
fully explored this issue and have derived reciprocal relationships for
observers on the move who observe events in a static frame: I have shown that
for fully subjective reasons such observers (and instruments) will yield results
that appear to show the Lorentz Transformation acting reciprocally - thus
'proving' objective frame symmetry. Without such an explanation any claim
that SR is <STRONG>not</STRONG> an objective reality cannot hold
water.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I agree also that principles that
establish SR as an explainable phenomenon can be extended to GR, including every
aspect of the Equivalence Principle. But this of course depends on a
rational explanation for gravitation that shows how 'at-a-distance' interaction
of massive bodies and 'curvature of spacetime' by such bodies comes about.
This I have also done, simply by reference to phenomena already discussed and
widely agreed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=phys@a-giese.de href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">Albrecht Giese</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, June 03, 2017 8:01
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Fw: STR twin
Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>Hi Grahame,</P>
<P>fully agreement that Einstein's relativity is a working theory but does not
have any causal explanation. This has to do with the general attitude of
Einstein with respect to science when he developed relativity. But before
Einstein, Hendrik Lorentz had already started to work on these problems, and
his approach does in fact have causal physical explanations.</P>
<P>Shortly after the Michelson-Morley experiment Oliver Heaviside presented a
calculation (1888), deduced from Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, that an
electrical field necessarily contracts at motion. Fitzgerald concluded that if
fields contract also objects will contract at motion. If this happens also the
apparatus of the MM experiment would contract at motion. And if it contracts,
so the conclusion of Lorentz, the null-result of the experiment is fully
explained even if an ether should exist. <BR></P>
<P>Next step is dilation. It was (to my knowledge) already suspected by
Lorentz and it was later found by Schrödinger (1930) that inside elementary
particles there is a permanent motion with c, the speed of light. If this is
assumed it follows geometrically that any elementary particle acts like a
light clock and its internal motion and so its frequency is reduced in the way
described by the Lorentz transformation. The reduction of the internal
frequency propagates to all cases of motion in physics.<BR></P>
<P>This is special relativity. But the considerations of Lorentz can be also
extended to general relativity, and the result is a mathematical model which
fully conforms to the one of Einstein but is also based on physical
explanations.</P>
<P>Another point in this discussion: Acceleration <B>does not play any role
</B>in relativity, neither in SRT nor in GRT. The reference to acceleration in
case of e.g. the twin paradox comes from the (indirect) fact that in case of
an acceleration of one party / one twin this one will leave his inertial
frame. So the Lorentz transformation does not apply any longer. But, not to
confuse it here, an acceleration does not give any quantitative contribution
to the processes treated by SRT and GRT. <BR></P>
<P>Another comment to the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity: Following
Lorentz makes relativity much better understandable than the one of Einstein,
and it avoids all paradoxes which I know. This applies particularly to GRT
which becomes so simple that it can be treated at school, whereas the
Einsteinian is too complicated even for most students of physics.</P>
<P>Albrecht<BR></P><BR>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>Am 03.06.2017 um 19:43 schrieb Dr Grahame
Blackwell:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:237B0F2B64224657A5D147526B6B420B@vincent type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi Wolf, Albrecht, John W et
al.,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I want to express complete
agreement with John W on the role of accel'n/grav'n in resolving any
apparent paradox in the twins saga.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I must first, though, draw
attention to what appears to be an elementary error in Wolf's analysis
(unless I've totally misunderstood you, Wolf - I can't see how this would be
the case).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Wolf, you propose (quite
reasonably) that each twin is initially moving away from the other at speed
'v'. You then propose a variation in each twin's clock as perceived by
the other, delta-t'. However your expression for that delta-t' shows
the other twin's clock progressing FASTER than that of the observer-twin (13
months instead of 12 months) - whereas of course the whole point of SRT is
that the moving clock progresses SLOWER than that of the static
observer. This is due to a common fallacy, of applying the
time-dilation factor, which gives the extended duration of each second, say,
in the moving frame as observed from the static frame (hence the phrase
'time-dilation'), to the apparent time-passed in that moving frame.
This makes the ratio of observed/observer clock-time the inverse of what it
should be according to SRT. The perceived elapsed time in the moving
frame should be observer time multiplied by the INVERSE of the Lorentz
Factor.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>This doesn't totally destroy your
argument (though it does render it rather less plausible), since you are
implying that on re-meeting the apparent accumulated difference will not be
shown on either clock - as of course it couldn't be. However, as John
W points out, any apparent difference will be precisely wiped out by
acceleration considerations: SRT is 100% internally self-consistent, it
cannot be faulted on ANY application of its assertions with respect to
time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>However, the fact that it's
internally self-consistent doesn't make it RIGHT. It's not difficult
to envisage a set of mathematical rules - for instance, relating to
trajectories - that give totally self-consistent results but don't
accord with practical observations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Here's where it gets
interesting. Because of course results of calculations in SRT DO fit
with practical observations, and have done so for over a century. The
question then arises as to why this should be so - since, unlike pretty well
every other branch of physics, no causal explanation has been found (or even
sought?) for effects in spacetime as given by SRT. It's been tacitly
accepted by the mainstream physics community as "That's just how it
is". This is a statement of belief, not of science - the prime
directive of science is to ask "Why?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>When I started on my own
scientific investigations 20 years ago I took SRT totally at face value,
totally uncritically. I didn't actually start by asking "Why?" in
relation to SRT. As I progressed with my research, essentially
into aspects on electromagnetic waves anf the fundamental nature of time, it
gradually became apparent that there IS a "Why!". That 'why' rests on
the fact that all material objects are formed from electromagnetic energy
(hence E = Mc-squared); in a moving object that energy is travelling
linearly as well as cyclically within the object - and this combined motion
beautifully explains EVERY aspect of SRT.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>This explanation boils down to
two considerations:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>(1) Material objects are affected
by their formative energy-flows moving linearly as well as cyclically,
giving rise to time-dilation precisely in accordance with the formula given
by SRT and Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction as also 'imported' into
SRT;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>(2) Material objects which happen
to be (a) observers or (b) measuring instruments are likewise affected in
both these respects when in motion, giving all other observed consequences
detailed by SRT - as observer effects.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[As a point of detail, it IS
possible to show the fallacy in SRT only if you consider matters from the
level of particle formation, rather than complete particles.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>In other words, ALL observed
phenomena that appear to confirm SRT (and also, in fact, GRT) can be fully
explained WITHOUT the 'metaphysical' claim that "All inertial reference
frames are equivalent" - that claim by SRT is a myth, one that has NO
support in the evidence claimed for it. It is a totally superfluous
add-on to our picture of physical reality.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>This being the case, the
requirement (by mainstream physics) that all phenomena/fields/whatever MUST
conform to that claim is arguably holding us back from making significant
breakthroughs in our understanding of reality - breakthroughs that might
even (dare I say it?) take us to the stars. We are fencing ourselves
in with an imaginary boundary.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=wolf@nascentinc.com href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Wolfgang Baer</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, June 03, 2017 7:46 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>
<META name=ProgId content=Word.Document></P>
<P>
<META name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11">
<META name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 11">
<STYLE>@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; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
</P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Albrecht:</P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Tell me why this is not thought experiment that shows
Einsteins SRT interpretation gives rize to a paradox and therefore is wrong.
<BR></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Twin Paradox Experiment:</P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="Z-INDEX: 1; POSITION: absolute; MARGIN-TOP: 46px; WIDTH: 64px; HEIGHT: 59px; MARGIN-LEFT: 229px; mso-ignore: vglayout"><IMG
src="cid:4F582D7776044836BFF4DA63E503FA4D@vincent" width=64
height=59></SPAN><SPAN
style="Z-INDEX: 2; POSITION: absolute; MARGIN-TOP: 46px; WIDTH: 64px; HEIGHT: 58px; MARGIN-LEFT: 280px; mso-ignore: vglayout"><IMG
src="cid:FAE31A8D9C774033BC9BFE7E6559F69A@vincent" width=64
height=58></SPAN>1) Somewhere in an intergalactic space far away from all
local masses two identical twins are accelerated to opposite velocities so
that each thinks the other is traveling away from themselves at velocity
“v”.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>By the equivalence principle both feel the equivalent of a temporary
gravitational force which slows their clocks the same amount. They are now
drifting apart </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="mso-ignore: vglayout"></SPAN></P>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=left>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD height=7 width=148><BR></TD>
<TD width=64><BR></TD>
<TD width=144><BR></TD>
<TD width=65><BR></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=58><BR></TD>
<TD vAlign=top align=left><IMG
src="cid:0A935D79F0FD4744958E74F8D3444F68@vincent" width=64
height=58></TD>
<TD><BR></TD>
<TD vAlign=top rowSpan=2 align=left><IMG
src="cid:41B64D1E3CAA43D99D24E341A47B76C6@vincent" width=65
height=59></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=1><BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P><BR style="mso-ignore: vglayout" clear=all>
<P class=MsoNormal>2) Each of the twins feels he is standing still and the
other twin is moving with a constant velocity “v” away. According to special
relativity the relation between their own time Δt and the time they believe
the other twins elapsed time <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Δt’ is; Δt’ = Δt/
(1-v<SUP>2</SUP>/c<SUP>2</SUP>)<SUP>1/2</SUP>.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="mso-ignore: vglayout"></SPAN></P>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=left>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD height=2 width=1><BR></TD>
<TD width=65><BR></TD>
<TD width=437><BR></TD>
<TD width=66><BR></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=3><BR></TD>
<TD vAlign=top rowSpan=3 align=left><IMG
src="cid:8786FA123FBE440EBF1AAC2871F2D5D8@vincent" width=65
height=66></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=59><BR></TD>
<TD><BR></TD>
<TD vAlign=top align=left><IMG
src="cid:BBF662EFF72E4C3E9F8336BC49A141B0@vincent" width=66
height=59></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=4><BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P><BR style="mso-ignore: vglayout" clear=all>
<P class=MsoNormal>3) </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>After 1 year on Twin 1’s<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>clock he believes twin two’s clock
is Δt<SUB>1</SUB>’ = Δt<SUB>1</SUB>/
(1-v<SUP>2</SUP>/c<SUP>2</SUP>)<SUP>1/2</SUP> After 1 year on Twin 1’s<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>clock he believes twin two’s clock
is Δt<SUB>2</SUB>’ = Δt<SUB>2</SUB>/
(1-v<SUP>2</SUP>/c<SUP>2</SUP>)<SUP>1/2</SUP></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Thus Δt<SUB>1</SUB>= Δt<SUB>2</SUB>= 12 months Lets
assume the velocities are such that Δt<SUB>1</SUB>’ = Δt<SUB>2</SUB>’ = 13
months.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>4) After one year on their own clock each twin fires a
retro rocket that reverses their velocities. By the equivalence principle
the both clocks experience a gravity like force and their clocks speed up.
Lets assume the acceleration lasts 1 day on their own clocks so now <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Δt<SUB>1</SUB>= Δt<SUB>2</SUB>= 12
months + 1day and knowing the plan Δt<SUB>1</SUB>’ = Δt<SUB>2</SUB>’ = 13m +
1d</P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="mso-ignore: vglayout"></SPAN></P>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=left>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD height=4 width=154><BR></TD>
<TD width=64><BR></TD>
<TD width=143><BR></TD>
<TD width=65><BR></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=3><BR></TD>
<TD colSpan=2><BR></TD>
<TD vAlign=top rowSpan=2 align=left><IMG
src="cid:9E31EB9589BB4A03A368281B48118552@vincent" width=65
height=59></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=56><BR></TD>
<TD vAlign=top rowSpan=2 align=left><IMG
src="cid:B57A9113917E4D66AB596C9C674A10AF@vincent" width=64
height=64></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=8><BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P><BR style="mso-ignore: vglayout" clear=all>
<P class=MsoNormal>5) Now the two twins are drifting with the same relative
velocity but toward each other with opposite signs. Each twin thinks the
others clocks are lowing down by the formula Δt’ = Δt/
(1-v<SUP>2</SUP>/c<SUP>2</SUP>)<SUP>1/2</SUP>. They drift for exactly one
year and now Δt<SUB>1</SUB>= Δt<SUB>2</SUB>= 24 months + 1day and they
believing in special relativity think Δt<SUB>1</SUB>’ = Δt<SUB>2</SUB>’ = 26
months.+ 1.083days.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="Z-INDEX: 6; POSITION: relative; mso-ignore: vglayout"><SPAN
style="POSITION: absolute; WIDTH: 64px; HEIGHT: 59px; TOP: -22px; LEFT: 264px"><IMG
src="cid:90B48C22EA724FAAB06A9BDA88A5A4B6@vincent" width=64
height=59></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="Z-INDEX: 5; POSITION: relative; mso-ignore: vglayout"><SPAN
style="POSITION: absolute; WIDTH: 64px; HEIGHT: 59px; TOP: -21px; LEFT: 213px"><IMG
src="cid:B7A5E7DBCE8442328DE20A41183DCFBE@vincent" width=64
height=59></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 4">
</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>6) now the stop rocket fires for half a day on each twins
clock and the twins come to rest exactly at the place they started. Their
own clocks tell Δt<SUB>1</SUB>= Δt<SUB>2</SUB>= 24 months + 1.5day and they
believing in special relativity think the others clock should be
Δt<SUB>1</SUB>’ = Δt<SUB>2</SUB>’ = 26 months.+ 1.583days.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>They get out of their space ship/ coordinate frames and find that the
two clocks tell exactly the same time so their belief in special relativity
was wrong. </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 5/30/2017 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:666dc9c5-a2ae-72b5-99e4-864dd32cb890@a-giese.de
type="cite">
<P>Wolf,</P>
<P>before we enter discussions about details I send you a drawing of my
experiment with some explanations. I think that it is simple enough so
that we do not need too much philosophy about epistemology to understand
it.</P>
<P>My drawing: At the left side you see a part of the ring of the
synchrotron in which the electrons cycle. They hit the target T (at 0 m)
where they are converted into photons. The photons fly until the target
H<SUB>2</SUB> where they are deflected by a small angle (about one degree)
(at 30.5 m). The deflected photons meet the converter (KONV at 35 m)
where a portion of the photons is converted into an electron- position
pair. The pair is detected and analysed in the configuration of the magnet
2 MC 30 and telescopes of spark chambers (FT between 37.5 and 39.5 m). The
rest of detectors at the right is for monitoring the basic photon
beam.</P>
<P>In the magnet and the telescopes the tracks of both particles (electron
and positron) are measured and the momentum and the energy of both
particles is determined.</P>
<P>Here all flying objects are interpreted as being particles, there is no
wave model needed. So, I do not see where we should need here any QM.
<BR></P>
<P>The rest of the mail will be commented later.</P>
<P>Albrecht<BR></P><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<FIELDSET class=mimeAttachmentHeader></FIELDSET> <BR><PRE wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <A 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>
<DIV id=DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2><BR>
<TABLE style="BORDER-TOP: #d3d4de 1px solid">
<TBODY>
<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 style="WIDTH: 46px; HEIGHT: 29px" alt=""
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
width=46 height=29></A></TD>
<TD
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; WIDTH: 470px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #41424e; FONT-SIZE: 13px; PADDING-TOP: 17px">Virenfrei.
<A style="COLOR: #4453ea"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target=_blank>www.avast.com</A> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><A
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" height="1" width="1"></A></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer
wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at grahame@starweave.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>