<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Viv:</p>
<p>I agree with everything you say and believe a rigorous scientific
mathematical theory can be built on principles that includes the
observer. It s a project I'm working on.<br>
</p>
<p>However if you insist that "What happens on a macro scale,
happens whether anyone is looking or not." Then you've made the
"naive reality" assumption which is the basis of classic physics
and has been dis-proven on a microscopic scale by quantum theory
and quite easy to disprove in principle on a macroscopic scale if
you ever attempt to account for the your own 1st person
experience.</p>
<p>I refer to the writings of Henry Stapp and Hugh Everett <br>
</p>
<p>Everett is known for his many-worlds theory but that was not his
original thesis and that idea was actually popularized by Dewitt
who thought the many-worlds idea would sell more books. Everett
originally based his theory on the assumption that all systems are
observers <br>
</p>
<p>This is not outrageous but simply means that there is something
that its like to be piece of material. That assumption and
pan-psychism is the only logical resolution to Chalmers "Hard
problem of Consciousness' and the Explanatory Gap in science. So
if you want to logically include your own experience in a
scientific theory then you will eventually come to the conclusion
that all systems are observers. If you do continue to define
physics as a discipline based on the "naive reality' assumption
then you are welcome to do so, but then you've made a semantic
declaration and physicists can no longer claim to be exploring the
nature of reality, but rather a very limited subset of phenomena
that happens to conform to a certain set of assumptions. i.e.
physics becomes a religion and everyone is entitled to their own.</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/14/2017 7:04 PM, Viv Robinson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:etPan.59697849.6d9b25d7.4fee@universephysics.com">
<style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Dear All,</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Regarding the
various comments that go back and forth over this group. There
seems to be a huge reluctance on the part of anyone to take a
couple of simple steps needed for a good theory. When they are
undertaken, it is much easier to get an accurate viewpoint
across. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">The first is
to state the science involved. The second is to use mathematics
to determine the magnitude of that science. If the science and
mathematics combine to match observation, there is a reasonable
chance the observed effect is explicable by the science
forwarded. Those simple steps can place any discussion on a firm
footing. Further proof comes from predicting an unobserved
effect and having a match. Without them the discussions go back
and forth based upon opinion that is not confirmed by
observation, science and/or mathematics. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Regarding any
observer-centric theory. What happens on a macro scale, happens
whether anyone is looking or not. The only exception is when a
life form, eg humans, interferes with it and changes that
happening. What is happening in Jupiter’s red spot happens
whether <span style="font-size: 13px;">or not </span><span
style="font-size: 13px;">we exist. Whether or not the
radiations from it is detected by humans makes, no difference
to what happens. It has left and won’t return. The only
difference humans may make is if they crash a robotic probe
into it. It may alter it a little bit.</span></div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">It was
observer-centric ideas that gave rise to such things as the flat
Earth, where people could fall of the edge of it if they
travelled too far. Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan
disproved those about five hundred years ago. It also
established the Earth-centric model of the universe, which was
disproved some three hundred years ago. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Anyone wishing
to forward a macro observer-centric theory should forward the
science behind the effect they wish to display. Then carry out
the mathematics to demonstrate the magnitude of the effect and
show how it matches observation. Otherwise it invites others to
think the idea falls into the failed categories of Flat Earth,
Earth centric <span style="font-size: 13px;"> </span><span
style="font-size: 13px;">and</span><span style="font-size:
13px;"> similar failed </span><span style="font-size: 13px;">theories.</span></div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px;">The
situation changes on the micro to femto etc scales. We cannot
keep probing down with a smaller and smaller point. Ultimately
we get down to the size of an atom, electron, proton/neutron
and electromagnetic radiation. How these are used does
determine the outcome of the results. The results obtained
using electron microscopes can depend upon how the operator
uses them, including specimen preparation, accelerating
voltage, beam current/density, detectors used and so forth. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px;">The
smallest mechanical probes used are the single atom at the tip
of tungsten, platinum iridium or similar probe with a single
crystal orientation. Different information is obtained whether
the operator is using a tunneling or atomic force probe. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px;">Those
observations can also change the nature of the observed
object. Electron beams can ionize or otherwise contaminate the
object. Scanning probes can move the positions of objects.
Photons, eg, X-rays, can likewise damage and ionize
specimens. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px;">That
is where observations are observer-centric. Workers in those
fields are making advances to reduce the observer effect. More
than one microscopist has been embarrassed to have it pointed
out to them that an observed effect was an artifact of their
preparation or use of the instrument.</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px;">Ultimately
that becomes the science behind Heisenberg’s uncertainty
principle. Some things simply can’t be measured more
accurately than is possible with the only tools we have
available to us.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Regarding the
discussions on Einstein’s relativity theories. Einstein did
indeed develop those from purely mathematical considerations.
This is different from what was proposed above. Without
knowledge of the science involved, many people neither
understand nor believe it. IMHO the toroidal or rotating photon
model for the structure of matter provides the scientific basis
for the special relativity theory (SRT) corrections. When that
is applied, it covers all observations so far encountered. In
other words it works. </div>
<br>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign">It
does not need a universal rest point. Indeed the relativity
aspect of the theory comes about because everything is viewed
relative to the observer. Different observers don’t change what
is happening. They see the same distant event differently.
Although all observers measuring the same local event (eg, the
speed of light), will get the same result in their local frame.</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign"><font
size="3">There is no twin paradox. If you </font>consider just
one part of the situation, comparing clocks at different
velocity, you may run into problems if you don’t make the
appropriate allowances for redshift (blue shift) as well as SRT
corrections. Those calculations are not easy. To some it becomes
easier to visualize the situation when allowance is made for a
"fixed point" in space. As far as the “twins" are concerned,
that "fixed point” can be set at the last time they were
together and had their clock’s synchronized. Their independent
motions will be governed by the SRT corrections. When they again
meet up the differences between the two clocks will determine
who has travelled fastest. </div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign">Under
any other situation you must take into account other factors. If
at rest with each other some distance apart, there is the time
delay between photon emission and detection that will give
different times. If they are traveling at different speeds you
need add the Doppler corrections to the distance corrections.
They are not necessarily simple calculations. </div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign">When
all of those things are taken into consideration you will find
the calculations show there is no “twin paradox”. Similarly
there is no “twin paradox” when the two meet again at rest wrt
each other, even if it is not at their starting point or
velocity. The SRT corrections will determine which of them
travelled the furtherest, i.e., went at the fastest speed. Any
point in space and any velocity (wrt another observer) can be
used as that reference point. There is no absolute reference
point or velocity in free space and none is needed when you
understand SRT.</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign">There
is no "twin paradox". There is no need to consider alternatives
to Einstein’s SRT. It matches all observations to which it has
been subjected. Those who wish to determine another explanation
are quite welcome to try. IMHO they should consider that their
inability to understand a topic does not make that topic wrong.
The only thing that makes it wrong is the lack of agreement with
experiment. The “twin paradox” is not one of those situations
when all factors are considered. </div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign">Cheers,</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024" class="bloop_sign">Vivian
Robinson</div>
<br>
<p class="airmail_on">On 15 July 2017 at 7:55:50 AM, Chip Akins (<a
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">chipakins@gmail.com</a>)
wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span>
<div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div><!--[if !mso]><![endif]--><!--[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="MsoNormal">Hi Wolf </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am not interested in such an
observer-centric theory. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I find it illogical, given all the
different ways we can test such a theory, and the fact
that almost all of the results of such tests tell us
that this just is not the way the universe is made.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Frankly I do not want to waste any
more of my time on it. I think you are grasping at
straws with this one. I think it is only fair that I
be honest with you about this.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This sort of “way out there”
approach has a certain popularity and appeal with some
personality types, and regrettably many of those
“types” wind up in “science” <b>looking for the
bizarre</b>, instead of looking for the sound,
solid, logical, simple, and explainable.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Virtual particles, simultaneous
superposition of states, wavefuction collapse, and
this belief that the observer plays such an important
role, are in my opinion, fantasies, which will be
laughable, and subjects of derision, once we come to
better understand our universe </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Other than this subject, I have
enjoyed our discussions, and find your contributions
valuable and often insightful. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>Chip</p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 14, 2017 4:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] JW on STR twin
Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Chip and Graham:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Chip: First I would like to agree with your agreement
regarding Special relativity: "But I do agree that
Special Relativity, as written and discussed by
Einstein himself, has a fundamental paradoxical
logical inconsistency, which cannot be explained away
by layers of additional “interpretation” of his
theory." This was my original intent. First 1) to show
that inconsistencies exist in SRT , second 2) to show
that GRT was one avenue of development that utilizes
gravity and acceleration to address the problems in
SRT and to forward our understanding of gravity, and
thirdly 3) to open the door for new directions. I did
not anticipate getting blind sided by alternative
interpretations that then did not further the
discussion into step two and three. At least not in a
step by step logical way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Chip second: "When several “observers” read the data
then collected and communicate about that data, it is
clear to us that we have all viewed the same data. It
is therefore quite ridiculous to assume that we, the
“observers”, had a notable effect on the outcome of
the automated experiment weeks earlier." It is
ridiculous only within the context of an Aristotelian
framework of reality in which one assumes there is a
thing called "the same data". What if Plato, Kant and
to some extent quantum theory is correct and the data
no matter how or when it is viewed is and always has
been in the eye of the beholder? Then the observer
does influence the outcome of the experiment because
for him the data he sees<b> is reality</b> and that
reality will depend upon how he sees it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>The question I ask myself is can a useful and
quantitative physics be built without "the same data"
assumption. In philosophy this is called the "naive
reality" assumption and Aristotle's view that we are
looking out through the windows of our senses at an
objective real world has won the day for 500 years and
it seem ridiculous to challenge all the greats who
have come to this conclusion. But that is what I am
doing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Graham; First If you feel that your exchange with
Albrecht was "<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">as
specifically limited to physical realities" </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">and
want to stay within the limits of your definition of
physical realities and exclude how </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">the
nature of perception, and your(my) truism that
perception is a tool of the conscious mind, </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">effects
and to a large extent determines our physical
theories (which I believe is at the center of
understanding both SRT and GRT and why they are
incompatible with quantum theory) then I am sorry I
interjected my comments into your discussion. Please
keep taking and I'll just listen quietly.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">However
I find it very important to have a polite foil to
discuss what I believe is the greatest of the grand
challenges confronting science - i.e. the
unification of subjective and subjective experience
into a new integrated theory not of every thing, but
of every action.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Graham2; Your second paragraph includes the typical
words "<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">an
observer or measuring device moving with that object
will draw conclusions (by human inference or
solid-state logic) that the object is at rest (and
therefore they are also) - wholly as a consequence
of their/its own physical makeup being altered by
that state of motion. Likewise that moving
observer/device will assess an objectively static
object (such as an atom) as being in a state of
motion, for exactly the same reason." </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The
key here is "observer or measuring device moving
with" I am only talking about an observer. A
measuring device only relays information someone
must be at the end of the chain to realize the
information. The observer is </span><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">in</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> the
measuring device, he cannot get out. He receives
information and translates it into his mental
display. Both the apparently stationary object
"moving with the observer" and any apparently
moving object in his display will be subject to the
Lonrentz transformations BECAUSE these appearances
are always created in the medium of that observers
mind. I believe it is a grave error to treat the
properties of the mind as an objective independent
reality. But everyone does it until Now! </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Graham3:
I have no disagreement with your reciprocity
argument. I only wanted to point out that in both
the cases the human observer experiences his motion
relative to the radiation source in his own display
space. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Graham
4: "</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">philosophers
arguing about how many angels can dance on the point
of a needle!" </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">makes
perfect sense to people who believe in god, heaven,
and angels as the stake your life on it truth.
Physicists arguing about what two measuring objects
will conclude about each other also makes perfect
sense to people who believe observers can ride
along with them and see them as independent
external objects without recognizing that they (the
observers) are doing the seeing that creates these
objects.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I'll
try to get a copy of the relativity myth , sounds
like a good starting point for my 3d) effort
introduced in paragraph 1 above.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Best
wishes</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Wolf</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 7/12/2017 6:27 PM, Chip Akins
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When a measurement is taken, of
any subatomic process, an interaction is required.
Whether that interaction is caused by a sentient
observer, or an assembly of electronic
instrumentation, the requirement for interaction is
the same. This is an elementary issue, because if
we are made of atoms and molecules, which are made
of particles, and we want to study particles, we
must somehow interact with that which we wish to
study. And interaction will cause a change of state
of the particle we study. We simply do not have any
tools to study particles without having a
significant effect on the particles we study.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To assume that interactions
require observation in order to occur is logically
flawed. And to assume that the observer plays a
larger role that just that of interaction is also
therefore locically flawed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We can build instrumentation
which automatically records events, and then, weeks
later, or longer, we can first review the data which
was collected. We can do this in a repeatable
fashion, and expect the same or very similar
results.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When several “observers” read the
data then collected and communicate about that data,
it is clear to us that we have all viewed the same
data. It is therefore quite ridiculous to assume
that we, the “observers”, had a notable effect on
the outcome of the automated experiment weeks
earlier. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The assumption of uncertainty,
and of multiple simultaneous superposition of
states, is simply due to our lack of full knowledge
of the state of the system studied.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The universe has taught us that
there is a cause for each effect. The mistaken
assumption that the observe plays a larger role than
just causing interactions upon observation, was
fostered by other, previous, mistaken assumptions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One thing which seems to be a
common goal of this group is to try to remove the
mistaken assumptions and see what that says, and
where that leads.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have read your comments and
discussions regarding an observer centric universe.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sorry I cannot agree. Too many
logical problems which that approach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But I do agree that Special
Relativity, as written and discussed by Einstein
himself, has a fundamental paradoxical logical
inconsistency, which cannot be explained away by
layers of additional “interpretation” of his theory.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As Grahame, and many of us, have
mentioned, there is a form of relativity which is
causal, and without paradox.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></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:Wolf@nascentinc.com">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">"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>
</body>
</html>