<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>viv;</p>
<p>If you can say that "The micro to femto etc realm, like the macro
realm. does what it does, irrespective of an observer. The act of
observation requires an interaction by objects in that realm.
Those interactions can change the result, generating artifacts.' <br>
</p>
<p>Are those artifacts not exactly the data we use to construct our
reality belief of the femto to macro realm and therefore our
reality belief is observer dependent.</p>
<p>What am I missing?<br>
</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 7/15/2017 6:46 PM, Viv Robinson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:etPan.596ac585.60dac608.25c@etpsemra.com.au">
<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;">Hi Chip,</div>
<br>
I agree with you. The micro to femto etc realm, like the macro
realm. does what it does, irrespective of an observer. The act of
observation requires an interaction by objects in that realm.
Those interactions can change the result, generating artifacts.
Observer-centric was a bit overboard on my part. It was used only
in the context that the observer can affect some results
sometimes.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Viv<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<p class="airmail_on">On 16 July 2017 at 8:26:20 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 link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div><!--[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"><span style="color:black">Hi
Viv<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span>We
are on a similar track regarding much of the
explainable aspects of physics.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">One
thing that seems to have been taken out of
context, I feel, is the “observers” role in the
study of subatomic particles.</span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Interactions
cause changes, obviously. The only tools we
have to study subatomic particles are
interactions. Therefore, when we measure
something, we change its state, simply because
we must interact with it to measure it. Whether
the measurement is taken as a visual impulse in
the observer’s eye, or by some other
instrumentation, it causes an interaction, and
changes the thing measured.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Interactions
occur continuously in nature, in the absence of
an observer as well. Therefore, while it is
true that making an observation requires
interaction, which changes the state of the
particle we are measuring, that does not mean
that the subatomic universe is
observer-centric. The universe continues to do
what it does whether we observe it or not. When
we observe, or do anything else, we cause
disturbances at the subatomic level, but that
does not mean the universe is created by our
minds or actions. It does mean that we can have
at least a small effect on portions of the
universe.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">So my
feeling is that the universe would continue to
exist if all physical observers were removed,
and that the interactions we cause by
observation are just and only that.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Warmest
Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></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">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
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>Viv Robinson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, July 15, 2017 2:49 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin
Paradox and other matters</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Wolf,</span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Thank
you for your response. In my presentation you
will see that I have acknowledged that events
in the micro world are observer centric. If
you believe it can be proven in the macro
world as well you should do as I have
suggested. State the science behind it. Then
use mathematics to show that the effect of the
science matches observation. Without that
everything is mere conjecture, discussion
about which can, and do, go on endlessly. </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Reality
is a universe in which there are three space
dimensions and time. It is populated by empty
space with electric permittivity and magnetic
permeability, photons and particles.
Experimental science has observed all those
things. Physics is about exploring how they
interact to produce what is observed. </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">I
do not find any physical or conjectural
difficulties in using those properties to
explain what is observed. I further suggest
that classical physics, i.e. Newton's
mechanics and Maxwell’s electromagnetism, form
the basis of the physical world. Apply
Newtonian mechanics to properties of the
photon as I outlined a while ago and you get
general relativity. Most people can’t
calculate the precession of Mercury’s orbit
around the sun. However you will find it is
directly related to the redshift z of photons
emitted by sun and traveling between Mercury
and Earth orbits. General relativity has a
sound physical basis.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">SRT
and quantum effects are due to the toroidal or
rotating photon model of matter. Those
calculations are complex. But they have a
sound physical basis, namely classical physics
and the photon, and they do match observation.
The first example was Planck’s derivation of
the emission spectra of black body radiation.
Classical electromagnetism led to a runaway
cascade at high temperature. Applying the
quantum of energy, the photon, to Maxwell’s
work correctly predicted the observed
radiation spectra. IMHO the same applies for
other aspects of physics that many people find
difficult to comprehend.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">If
you wish to convince people that the macro
world is observer dependent, please state the
physics behind the interaction between the
observer and the effect it causes. Then use
mathematics to show that the magnitude of the
effect matches observation. Without those you
will find it difficult to convince others,
myself included, that there is validity to
your assumption. Remember that the observers
in special and general relativity situations
will get different answers from observing the
same phenomena from different perspectives.
That does not men those observers affected the
outcome.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Having
said the above, you are entitled to continue
your study. Until such time as you can clearly
and distinctly state the physical principle
involved and use mathematics to show that the
effect matches observation, do not be offended
or surprised if you continue to receive
negative comments about your work. Remember
Einstein is still being criticized for his
theories over a century after he first
published, even though his calculations match
observation. That criticism is due to people
not understanding the physics involved. Those
like myself who do understand the physics have
no problem with his relativity theories.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Cheers,</span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Vivian
Robinson</span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="airmailon"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">On
15 July 2017 at 4:26:10 PM, Wolfgang Baer (<a
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>)
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Viv:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">I
refer to the writings of Henry Stapp and Hugh
Everett <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Best
wishes,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Wolf<o:p></o:p></span></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"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">On
7/14/2017 7:04 PM, Viv Robinson wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Dear
All,</span><span style="font-family:
Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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 or not 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><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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 and similar
failed theories.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;">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. </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">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. </span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">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.</span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.</span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">There
is no twin paradox. If you </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;">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. </span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;">Cheers,</span></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;">Vivian Robinson</span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="airmailon"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hi
Wolf <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
am not interested in such an
observer-centric theory. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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 <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in
0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<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>