<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Graham:</p>
<p>If we agree that Consciousness is the ultimate substrate then our
main disagreement is whether or not neglecting this fact has lead
us to some, and perhaps significant false conclusions regarding
the nature of reality <br>
</p>
<p>I agree with your wood analogy. Once we have the underlying
property (cellular structure) correctly identified we do not
need to keep referring to it when using wood. <br>
</p>
<p>But do we have the fundamentals of space , time, material
correct. In the SRT GRT case we are told that the speed of light
is constant and all theories after Einstein must conform to this
"truth". If the speed of light is actually he speed of EM
phenomena specifically determined by the material situation that
generates conscious awareness of space in that material, then we
will get the same mathematical relationships but our understanding
of the cause will be based on a completely different concept of
reality. <br>
</p>
<p>Best, 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 7/16/2017 3:21 AM, Dr Grahame
Blackwell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:46AD3014BAA2411D86F427C06A915B51@vincent">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Wolf,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Of all the
various emails flying about, I had to respond immediately to
this one.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I really DON'T
reject your contention - indeed I agree with it 100%!
Consciousness is the ultimate substrate, IMO - it's the
'ocean' in which all the 'fish' (physical phenomena) swim, and
indeed all of those 'fish' are themselves woven by
consciousness (mixing my metaphors a bit here!). More than
this, time and space (spatial dimensions) are themselves
constructs of consciousness. My point is simply: accepting
all of that, we don't need to keep referring to it (any more
than we need to keep referring back to the breed of sheep that
our sweater initially comes from!) in order to discuss and
analyse physical effects. YES, those physical effects ARE
created and sustained by consciousness - but in a coherent and
consistent way, subject to 'physical laws' (defined and given
form by consciousness, sure - but we can take that as read
without constantly referring back to it). So we can reason in
respect of those 'physical realities' in respect of the
'physical laws' that are built into them. In the same way, we
all agree that a log cabin is made of wood, which has a
cellular structure; but once we have ascertained the
properties of the wood we're using, we can carve it into
different shapes, make roof timbers, structural supports etc
of it without having to constantly remind ourselves that it
originally came from a tree with these types of leaves and
this particular cellular structure - though the cellular
structure is crucial to the properties of the wood, we can
take and use those properties 'as they turn out', without
having to relate them constantly to that cell structure. So
it is, in my view, with 'space-time' properties of 'physical
realities' (given that they are in fact constructs of
constructs of constructs of ... ultimately, consciousness).</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">With regard to
your note in light blue, you may be surprised also to hear
that I have for some long time held the view that you have
expressed (I think), namely that time is the consequence of
the experience of consciousness sequentially along energy
lines [the issue of 'sequential' as a causation of time rather
than a consequence is a difficult one, but not impossible to
conceptualise, as I do in the following items]. You may be
interested in my article: 'Time, Light and Consciousness',
published by the SMN ten years ago <a
href="http://transfinitemind.com/SMN_article.php"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://transfinitemind.com/SMN_article.php</a> (see
my 4th para: "time is the process of consciousness moving
along energy lines") , also my blog post: 'Time doesn't exist:
a step-by-step proof' <a
href="http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425</a> .</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Thanks for taking
such trouble to put your ideas across. I'm sure we're on the
same page - just looking at that page from a slightly
different angle.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">All the best,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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="wolf@nascentinc.com"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolfgang
Baer</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><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 style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 16, 2017
7:46 AM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] JW
on STR twin Paradox</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p>Grahame;</p>
<p>I agree we need to stop the ping pong. <br>
</p>
<p>And I have to digest "Layers of Reality" since it is an
intriguing title and as such could reflect much of my own
thinking.</p>
<p>That you reject my contention that your personal conscious
perception space underlies and always provides the aether in
which all objects you percieve exist including the clock and
the observer riding along with it , and therefore is in my
opinion missing key to understanding SRT and GRT and
precisely relevant to your discussion with Albrecht, is for me
sad but I assume it is because i'm not making myself clear.
I'll try to put a better formulation together and get back in
a few weeks. Can't help making a last comment to your comment
in blue below.</p>
<p>best</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" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/15/2017 9:07 AM, Dr Grahame
Blackwell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:809EBC314BBE478DBB589A6C0067840B@vincent"
type="cite">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Wolf (and
Chip),</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">First and
most important point: I have no wish or intention to get
drawn into the sort of 'email ping-pong' (aka
'tit-for-tat') that I've watched going on here over this
issue, so I'll try to address these points simply with
facts as I see them - no blame, no criticism, just
observations.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Second: the
fact that I propose that certain phenomena can be
explained in a wholly mechanistic way, without reference
to consciousness, doesn't mean that I don't regard
consciousness as having a part to play in the
perceptual/cognitive process - far from it. In my view
consciousness is absolutely key to anything we perceive or
analyse; however, in my view also, consciousness has
provided/evolved for itself perceptual and analytical
tools that behave in a totally consistent way; therefore,
for analytical purposes we can regard measurements and
conclusions as being 'so' (i.e. actuality) at a certain
level, we don't need to agonise over how consciousness has
provided us with them or what underlies them. [Some may
find my talk: 'Layers of Reality' useful to understand my
take on such things: <a
href="http://transfinitemind.com/layers_of_reality.php"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://transfinitemind.com/layers_of_reality.php</a> , username:
xxxxx , password: xxxxx .] I believe, Wolf, that if you
were aware of my own view on how central consciousness is
to the whole process, it would surprise even you.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">With those
points in mind, I have responded, Wolf, to your comments
to me, under those comments, <font color="#800000">in
maroon text.</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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="wolf@nascentinc.com"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolfgang
Baer</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><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 style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 14,
2017 10:02 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
JW on STR twin Paradox</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p>Chip and Graham:</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.</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.</p>
<p><br>
</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.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Graham; First If you feel that your exchange with
Albrecht was "<font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">as
specifically limited to physical realities" <font
color="#000000">and want to stay within the limits of
your definition of physical realities and exclude how
</font></font><font face="Arial" color="#000080"
size="2">the nature of perception, and your(my) truism
that perception is a tool of the conscious mind, <font
color="#000000">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.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#800000" size="2">Wolf, I am by
no means dismissing your observations on consciousness
as irrelevant to the issue of perception - far from it.
I'm simply observing that the phenomena that Albrecht
and I have been discussing can be explained fully
satisfactorily in terms of mechanistic interactions,
without resorting to how consciousness interprets those
interactions. In simple terms, using my idea of 'layers
(or levels) of reality' we are simply discussing 'facts'
as presented to our brains for analysis - trusting that
consciousness uses a consistent, coherent and useful
form in which to convey those 'facts' (i.e.deeper
realities) to our mental processing circuits, given that
consciousness and those processing circuits are all on
the same side! In this respect, introducing
consideration of how consciousness has processed those
deeper realities in order to present those 'facts' to
our brains in a more digestible format is to introduce
an unnecessary and (IMO) unhelpful level of complexity
to this issue. Certainly there is a time and a place
for discussion of consciousness - but (again IMO) this
is not it.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2"><font
color="#000000">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.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#800000" size="2">I agree that
that is indeed very important - but it's not the subject
of the conversation that Albrecht and I were having -
that's all I was trying to say.</font></p>
<p>Graham2; Your second paragraph includes the typical words
"<font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080">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." <font
color="#000000">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
</font></font></font></font><font face="Arial"
color="#000080"><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font
color="#000000"><b>in</b></font></font></font><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font color="#000000">
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!</font></font></font></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid;
PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font
size="2"><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font
color="#000000"><font color="#800000">A measuring
device provides information in a format determined
by, and so capable of assimilation by, an
observer. In that respect I fully agree that the
observer (or a former observer who constructed the
device) is <strong>in</strong> the measuring
device, and what the observer takes away from that
device is as much in the perception of that
observer as it is in the device itself. However,
I repeat: the consciousness that constructed the
device is the <strong>same</strong> consciousness
as that which is making use of the measurements it
provides - and both are working to the same aim.
So, just as one who knitted a sweater and one who
wears the sweater are both well aware of the
intrinsic composition of the sweater (interwoven
strands of wool, taken from a sheep then cleaned
and dyed and spun), but neither need to be
troubled by that detail when selling or wearing
the sweater, neither consciousness nor the brain
need to agonise over <strong>how</strong> those
data came to be served up in that form, they can
simply be processed as facts - at the level of
logical reasoning (again, see my piece on 'layers
of reality'). The question of 'how those facts
came to be in that form' is of great interest -
but it's a separate question from the one
currently at hand.</font></font></font></font></font><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font color="#000000"><br>
</font></font></font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3333ff" size="2"><font face="Arial">I do not
understand your logic. When referring to an observer riding
along with the clock one assumes that observer measures the
same reality as the conceiver of the thought experiment put
into the space in which the clock and the observer is
conceived. This equating the ride along observer's
observations with the "reality" built into the thought
experimenter's space is an example of the "naive reality'
assumption. Einstein assumed his perceptive space was
reality and of course the speed of light in that reality
would be what ever it is "c" , and all observers must get
the same result when they measure any quantity in that
reality because that is the reality and there is only one
correct one. There is nothing inconsistent or illogical
about SRT or GRT once one accepts the assumption that the
speed of light is an independent of the observer objective
fact. That is the assumption I question and it is quite
relevant to your discussion with Albrecht. </font></font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:809EBC314BBE478DBB589A6C0067840B@vincent"
type="cite">
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid;
PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<p><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font color="#000000">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.</font></font></font></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font color="#000000"><font
color="#800000">Agreed. That's exactly why it's
essential to consider what effect a state of
motion has on that display space, in purely
physical terms. This is what I have done.</font></font></font></font></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font color="#000000">Graham
4: "</font></font></font></font><font face="Arial"
color="#000080"><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font
size="2">philosophers arguing about how many angels
can dance on the point of a needle!" <font
color="#000000">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.</font></font></font></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid;
PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
color="#800000">Wolf, there is the world of
difference between 100% hypothetical entities such
as angels and 100% physical experiences such as
travelling alongside an object and taking
measurements of it. Assuredly the latter is a level
of perception that is unquestionably quite a few
layers above that of ultimate reality (if such
exists), however it is also something that falls
within the remit of physical experience and is
therefore fair game for physical analysis (even if
we accept - as I do - that what we are analysing is
an effect of an effect of an effect ... it is still
self-consistent and so susceptible to analysis -
unlike angels)</font><br>
</font></font></font>
<p><font size="2"><font face="Arial">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.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#800000" size="2">Wolf, I'm
most flattered that you consider that my culmination of
20 years' work may be a good starting point for one of
your hypotheses. As long as you give due attribution
for every point of mine that you make use of, you can be
as condescending as you like!</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#800000" size="2">G</font></p>
<p><font size="2"><font face="Arial">Best wishes</font></font></p>
<p><font size="2"><font face="Arial">Wolf</font></font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"> </pre>
<blockquote
cite="mid:023301d2fb77$3f24ebf0$bd6ec3d0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15
(filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
..shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<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:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
...MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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"> </div>
</blockquote>
</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" 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>
<p> </p>
<hr> _______________________________________________<br>
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:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a><br>
<a
href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><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: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>