<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>following is my response to your mail and your requirements
stated:<br>
</p>
<p>Point 1) Logically we do not know whether there is a reality
where physical processes happen, or if there is nothing like that.
But if there would be nothing like that, then our considerations
about physics would not have any value and we should stop thinking
immediately, it would only be a waste of effort. Also your
consideration that this world only happens in our consciousness
does not give any help in my view. Because if it should be true
that our consciousness is not able to understand the reality, how
can we assume that this consciousness can understand itself? This
looks like a vicious circle.<br>
</p>
<p>Point 2) Do we interpret our experimental results correctly? This
question is an old one and in my understanding the physicists have
asked this question all the time. And not only asked but also
worked to identify errors. - During my studies of physics we did
have lectures here about this topic. And also this topic follows
the philosophy of the last centuries. So, this is not really a new
topic.</p>
<p>And further: For you the question of a constancy of c seems to be
an essential topic. But don't you overrate this fact? We have
physical approaches based on a constancy of c and others based on
a variable c. In Einstein's GRT the local c is constant but the
"coordinate speed of light" as measured by Shapiro is variable.
And the famous paper of Andreas Albrecht and Joao Magueijo, "A
time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles,
Phys.Rev.D59:043516,1999"<br>
<br>
shows that our physical world view will not considerably change if
a varying c is assumed. <br>
</p>
<p>I still have the impression that there is some misunderstanding
of relativity in your mind (we did have a lot of discussion about
this) and you are using your understanding as a general argument
against present physics. My recommendation is to work towards a
deeper understanding of relativity.<br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 17.07.2017 um 08:45 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b1b04131-d49a-5932-49d0-bde2a3090e27@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>TO Viv, Graham, Chip, Albrecht ... etc.</p>
<p>I am willing to accept Viv's challenge in her 7/15/2017 reply
that states " State the science behind it. Then use mathematics
to show that the effect of the science matches observation."</p>
<p>This has been my goal all along. However to have any chance of
acceptance I must ask for two conditions that will grantee a
fair playing field of open minds.</p>
<p>1) You must be able to accept the statement "What happens on a
macro scale, happens whether anyone is looking or
not.".(7/4/2017) as an assumption that itself needs proof rather
than an a-priory truth <br>
</p>
<p>2) Experimental proof i.e. predictions match observations; Must
allow me to include the interpretation of experimental results
without the a-priory assumption #1 stated above. <br>
</p>
<p>If you do not agree to these two conditions then any theory or
experimental result justifying the theory will be interpreted
under the requirement of consistentcy with the a priory
assumption #1 in a kind of circular self fulfilling logic that
now new idea can ever hope to penetrate. In this case it would
be better not to bother communicating on fundamental issues.</p>
<p>Specifically Viv You state : "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." I have no reference
to this conjecture and no entry in my E-mail list from you
addressing this approach but it describes my approach very well
and please provide references again.</p>
<p>If I get some agreement I will be writing a mathematical
appendix to a book I am writing for Routledge Press that is
intended to describe an action theory formulation of physics
that will reduce to both quantum and classic theory and
therefore be compatible with all experimental verification of
these disciplines with the additional property that the
conscious experience is explicitly included in the theory. <br>
</p>
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a 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 7/16/2017 10:26 AM, Chip Akins
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:013b01d2fe58$a1b53430$e51f9c90$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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;}
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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal, li.ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal, div.ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal
{mso-style-name:ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal;
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;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle22
{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">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thank you Eric<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I need to
review your work on this as well. And compare your
thought to the results of the research I have been doing
on electric charge, fields, and displacement of space.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip<o:p></o:p></span></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"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Eric Reiter<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 16, 2017 12:10 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Photon Emission - Space<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">If
anyone talks about continuous absorption, explosive
emission, you need to include my work. I reported
the only experiments that demonstrate this effect at
your conference; a good theory also. There was no
feedback from hardly anyone. Wolf came to my lab
and saw it. Do my letters reach other blog members
or is it filtered? Please, the model of the
photon does not allow for continuous absorption.
Call it light.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Thank
you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Eric
Reiter <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">
<hr size="2" align="center" width="100%"></span></div>
<div id="ydpdb0fddc0yahoo_quoted_0618162421">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">On
Sunday, July 16, 2017, 10:04:04 AM PDT,
Roychoudhuri, Chandra <<a
href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div id="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059">
<div>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#280E70">Chip:
Excellent!</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#280E70">Thanks
for contacting me on the “dipole” issue. </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#280E70">I
am going to do some searching to find the
latest/best article on “abrupt dipole
transition in emission”, which then evolves
into a classical wave packet. The other
model is, “dipole quantum cup”, in
absorption. However, my thoughts
(expressions) on these topics are still in
the process of evolving (not moving away
though!).</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#280E70">Chandra.
</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div id="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059yqt53076">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 16, 2017
8:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion' <<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] Photon
Emission - Space</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Hi
Chandra<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">I
recall you mentioning something about
light being emitted or absorbed by <b>dipoles</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">My
work, on electric charge as a displacement
of the tensor medium of space, has been
quite productive and yields remarkably
accurate results. But it seems to
indicate that a dipole field may be
required for the emission or absorption of
energy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Can
you elaborate on your thoughts on this
topic? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Is
there a reference to a paper where you
discuss this?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">This
“tensor medium of space” approach explains
exactly why the binding energy for
hydrogen is 13.6eV, but it also suggests
that there are specific requirements for
radiation and absorption which go beyond
the simple suggestion that “an accelerated
charge radiates”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">I
think that is a good thing, because it
also explains why electrons in “orbit” in
an atom do not continuously radiate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <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="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame
Blackwell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 16, 2017
5:22 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion <<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
Consciousness, time etc</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Wolf,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Of
all the various emails flying about, I
had to respond immediately to this one.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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"
target="_blank" 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" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425</a> .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">All
the best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Grahame<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">-----
Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"
style="background:#E4E4E4"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">
<a href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
target="_blank"
title="wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Wolfgang Baer</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">
<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">
Sunday, July 16, 2017 7:46 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">
Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Grahame;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">I
agree we need to stop the ping pong. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">And
I have to digest "Layers of Reality"
since it is an intriguing title and as
such could reflect much of my own
thinking.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">best<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Wolf<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre><span style="color:#26282A">Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#26282A">Research Director<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#26282A">Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#26282A">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#26282A">E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">On
7/15/2017 9:07 AM, Dr Grahame
Blackwell wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Wolf
(and Chip),<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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" target="_blank"
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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">With
those points in mind, I have
responded, Wolf, to your comments to
me, under those comments, in maroon
text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Grahame<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
navy 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">-----
Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"
style="background:#E4E4E4"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">
<a
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
target="_blank"
title="wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Wolfgang
Baer</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">
<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">
Friday, July 14, 2017 10:02 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">
Re: [General] JW on STR twin
Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Chip
and Graham:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Graham;
First If you feel that your exchange
with Albrecht was "as specifically
limited to physical realities" and
want to stay within the limits of
your definition of physical
realities and exclude how the nature
of perception, and your(my) truism
that perception is a tool of the
conscious mind, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Graham2;
Your second paragraph includes the
typical words "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." 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 <b>in</b>
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!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
navy 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">in</span></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><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">same</span></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><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">how</span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
navy 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Graham
4: "philosophers arguing about how
many angels can dance on the point
of a needle!" 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
navy 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">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!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">G<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Best
wishes<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">Wolf<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre><span style="color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p
class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<pre><span style="color:#26282A">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#26282A">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#26282A"><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#26282A">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#26282A"></a><o:p></o:p></span></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center" align="center"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">
<hr size="2" align="center" width="100%"></span></div>
<p class="ydpdb0fddc0yiv7825678059msonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">grahame@starweave.com</a><br>
<a href="<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ydpdb0fddc0yqt55795">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#26282A">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication
from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at <a
href="mailto:unquant@yahoo.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">unquant@yahoo.com</a><br>
<a href="<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<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 src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>