<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Viv and Albrecht:</p>
<p>1) sorry all I know is what I can interpret from the information
I get given my internal structure and yes I have only encountered
the first name Viv for females , My grand daughter is an example.
Sorry, and thanks for the correction.</p>
<p>2) I sounds like neither of you two are willing to entertain the
two conditions I lay out for an even playing field discussion of
fundamental physics.</p>
<p>On point 1 Albrecht feels without a firm objective reality,
independent of our observations, there would be no physics and no
need to talk further <br>
</p>
<p> Viv states supernova 1 billion light years away are
facts proven by experiment and they obviously happened independent
of the observer, so independent objective reality
is already a proven fact and there is no need to discuss it
further<br>
</p>
<p>On point 2 Albrecht says including the interpretations is well
known, it is done there is nothing new to be learned.</p>
<p> Viv rejects it because he is afraid I can prove
anything if I am allowed to chose my own interpretation. Unstated
in Viv's dismissal is the assumption that he is
able to prove anything he wants because he has already chosen
the only correct interpretation.</p>
<p>Ok so this is not the forum to discuss fundamental assumptions
underlying our physical theories. Fine! I have no problem sticking
to experiments, in a forum that calls itself the "Nature of
Light" , just thought I'd try something a bit more fundamental.</p>
<p>So let me leave you with the following experiment. Take a
vacation to a worm climate and in the evening go to the beach and
lay down in the sand and look up at the sky. You will see
thousands of points of light. It is a magnificent and awe
inspiring spectacle. Some of you will say, "I am seeing thousands
of stars, galaxies, and if I'm lucky perhaps a supernova or two
that happened billions of years ago'. Others will say, "I am
seeing interactions in my retina that I interpret in my model of
the universe in which I've given names like stars, galaxies and
perhaps supernova as explanations to interactions happening right
here and now'. Some of you will feel like the stars are up there
high above light hears away. Others will say, "the stars are down
there and I'm hanging on the bottom of a ball with gravity pulling
up'. Perhaps feeling a moment of panic lest the force release you
fall into the void. As you stare longer and longer some of you
will see patterns. A great warrior , a leaning maiden, a sparkling
twinkle. Others will see thermal oscillations diffracting photons.
<br>
</p>
<p>To which group do you belong? To which group do you think I
belong?</p>
<p>Well to answer my own question I would modestly suggest that I
have had strong and deep experiences in both camps, and the one
thing I've come to understand is that there is no right or wrong
here, only the fact that the human Brain is a major organ that
determines how we see things and what theory we believe to explain
our experiences. If we do not understand the instrument with which
we explore the world our theories are simply self consistent
symbol structures based upon a layer of irrational assumptions. So
to further explain the basis of my challenge I've attached a paper
that will be published in the August issue of 'the Journal of
Consciousness Studies. Please do not disseminate since it is
copyrighted by the Journal and limited to research purposes, which
this is one.</p>
<p>I have lots to do so I'm actually thankful no one has accepted my
proposal.</p>
<p>Best,</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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/17/2017 7:36 PM, Viv Robinson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:etPan.596d7454.119e3e2f.ce5@universephysics.com">
<style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Wolf,</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Please get
your facts correct. Vivian was a relatively common male name
that has been “hijacked” by women. You appear to have made the a
priori assumption that, because some women have the name Vivian,
all people with the name Vivian must be female. Not correct!</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Regarding my
statement "What happens on a macro scale, happens whether anyone
is looking or not” is accepted by most scientists. Super novae 1
billion light years away, happen whether astronomers observe
them or not. You need to provide evidence of how a super nova
would change because humans observed it a billion years later.
Using that as an example, you should show how humans observing a
super nova changed them. Without such proof it is difficult to
see how what you call an assumption is not supported by
observation. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Your points
are not acceptable. What you are requesting is “Assume my
statement is correct then I can prove it to you if you let me
interpret experimental results my way”. I am not going to try
to stop you from doing that in the case of a super nova event
from about one billion light years away. If your explanation is
not sound IMHO, don’t expect a response.</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Vivian
Robinson</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<p class="airmail_on">On 17 July 2017 at 4:46:41 PM, Wolfgang Baer
(<a href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>)
wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>
<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">
<!--[if !mso]><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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 width="100%" size="2" align="center"></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 width="100%" size="2"
align="center"></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>
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:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</a>
<br>
<a
href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe
<br>
</a>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>