<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Albrecht: <br>
<p>I got the paper from and read it. Andreas Albrecht and Joao
Magueijo, "A time varying speed of light as a solution to
cosmological puzzles, Phys.Rev.D59:043516,1999" If course it is
interesting that a varying "c' can be used to give an alternative
explanation of the period between the big bang and when the first
radiation could emerge this for me is where physicists discuss the
equivalent of the angles on the head of a pin. I just this weekend
had school friend of one of my sons over who spent Summers in
Anartica to explore evidence of expansion in the Cosmic Background
Radiation - he did a lot of work but could not answer he basic
questions with anything but that a lot of smart people must have
thought deeply about it. <br>
</p>
<p>but I found the introduction to the Phys REv paper most
intriguing the discussion of the issue of how to actually make an
experiment that measures the speed of light and the ambiguity
between the unit of measure and the thing being measured when both
may change quite relevant to SRT. As well as Viv's objection to my
interpretation condition. Since they said interpretation and
preference is critical to defining what one choses to be the
fundamental constants in the first place.</p>
<p>I'll answer some related points to other responses</p>
<p>thanks and best wishes</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/17/2017 6:27 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:561b8ae1-7a49-465a-ad79-47d8218d86a9@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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 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>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">"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;">
<tbody>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29" width="46"></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;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>