<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>attached I have added here the original paper of Einstein from
1905 as a facsimile (so in German). I cannot find your equation in
his paper.</p>
<p>Regarding the change of c in a gravitational field: I have given
you several times the equation for that. So not a point of
discussion. But you complained in the other mail that you have
asked me half a dozen times for a measurement of the speed of
light, without response as you said. For this I have given you the
reference to my earlier mail where I referred to and explained the
permanent measurement of c in particle accelerators, particularly
in synchrotrons. Also in synchrotrons it follows from the
finiteness of c that the mass <i>m </i>increases with an
increasing energy of the particles. <br>
</p>
<p>Further questions?</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 31.07.2017 um 08:08 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0cb2c6ac-6257-05b8-4922-66c22f2e0af2@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>That equation waS copied out of Einsteins 1905 Paper , I gave
the book back to the Library and will have to order it again to
verify exactly the context Einstiein used it. It may be I copied
the formula wrong and Einstein actually wrote c = c<sub>0</sub>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
which the gives c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> +v<sup>2</sup>.</p>
<p>In any case if I multiply by the mass "m" of the particle and
takes the small velocity approximation one gets mc<sup>2</sup> =
mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
=~ mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>+1/2 mv<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>I believe the point I was trying to make is that the classic
Lagrangian = T-V which equals mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>+1/2 mv<sup>2
</sup>if mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>= -GmMu/Ru . So I'm saying if
we simply recognize that a mass "m" even stationary has a
gravitational potential inside the mass shell of the universe
then at least to terms v4/c4 a completely classic model actually
gives us all of the experimentally verified Relativity
predictions. <br>
</p>
<p>Furthermore if we write mc<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
then it is quite arbitrary to which parameter m<sub>0</sub> or c<sub>0
</sub>one apples the SRT correction to. You like applying it to
the mass and say that mass increases. I thought it makes more
sense to apply it to the speed of light <br>
</p>
<p>Whether I made a mistake in copying Einsteins formula or not
the argument I was trying to make is the same. The speed of
light depends upon the gravitational potential in which the
measurement of the speed of light is made, it is not constant</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p> <br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang
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 7/30/2017 12:00 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b029f006-e522-0df0-71f5-f5d2b7dc40d9@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>in my mail of July 6 I have explained that any particle
accelerator and particularly a synchrotron is a permanent
check for the speed of light, and in particular also a check
of the Lorentz transformation where it describes the behaviour
of an object being accelerated towards c. And that a behaviour
of physics regarding c different from the Lorentz
transformation would require a different design of particle
accelerators. So, the opinion of main stream regarded the
measured value of the speed of light is permanently confirmed.<br>
</p>
<p>And in your mail of July 4 you presented the following
equation for the speed of light:<br>
c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>).<br>
What ever the conditions for this equation should be, there
exist conditions for c to go to infinity. To this equation I
have referred. <br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 29.07.2017 um 08:21 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4c4116f9-1264-5123-93c1-d39644cc4036@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Clarification: <br>
</p>
<p> I have submitted equations in which the approximation of (
+2mm<sub>l</sub>G/r -2mc<sup>2</sup>- mv<sup>2</sup>)<sup>-1/2</sup>
=<sup> </sup>~ <sup> </sup>1/2 mv<sup>2</sup> + mc<sup>2</sup>
-mm<sub>l</sub>G/r</p>
<p>So that simply by recognizing that mc<sup>2 </sup>is the
classic potential energy inside a mass shell -m *Mu* G/Ru
ofthe Universe we get a very simple cosmology that is
completely consistent with all known experiments - the
assumption is simply that the speed of light as a surrogate
for the speed of all electromagnetic phenomena is dependent
upon the gravitational potential which was shown by
Shapiro's experiments. and light bending.and clock slow
downs. I interpret c<sup>2</sup> is the universe escape
velocity. <br>
</p>
<p>This does not mean the speed of light is infinite but only
that if we could get outside the mass shell in flat space
where the gravitational energy of the universe mass is zero
the speed of light is some reference c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
In both case the speed of lighjt and the energy is only
determined to an arbitrary reference constant what is
important is the relative energy or speed of light <br>
</p>
<p>I'm tired of not being recognized as an intelligent
physicist doing physics. I'm only claiming that the the
first order approximation is all I know that has been
experimentally verified length contraction and close to
speed of light experiments are only verified through
circular reasoning <br>
</p>
<p>I have asked Albrecht for references to experiments that
show otherwise a half dozen times but am always ignored <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/28/2017 8:54 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c5412a70-519c-b7ce-cfea-9c95bc84890b@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Chandra,</p>
<p>you have written here a lot of good and true
considerations; with most of them I can agree. However two
comments from my view:</p>
<p>1.) The speed of light: <br>
The speed of light when <i>measured in vacuum </i>shows
always a constant value. Einstein has taken this result as
a fact in so far that the real speed of light is constant.
However if we follow the Lorentzian interpretation of
relativity then only the <i>measured </i>c is constant.
It looks constant because, if the measurement equipment is
in motion, the instruments change their indications so
that the result shows the known constant value. - I
personally follow the Lorentzian relativity because in
this version the relativistic phenomena can be deduced
from known physical behaviour. So, it is true physics.<br>
</p>
<p>There is a different understanding of what Wolf thinks.
He has in the preceding discussion here given an equation,
according to which the speed of light can go up to
infinity. This is to my knowledge in conflict with any
measurement.<br>
</p>
<p>2) The quantisation of light:<br>
This was also discussed repeatedly here in these mails.
And I have (also) repeatedly referred to my PhD
experiment, which was Compton scattering at protons. An
electron of defined energy was converted into a photon.
The photon was scattered at a proton at extreme small
angles (so almost no influence) and then re-converted into
an electron-positron pair. This pair was measured and it
reproduced quite exactly (by better than 2 percent) the
energy of the originals electron. This was repeated for
electrons of different energies. - I do not see any
explanation for this process without the assumption that
there was a photon (i.e. a quantum) of a well defined
energy, not a light wave. <br>
</p>
<p>How does this fit into your understanding?</p>
<p>Best wishes<br>
Albrecht</p>
<p>PS: Can I find your book "Causal Physics" online?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 26.07.2017 um 18:52 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB323431CF49B41C7C99221EC393B90@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15
(filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Consolas",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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">Wolf: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You have said it well:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>“Concentrating on finding the
mechanisms of connection between the Hallucination
and the reality is my approach. I think the constant
speed of light assumption is one of the first
pillars that must fall. If there is such a constant
it should in my opinion be interpreted as the speed
of Now…”. <o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, “constant c” is a
fundamentally flawed postulate by the theoretician
Einstein, so fond of “Gedanken Experiments”.
Unfortunately, one can cook up wide varieties of
logically self-consistent mathematical theories and
then match them up with “Gedanken” experiments! We
know that in the real world, we know that the velocity
of light is dictated by both the medium and the
velocity of the medium. Apparently, Einstein’s
“Gedanken Experiment” of riding the crest of a light
wave inspired him to construct SRT and sold all the
mathematical physicists that nature if 4-diemsional.
Out of the “Messiah Complex”, we now believe that the
universe could be 5, or, 7, or 11, or, 13, ….
dimensional system where many of the dimensions are
“folded in” !!!! By the way, running time is not a
measurable physical parameter. We can contract or
dilate frequency of diverse oscillators, using proper
physical influence, not the running time. Frequency of
oscillators help us measure a period (or time
interval). <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wise human thinkers have recognized
this “Hallucination” problem from ancient times, which
are obvious (i) from Asian perspective of how five
blinds can collaborate to construct a reasonable model
of the Cosmic Elephant and then keep on iterating the
model ad infinitum, or (ii) Western perspective of
“shadows of external objects projected inside a cave
wall”. Unfortunately, we become “groupies” of our
contemporary “messiahs” to survive economically and
feel “belonging to the sociaety”. The result is the
current sad state of moribund physics thinking.
Fortunately, many people have started challenging this
moribund status quo with papers, books, and web
forums. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, I see well-recognizable
renaissance in physics coming within a few decades!
Yes, it will take time. Einstein’s “indivisible
quanta” of 1905 still dominates our vocabulary; even
though no optical engineer ever try to propagate an
“indivisible quanta”; they always propagate light
waves. Unfortunately, they propagate Fourier
monochromatic modes that neither exits in nature; nor
is a causal signal. [I have been trying to correct
this fundamental confusion through my book, “Causal
Physics”.]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Coming back to our methodology of
thinking, I have defined an iterative approach in the
Ch.12 of the above book. I have now generalized the
approach by anchoring our sustainable evolution to
remain anchored with the reality of nature! “Urgency
of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking” [see
attached].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, one can immediately bring
a challenge. If all our interpretations are cooked up
by our neural network for survival; then who has the
authority to define objective reality? Everybody, but
collaboratively, like modeling the “Cosmic Elephant”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let us realize the fact that the
seeing “color” is an interpretation by the brain. It
is a complete figment of our neuro-genetic
interpretation! That is why none of us will succeed in
quantitatively defining the subtlety of color
variation of any magnificent color painting without a
quantitative spectrometer. The “color” is not an
objective parameter; but the frequency is (not
wavelength, though!). One can now recognize the subtle
difference, from seeing “color”, to <b><i>quantifying
energy content per frequency interval.</i></b>
This is “objective” science determined by instruments
without a “mind”, which is reproducible outside of
human interpretations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, we have already mastered this
technology quite a bit. The biosphere exists. It has
been nurturing biological lives for over 3.5 billion
years without the intervention of humans. We are a
very late product of this evolution. This is an
objective recognition on our part! Our, successful
evolution needed “instantaneous color” recognition to
survive for our day-to-day living in our earlier
stage. We have now overcome our survival mode as a
species. And we now have become a pest in the
biosphere, instead of becoming the caretaker of it for
our own long-term future. <b><i>This is the sad break
in our wisdom.</i></b> This is why I am promoting
the concept, “Urgency of Evolution Process Congruent
Thinking”. This approach helps generate a common, but
perpetually evolving thinking platform for all
thinkers, whether working to understand Nature’s
Engineering (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.) or, to
carry out our Social Engineering (Economics, Politics,
Religions, etc.).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
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>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer,
a deeper path to introspection<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Unfortunately the TED talk does not work on my
machine but the transcript is available and Anl Seth
states what many people studying the human psyche as
well as eastern philosophy have said for centuries ,
Yes we are Hallucinating reality and our physics is
built upon that hallucination, but it works so well,
or does it? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>However as Don Hoffmancognitive scientist UC Irvine
contends <a
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>What we see is like the icons on a computer screen, a
file icon may only be a symbol of what is real on the
disk, but these icons as well as the "hallucinations"
are connected to some reality and we must take them
seriously. Deleting the icon also deletes the disk
which may have disastrous consequences.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>For our discussion group it means we can take
Albrechts route and try to understand the universe and
photons first based upon the idea that it is
independently real and then solve the human
consciousness problem or we can take the opposite
approach and rebuild a physics without the
independent physical reality assumption and see if we
cannot build out a truly macroscopic quantum theory.
Concentrating on finding the mechanisms of connection
between the Hallucination and the reality is my
approach. I think the constant speed of light
assumption is one of the first pillars that must fall.
If there is such a constant it should in my opinion be
interpreted as the speed of Now , a property we
individually apply to all our observations. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 7/23/2017 2:44 PM,
Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Dear
colleagues:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Lately
there has been continuing discussion on the role
of observer and the reality. I view that to be
healthy.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">We
must guide ourselves to understand and model the
universe without human mind shaping the cosmic
system and its working rules. This suggestion
comes from the fact that our own logic puts the
universe to be at least 13 billion years old,
while we, in the human form, have started evolving
barely 5 million years ago (give or take). </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">However,
we are not smart enough to determine a
well-defined and decisive path, as yet. Our search
must accommodate perpetual iteration of thinking
strategy as we keep on advancing. This is well
justified in the following TED-talk. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Enjoy:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><a
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>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" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</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: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" 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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>