<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>answers again interleaved.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.08.2017 um 09:05 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f0f603c0-3634-9404-1954-b9181f52ef1a@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Answers interleaved<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 8/23/2017 12:17 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:381fc16c-bb70-5039-bbe9-b83d0d6d448a@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>Please stay at the topic we are just discussing here. We
should first come to a result with those before extending our
topics.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 21.08.2017 um 08:47 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I mentioned the Michelson Morley experiment because the URL
I sent is an interesting alternative that gives a completely
different answer which is probably wrong Watch <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc</a></p>
</blockquote>
Yes, I have seen both videos. But I suspect, for the first one,
that it is a property of his set up. If in the upright position
the elements of the apparatus move only by a micrometer by
gravity, then this effect is already understandable. Generally
speaking, the author did not present an error investigation; and
that is essential for every experiment.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<p>However in general this experiment is extremely pertinent
because the inability to detect ether drift is one of the
main pillars of Einstein's approach and one of the main
pillars of my consciousness theory of why why we should not
detect the background space which is attached and generated
by us. I am working on my book fro ROutledge Press and would
be happy to start sending you parts of it for comments on
this observer oriented event theory. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
But my question was about the measurement of the speed of light
c. We should not jump but bring one question to an end before
switching to philosophy or similar. <br>
</blockquote>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal">Ok you measure the speed of light on earth by
sending a pulse around the circumference of the synchrotron. It
has a round trip distance of “X” you measure the time by a clock
that is driven by the speed of electromagnetic influences. Lets
say it’s a light clock and the speed of light is Ce on earth and
the clock round trip distance is “Y” so a clock cycle is Tc =
Y/Ce, Now it takes N clock cycles for the light to travel around
the synchrotron then<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The
speed of light is Cs = X/NTc = (X/NY)Ce </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But by measurement you can determine that X
=NY so<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Cs = Ce <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">so the speed of light is the speed of light
her on earth , there is no question about that <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
This was not my example, my example is illustrated by the drawing
further down and the speed of the electrons is given by the
frequency of the accelerating field. But ok., it can also be argued
in your way. But now you say " there is no question about this"
??? In the past you have just questioned also this very strongly!!<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f0f603c0-3634-9404-1954-b9181f52ef1a@nascentinc.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:381fc16c-bb70-5039-bbe9-b83d0d6d448a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>You are very right I should learn more about synchrotrons
but we re not discussing the standard text book approach and
its assumptions so I am hoping you will meet me half way and
tell my specifically why you think I'm wrong instead of
generally asking me to go look at a text book and hoping I
would guess your objection. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
In the following you see the accelerating pieces of a <i>linear
</i>accelerator. This is showing how the speed of a particle -
like an electron - determines the switching frequency<br>
<br>
<img id="uid_0"
src="cid:part3.33B41820.AF397B00@a-giese.de" data-deferred="1"
class="_WCg"
title="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearbeschleuniger"
alt="Bildergebnis für linearbeschleuniger" height="301"
width="408"><br>
In a synchrotron this is built in a circular way. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>Now you've started to be mores specific and I greatly
appreciate that. The definition of momentum is <span
class="MathJax" id="MathJax-Element-14-Frame" tabindex="0"
style="text-align: center; position: relative;"
data-mathml="<math
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"
display="block"><mrow
class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mover><mi>p</mi><mo
stretchy="false">→</mo></mover></mrow><mo>=</mo><mstyle
displaystyle="true"
scriptlevel="0"><mfrac><mrow><msub><mi>m</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><mrow
class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mover><mi>v</mi><mo
stretchy="false">→</mo></mover></mrow></mrow><msqrt><mn>1</mn><mo>−</mo><mfrac><msup><mi>v</mi><mn>2</mn></msup><msup><mi>c</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mfrac></msqrt></mfrac></mstyle></math>"
role="presentation"><nobr><span class="math"
id="MathJax-Span-66" style="width: 6.485em; display:
inline-block;"><span style="display: inline-block;
position: relative; width: 5.988em; height: 0px;
font-size: 108%;"><span style="position: absolute;
clip: rect(0.398em, 1005.99em, 4.14em, -1000em);
top: -2.16em; left: 0em;"><span class="mrow"
id="MathJax-Span-67"><span class="texatom"
id="MathJax-Span-68"><span class="mrow"
id="MathJax-Span-69"><span
class="munderover" id="MathJax-Span-70"><span
style="display: inline-block; position:
relative; width: 0.556em; height: 0px;"><span
style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(3.385em, 1000.5em, 4.392em,
-1000em); top: -4.012em; left: 0em;"><span
class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-71"
style="font-family: MathJax_Math;
font-style: italic;">p</span><span
style="display: inline-block; width:
0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute; top:
-4.093em; left: 0.114em;"><span
style="height: 0em; vertical-align:
0em; width: 0.471em; display:
inline-block; overflow: hidden;"></span><span
class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-72"
style="font-family: MathJax_Main;">
<span style="height: 0em;
vertical-align: 0em; margin-left:
-0.247em;"></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block;
overflow: hidden; height: 1px;
width: 0em;"></span><span
style="display: inline-block; width:
0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span></span></span></span></span><span
class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-73"
style="font-family: MathJax_Main;
padding-left: 0.278em;">=</span><span
class="mstyle" id="MathJax-Span-74"
style="padding-left: 0.278em;"><span
class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-75"><span
class="mfrac" id="MathJax-Span-76"><span
style="display: inline-block; position:
relative; width: 3.873em; height: 0px;
margin-right: 0.12em; margin-left:
0.12em;"><span style="position:
absolute; clip: rect(3.032em,
1001.78em, 4.485em, -1000em); top:
-4.794em; left: 50%; margin-left:
-0.9em;"><span class="mrow"
id="MathJax-Span-77"><span
class="msubsup"
id="MathJax-Span-78"><span
style="display: inline-block;
position: relative; width:
1.309em; height: 0px;"><span
style="position: absolute;
clip: rect(3.385em, 1000.86em,
4.209em, -1000em); top:
-4.012em; left: 0em;"><span
class="mi"
id="MathJax-Span-79"
style="font-family:
MathJax_Math; font-style:
italic;">m</span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute;
top: -3.862em; left: 0.878em;"><span
class="mi"
id="MathJax-Span-80"
style="font-size: 70.7%;
font-family: MathJax_Math;
font-style: italic;">p</span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span></span></span><span
class="texatom"
id="MathJax-Span-81"><span
class="mrow"
id="MathJax-Span-82"><span
class="munderover"
id="MathJax-Span-83"><span
style="display:
inline-block; position:
relative; width: 0.491em;
height: 0px;"><span
style="position: absolute;
clip: rect(3.384em,
1000.47em, 4.209em,
-1000em); top: -4.012em;
left: 0em;"><span
class="mi"
id="MathJax-Span-84"
style="font-family:
MathJax_Math;
font-style: italic;">v</span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width:
0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute;
top: -4.094em; left:
0.049em;"><span
style="height: 0em;
vertical-align: 0em;
width: 0.471em; display:
inline-block; overflow:
hidden;"></span><span
class="mo"
id="MathJax-Span-85"
style="font-family:
MathJax_Main;"> <span
style="height: 0em;
vertical-align: 0em;
margin-left:
-0.247em;"></span></span><span
style="display:
inline-block; overflow:
hidden; height: 1px;
width: 0em;"></span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width:
0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block; width:
0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(2.675em, 1003.75em, 4.845em,
-1000em); top: -2.866em; left: 50%;
margin-left: -1.876em;"><span
class="msqrt" id="MathJax-Span-86"><span
style="display: inline-block;
position: relative; width:
3.753em; height: 0px;"><span
style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(2.856em, 1002.73em,
4.668em, -1000em); top:
-4.012em; left: 1em;"><span
class="mrow"
id="MathJax-Span-87"><span
class="mn"
id="MathJax-Span-88"
style="font-family:
MathJax_Main;">1</span><span
class="mo"
id="MathJax-Span-89"
style="font-family:
MathJax_Main; padding-left:
0.222em;">−</span><span
class="mfrac"
id="MathJax-Span-90"
style="padding-left:
0.222em;"><span
style="display:
inline-block; position:
relative; width: 0.766em;
height: 0px; margin-right:
0.12em; margin-left:
0.12em;"><span
style="position:
absolute; clip:
rect(3.29em, 1000.65em,
4.205em, -1000em); top:
-4.446em; left: 50%;
margin-left: -0.323em;"><span
class="msubsup"
id="MathJax-Span-91"><span
style="display:
inline-block;
position: relative;
width: 0.646em;
height: 0px;"><span
style="position:
absolute; clip:
rect(3.514em,
1000.33em,
4.205em, -1000em);
top: -4.012em;
left: 0em;"><span
class="mi"
id="MathJax-Span-92"
style="font-size: 70.7%; font-family: MathJax_Math; font-style: italic;">v</span><span
style="display:
inline-block;
width: 0px;
height:
4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position:
absolute; top:
-4.217em; left:
0.343em;"><span
class="mn"
id="MathJax-Span-93"
style="font-size: 50%; font-family: MathJax_Main;">2</span><span
style="display:
inline-block;
width: 0px;
height:
4.012em;"></span></span></span></span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width:
0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position:
absolute; clip:
rect(3.29em, 1000.61em,
4.205em, -1000em); top:
-3.549em; left: 50%;
margin-left: -0.305em;"><span
class="msubsup"
id="MathJax-Span-94"><span
style="display:
inline-block;
position: relative;
width: 0.609em;
height: 0px;"><span
style="position:
absolute; clip:
rect(3.515em,
1000.3em, 4.205em,
-1000em); top:
-4.012em; left:
0em;"><span
class="mi"
id="MathJax-Span-95"
style="font-size: 70.7%; font-family: MathJax_Math; font-style: italic;">c</span><span
style="display:
inline-block;
width: 0px;
height:
4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position:
absolute; top:
-4.217em; left:
0.306em;"><span
class="mn"
id="MathJax-Span-96"
style="font-size: 50%; font-family: MathJax_Main;">2</span><span
style="display:
inline-block;
width: 0px;
height:
4.012em;"></span></span></span></span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width:
0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position:
absolute; clip:
rect(0.787em, 1000.77em,
1.235em, -1000em); top:
-1.269em; left: 0em;"><span
style="display:
inline-block;
overflow: hidden;
vertical-align: 0em;
border-top: 1.3px
solid; width: 0.766em;
height: 0px;"></span><span
style="display:
inline-block; width:
0px; height: 1.049em;"></span></span></span></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block;
width: 0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(3.554em, 1002.75em, 3.97em,
-1000em); top: -4.891em; left:
1em;"><span style="display:
inline-block; position:
relative; width: 2.753em;
height: 0px;"><span
style="position: absolute;
font-family: MathJax_Main;
top: -4.012em; left:
-0.084em;">−<span
style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute;
font-family: MathJax_Main;
top: -4.012em; left:
2.059em;">−<span
style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="font-family:
MathJax_Main; position:
absolute; top: -4.012em;
left: 0.433em;">−<span
style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="font-family:
MathJax_Main; position:
absolute; top: -4.012em;
left: 0.975em;">−<span
style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="font-family:
MathJax_Main; position:
absolute; top: -4.012em;
left: 1.517em;">−<span
style="display:
inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 4.012em;"></span></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block;
width: 0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(2.677em, 1001.02em,
4.848em, -1000em); top:
-4.014em; left: 0em;"><span
style="font-family:
MathJax_Size2;">√</span><span
style="display: inline-block;
width: 0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block; width:
0px; height: 4.012em;"></span></span><span
style="position: absolute; clip:
rect(0.787em, 1003.87em, 1.235em,
-1000em); top: -1.269em; left: 0em;"><span
style="display: inline-block;
overflow: hidden; vertical-align:
0em; border-top: 1.3px solid; width:
3.873em; height: 0px;"></span><span
style="display: inline-block; width:
0px; height: 1.049em;"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block; width: 0px;
height: 2.16em;"></span></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block; overflow: hidden;
vertical-align: -2.005em; border-left: 0px solid;
width: 0px; height: 3.774em;"></span></span></nobr></span></p>
<p><span class="_Tgc _y9e">However the derivation of this
equation is not at all straight forward since we are
talking about three dimensions and the formula is
different in the direction of motion vs the cross
direction terms. In the circular orbit we are talking
about a momentum in te radial direction vs one in the
angular direction and furthermore the particle is in an
accelerated frame. <br>
</span></p>
</blockquote>
The point is here that the momentum of the electron increases
permanently, but the speed is limited to c. And as there is p =
m*v , and at the end v = c, how can you explain the increase of
p if assuming m to be constant? <br>
</blockquote>
Yes , thank you I believe your diagram is helpful although it also
leaves out a critical component of our discussion, Does the stay
constant inside the particle and therefor give the appearance of a
momentum increase or does it truely stay constant in all reference
frames and therefore the measured effects must be attributed
elsewhere. <br>
Obviously for a parameter that is defined by two variables m*v
there is not much choice. One measures v and any deviation must be
attributed to the mass.<br>
</blockquote>
That was meant and I understand that you accept that.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f0f603c0-3634-9404-1954-b9181f52ef1a@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:381fc16c-bb70-5039-bbe9-b83d0d6d448a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<p><span class="_Tgc _y9e"> </span></p>
You are saying particles are accelerated to near the speed of
light and easily measured, yes but this is a one way near
speed of light measurement and one needs to examine this
carefully.<span class="_Tgc _y9e">I've read in numerous places
that the Large Hadron Collider is capable of accelerating
protons at 0.999999991 c,- At those speeds the circumference
of "C" is the stationary distance and the time is the time
statinary period tp measured at one point whenever the
particle comes around. so its velocity is C/tp, However the
particle is stationary in its own reference frame and only
feels a radial gravitational pull outward for which the
factor under the integral depends upon the log of the radius</span><br>
</blockquote>
When we say that an object has a certain speed we mean the speed
measured in our laboratory frame. For other frames (also the one
of the particle itself) it has to be determined by the Lorentz
transformation. But that is a different story than what we are
discussing here. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Well here we are taking about interactions between the mass of an
electron and its charge. So I'm suggesting that the speed of
Electromagentic interaction speeds up when the particle is in a
higher state of Lagrangian energy when the potential of the
distant mass star ring is taken into account. this accounting is
given by the equations I've sent you many times which you thing
are just number games. <br>
</blockquote>
What is a "distant mass star ring"? You introduce again a new topic.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f0f603c0-3634-9404-1954-b9181f52ef1a@nascentinc.com"> So
I'm suggesting that internal activity for a mass-charge particle (
even a neutron is considered a combination of charged particles )
both absorbs energy and makes the particle appear to have a
greater momentum and furthermore that it is the speed of light
change that give a simpler explanation than changing ether charge
of mass values.<br>
</blockquote>
Sorry, I do not understand what you mean here.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f0f603c0-3634-9404-1954-b9181f52ef1a@nascentinc.com"> <br>
Now you will say its all accounted for by the Lorenz
transformations, but that is wrong. These transformations deal
with charges and EM fields<br>
it is their connection with matter that Einstein introduced and
that has turned classic mechanics on its end <br>
</blockquote>
The Lorentz transformation has primarily nothing to do with charges
and EM fields. That are only aspects for which the LT is <i>also </i>correct,
but not the basics. Einstein has deduced the LT only from the
assumption that the speed of light is constant in any frame. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f0f603c0-3634-9404-1954-b9181f52ef1a@nascentinc.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:381fc16c-bb70-5039-bbe9-b83d0d6d448a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
Furthermore we must talk about the momentum of a charged
particle since presumably the momentum is measured by the
curvature on a charge induced by a magnetic field.<br>
</blockquote>
That is one way. The other - which relates to the energy of a
particle - is its conversion into other particles. So, an
electron and a positron accelerated in a storage ring can
collide and in this moment be converted into particles of a much
higher mass (a mass of more than 1000 times the mass of the
electron). How is this possible if the electron does not change
its mass (and the positron as well)?<br>
</blockquote>
I do not know if this is anything more than an energy conversion ,
i'm not questioning the energy increase mc = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub>*(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>-1/2</sup>
happens but whether it aplies to the mass or the speed of light</blockquote>
Where is the energy of an electron which moves close to c, if it is
not in its mass?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f0f603c0-3634-9404-1954-b9181f52ef1a@nascentinc.com"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:381fc16c-bb70-5039-bbe9-b83d0d6d448a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<br>
This it gets very complex and your recommendation to
understand more is appropriate. However is the situation not
similar to the central force problem of a particle moving in
an atom where the gravitational and electric forces are
balanced <br>
</blockquote>
The gravitational force is completely irrelevant for the
processes in an atom. I have many times given you numbers that
for such influence the gravitational force is too low by more
than 30 orders of magnitude. - Why do I write this again and
again, and you never react on it but repeat completely wrong
numbers or assumption again and again?? So we cannot go on.<br>
</blockquote>
Well Albrecht please listen! No one questions that gravity is
weak, but inertia is equivalent to the magnetic component of
gravity , that is why I call it gravito-inertial and keep evoking
Mach's principle. It is inertia that balances the coulomb force in
Bohr's atom model. It is inertia that is as strong as the electric
force. I know you think you have an explanation for inertia from
your rotating charge model, but I. Lorenz , Sciama , and many more
feel a simpler and more elegant description of inertia has
inertia treated as the angular momentum pseudo vector. Leaving
both mass and charge as constants.<br>
</blockquote>
Magnetism is a side effect of the electric charge and is much weaker
than the electric charge. Also the gravitational force has its own
magnetism, but also this is much weaker than the (already very weak)
gravitational force. So, physicists working on magno-gravity can
perform calculations but there is almost no way to measure the
effect experimentally (except the Probe B) but that was extremely
difficult as we know.<br>
<br>
Any inertia which we can measure is so strong that it is not
deducible from gravo-magnetism. Inertia is stronger than the (quite
strong) electric force, it is a consequence of the strong force. My
model shows it and this model has results which are quantitatively
correct with high precision. I do not know any other model of
inertia which has this, in no way the Higgs model, and the other
models presented in this discussion are tautological models in so
far as they deduce inertia from momentum ignoring the fact that also
momentum is a consequence of inertia. <br>
<br>
And, just to avoid misunderstanding, the inertia is in my model the
consequence of the finite speed of light by which binding forces
propagate in an extended object. The fact of circulation is another
feature to explain the magnetic moment, spin, and relativistic
dilation. These aspects are not directly connected to the fact of
inertia (except the spin which has it a bit).<br>
<br>
The Mach principle cited here quite often only demands the existence
of an ether (meant as an absolute reference frame) necessary to
explain inertia. There is nothing more behind it. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f0f603c0-3634-9404-1954-b9181f52ef1a@nascentinc.com"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:381fc16c-bb70-5039-bbe9-b83d0d6d448a@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<br>
i will try to get you a calculation which shows that for an
atom the assumption that charge and mass are at a point is no
longer valid and in fact the two are separated. Thus the
momentum of a particle is dependent upon the separation
distance. this allows me to calculate the momentum and energy
of a particle from contant mass and force since the correction
factors are used to explain an internal geometry to matter
rather than a change in the value of mass.<br>
</blockquote>
So a particle without a charge does not have any momentum?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<br>
please stand by<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Please treat the questions we are discussing right now here. The
rest please later. <br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a8f7ad-b977-3b0a-6345-00e2ea691346@nascentinc.com">
<br>
<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 8/18/2017 8:18 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:320ecd97-0387-c8ab-1de5-66e497cbdfae@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>why do you mention the Michelson Morley experiment? It
was not the purpose of it to determine the speed of
light. And it is in no way suitable to do this
determination. It was designed to measure the ether drift.
<br>
</p>
<p>A particle accelerator is, on the other hand, a very good
way to determine the behaviour of c. Because when the
particle flies along the chain of acceleration sections,
the fields of these sections have to be switched in a
properly synchronized way so that an acceleration can
happen. Therefore the speed of the particle is very simple
logic. At which point do you doubt this process?</p>
<p>If it is now visible that this speed has an upper bound
(more is not necessary), but the momentum of the particle
increases permanently, then the increase of mass is the
only explanation. Or do you have another one? - The
increase of momentum is easily measured in a magnetic
field.</p>
<p>From these facts together the increase of mass has to be
concluded. I do not know any other explanation. Do you
have one?</p>
<p>Your doubt of this is in my view a consequence of the
fact that you have never looked into the design of a
synchrotron. You should do that urgently before presenting
unchained statements about relativistic facts. <br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 17.08.2017 um 08:16 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ddc8528c-fc3f-9bd8-3920-4ec33bba8607@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>wel the first thin I would like to see is nano second
pulses reproducing a michelson Morely type experiment <br>
</p>
<p>But the simplest thing is to look at the theory of the
synchroton design you keep talking about are you
talking about the energy formula</p>
<p> m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)<font
size="-1"> </font> that we both agree on. If so then
we are only in disagreement about the interpretation and
the assmptions inside tha<font size="-1">t i</font>nterpretation<font
size="-1">, observations like this E-mail in front of
your nose are facts I do not dispute facts, I'm
interested in <br>
</font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>by the way have you seen <br>
</p>
<div class="" style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;"><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;"><font
class="" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><a
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E</a><br>
<br>
The truth is hard to come by.<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
<br>
</font></div>
<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 8/16/2017 7:42 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0dc5ad30-70e6-f9e5-256c-8f1ae27ed3e1@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>So, what is <i>your </i>way to measure the speed of
light so that you trust the result?<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 16.08.2017 um 07:56
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:24371479-20f6-67e1-a010-f1bc44e5dd89@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>You still do not grasp the idea that theory and
therefore the assumption of theory determine the
interpretation and therfore what we thing we are
seeing.<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 8/15/2017 12:44 PM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf: <br>
</p>
<p>it may be good to have new ideas or new insights,
but please do not offer equations which are in
clear conflict to safe experiments. <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 15.08.2017 um 07:45
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>You said "Your equation Your equation m*c<sup>2</sup>
= m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)<font
size="-1"> </font>is correct. It describes
the increase of mass at motion. But your
equation <font size="+1"> </font>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>)
does not have any meaning for me. And I do not
understand how you have deduced it. I have asked
you the other day what this equation means in
your view, but you did not answer this.' <br>
</p>
<p>I thought I had answered many times. Lets
assume we both agree on this equation m*c<sup>2</sup>
= m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
is correct.</p>
<p>Now how do you interpret it?</p>
<p>If you believe in Einsteins postulate that c is
constant then you can logically divide c oyt of
the equation and get m = m<sub>0</sub>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
which you believe has been proven in accelerator
designs.</p>
<p>I on the other hand recognize that Einstein's
postulate is precisely a postulate, an initial
assumption that may or may not be correct.</p>
<p>We are both and all of us in this discussion
group exploring the validity of initial
assumptions. Therefor Allow me to assume
Eistein's assumption is one way of developing a
theory but not the only way. If we assume mass
is the invariant instead of the speed of light
then the very same equation we both agree on
could be written as m*c<sup>2</sup> = m*c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>).
Now we can cancel the "m' and get 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>
</p>
</blockquote>
The operation of accelerators show every day and
every second that the speed of particles has a limit
at the speed of light c. And as on the other hand
the energy (or momentum) of a particle in an
accelerator is increased to above any limit, the
mass of that particles must increase. There is no
other explanation, or do you have one?<br>
</blockquote>
The operation of acceloators show m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup>
*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)<font
size="-1"> which can be interpreted in two ways. I
challenge you again to show me why your
interpretation of c remaining contant and m needs to
increase is the right one?<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>This may not have any meaning to you, but it
that is the case you do not understand how a
community of scientists could be so brain washed
that they accept an assumption for gospel truth
and do not want to understand circular reasoning
which will always prove the initial assumption
is true.</p>
</blockquote>
Why do you not explain a physical process which is
described by your equation above: "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>
</blockquote>
I've explained this many times the speed of EM process
in a particle or coordinate frame built of particle is
dependent upon the total energy potential the particle
experiences gravitational potentialis one of the
components the particle is in. The speed of light and
all processes including clock rates slow down when the
clock is in a lower gravity potential<br>
mc<sup>2 </sup>=~ m c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> + 1/2
mv<sup>2</sup>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p>Now i know you are smart enough to understand
this choice of initial assumptions.</p>
</blockquote>
Which initial assumptions do you mean?<br>
</blockquote>
That the speed of light is constant. instead of being
dependent on the energy potential it is in.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p>An further more if we rewrite the equation we
both agree on as m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub><sup>3/2</sup>*c<sup>3</sup>
*(1/(mc<sup>2</sup>-mv<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)we
would recognize the mc<sup>2</sup>-mv<sup>2</sup>
in the corrective factor as the negative classic
Lagrangian when the potential energy of the a
mass inside a universe mass shell is 1/2 mc<sup>2</sup>.
This means mc<sup>2</sup> is the escape energy
to get outside our Universe of mass surrounding
us. In other words we live in a flat space at
the center od a ball of mass. Simple and
consistent with intuition. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
This again assumes that the mass of an object is
constant if put to motion. This is clearly falsified
by safe experiments.<br>
</blockquote>
You keep saying clearly falsified but you do not show
me the safe experiments I believe the experiments you
refer to are based on this equation m*c<sup>2</sup> =
m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
and I keep saying it can be interpreted in two ways <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>Now I ask you to show me experiments that
cannot be explained with the assumptions leading
to 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>
</p>
</blockquote>
My question again - not answered by you - is: which
physical process is described by this equation in
your view? For me it is just a collection of symbols
without any message.<br>
</blockquote>
Ive again told you the physical process is to include
the gravity potential of the distant stars Machs
principle<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<p>since I or we have shown you arguments that
Einsteins assumption is inconsistent with</p>
<p>1) gravity must be infinite or there would be a
tangential component to increase our orbit</p>
</blockquote>
Which gravity, i.e. the gravity of which object is
infinite in your view?<br>
</blockquote>
I meant the speed of gravity, this is also a problem
with your rotating charges unless the interaction
speed is infinite a tangential component will arise
which makes the orbit unstable <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p>2) the perihelion correction is based upon the
calculation classic i.e. infinite speed of
gravity calculations</p>
</blockquote>
To my understanding the perihelion shift is caused
by the fact that the planet changes its mass during
the orbit because the speed changes.<br>
</blockquote>
That again is an interpretation but the prehelion
shift is calculated by assuming Newtons infinite
gravity it again is false reasoning. You can explain
the shift by making new assumptions, but if you apply
those assumptions consistently you get a different
answer to the shift and one that is inconsistent wih
Einsteins calculations. We sent out the paper on this
i can dig it up and send itr again.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p>3) Shapiro's speed of light calculation</p>
</blockquote>
Shapiro's result for the speed of light is in full
agreement with Einstein and also in full agreement
with my approach to gravity.<br>
</blockquote>
it proves the speed of light is dependent u[pon the
gravito-inertial field the light is in and is not
constant. So why are you so critical of my 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>)
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p>4) Gravitational shielding during eclipses and
anomalies in satellite orbits (not sure about
this one) <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Where was gravitational shielding observed? And
which anomalies in satellite orbits do you mean?<br>
</blockquote>
I cannot remember right now but maybe Candra sent some
paper that mentioned the anomalies and gravity effects
measured during an eclipse<br>
perhaps someone will remember the reference. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<p> </p>
<br>
Einstein should have listened to Mach.<br>
</blockquote>
If Einstein would have listened to Mach he would
have accepted the existence of a fixed frame of
reference (this kind of an ether). I assume the same
as Mach.<br>
</blockquote>
The why are you so critical? My on;y contribution is
to realize that the fixed frame of reference is the
perceptive space attached to each observer<br>
you must understand yourself in the picture or you
have only half the truth.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:340c668f-8163-c981-8561-c895ea8bb980@a-giese.de">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<br>
<br>
Best wishes ,<br>
Wolf<br>
<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>
</blockquote>
Best wishes back<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a82bab5-1de6-d724-6d10-5efc345348f8@nascentinc.com">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/11/2017 4:24 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f4248e86-0d35-7b10-d248-1876fcb99f4b@a-giese.de">Your
equation m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup>
*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)<font
size="-1"> </font>is correct. It describes
the increase of mass at motion. But your
equation <font size="+1"> </font>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>)
does not have any meaning for me. And I do not
understand how you have deduced it. I have asked
you the other day what this equation means in
your view, but you did not answer this. Because
why should the speed of light change if
something (what??) moves at some speed v?</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" 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" 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" 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>