<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I'm glad you are taking a fresh look at this relative ve.
absolute question.</p>
<p>Interesting that you say "<font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif" color="#330000">But anyway, this strong equivalence
principle is clearly falsified." By introducing a charge are you
not extending the principle ? Did Einstein say the an
accelerating frame was equivalent to a coulomb force? If you
stick to masses, gravity, and inertia --it seems Inertia is to
gravity as electricity is to magnetism. I believe Lorenz worked
on that formulation of gravity, and Sciama used it to show
inertia is due to the interaction with the distant masses.</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">I think the Lorenz force and the gravity and
rotation have a very similar structure. What is missing is how
the two domains are connected. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">Any ideas<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">Wolf<br>
</font></p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432al
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/3/2017 1:20 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:056e50b3-f2aa-cb40-5ce8-99f616ef67dd@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">Hi Grahame, hi Chip, hi All,</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">This is an interesting discussion here about
the question whether <b><font color="#000000">motion is
relative or absolute</font></b>. And I find </font><font
size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" color="#330000">the
fact </font><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif" color="#330000">particularly interesting that this
has a historical background. Because it was also subject of
discussions between Einstein, Mach, and Lorentz. Let's have a
look at it.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">When Einstein developed SRT, in his view
motion could be taken as relative (which war also believed by
Galileo). Hendrik Lorentz developed, prior to Einstein, his
version of Special Relativity. He referred to an existence of
an ether, where the only property of the ether used by Lorentz
was the existence of an absolute frame. Einstein preferred a
theory which did not need an ether, because he followed at
that time the philosophy of positivism and this philosophy
asked to avoid assumptions (or physical entities) which are
not open to measurement. The result of Michelson-Morley was,
as we know, that an ether could not be measured (ether was,
however, not falsified even though some people still say
this). <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">Both versions of SRT, the one of Lorentz and
the one of Einstein, are mathematically consistent with
itself, so no math problem. But with respect to GRT the
situation became more complicated. Mach and Lorentz used an
argument which also came up in the preceding mails here:
Rotation and acceleration would need an ether in the sense of
an absolute frame, otherwise both phenomena would be
undefined. Mach related his absolute frame, as we know, to the
background of fixed stars. Lorentz only saw the necessity of
an absolute frame without further assumptions. He used in his
discussion with Einstein a thought experiment of two
conductors placed around the equator of our earth and he
assumed that a standing wave was generated in these
conductors. One conductor was assumed to move with the earth's
surface,</font><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif" color="#330000"> and he argued that it would be
observable that the "hills" and "valleys" of these standing
waves move relative to the earth's surface. The other
conductor was to be moved relative to the earth so that the </font><font
size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" color="#330000">"hills"
and "valleys" of this standing wave do not move relative to
the conductor. So, there would be an absolute determination of
rotation possible.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">Einstein understood this problem and to get
out of it he introduced the "strong equivalence principle". In
his view, gravitation and acceleration are two terms for the
same physical phenomenon, so not distinguishable. - I must
confess that I have not really understood this logic, why
makes this assumption the relativity of rotation possible
(e.g. for the Foucault pendulum)? Does anyone of you see this?
<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">But anyway, this strong equivalence principle
is clearly falsified. If an observer has a charged object with
him, this object will radiate at acceleration but not at rest
in a gravitational field. And the other difference that there
is dilation in a gravitational field but not according to
acceleration, is not so easily observable in practice, but it
</font><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">also </font><font size="-1" face="Helvetica,
Arial, sans-serif" color="#330000">shows that both phenomena
are different. - These facts prove in my view that <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#330000">(1) rotation is in fact absolute<br>
(2) Einstein's GRT is falsified.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font
color="#330000">Best wishes<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
</font></p>
<font size="-1" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="-1" face="Helvetica,
Arial, sans-serif">Am 01.09.2017 um 15:55 schrieb Dr Grahame
Blackwell:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:05379664D3AE477B8D7F04E6719C3426@vincent">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<style>@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Consolas;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
P {
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman",serif; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
PRE {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted Char"
}
SPAN.HTMLPreformattedChar {
FONT-FAMILY: Consolas; COLOR: black; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "HTML Preformatted"; mso-style-name: "HTML Preformatted Char"
}
SPAN.EmailStyle20 {
COLOR: black; mso-style-type: personal
}
SPAN.EmailStyle21 {
COLOR: black; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
..MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only
}
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><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Hi Chip,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">When I talk
about 'dislodging Relativity' I'm referring to the mind-set
that all states of motion are purely relative and there is
no absolute state of motion/rest - that's exactly what
(Einsteinian) Relativity IS.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">The reason that
I keep saying that Relativity is mathematically
self-consistent is precisely because people (like you and
Wolf) have for the past century tried to show an
inconsistency (aka a paradox) through variations of the
Twins 'Paradox' (not). My absolute main objective,
personally, is to get people - particularly scientists
responsible for leading the world's thinking on physical
reality - to realise that yes, Relativity as an
observational phenomenon is a reality - but NO, Relativity
in the sense of 'no absolute rest-state' (and so also no
absolute measures of motion-states) is NOT a reality, it IS
an 'observational phenomenon' in the sense that the effects
and measurements experienced are in no small part down to
the altered state of perception in a moving observer. We
are clearly both very much in agreement about this!</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">I agree that NO
experiment has ever proved that Einsteinian Relativity
actually holds - EVERY experimental result that appears to
do so can be fully explained in terms of totally predictable
observer effects. However, the reason that I'm banging on
about 'SR/GR is self-consistent' is that we do ourselves a
serious disservice by attempting to show holes in that
self-consistency when they don't exist. By doing this we
reinforce the notion (held by mainsteam physicists) that
those who don't agree with Einsteinian SR/GR just don't
really understand it. MY position is "Yes, I DO understand
very fully why and how it's self-consistent - but it's still
wrong!!!"</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">As for 'curved
space(time), don't get me started on that! I agree that
it's impossible for something that is in fact nothing to be
curved - but it goes much further than that:</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">(1) No-one has
ever explained, in direct terms, what they mean by
'spacetime is curved'; it's only ever 'explained' by
analogy, in terms of objects following 'contours' in
spacetime. What are those contours formed from, and why
would objects follow them - how do they influence object
behaviour?</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">(2) How is it
that massive objects create those contours? What is it
about massive objects that gives rise to these mystical
contours??</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">(3) Not least:
if the Higgs boson causes mass (a premise that I do not
subscribe to) then in what way does it give rise to
'gravitational' effects? We're told that mass creates
space-time contours, we're told that the Higgs Field gives
objects mass - then what exactly is the connection between
the Higgs and gravitation, causally???</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">It appears to
me that mainstream physics hs thrown the concept of
causation out the window; it's about time that they were
called to account for that - called to account for
causation, in other words.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">[By the way,
I'm interested in your notion of "logically
self-consistent". I'm not quite sure how that would pan out
or how it could be shown to be not so? Clearly the Twins
Paradox ain't gonna do it!]</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Regards,</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Grahame</font></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT:
5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color:
black"><b>From:</b> <a title="chipakins@gmail.com"
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Chip
Akins</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">'Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion'</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September
01, 2017 12:08 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
[NEW] SRT twin Paradox</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Grahame<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My intent is not to dislodge
relativity. Relativity is a fact. But one part of SRT is
not, the “all motion is relative” part.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I find it interesting that in order to
“defend” SRT’s all motion is relative postulate, GR is
apparently always used. During the pre GR era, SRT was
interpreted to support the idea that space is not a medium
and that all motion is relative. Then with GR space has to
be curved. And it is hard to curve what does not exist.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You keep saying that “Relativity” is
mathematically self-consistent. And I agree. But nothing
in SRT proves that all motion is relative. It is just an
arbitrary addition to the theory. No experiment has
proven that all motion is relative. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While SRT may be mathematically
self-consistent, SRT’s “all motion is relative” is not
logically self-consistent.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT:
medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in;
PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext;
FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</span></b><span
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; COLOR:
windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> 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>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 01, 2017 5:49 AM<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] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sorry
Chip, but you're not going to dislodge Relativity like
that.</span><span style="COLOR: windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Under
Relativity circular motion is NOT absolute - I have
most definitely 'questioned that' in my last several
emails. The whole point of my recent missives is to
make it clear that Relativity allows a person
undergoing circular motion to consider themselves at
rest - and that view is as valid as any other, under
Relativity.</span><span style="COLOR: windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">That's
why GR then has to come into it. Because even whilst
considering themselves to be at rest, that person will
experience a force - and GR allows them to regard that
force as a gravitational effect (and considers that as
valid a view as any other).</span><span style="COLOR:
windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The
whole point of GR was to extend 'relativity' to
non-inertial frames - so to claim that a non-inertial
frame is 'absolute' and then extent that to embrace SR
is a complete misunderstanding of Relativity.</span><span
style="COLOR: windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sorry!</span><span
style="COLOR: windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Grahame</span><span
style="COLOR: windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: windowtext">-----
Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT:
navy 1.5pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt
3.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP:
medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0in">
<div>
<p style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4" class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR:
windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</span></b><span
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR:
windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <a
title="chipakins@gmail.com"
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Chip Akins</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE:
10pt">To:</span></b><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE:
10pt"> <a
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE:
10pt">Sent:</span></b><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE:
10pt"> Friday, September 01, 2017 11:38 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE:
10pt">Subject:</span></b><span style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE:
10pt"> Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi All<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have discussed the “twin paradox”
and many have said that there is no paradox. But using
SRT alone this is not strictly true. The postulate that
“all motion is relative” is an arbitrary and so far
experimentally unsupported part of SRT. This postulate
alone causes a paradox.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But there is another way to consider
these issues<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have established that circular
motion is absolute, and no one has questioned that,
because we have experimentally been able to verify that
is the case.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now let us take that circular motion
toward the limit, and continue to enlarge the radius of
that motion. Still, no matter how large the radius,
circular motion is absolute. At what point, at how large
a radius, would you say that the laws of motion change
from absolute to relative?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The fact is, the laws of motion do
not change from absolute to relative, even if the radius
is so large that we cannot measure the curvature. All
motion is not relative.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT:
medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in;
PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p> </p>
<hr> _______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" moz-do-not-send="true">grahame@starweave.com</a><br>
<a
href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
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><br>
</blockquote>
<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>