<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div class="userStyles" style=" font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000;">
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hi Chip,</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have been thinking about what you wrote here:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">"Einstein stated that “<i>light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source</i>”, which is an incomplete statement, logically inconsistent, because <b>the<i> velocity c in empty space </i>has no meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space, or some other reference, as the logical reference for that velocity.</b> A velocity simply must be stated in reference to something."</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">My own view on this hinges on the kinetic energy viewpoint that you seem to have taken an interest in.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On page 14 of my paper on the de Broglie photon hypothesis, you will find my take on this issue, which relates the "<b>some other logical reference</b>" that you mention, to the physical presence of momentum related translational kinetic energy:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">"Now this brings up the old issue of what this </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">"</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">equilibrium</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">"</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> constant velocity of photons in vacuum (free moving kinetic energy) is relative to in reality. Is it relative to the medium? To the point of emission? To the point of absorption? To the observer? To this or that reference frame, or multiple reference frames, inertial, non inertial, Galilean, moving or not, etc.?</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A deeply ingrained habit has developed since the beginning of the 20th century to hypothesize various reference frames in attempts to make sense of the experimentally observed data. But in physical reality, velocity depends on only one criterion: the actual presence of translational kinetic energy. If translational kinetic energy is present and if the local electromagnetic equilibrium allows it, there will be velocity in vacuum, relative to there being absence of translational kinetic energy, irrespective of any hypothesized reference frame or frames. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The absolute lower velocity limit</span></span></span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">, as seen from this perspective, would be an electron possessing zero translational kinetic energy in excess the energy making up its rest mass. Of course, such an electron totally deprived of translational kinetic energy can only be theoretical, because all massive particles are subject to gravitational or electrostatic acceleration in physical reality from the moment they start existing. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The absolute upper velocity limit</span></span></span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> involving electromagnetic oscillation is reached when an amount of translational (aka unidirectional) kinetic energy propels <b><u>an equal amount</u></b> of kinetic energy captive in transverse electromagnetic oscillation, that is, a free moving photon for example, as described in this paper. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The only other possible case</span></span></span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> between these two limits involving electromagnetic oscillation, applies to an amount of kinetic energy captive in transverse electromagnetic oscillation being propelled by <b><u>a lesser amount</u></b> of translational kinetic energy, such as the kinetic energy making up the rest mass of an electron, plus the transversely oscillating half of its carrier-photon's kinetic energy, both quantities being propelled by the unidirectional half of the carrier-photon's quantum of kinetic energy. The velocity of such a system will mandatorily lie between zero and asymptotically close to the speed of light."</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This is the one logical possible other reference that I have identified.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Best Regards</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
---
<footer class="signatureDivContainer">
<footer class="signatureContainer" style="display:inline;">André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
http://www.gsjournal.net/<br>
http://www.srpinc.org/</footer>
</footer>
<footer class="replyforwardcontainer"><br>
<br>
<i>On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:23:45 -0700, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier@gmail.com> wrote:</richgauthier@gmail.com></i><br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">Forwarded from Chip
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Begin forwarded message:</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Chip Akins" <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>[General] Relativity</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;">October 31, 2017 at 6:46:19 AM PDT</span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>To: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>Reply-To: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>></span></div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Hi Grahame (and Andre)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">A while back, we briefly discussed the idea that SR is not “logically self-consistent” even though many conclude that it is mathematically self-consistent.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Regarding logical self-consistent issues…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">In order to address this point I think we would need to take a look at the “landscape” as it relates to “relativity”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">While doing this, if we look at causes, which is to say that we use the concept of cause-and-effect as our guiding principle, as you have properly stressed, we can come to logical conclusions which simply do not agree with SR in all details.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">So we can take a look at many of the known conditions to guide the development of a composite view of the causes for “relativity”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Sound waves travel through a medium. Sound waves exhibit the Doppler Effect simply because they travel at a “fixed” speed through a “homogeneous” medium, regardless of the velocity of the object emitting the waves.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Light also exhibits the Doppler Effect in space.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">So there is an indication that some similarities may exist between the causes of the Doppler Effect in sound and in light.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Einstein stated that “<i>light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source</i>”, which is an incomplete statement, logically inconsistent, because the<i>velocity c in empty space</i>has no meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space, or some other reference, as the logical reference for that velocity. A velocity simply must be stated in reference to something.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Einstein also stated that, “<i>Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected by any means.</i>” Which is indicated by experiment as well. So no problem here.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">And he then followed with the assertion that “<i>This is to say that the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.</i>” (<i>Paraphrased</i>)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">This second conclusion is<i>not</i>fully logically supported by the evidence presented, and is logically inconsistent with the assertion that “<i>light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source</i>”. There are alternate interpretations of this evidence which are more causal and logical than this.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">First, our inability to measure something does not necessarily make it meaningless. There are a myriad examples we can give of things which we cannot directly measure, but we have come to accept, because of indirect evidence which stipulates their existence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">We can however, from the evidence, reconstruct a set of conditions, which is causal, and yields results which match observation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">For example, if light is made of “stuff” that propagates through a fixed frame of space at c, and if matter is made of confined versions of the same “stuff” also propagating (in confinement) at c in a fixed frame of space, then we would have exactly this set of circumstances. We would not be able to detect our motion through space by using an apparatus like the Michelson-Morley experiment. Note: This approach does not relegate as meaningless anything which may in fact be quite important.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">But if “<i>the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.”</i>Then how do we explain<i>“light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”</i>and the resultant Doppler Effect when a moving object emits light?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">While I am fully aware of the explanation that EM radiation is represented by vector “fields”, and that they somehow could propagate through an empty space at a fixed velocity justified only by the math. That is a less satisfactory answer logically because it does not present<i>physical</i>cause. This consideration, and the Doppler Effect, coupled with the underlying physical cause mentioned above, for us not being able to detect our own motion through space, yields two logically consistent reasons for looking at space as a sort of medium, with a “fixed” frame.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Lorentz transformations are a natural result of the situation mentioned above regarding the constitution of light a matter. These transformations are required under the circumstances where light and matter are made of the same “stuff” and that stuff moves at the fixed speed c in a fixed frame of space. This all occurs in a 3 dimensional Euclidian space.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">So there is a more logically consistent, causal view, than the one proposed by SR.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">When we run the math describing the situation where space is a medium in which the propagation of disturbances is a fixed velocity, and light and matter are made of these disturbances, we obtain the set of Lorentz transformations, and cause for “relativity” is shown, precisely and clearly. This is a logically consistent basis, and one which shows cause. In contrast to SR, which is a different interpretation of the same starting information, but does not show cause, and does not appear to be as logically consistent.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Are there ways to present this and related information which better illustrates the case from a logical basis?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Chip<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;"><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;">"></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;">Click here to unsubscribe</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;"></a></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</footer>
</div>
</body>