<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Chip,<br>
</p>
<p>Einstein used indeed later in his life the word "ether", but in a
different sense. He did not change his mind in the way that he
permanently and finally refused the understanding that there
exists a fixed frame in the world.</p>
<p>But in his view space has properties. One property is the known
assumption that space and space-time are curved. And Einstein
tried for the rest of his life to find and to define more
properties of the space in the expectation that the existence of
fields can be deduced from those properties. Up to the end of his
life he tried to find in this way a / the "Theory of Everything".
He was, as we know, not successful with it.</p>
<p>But he never gave up his denial of the possibility that there is
a fixed frame. (I refer here particularly to the book of Ludwik
Kostro, "Einstein and the Ether", where Kostro has thoroughly
investigated everything what Einstein has said and published up to
the end of his life.) <br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 05.03.2018 um 21:55 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:07a801d3b4c4$4acf84e0$e06e8ea0$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:210265128;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1952207248 397949086 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"\(%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Gentlemen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Later in Einstein’s career he <b>reversed
his opinion</b> about the “ether”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As Einstein pointed out, “<i>There Is an
Important argument In favor of the hypothesis of the ether.
To deny the existence of the ether means, in the last
analysis, denying all physical properties to empty space</i>”…
and he said, “<i>the ether remains still absolute because its
influence on the inertia of bodies and on the propagation of
light is conceived as independent of every kind of physical
influence.</i>” <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But the physics community was already so
attached to the idea that space was empty that Einstein’s
later comments on the subject have been principally ignored.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 05, 2018 2:32 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Wolfgang Baer <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>;
Roychoudhuri, Chandra
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"><chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Foundational questions
Tension field stable particles<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Wolf:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 02.03.2018 um 04:05 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>I see no conflict between our understanding of magnetism
and coriolis forces and both are interpretation that can be
created or not by the way we look at phenomena.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>WE start to disagree what I because we agree want to look
at the physics of the observer as an integral and necessary
part of how phenomena are perceived. And this is where we
should be focusing our discussion. What assumptions are
valid and what physics would we develop if we change our
assumptions?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>more comments added<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">... and some comments back.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 3/1/2018 6:52 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Wolf:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>my answers again in your text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 01.03.2018 um 04:59 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The Coriolis force as a surrogate for the Magnetic
force is a good example that shows we are talking about
ttwo different things. I was taught exactly what you
repeated below in Mr. Bray's physics class and did not
believe it then because when I take a ride on a
Merry-go-Round I feel a force that is real. Period.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">That is indeed correct. It is a real
force. If we have a hurricane on earth it is a result of
the Coriolis force and that is a real force. The point is,
however, that it is not a NEW force but the well known
Newtonian inertial force; just interpreted in a different
way.<br>
<br>
The same with magnetism. Also magnetism shows a real
force. And that force is the electric force, but also in
this case interpreted in a different way.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>OK</b><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>I do not care what you call it You can look at me from
many different angles and in many different ways but the
force I feel is real, <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, it is real, but interpreted in a
different way.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>OK</b><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>What I am arguing and what I want you to be aware of is
that in the sentence "The Coriolis force is a
non-existent force." it is the name of the force that
may be the wrong name for the force I experience, but
the force is real.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">You are right, better wording would be
"it does not exist as a NEW force".<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>All the examples I've give and let me add the Lorenz
Force F= E*q + B xV , where V my velocity.You think I
am arguing but I am not arguing that by moving at some
velocity you can make B disappear in your equation and
by moving at another velocity you can make V equal to
zero in your equation. I am arguing that you cannot make
the phenomena disappear. No matter how many theories you
invent and how many different names you invent. The
phenomena, the force I feel does not depend on your
theory. I and the situation I am in is an independent
reality. All you can do with Lorenz transformations is
shift the name of the force from magnatic to and
additional Coulonb component. Exactly the same way
moving from astationary observer at the center of the
Merry-go-Round shifts the name ov the force from
acceleration to Coreolis. Its the same force!<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">True, there is a force. But only
interpreted as something new or additional, which is not
the case.<br>
<br>
"To make magnetism disappear" does not mean that every
force disappears. It means that you can explain all what
you observe as Coulomb force.<br>
<br>
And one should be cautious in the practical case. In daily
physical practise we measure magnetism by use of a
magnetic dipole. But that is not the correct way. Correct
is to use an electric charge, measure the force and
compare it to the Coulomb force as visible from the actual
state of motion.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>OK</b><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I recommend again at the "Veritasium" video. It shows the
situation in a good and correct way.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Unless (and here is where I am trying to get us to go)
one begins to believe and evoke the principles of
quantum theory or its marcro-scopic extension which I am
trying to develop.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">All this has nothing to do with quantum
theory. It is one of the sources of QM that physicists
misinterpret classical physical processes, lack an
explanation and then divert to QM seeking for an
explanation, which is in those cases not needed. But
misleading.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>So we agree until we get to this point</b><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>In those extensions the Newtonian, and Maxwellian
phenomena are true in the coordinate frame of the
observer BECAUSE the coordinate frame supplies the space
, now called Hilbert space in which those phenomena are
displayed to the observer. The observer IS the
coordinate frame and his observable phenomena occur
within the space defined by that coordinate frame.
Everything you see is seen in a space you create within
the material from which you are built. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">I personally do not see the space as
being created by anything. I keep my naive view that space
is nothing than emptiness and has no extra properties,
Euclidean geometry applies and is sufficient.<br>
<br>
Should I ever encounter an argument that this is not
sufficient, I am prepared to change my mind. But up to now
it was not necessary.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Does the fact that you simply are not
recognizing that it is your first person perspective in
which "empty" space appears that is your fundamental
experience and any assumption that such experience is due
to a real space is Theory. Do you not ask how is it that I
am able to create the sensations I have. Are you and your
experiences not part of the reality and therefore must be
explained as part of your if you are to have a
comprehensive theory. AND there is no explanation in
classic or relativistic physics for the consciousness of
the observer. One must begin to think in Quantum terms</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">We know that our brain gives us wrong or
biased information about this world. Because our brains have
developed to help us to survive, not to have insights. But as
a guide to help us to survive it can only function if our
understanding of the world is not too far away from the way as
the world in fact is. <br>
<br>
As far as I can see, as long as people try to understand this
world they (at least the scientists) know the problem that our
brain and our senses are misleading us. So this general
problem of understanding is in the mind of the people and was
in their mind at least since the time of ancient Greece. The
only question is how to start with an according investigation.
One way to cope with this problem is and was to build
measurement tools which give us results independent of our
mood. These tools are continuously developed. And we are of
course not at the end of this development. But we can only
develop and correct our tools if there are results and hints
which give us informations on errors. Without those
informations we are playing with dice, and these dice do not
have 6 numbers but many thousand numbers. Does this playing
make any sense for us?<br>
<br>
Quantum theory has in my view nothing to do with the fact that
our understanding is related to our brain. This assumption
that a physical process depends on the consciousness of the
observer has a different origin. Heisenberg found himself
completely unable and helpless to understand the particle-wave
phenomenon. So he once said that we have to go back to Plato
and so he threw away all that progress which Newton has
brought into our physical understanding. And on the other hand
he neglected the proposal of Louis de Broglie about the
particle-wave question because at that time he was already so
much related to a mysterious view that he was no more able to
leave that. - At this point I agree to Einstein and de Broglie
that a mystification of physics will not give us progress.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>All the physics before Einstein was developed with the
assumption that there is an independent objective 3D
reality space ( and it should be a stationary ether) in
which all these objects appear. Einstein almost got it
right. There is no independent ether and it all depends
upon the coordinate frame. He did not take the next
step. We observers are the coordinate frame each of us
supplies the ether. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here my position is completely
opposite. We do have an independent ether as Lorentz has
assumed it. And it is an ether in the sense that the speed
of light is related to a fixed frame, and this does not
cause any logical conflicts in my understanding.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>OK so you make the assumption that we
do have an independent ether. That is the old "naive
reality" assumption and classic mechanics and EM theory is
built on this assumption. But quantum theory is no longer
built on this assumption.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ether is not compatible with Einstein's
understanding of relativity. But also QM is not compatible
with Einstein's relativity. So I do not see any specific
connection of QM to the absence of an ether. QM simple does
not to care.<br>
<br>
Einstein said that an ether is not necessary and not helpful.
Lorentz told him situations which by Lorentz view are not
understandable without ether. Einstein repeated his denial of
an ether but he could not answer the questions of Lorentz. <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
So is the ether related to the fixed frame ? What ether is
attached to my fixed frame? Are they different ethers? Or
is there one ether, and we are all material objects moving
in that ether who just happen to be able to interpret some
configurations of material as space with objects moving in
them. why should our mental display of our experience be
anything but one possible way of building a mental display
along a very very long path of evolution. Do you really
believe you are the pinnacle or end of that process?</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">The ether of Lorentz does not mean anything
more than the existence of a fixed frame. And in the view of
Ludwik Kostro and particularly my view, the photons of our
light are giving us this reference. All photons move with the
same - absolute - speed c, and this speed is related to
something. I guess to the position and motion state of the Big
Bang. If we look at the CMB we see a different red shift
depending on the direction. And we can quite easily calculate
which motion with respect to our earth we must have so that
this red shift becomes isotropic. This tells us what the
reference of the ether most probably is.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Please read may Vigier X Paper again but ignore the
first part where I'm trying to show why SR is wrong -
you argued a lot with that. The real reason SR is wrong
is because Einstein developed it without recognizing
that his imagination supplied the background ether and
his rail car and .embankment observer where "RIDING
ALONG" with their coordinate frames observing Einsteins
imaginary space. They were not IN their own space.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can you please copy this essential part
of your paper here? I do not have it at hand in this
moment.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>SEE ATTACHED</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>This is where we should return to our SR discussion and
properly add the observer to physics<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Special relativity gives us in my view
not any reason to turn to an observer dependent physics.
For Einstein's view it is correct, but for the Lorentzian
it is not necessary.<br>
<br>
Ludwik Kostro, who participated in Vigier X, has written a
book about "Einstein and the ether". And he has - among
other sources - reprinted a letter exchange between
Einstein and Lorentz about the necessity of an ether.
Lorentz described a (Gedanken) experiment which in his
view is not explainable without ether. Einstein refused to
except an ether, but he did not present any arguments how
this experiment can be understood without it.<br>
<br>
I still think that Einstein's relativity has mislead the
physical world in a tremendous way. There are in fact
relativistic phenomena, but Einstein's way to treat them
was really bad.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>I agree and this agreement is what
gave us a common goal of finding a better explanation.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hopefully<br>
Albrecht<b><br>
<br>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">CHANDRA- there may be an abstract
independent CTF but my suggestion is that it may be the
ether each of us is made of and therefor may be thought
to be stationary.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>best wishes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best wishes <br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2/27/2018 10:28 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Wolf:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I think that there is a simple answer to your concern
regarding magnetism. If you accept that magnetism is
not a real physical entity but a seeming effect then
there should not exist the logical conflicts which you
see.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I think that the Coriolis force is a good example to
understand the situation: Assume that you are sitting
in a cabin without a view to the outside. Now assume
that this cabin is rotating very silently so that you
do not notice the rotation. You are sitting in a chair
in the middle on the rotational axis. Now you throw a
ball from your position away from you. You will expect
that the ball flies on a straight path off. But you
will observe that the ball flies on a curved path. And
what will be your explanation? You will think that
there must be a force which moves the ball to the
side. - This is the Coriolis force.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>But this force does not in fact exist. If there is an
observer on top of the cabin and can look into the
cabin, in his view the ball moves on a straight line.
And there is no reason for a force. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The Coriolis force is a non-existent force. Similarly
the magnetic field is a non-existent field.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 27.02.2018 um 04:46 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
have a tremendous aversion to believing that the
observer (unless we are talking quantum effects
where measurement interferes with the object
measured ) can have any effect on the independent
“whatever it is” out there. But physicists often
confuse measurement results with physical realities.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Regarding
“<b>The relative velocity between charges does NOT
determine the magnetic field.”</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Jaxon
Classical Electrodynamics p 136 states the force
between two current segments is oin differential
form<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
d<b>F12</b> = - I1*I2 (<b>dl1</b> ● <b>dl2</b>)*<b>X12</b>
/(c<sup>2</sup> * |<b>X12</b>|<sup>3</sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">now
the current is charge q1*<b>v1 = </b>I1*<b>dl1 </b>and
q2*<b>v2 = </b>I1*<b>dl1 </b>substituting means
the magnetic force between the two charges is
dependent on the dot product between the two
velocities (<b>v1</b> ● <b>v2</b>). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Furthermore
Goldstien Classical Mechanics talks about velocity
dependent potentials p19<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">And
we all know the magnetic force is F =~ v1 x B12
while the magnetic field is dependent on v! , so the
force is dependent on two velocities.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Now
your statement ‘<b>But the magnetic field depends on
the relative velocity between the observer and the
one charge and the observer and the other charge.
Where "observer" means the measuring tool.” </b>Is
certainly true because one can always define one
coordinate frame that moves with velocity of the
first charge and a second coordinate frame that
moves with the velocity of the second charge. So in
these two coordinate frames each one would say there
is no B field.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">However
I see both charges in <b>one coordinate frame</b>
and that is how the experiments leading to the force
equations were conducted. So I question whether your
assumption that there are two coordinate frames and
I assume you would like to connected by the Lorenz
transforms reflects physical reality. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have asked you in the previous
mail NOT to argue with coordinate frames because we
should discuss physics and not mathematics. Now you
cite me with statements about coordinate frames. How
can I understand that?<br>
<br>
However if you really insist to talk about frames: The
saying that two charges are in different coordinate
frames means that these charges are <u>at rest</u> in
different coordinate frames. They can of course be
investigated by an observer (or a tool) which resides
in <u>one </u>frame.<br>
<br>
The equation from Jackson which you have cited above
is essentially the same as the one that I gave you in
the previous mail. And it says also that the magnetic
field depends on the <u>product </u>of both charges
involved, not on their difference.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
reiterate the concept of fields even the coulomb
field is passed upon the measured force between a
test charge Qt and another charge Qn. So that the
total force on the test charge is<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
F =~ SUM over all n ( Qt * Qn / Rtn<sup>2</sup>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">And
it is possible to introduce a field <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
E = SUM over all n ( Qn / Rtn<sup>2</sup>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">As
that F= Qt * E<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Perfectly
good mathematically. But to assume that physically E
is a property of space rather than simply the sum of
charge to charge interactions that would happen if a
test charge were at that space is a counter factual.
And not consistent with the quantum photon theory.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why do you assume that a field is a
property of space? If you assume that space is nothing
else than emptiness then you will have all necessary
results. Why making things unnecessarily complicated?<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Which
by the way I think is also wrong. Photons are false
interpretations of charge to charge interactions. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">I do not remember that we talk here
about quantum theory. For this discussion at least it
is not needed. And regarding photons, I have explained
very detailed that photons - as I have measured them
in my thesis work - are particles with specific
properties; but clearly particles. You did not object
to my arguments but you repeat your statement that a
photon as a particle is a false interpretation. It
would be good to hear argument than only statements.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">that
is for another discussion<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which else discussion? <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">best
wishes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best wishes<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2/26/2018 3:27 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>my comments and explanations in the text below.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">Am 25.02.2018 um
05:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think I understand your
arguments since this is what is generally
taught, however I have always been uncomfortable
with the statements involving “observer”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I question your statement
“<span style="font-size:13.5pt">The different
amount seen by the observer can be calculated
by the use of the force-related Lorentz
transformation - from the frame of the
electrons to the frame of the observer.”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now ancient experiments
discovered that there are two reciprocal forces
between charges. The relative distance R gives
the Coulomb force F<sub>E</sub> and the relative
velocity gives the Magnetic force F<sub>B </sub><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part4.318C00DB.D316D2C6@a-giese.de"
class="" height="95" width="208" border="0"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now if these are independent
entities whose existence does not depend upon
any observation made by the observer (until we
get to quantum measurements) . <i>This means
the physics is fixed </i>and so are the
parameters. Any measurement made by any
coordinate frame when properly processed for its
own distortions will result in the same
parameters, so R,V, F<sub>B</sub>, F<sub>E</sub><sup>
</sup>and yes the speed of light must be
constant. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> If the
measurement results differ either we do not have
objective measurement independent reality or
else there is an unaccounted artifact in the
measurement process.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">There
is an error in your above arguments. The
relative velocity between charges does NOT
determine the magnetic field. But the magnetic
field depends on the relative velocity between
the observer and the one charge and the observer
and the other charge. Where "observer" means the
measuring tool.<br>
<br>
The entities are not independent in so far as
any observer will see them in a different way.
That is not a consequence of quantum mechanics
but very simply the consequence of the fact that
in a moving system the tools change (like rulers
contract and clocks are slowed down) and so
their measurement results differ from a tool
measuring while being at rest. This is the
reason that we need a Lorentz transformation to
compare physical entities in one moving frame to
entities in another moving frame.<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I and QM claims there is no
objective measurement independent reality. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">That
may be the case but has nothing to do with our
discussion here. </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lorenz assumed the coordinate
frame dilates and shrinks so that when raw
measurements are made and no correction is
applied we may not observe a magnetic field but
instead a different Coulomb field so that the
actual result on the object measured remains the
same only the names of the causes have been
changed. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">You
are permanently referring to coordinate frames.
But we are treating here physical facts and not
mathematical ones. So coordinates should be
omitted as an argument as I have proposed it
earlier. </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now consider looking at the
same two charges from an arbitrary coordinate
frame. then in that frame the two charges will
have wo velocities V1 and V2 but there will
always be a difference V <o:p></o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" align="left" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr style="height:12.0pt">
<td style="width:66.75pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
0in;height:12.0pt" width="89"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"><br>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-element:frame;mso-element-frame-hspace:2.25pt;mso-element-wrap:around;mso-element-anchor-vertical:paragraph;mso-element-anchor-horizontal:column;mso-height-rule:exactly"><img
id="_x0000_i1026"
src="cid:part5.D1F167BE.A9E3E7C6@a-giese.de"
class="" height="115" width="258"
border="0"><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I contend that it does not
matter what frame you chose cannot get rid of
the relative velocity. The only way you can get
rid of the magnetic field is if there was no
relative velocity in the first palace. And there
never was a magnetic field in the physics. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">As
soon as the observer moves in the same frame,
i.e. with the same speed vector as one of the
charges, he does not see a magnetic field. In
the deduction of the magnetic field which I have
attached (from a talk at a conference last year)
the magnetic force is defined by the equation:</span><br>
<img id="_x0000_i1027"
src="cid:part6.0EBDD0EF.CF2CA71B@a-giese.de"
class="" height="55" width="272" border="0"><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">where v and u are
the speeds of two charges, q1 and q2, , with
respect to the observer. y is the distance and
gamma the Lorentz factor in the set up shown.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Therefore your further
conclusion “<span style="font-size:13.5pt">As
soon as an observer moves with one charge,
i.e. he is at rest with respect to the frame
of one of the charges, then there is no
magnetic field for him.” </span>Is only true
if there was no magnetic field in the first
place, a very special case.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We must be very careful not
to confuse the actual physics in a situation
with the way we look at it. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">I
guess that you know the Coriolis force. This
force is somewhat similar to magnetism. It is in
effect for one observer but not for another one
depending on the observer's motion. And there is
nothing mysterious about it, and also quantum
mechanics is not needed for an explanation.<br>
<br>
In your logic you would have to say: If there is
no Coriolis force then there is no inertial
mass. But that is clearly not the case.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we apply the same analysis
to the Michelson Morley experiment I think we
will also find that there never was a fringe
shift in the physics. The physics states charges
interact with other charges, basta. Introducing
fields and then attributing what has always been
a summation of many charge effects on one test
charge onto a property of empty space is simply
a convenient mathematical trick that hides the
physical reality.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">The
MM experiment is easily explained by the fact
that there is contraction in the direction of
motion. Nothing more is needed to explain the
null-result. In the view of Einstein space
contracts and in the view of Lorentz the
apparatus contracts as the internal fields
contract. And the latter is a known phenomenon
in physics.<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I further submit this as an
argument that mass and charge are fundamental
physics and if there is to be a CTF it is the
tension that holds mass and charge together when
electro-magentic forces operating on charge
densities and gravito-inertial forces operating
on mass densities are not balanced and pulls
mass and charge apart. I further submit the the
resulting fluctuations in the mass-charge
densities leads to CTF propagating patterns that
are an ontologically defensible interpretation
of Schroedingers Wave function.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">An
indication that mass is not fundamental is the
fact that mass can be converted into energy. On
the other hand charge cannot be converted into
energy; this can be taken as an argument that it
is fundamental.<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Anything
still controversial? Then please explain.<br>
Albrecht</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Tell me why I’m wrong<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wolf <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2/23/2018 6:51 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Chandra:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">If two
electrons move side by side, the main force
between them is of course the electrostatic
one. But there is an additional contribution
to the force which is measured in the frame
of an observer at rest (like the one of
Millikan). In the frame of the moving
electrons (maybe they belong to the same
frame) there is only the electrostatic
force, true. The different amount seen by
the observer can be calculated by the use of
the force-related Lorentz transformation -
from the frame of the electrons to the frame
of the observer.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">If the
oil-drop chamber is in steady motion this
has primarily no influence. Important is the
motion state of the observer. If the
observer is at rest with respect to the
moving oil-drops (and so of the electrons),
he will notice a contribution of magnetism.
Any motion of the chamber does not matter
for this fact.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">In general
magnetism is visible for an observer who is
in motion with respect to both charges under
consideration. As soon as an observer moves
with one charge, i.e. he is at rest with
respect to the frame of one of the charges,
then there is no magnetic field for him. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Your example
of two compass needles is a more complex one
even if it does not look so. To treat this
case correctly we have to take into account
the cause of the magnetism of the needle,
that means of the circling charges in the
atoms (in Fe). If we would do this then -
seen from our own frame - both groups of
charges are moving, the charges in the
conductor and also the charges in the
needle's atoms. So as both are moving with
respect to the observer, this is the cause
for a magnetic field between both objects. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 22.02.2018 um 21:02
schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Albrecht:
Your point is well taken. Not being expert
in magnetism, I need to spend more time on
this issue. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">However,
let me pose a question to think.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">If
two electrons are trapped in two side by
side but separate Millikan oil drops, the
two electrons feel each other’s static
E-field, but no magnetic field. If the
oil-drop chamber was given a steady
velocity, could Millikan have measured the
presence of a magnetic field due to the
moving electrons (“current”), which would
have been dying out as the chamber moved
further away? This experiment can be
conceived in many different ways and can
be executed. Hence, this is not a pure
“Gedanken” experiment. I am sure, some
equivalent experiment has been done by
somebody. Send me the reference, if you
can find one. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Are
two parallel current carrying conductors
deflecting magnetic needles (undergraduate
experiment) different from two independent
electrons moving parallel to each other?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">I
have just re-phrased Einstein’s example
that you have given below.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Sincerely,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 22,
2018 2:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
Foundational questions Tension field
stable particles</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I like very
much what you have written here.
Particularly what you say about "time"
which physically means oscillations. That
is what one should keep in mind when
thinking about relativity.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">However in
one point I have to object. That is your
judgement of the parameter</span> <span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">µ</span>.
<span style="font-size:13.5pt">I think that
it is a result from the historical fact
that magnetism was detected long time
earlier than electricity. So magnetism
plays a great role in our view of physics
which does not reflect its role there. We
know since about 100 years that magnetism
is not a primary phenomenon but an
apparent effect, a side effect of the
electric field which is caused by the
finiteness of c. If c would be infinite
there would not be any magnetism. This is
given by the equation </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">c<sup>2</sup>
= (1/ϵµ)</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> which you have
mentioned. This equation should be better
written as </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">µ
= (1/c<sup>2</sup>ϵ) </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> to reflect this
physical fact, the dependency of the
magnetism on c. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The symmetry
between electricity and magnetism is
suggested by Maxwell's equation. These
equations are mathematically very elegant
and well usable in practice. But they do
not reflect the physical reality. Easiest
visible is the fact that we have
electrical monopoles but no magnetic
monopoles. Einstein has described this
fact by saying: Whenever an observer is in
a magnetic field, he can find a motion
state so that the magnetic field
disappears. - This is as we know not
possible for an electric field.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I think that
we have discussed this earlier. Do you
remember?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 21.02.2018 um 00:00
schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>“We nee</i><i><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">d a geometry
in which both space and time are
curved back on themselves to provide a
donut in which the forces Fem, Fgi,
Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen
states at each action quanta. </span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">Does any of
this suggest a tension field you might
be thinking about??”</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Yes,
Wolf, we need to model mathematically
the “twists and turns” of different
intrinsic potential gradients embedded
in CTF (Complex Tension Field) to create
stationary self-looped oscillations (<b><i>field-particles</i></b>).
Maxwell achieved that for the
propagating linear excitations using his
brilliant observations of using the
double differentiation – giving us the
EM wave equation. We need to find
non-propagating (stationary – Newton’s
first law) self-looped oscillations –
the in-phase ones will be stable, others
will “break apart” with different
life-times depending upon how far they
are from the in-phase closed-loop
conditions. The successes of the
mathematical oscillatory dynamic model
could be judged by the number of
predicted properties the theory can find
for the <b><i>field-particles,</i></b>
which we have measured so far. The
physical CTF must remain stationary
holding 100% of the cosmic energy. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> However,
I would not attempt to keep the primacy
of Relativity by trying to keep the
Space-Time 4-D concept intact. If we
want to capture the ontological reality;
we must imagine and visualize the
potential <b><i>foundational</i></b>
physical process and represent that with
a set of algebraic symbols and call them
the primary parameters of “different
grades”. During constructing
mathematical theories, it is of prime
importance to introduce consciously this
concept of “primary”, vs. “secondary”,
vs. “tertiary”, etc., physical
parameters related to any observable
physical phenomenon. The physical
parameter that dictates the core
existence of an entity in nature should
be considered as primary. However, it is
not going to be easy because of the
complexities in the different
interaction processes – different
parameters take key role in transferring
the energy in different interactions.
Besides, our ignorance is still
significantly broad compared to the
“validated” knowledge we have gathered
about our universe. Here is a glaring
example. νλ = c = (1/ϵµ). If I am doing
atomic physics, ν is of primary
importance because of the quantum
resonance with ν and the QM energy
exchange rule is “hν”. “λ” changes
from medium to medium. If I am doing
Astrophysics, ϵ and µ for free space,
are of primary significance; even though
people tend to use “c”, while missing
out the fundamental roles of ϵ and µ as
some of the core building blocks of the
universe. Funny thing is that the ϵ and
µ of free space were recognized well
before Maxwell synthesized
Electromagnetism.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">
With this background, I want underscore
that the “running time, “t” is of
critical importance in our formulation
of the dynamic universe. And, yet “t’ is
not a directly measurable physical
parameter of any object in this
universe. What we measure is really the
frequency, or its inverse, the
oscillation periods of different
physical oscillators in this universe.
So, frequency can be dilated or
contracted by controlling the ambient
physical parameter of the environment
that surrounds and INFLUENCES the
oscillator. The running time cannot be
dilated or contracted; even though
Minkowsky introduced this “dilation”
concept. This is the reason why I have
been pushing for the introduction in
physics thinking the Interaction Process
Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E). </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 19,
2018 10:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
Foundational questions Tension field
stable particles</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Candra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-indent:.5in"> Let’s consider
your tension filed is a medium underlying
the experience of space composed of charge
and mass density spread out in the
cross-section of a time loop.. Coordinate
frame cells of <i>small enough</i> sizes
can be described by constant enough mass
and charge densities in each cell. For
small enough cells the mass and charge
values concentrated at their centers may
be used in stead of the densities. The
resulting field of center values can take
any pattern that satisfies the extended
dAlambert principle. Besides the classic
electro-magnetic Fem and gravito-inertial
force Fgi I postulate forces tat hold
charge and mass together Fcm, Fmc. This
condition assures mass charge centers in
each cell appear at locations of balanced
forces. Each pattern which satisfies this
condition represents a static state of the
loop in which the patterns are fixed for
the lifetime of the loop.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>The Charge-Mass
Separation Vector and Equilibrium States</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-indent:.5in">The physical size
of the space is its volume. The volume
(Vol) of space is the sum of the
infinitesimal volumes dVol of each of the
cells composing that space “Vol = ∫<sub>all
space</sub> dVol”. These infinitesimal
volumes are calculated from the
mass-charge density extensions in each
cell when viewed externally as shown in
figure 4.3-3a . The physical volume
depends upon the mass charge separation
pattern of the equilibrium state the
system being modeled exists in. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> In CAT the
extension of a cell can be calculated as
follows. In each cell the distance between
the center of charge and mass is a vector
d<b>ζ.</b> The projection of this vector
onto the degrees of freedom directions
available for the charge and mass to move
in the generalized coordinate space allows
us to expansion this vector as, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
4.3-1 <b>dζ =</b> dζ<sub>t</sub><b>∙u<sub>t</sub></b>
+ dζ<sub>x</sub><b>∙u<sub>x</sub> </b>+
dζ<sub>y</sub><b>∙u<sub>y</sub> </b>+ dζ<sub>z</sub><b>∙u<sub>z</sub>
+…</b> dζ<sub>f</sub><b>∙u<sub>f</sub>
+…,</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b>where
the <b>u<sub>f</sub></b>’s are the unit
vectors. A space limited to Cartesian
3-space is characterized by three x,y,z
directions, but CAT models a generalized
space that encompasses all sensor
modalities not only the optical ones. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The volume
of a cell calculated from the diagonal
expansion vector “<b>dζ”</b> by
multiplying all non zero coefficients,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
4.3-2 dVol = dζ<sub>t</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>x</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>y</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>z</sub><b>∙…∙</b>dζ<sub>f</sub><b>∙…
.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The shape
of this volume is determined by the
direction of the expansion vector which in
turn is determined by the direction and
strength of forces pulling the charge and
mass apart. The direction of pull depends
upon the number of dimensions available in
the generalized coordinates of the media.
The forces must be in equilibrium but
exact equilibrium pattern depends upon
which global loop equilibrium state “Ζ”
the event being modeled is in. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> In the
simplest equilibrium state the masses and
charges are collocated. This implies the
internal forward propagating in time
forces F<sub>cm</sub>,F<sub>mc</sub>, and
backward propagating in time force F<sub>mc</sub>*,F<sub>cm</sub>*
are zero, and if there are no internal
force pulling the charges and masses
together then sum of the remaining
exterior gravito-electric forces pulling
the charge and mass apart must separately
be zero precisely at the collocation
point. A trivial condition that satisfies
these equations is when all forces are
zero. In this case there is no action in
the media and no action for expanding the
coordinate frame defining a volume of
space. We are back to a formless blob of
zero volume, where all charges and masses
are at the same point. This is the
absolute ground state of material, one
level of something above nothing. The big
bang before the energy of action flow is
added. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-indent:.5in"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter" />
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0" />
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" />
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t" />
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_s1026" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='position:absolute;left:0;text-align:left;margin-left:0;margin-top:0;width:190.5pt;height:187.5pt;z-index:-251658240;mso-wrap-distance-left:0;mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:0;mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:left;mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical-relative:line' o:allowoverlap="f">
<v:imagedata src="mailbox:///C:/Users/AL/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/lthhzma2.default/Mail/pop3.strato-12.de/Inbox?number=6117&header=quotebody&part=1.1.5&filename=image004.gif" o:title="part12.1C7DC3E8.CB9C6F2E@a-giese" />
<w:wrap type="square"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img
src="cid:part12.8B423EB2.FCA8A5A9@a-giese.de"
v:shapes="_x0000_s1026" class=""
align="left" height="1" width="254"><!--[endif]-->To
exemplify the methods we consider an
equilibrium state of a single isolated
cell whose only degree of freedom is the
time direction. This means the volume in
all space directions are infinitesimally
small and the volume can be considered a
single line of extension “ΔVol = ΔT<sub>w</sub>
= ∫dζ<sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt">t</span></sub><span
style="font-size:14.0pt"> “ </span>along
the time direction as shown in the god’s
eye perspective of figure 4.3-6. In this
situation we can consider charges and
masses to be point particles. Forces as
well as action can only propagate along
the material length of the line time line
represented in space as “Qw”. We now list
the sequence of changes that can propagate
through around the equilibrium positions
indicated by numbers in parenthesis.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(1)<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->The
upper charge is pushed from its
equilibrium position (filled icon) forward
along the time line<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(2)<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->It
exerts a force “Fem” on the left charge
pushing it forward while feeling a
reaction force “Fem*” that retards it back
to its equilibrium position<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(3)<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->While
the left charge is moved from equilibrium
it exerts an internal “Fcm” force on the
bottom mass while feeling a reaction force
“Fcm*” which returns it to equilibrium.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(4)<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->While
the bottom mass is moved from equilibrium
it exerts a force “Fgi” on the right mass
while feeling a reaction force “Fgi*”
which returns it to equilibrium.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">(5)<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New
Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->While
the right mass is moved from equilibrium
it exerts a force “Fmc” on the upper
charge while feeling a reaction force
“Fmc*” which returns it to equilibrium.
We are now back to (1).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-indent:.5in">If the system is
isolated there is no dissipation into
other degrees of freedom and the
oscillation continues to move as a
compression wave around the “Qw” time line
circumference forever. The graph however
is static and shows a fixed amount of
action indicated by the shaded arrows
around the time line. Motion in “block”
models is produced by the velocity of the
observer or model operator as he moves
around the time line. From our god’s eye
perspective an action density is
permanently painted on the clock dial and
thereby describes an total event. The last
degree of freedom events are rather
trivial <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We need a
geometry in which both space and time are
curved back on themselves to provide a
donut in which the forces Fem, Fgi,
Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states at
each action quanta. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does any of this
suggest a tension field you might be
thinking about??<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 1/24/2018 7:20 PM,
Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">1. Yes, I have
submitted an essay. FQXi has not sent
the approval link yet. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Replacement of
our SPIE conf. Without a supporting
infrastructure to replace SPIE-like
support, it is very difficult to
manage. I will try NSF during the last
week of May. Do you want to start
negotiating with some out-of-box
European groups? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Re-starting
afresh from the bottom up is the only
way to start re-building a unified
field theory. It is futile to
force-fit whole bunch of different
theories that were structured
differently at different states of
human cultural epoch.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my
iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On Jan 24, 2018, at 6:08 PM,
Wolfgang Baer <<a
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p>Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Just rereading your 2015 paper
"Urgency of evolution..."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I love the sentiment " This is a
good time to start iteratively
re-evaluating and restructuring
all the foundational postulates
behind all the working theories"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Did you write a paper for FQXi?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I sent one in <a
href="https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Is there any chance to get a replacement for the SPIE conference, one that would expand the questions </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">beyond the nature of light?</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Wolf</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of
Light and Particles General
Discussion List at <a
href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a><br>
<a href="<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">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>