Okay , lets compare , for now to explore our the geoidform of the earth,to make it possible to crossrefer this geoid to the freatic surface,the geoid shape is very important Magnus, can you read it carefully, and keep in mind that i want to compare the geoid shape with the freatic surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid And after that This will be the follow up, after we compared the geoid with the freatic field. It will lead to a field making your interpretation on gravity as good as any other scientifically projection, without conflicting other matters. It is surely nessesary to avoid conflicting matters, otherwise we will end up in a non-existing meta-gravity, that serves no purpose from the beginning. All details matter. Okay , this will be the field i propose, The many worlds interpretation, parented by Stephen Hawking,but he is incorporating all quantum physiks in his model, and the conflicting matter i was mentioning earlier, about the relative/absolute position of the observer is in conflict with the quantum-states supported by Hawking.In the Q P there is no absolute position unless proven. But for now , you can find what i'm pointing towards, in this regard, under "Interpreting waveform or function collapse" This will give the answer as to why its better to leave the absolute position as observer.Hawking's copenhagen interpretation is interwoven with that model,the relative model.the relative model is dynamical , the absolute is statical. Your clever enough to find it yourself, and than read our earlier matter back. I will come back on this later on, but i think its good to read yourself in a little bit in advance. Probably you will notice that Hawking allows multiple realitys and explains them, you will also notice that this material is not in conflict with any OTHER possible reality or history.Hawking merges all reality's. But as i come to think about it, you were the only one brave and bold enough to step into Andy's code, and to recognise the embedded idea within the formulation, so you are a very clever guy, i agree that the model was very difficult to peel open. greetzz, Adrie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation 2010/9/5 ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> > No, i only meant to say, Magnus, that accelerating is not in conflict with > cooling down,and that there is evidence for the cooling down, > I was clumsy. > > Adrie > > 2010/9/5 Magnus Berg <[email protected]> > >> >> Hi Adrie >> >> "ADRIE KINTZIGER" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >--quote,Magnus >> >Another line of thought is what Horse mentioned the other day. If gravity >> >comes from space, and space is expanding, then it should get weaker with >> >time. If we can find evidence that gravity was higher when the sun and >> our >> >planets formed, then that could be a smoking gun. But I doubt anyone has >> >searched for such evidence >> > >> >Yes , the universe is speeding up and cooling down at the same time, >> there >> >is evidence for the cooling down and sedating. >> >This is not in conflict with accelerating speed. >> >> That was a bit unclear. Of course "speeding up" is not in conflict with >> "accelerating speed", they are the same thing. >> >> Did something I say make you think I thought something conflicted? >> >> Magnus >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> > > > > -- > parser > -- parser Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
