Ok, yes, I remember the squirrel. And yes, spatial statements like
"around" does of course depend on the observer's position, just like
political statements like right and left depend on some baseline in the
middle.
But I'm not sure we can generalize those examples to all? other levels.
I'm probably not seeing what you want me to see here.
Magnus
On 2010-09-06 11:46, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
ah, okay Magnus, i will make a suggestion to set gravity aside for this
moment , and move on it later on,
ok, i think it will become important, because it will show something
I suppose you have the e-book lila, can you go to page 212-213, and read the
squirrel part James introduced, and was recognised by pirsig?
Than, if you re-read the parts we discussed on general relativity,
relativity, quantum physiks, the many worlds interpretation Hawing
is supporting as the momental mainstream science,pay special attention to
the part is was pointing to as for the relative position of the observer
James , Pirsig, Einstein,Hawking all on 1 line, in a sequence of recognised
patterns regarding reality. saying the same,it takes a visionair to
recognise a visionair
i think it becomes important to list it up, sequentially.
and set it to be read in one artikel, will take us some time i guess, its
only a proposal of course.
i'm still investigating this push-pull model of you, there seems to be some
evidence, but very difficult to understand.
working on it, probably it is not in conflict with Hawkings idea's, or
general relativity, or supersymmetry
probably it resides in the supersymetry-model.it willt ake time, the product
is there.
So can you read page 212-213, and recognise what James and Pirsig are
saying?
greetzz,Adrie
2010/9/6 Magnus Berg<[email protected]>
Hi Adrie
Getting hard to distinguish the signals from all the noise around here.
Soon I'll start using Thunderbird's spam filter to cancel out the worst.
Anyway, I was able to read some of the links you sent yesterday. Very
interesting, this geoid form vs the freatic surface. But I'm really not sure
if it can be used to hint either way on the gravity push/pull issue? But
perhaps that wasn't your intention?
I also read the MWI page, at least parts of it. And even it sounds very
much like the quality event, I'm a little uncertain as to why it is
important here?
Magnus
On 2010-09-05 15:10, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
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
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
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
