Kjøp eiendom på månen: Moonestates.com

[DrHawkins]

Her kommer da mailene med Mr. Von Der Dunk som er professor og sitter i United Nations:

Thomas sin mail og svar:

 

Hi, Mr. von der Dunk

 

I'm having a discussion about the legality of Mr. Hope's claim of owning the Moon. Every article I've read about this matter specifies you as the expert on space laws and the authority on such matters. Therefore I would like to consult you in this matter.

 

Up until now I've quoted everything I can come up with to prove that Hope's claim is false, but my opponent in this discussion does not seem to listen to me, because, let's face it, I'm no expert in space law.

 

I've shown him the first bullet point in the UN Space Treaty, saying that space is supposed to be free for all.

 

I've tried showing him that if there is someone owning the moon, it isn't Hope (Jurgens and Lindsay, among others).

 

I've tried telling him that the deed is classified as a novel item, but then he just refers to the contradiction in Lunar Embassy's FAQ stating that it is, in fact, a real deed.

 

I've even tried showing him about Virgiliu Pop's stunt about owning the Sun.

 

Can you help me convince him (and others that are believing him) that it is, in fact, a novelty gift and not a real property they are buying?

 

Thank you in advance!

 

 

 

With regards

 

Thomas Smestad

 

du snakker om å kunne holde seg nøytral og kunne være interesert i saken og ikke mine feil og meninger..

 

her viser du hvor dårlig du virkelig er til å diskutere ordentlig en sak

 

i denne mailen din så sier du kun mot meg og ingenting nøytralt og det er en skam, du kunne rett å slett bare skrevet at du ønsker å finne utav sannheten av denne saken at det foreligger hundre vis av beviser for at det er sant men i tillegg så er det veldig masse i mot dette, hva er saken?.... noe lignende det kunne du ha skrevet for å holde deg til saken og ikke bare hva jeg mener og hva mine feil er. dette viser hvorfor jeg kaller dere diverse ting fordi jeg går etter hva sannheten er og ikke hva deres feiler eller meninger er. og når dere ikke er interesert i å diskutere saken men å kun finne feil med meg elelr hva jeg mener så blir jeg pisst off!!!!

 

 

 

Well, as to Mr. Hope, he will, of course, never accept on his own volition and in public the illegality of his activities, simply because it would undercut his business and more importantly open him up to the risk of 'buyers' to sue him for fraud.

 

og von der dunk kommer aldri til å inrømme at han tar feil i veldig mye av det han skriver her fordi han er tvunget til å beskytte jobben sin og det han står for (for tiden så står han FOR unoosa og da er han og mr hope erkefiender og da sier det seg selv at de to partene kommer til å si stikk motsatt av hverandre) (hvis von der dunk ikke beskytter loven og det han står for i denne saken så mister han jobben og har tusenvis av rasende folk mot han, skjønner ikke du den?)(da snakker han mot sin egen jobb)

 

samtidig så klarte han å nevne et par små ting men ingenting direkte ordentlig som jeg trodde og grunnlaget er som jeg sa at han er tvunget til å beskytte sin jobb, lov og alle 185 nasjonene....

 

 

 

 

Dear Thomas,

 

Thank you for your e-mail.

 

Well, as to Mr. Hope, he will, of course, never accept on his own volition and in public the illegality of his activities, simply because it would undercut his business and more importantly open him up to the risk of 'buyers' to sue him for fraud. Realistically, we will simply not be able to convince him thereof because he stands to loose so much doing so. Unfortunately, he is helped by the combination of a now seemingly unclear phrase in the Outer Space Treaty, the relationship between international and national law (where he conveniently abuses the lack of knowledge of the average consumer on what that would mean in the current instance) and the lack of proactive confirmation of certain governments, in this case in particular the US (simply because they do not think this might really be a serious issue).

 

The more detailed analysis could be found e.g. in the statement of the International Institute of Space Law (IISL) which is available on the web at http://www.iafastro.org, in a Sterns & Tennen article (Sterns, Patricia M., and Leslie I. Tennen. "Privateering and Profiteering on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: Debunking the Myth of Property Rights in Space". In Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, 56-67) and in a four-author article in Space Policy ("Surreal estate: addressing the issue of 'Immovable Property Rights on the Moon'", 20 Space Policy (2004), 149-56), but the long and short of it is the following:

 

- Art. II of the Outer Space Treaty prohibits "national appropriation of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies", whether by means of sovereign claims or otherwise.

 

- The fact that only reference was made to national appropriation is historically caused by the absence of private perspectives in space at the time of drafting the Treaty, but any conclusion that that would a contrario relieve private entities from the prohibition to 'appropriate' parts of the moon is already wrong because of Art. VI, OST, which makes all states responsible for ensuring that their private entities comply with the international obligations imposed upon their respective states. Thus, any private appropriation means a violation by the state concerned of Art. II, OST, i.e. of international law.

 

- All space law experts agree that Art. II, OST means that territorial sovereignty can never be(come) applied to the moon (and other celestial bodies) or any part thereof.

 

- This means, that no state is entitled to apply any of its national laws to the moon as if it were part of the national territory of the state. This applies as much to the USA as it does to, e.g., Germany (in view of Jurgens), Romania (in view of Pop) or any other state.

 

- The legal rules surrounding ownership by a private person of a piece of land, and all that entails (right to minerals or treasures discovered on/in your lands, rights of crossing for others, rights of compensation in case of nationalisation of your property for a highway etc.), which includes also the way in which to obtain legal private ownership over a piece of land, are all and always based - for obvious logical reasons - on territorial sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction, and only apply within the state at issue. Thus, the US system for obtaining private rights over immovable property rights - which is the whole basis for Hope's claims: he applied the US system as applicable in California and registered his claim there! - does not apply to the moon, simply because the moon is not US territory!!!

 

The problem is then that, as long as the US authorities do not officially renege on the administration of Hope's claims, they seem to provide them with some semblance of legality. Thus, we are stuck with that, until there is an official court case being prosecuted in the US against Hope for this being illegal (e.g., by a customer who seriously believed he bought a plot on the moon and starts to realise that he does not really own it) and the US court, looking at international law (and various US law experts have ensured me that a court would actually do that, given a case like this), would have to come to the conclusion that the claim should be upheld because the registration of title at the Californian authorities amounted to ultra vires, since that authority does not extend to the moon. A similar claim by a certain Nemitz to ownership of the asteroid Eros against NASA, which had the audacity to park a rover on the asteroid, brought before a US court, has so far failed - the courts so far dismissed it in no uncertain terms. There is, however, also a risk that a US court may simply come to the conclusion that Hope did nothing wrong under US law...

 

Outside of the US, however, such a claim would never be upheld, as that would indirectly amount to recognition of a US claim to the moon, or at least the parts 'sold'. The Netherlands and the People's Republic of China, for example, for those reasons have already prosecuted the 'local' representatives of Lunar Embassy and landed them in jail.

 

Finally, the last time I visited the Lunar Embassy website - which was a number of years ago - Hope tried very much to wriggle between the Scylla of saying that he is purportedly sells things he is not entitled to sell (because obviously he wouldn't sell much thereafter) and the Charybdis of telling them that their deed gives them normal, proper ownership (because then the US government might have to do something about counteracting such a clearly false statement)...

 

han skal plutselig ha oppdatert sin mail til kelemvor etter at jeg hadde fått svar og sendt svar på det igjen men ikke noe ordentlig svar til meg. merkelig

 

 

Her kommer min mail og svar med mr von der dunk:

 

(may contain misspelling or comma/dot mistakes)

 

Hi, Prof. Von Der Dunk

 

I have understood that u were answering another person regarding Mr. Hopes claims about owning this solar systems planets.

 

I read the mail he sent to you and i thought he was asking a lot of the questions to a critics side and not questioning for both sides so i wanted to send you an email with my thoughts and evidence of this being true.

 

I have bought an property on mars and with it i got mineral rights and copy of the letter of claim Mr. Hope sent to the USA, U.S.S.R and the United Nations General Assembly.

 

I also have seen on Moonestates.com and LunarEmbassy.com its FAQ`s and watch out for what the law is today and what the situation is today and what it was back in 1980`s

 

As it stands on the FAQ sites that we have a lot of rights with these deed`s like we can build house there, we can go visit our property, nasa cant do anything but exploring, and so on

 

As you wrote in answer to this other person im discussing with that USA is required to stop mr. Hope from selling properties as long as it is a fraud as many people say, and if they dont stop him that will make them accomplice to this fraud.

 

Now it is like this that USA cant decide a thing cause they don't own anything or have the rights to say something at all about anything outside the earth`s atmosphere so that we should correct our view onto the UN/USSR/UNOOSA (the 185 nations that are gathered in an outer space treaty or government) (bad spoken but u know what i mean i guess)

 

When it comes to its cases the Outer Space Treaty from 1967 it says that no government or state can own anything without this atmosphere, but it fails to mention anything about the private persons or comapnies.

 

The state wont make any firm laws of this yet cause it will watch how the people`s interests develop over the years ahead so there isn't any new laws about this. there are many forms which says he cant own and so on from many different places but all fail under this lopphole in this case and alle fail to mention the right things cause of it either made of an state, or it says international which means this globe and so on.

 

here is direct quote from LunarEmbassy.com (Current Space Law under News and FAQ)

 

 

1. What is Law today.

 

With regard to extraterrestrial property sales, two treaties exist today.

 

These treaties do not refer to "ownership" as such, they more commonly refer to the "exploitation of the Moon and other celestial bodies for profit purposes", and extraterrestrial property sales distinctly fall under that section. The treaties are, The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Moon Treaty of 1984.

 

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet.

 

What does this mean? Well it means that governments can not appropriate the Moon or other celestial bodies. Effectively, governments have signed to the fact that they have no rights to these bodies at all. As a law expert will tell you, what is actually important here is what the Outer Space Treaty does not say. It explicitly does not say whether commercial enterprises or private individuals can claim, exploit or appropriate the celestial bodies for profit. (Note that the Lunar Embassy are not a government.)

 

You may think that this is a real stretch of the law but fortunately it is not. The UN and all countries that signed the Outer Space Treaty became aware of this vital ommission almost immediately after the treaty was ratified in 1967. In fact, the United Nations have expended a large amount of time trying to ratify an amendment to the treaty ever since, that would explicitly include corporations and individuals. Unfortunately, all attempts at ratifying such an amendment failed because member states did not agree with it. So, in the end, all the ratification attempts were summarized into the famous Moon Treaty some 15 years later. This information is well documented fact today.

 

I'm sorry that i make this email a bit long but there is so much proof to this that it isn't any fraud and we have these rights to own, build, collect mineral and so on with these properties, that we in fact own this...

 

i was wondering if you can give us that much information about this that we can settle this? (i know you work in UNOOSA so that it is certain things you cant say)

 

in a neutral way so its fair and square for all of us that are discussing this

 

we would like for you to give us an over convincing proof that refers to something really good that settles this

 

We don't want articles or personal opinions to any people but we want real facts and proof of this in any way that this goes.

 

I have my own lawyer to give us some more of its case to maybe settle this but you have been working with this, but i just don't hope you will defend your own side so good that u will deny much of it (sorry if i`m rude)

 

 

 

I thank you very much for reading this and in advance for your answer

 

Regards from Norway and from Frode Løtveit

 

 

 

 

Her er hva jeg fikk til svar fra professor von der dunk:

 

Dear Mr. Hawkins,

 

I do not know who your lawyer is, and doubt whether he has any specific expertise in the area of space law (unless you think all law is the same, and a divorce lawyer would do a good job in drafting a lease contract), but if you think all the space lawyers are wrong and you are right, or that at least there is some middle ground, some compromise possible between plain nonsense and generally accepted and acknowledged-by-experts interpretation, I think whatever I am going to try to explain will not find fertile ground with you so I will not waste my time on that. There are people who believe extraterrestrials created the Egyptian pyramids, that Elvis Presley is still alive or that the Apollo spacecraft never landed on the moon - and all evidence to the contrary is explained away by suggesting it all to be one giant conspiracy and cover up, including the planting of evidence.

 

Just in case you did not read my answer to Mr. Smestad's e-mail, I will copy it hereunder (because that is quite easy and quick to do), but try already to think of this: if I sell my brother under Dutch law the same piece on Mars that you claim you bought from Mr. Hope, who is legally going to prevent my brother from buying a house there before you get there? Dutch law certainly does not recognise this whole business (read again hereunder). And to make sure you understand: if you think the US government condones this, let alone will take up your case against the Netherlands to try and prevent me from doing that, you will be in for a surprise.

 

Have fun with your deed!

 

 

 

With best regards,

 

Prof. Dr. Frans G. von der Dunk

 

Harvey and Susan Perlman Alumni /

 

Othmer Professor of Space Law

 

Space and Telecommunications Law Program

 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, College of Law

 

214 McCollum Hall

 

P.O. Box 830902

 

Lincoln, NE 68583-0902

 

UNITED STATES

 

Tel. +1-402-472-1240

 

Fax +1-402-472-5185

 

http://law.unl.edu/spacelaw

 

 

 

han nekter å svare meg fordi han kan ikke svar og har for mye å skjule. han vet selv at ved lov og fakta så har Mr. Hope fulle rett til dette og derfor vil ikke svare meg.

 

her ser man 2 langt forskjellige mail fra prof von der dunk og det er klart tydelig at han er redd for å svare på mine spørsmål

 

jeg vedder på at dere skal henge dere oppi dette lenge nå å nekte å godta at han ikke svarer fordi han er redd for å svare og ikke kan svare fordi det kommer i mitt favør (altså at mr hope har fulle rett på eierskapet)

 

dere må gjerne komme med synspunkter og det under dette men ikke begynn en hel diskusjon angående dette fordi det er ganske everbevisende da.

 

jeg fikk vedlagt kopi av mailen han sendte til kelemvor

 

 

 

 

(dette er ikke kopien. mail fra kelemvor er på toppen)

Since the legal rules surrounding ownership by a private person of a piece of land, and all that entails (right to minerals or treasures discovered on/in your lands, rights of crossing for others, rights of compensation in case of nationalisation of your property for a highway etc.), which includes also the way in which to obtain legal private ownership over a piece of land, are all and always based - for obvious logical reasons - on territorial sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction, and only apply within the state at issue, the US system for obtaining private rights over immovable property rights - which is the whole basis for Hope's claims" he applied the US system as applicable in California and registered his claim there! - does not apply to the moon, simply because the moon is not US territory!!!

 

helt riktig men hope har sendt papirer U.S.S.R (United Nations General Assembly)...(ikke USA)

Endret 6. juni 2010 av DrHawkins

[Aquabat]

Før jeg begir meg ut på en diskusjon, kunne du tenke deg å fortelle oss hva som må til for å overbevise deg om at dette er en scam?

[DrHawkins]

Et fastholdende ordentlig bevis fra noen virkelig relevante folk som for eksempel United Nations, at Mr. Hope ikke eier alle planetene i solsystemet.

 

Mr.Hopes la inn et krav på alle planetene og han har enda ikke fått svar på det 25 år senere. den som tier samtykker.

 

for å poengtere den: den som er enig i den selvangivelsen som kommer/ har kommet i posten og ikke har noe å forandre trenger da ikke å levere inn.

 

Det står det i brevet man får med selvangivelsen om ikke det står direkte på selvangivelsen.

 

Den som tier samtykker. statene bruker det aktivt de

 

 

 

 

 

Hva er det som skal til for at dere forstår at han faktiskt eier disse planetene og at han har lov til å selge disse og at de er ekte og legit og man har rettigheter?

 

Pack Contents

 

Both the 1 Acre and the 10 Acre Packages consist of the Martian Deeds, plus:

 

• The Martian Site Map shows you where, on Mars, your property is located
• The Martian Constitution and Bill of Rights which details the Martian Laws, your rights, and of course, the all important laws of THE BIG CHEESE
• A transcript of the Declaration of Ownership. This is the document filed with the governments of the USA and Russia (then the USSR) along with the United Nations General Assembly in 1980 in which Dennis M. Hope - The Big Cheese - first laid claim to Mars
• A document with details of the Mineral Rights to your land
• Postage Paid Registration

1. What is the law today?

 

With regard to extraterrestrial property sales, two treaties exist today.

 

These treaties do not refer to "ownership" as such, they more commonly refer to the "exploitation of the Moon and other celestial bodies for profit purposes", and extraterrestrial property sales distinctly fall under that section. The treaties are, The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Moon Treaty of 1984.

 

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet.

 

What does this mean? Well it means that governments can not appropriate the Moon or other celestial bodies. Effectively, governments have signed to the fact that they have no rights to these bodies at all. What is actually important here is what the Outer Space Treaty does not say. It explicitly does not say whether commercial enterprises or private individuals can claim, exploit or appropriate the celestial bodies for profit. (Note that the Lunar Embassy is not a government body.)

 

The United Nations and all countries that signed the Outer Space Treaty became aware of this vital omission almost immediately after the treaty was ratified in 1967. In fact, the United Nations have expended a large amount of time trying to ratify an amendment to the treaty ever since, that would explicitly include corporations and individuals. All attempts at ratifying such an amendment failed because member states did not agree with it. So, in the end, all the ratification attempts were summarized into the famous Moon Treaty some 15 years later. This information is a well documented fact today.

 

4. Can I charge NASA if they land on my property? No you can't. No celestial body is owned by NASA and they have never claimed them.

 

Further, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which is law, clearly states that the Moon and the other celestial bodies are the heritage of all mankind for the purposes of exploration. So NASA can do what they like and where they like, as long as they are exploring. But if someone wants to build a house or drill for minerals or water on your property, that is quite a different issue altogether.

 

6. What if someone else tries to sell me land on the Moon?

 

Should anyone else claim to be selling Celestial Property in the United Kingdom, they are doing so in an unlawful manner and MoonEstates.com Ltd would like to be informed of such so that legal action can be taken.

 

 

 

7. So what about the future?

 

What guarantees are there? Will new laws be established? Well, so far, we are not aware of anyone trying to make them, nor are we aware of anyone who has the jurisdiction to make them.

 

What the future brings, we do not know...In short, there are no guarantees (except our 30 day money back guarantee of course). No one can see into the future.

 

 

så la meg spørre igjen. hva har vi tapt med å kjøpe? ikke peng for det kan vi få tilbake hvis vi vil hvis dette går gale. hvis ikke blir vi millionærer hvis ikke milliardærer nå denne tida komme hvor vi reiser ut og bygger og herjer

Endret 6. juni 2010 av DrHawkins

[Loomy]

Du og "din advokat" mistet vel egentlig all troverdighet her:

skjøtet er ekte, det er ingen svindel pga prisen. det hadde vært noe helt annet hadde han tatt mye peng for dette. det er en latterlig pris så han tjener seg ikke rik på dette i det hele tatt.

 

(...)

 

Den dagen de virkelig bestemmer seg for å endre lovene og gjøre noe med dette så gjør de det, men i å med at mr.Hopes har over 4 millioner kunder så kan de bli vanskelig dersom alle disse reagerer og begynner å forlange og saksøke.

Har du regnet på hva 200kr * 4 000 000 blir?

[DrHawkins]

Har du regnet på utgiftene han har for å ha firmaet igang, internett utgifter, telefonutgifter, ansatte(lønn), postutgifter, registreringsutgivter,avgifter etc etc. alle utgifter som kommer med dette. da sitter man ikke igjen med mye etterpå.

 

han har god formue men han var steinrik lenge før han begynte med dette

[SirDrinkAlot]

Et fastholdende ordentlig bevis fra noen virkelig relevante folk som for eksempel United Nations, at Mr. Hope ikke eier alle planetene i solsystemet.

 

Mr.Hopes la inn et krav på alle planetene og han har enda ikke fått svar på det 25 år senere. den som tier samtykker.

 

for å poengtere den: den som er enig i den selvangivelsen som kommer/ har kommet i posten og ikke har noe å forandre trenger da ikke å levere inn.

 

Det står det i brevet man får med selvangivelsen om ikke det står direkte på selvangivelsen.

 

Den som tier samtykker. statene bruker det aktivt de

Og den som sa det først den er det selv. Ædda bædda!

 

Det å ignorere tullinger impliserer ikke at man er enig med dem eller samtykker noe som helst.

 

Du må være den mest desillusjonerte personen på disse kanter av forumet siden bjarne.

[DrHawkins]

de har hatt 25år+ på seg til å si nei på det papiret han la inn der men det har de enda ikke gjort nettopp pga smutthullet og det visste de og dermed så er han den reelle eier.

 

det at de ikke svarer viser bare hvor rett Mr.Hope har i dette her

 

 

om du legger inn søknad for å bygge et hus, hvis staten egentlig sier nei på det så bruker det faen ikke 30år på å gi deg svaret. hvis du ikke har fått svar fra de og de nekter å ta tlf eller ha kontakt eller whatever så er det bare til å begynne å bygge.

 

Hvis de da kommer etter 30år å sier nei så har du en jævla god sak i retten

 

 

bare fordi jeg har litt imellom ørene og tror på mine meininger som jeg kan bevise? LOL

Endret 6. juni 2010 av DrHawkins

[SirDrinkAlot]

det at de ikke svarer viser bare hvor rett Mr.Hope har i dette her

 

 

bare fordi jeg har litt imellom ørene og tror på mine meininger som jeg kan bevise? LOL

Obvious troll is obvious. Evt. så har du ikke så mye mellom ørene som du tror.

Bare å melde seg ut av denne tråden...

[DrHawkins]

bare du som ikke har iq kapasiteten til å forstå litt juss

[chokke]

Så.. det at det har blitt tatt måneprøver og Mars-prøver, det er ulovlig altså? :!: .

Ellers så kan NASA 'gjemme seg' (ikke bry seg) bak det at det er utforskning.

 

Så nei, det er nok ikke noe kupp du har gjort, men en morsom liten ting. Som å kjøpe en stein.

[bjelleklang]

DrHawkins tror du feks Russland eller USA bryr seg om at du "eier" et landområde hvis de vil lage en månebase akkurat der. Du kan prøve å saksøke dem men du hadde blitt blodeid.

[DrHawkins]

hele planeten(e) har ikke blitt solgt så de har mye plass å rutte seg på for å ta prøver. jeg eier 1 acre og det gjør mange andre au, uansett om du tar 1 acre x 4mill så har du ikke hele planeten. pluss at han selger på 3 planeter så de 4mill folka vil være spredd utover de planetene og da kan du ta 3 planeters totale acre og ta minus 4-40 mill acre så kan du se at det er ikke så store deler av planetene som har blitt solgt

 

 

http://coolcosmos.ip...marsearth.shtml

Mars has a diameter of 4,222 miles (6,794 km) which makes it a little more than half (about 53%) the diameter of Earth. It has about one-ninth the mass of Earth.

 

http://wiki.answers....does_Earth_have

How many acres of land does Earth have?

57,491,000 square miles: 36,794,240,000 acres.

 

 

36,794,240,000 acre X 0.53 = 19 500 947 200

 

 

19 milliarder acre og om absolutt alle 4 mill kundene hadde kjøpt 10 acre på mars så hadde det blitt 40millioner acre. det er ufattelig mye plass igjen å grave på

 

 

med så mye plass tilgjengelig så er ikke det noe problem og ja jeg kunne gått til sak mot de å vunnet lett som bare de. så lenge lovene ikke har blitt forandret så kan du vinne i rettsaker som bare det med dette skjøtet. null problem. lett som faen

Endret 6. juni 2010 av DrHawkins

[Loomy]

Privatøkonomi, bedriftsøkonomi og matematikk er ikke dine sterke sider ser jeg.

[DrHawkins]

hva da. fordi jeg leser litt for fort av og til og tar det feil? LOL

det blir somregel alltid rettet på i etterkant i det minste

 

det er da rettet på

Endret 6. juni 2010 av DrHawkins

[Loomy]

Nei, nå tenker jeg ikke på at du i utgangspunktet ganget med 1,53 - jeg tenker på at selv om jorden/mars har et diameterforhold på 2:1 (røffly) betyr ikke at overflaten har det samme forholdet (noe ditt eget sitat, "It has about one-ninth the mass of Earth", burde hinte om).

Endret 6. juni 2010 av Loomy

[DrHawkins]

det var ikke for å få nøyaktige tall eller landområdet men bare vise hvor lite som virkelig er kjøpt slik at man kan se selv at landingsplasser til nasa eller landingsbase eller en by for den slags skyld så er det ingen problem å unngå eiendommen min

 

i tillegg så er massen innenfor overflaten. diameteren som bestemmer hvor stor overflaten er. massen er bare innholdet. hvor tettpakket av atomer det er.

 

vekten med andre ord. og man kan ha forskjellige størrelser til samme vekt/masse

 

med diameteren så om du snur den 360grader rundt så har man overflaten og massen kan ikke bestemme om den er større eller mindre. massen bestemmer vekten

 

måtte bare tenke litt nå

Endret 6. juni 2010 av DrHawkins

[Loomy]

Vel, siden det er så lett å unngå den kan jeg anbefale at du leser litt om tilbud og etterspørsel. Siden det tydeligvis er vanvittig høyt tilbud men, på nåværende tidspunkt og sansynligvis i flere tiår fremover, absolutt null, nothing, zero, etterspørsel - kan vi bare konkludere med at eiendommen din på mars ikke er verdt papiret den er skrevet på.

 

Case closed.

[DrHawkins]

det er nettopp der du tar feil på grunn av at det er registrert og arkivert og hele sullamitten.

 

Det er ikke noe etterspørsel nå og derfor er prisen slik den er.

 

men når da etterspørselen går opp så øker prisene men det tar ikke vekk rettighetene eller det faktum at jeg eier der.

 

etterspørselen har ingenting med rettigheter å gjøre. jeg har kjøpt og betalt for dette og da har jeg krav på det au. kjøpsloven, forbrukerloven.

 

etterspørselen har kun med pris å gjøre. ingenting anna

[Hyperio]

Hva tenker du å bruke tomta til da?

[DrHawkins]

Det har jeg ikke funnet ut enda.

 

Hvis jeg kan reise opp der og være der i min levetid så skal jeg undersøke med mineraler iallefall, det er førsteprioritert.

 

Hvis de har laga slik at man kan bo der så er vel valget ikke vanskelig. må ha strøm, vann og pc selvfølgelig med internett.

 

ellers så arver jeg den bort til mi datter så får kanskje ho mer nytte av den.

 

det kommer au ann på hvordan markedet blir etterhvert om det blir slik at jeg kan selge den for millioner så er et stor sannsynlighet for det (kommer mye ann på hvor godt jeg har det fra før av da seff)

 

Det er mange muligheter og jeg er åpen for de alle