My Book: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"

[kenseto]

My book entitled: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" is available for viewing in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
1. It resolves all the problems of current theories.

2. It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG.

3. It unified all the forces (including gravity) of nature naturally.

4. It gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT eliminated all the problems of SRT and its math is valid for use in a gravity environments (replacing GRT).

5. It gives physical explanations for all the weir quantum observations.

6. It gives a description for the origin of our universe.

7. It gives a description for the origin of life.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 01-okt-2017 om 14:57 schreef kenseto:

> My book entitled: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" is available
> for viewing in the following link:

> http://www.modelmeshitics.org/2016ibook.pdf

That link does not work.

Dirk Vdm

[kenseto]

Moron, you changed the link....the link in my post works perfectly.

[rotchm]

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 9:51:42 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 9:27:04 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Moron, ....the link in your post works perfectly.

I tried his link, and it doesnt work. So how can I get to read your book if your link doesnt work?

[kenseto]

The link in my post is designed to exclude morons link you from reading it.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ken, just about everything you write is designed to keep people from
reading it. You are very successful at that.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[rotchm]

> The link in my post is designed to exclude...

I referred to Dirk's link, not yours! cant you read? We are not interested in YOUR link, but in Dirk's; Im asking you why his link does not work?

[kenseto]

ODD you are a fanatic SRian.

[kenseto]

Moron..... why don’t you ask Dirk why his modified link doesn’t work????

[Odd Bodkin]

I’m a woodworker. But even interested amateurs know enough to avoid
complete wastes of time.

[rotchm]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:58:55 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:


> Moron..... why don’t you ask Dirk why his modified link doesn’t work????

Because its YOUR book! So YOU are responsible for it. Are you saying that Dirk wrote the book and that you copied it from him?

[JanPB]

Total nonsense from start to finish. A monumental waste of your time.

--
Jan

[Stného Esovány]

Your comment is not constructive. Can't be used to anything. You are just
throwing dirt into the machinery.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 02-okt-2017 om 18:00 schreef JanPB:

Very constructive comment. A good, but alas probably
failed attempt at throwing machinery into the dirt.

Dirk Vdm

[Stného Esovány]

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>>> 6. It gives a description for the origin of our universe.
>>> 7. It gives a description for the origin of life.
>>
>> Total nonsense from start to finish. A monumental waste of your time.
>
> Very constructive comment. A good, but alas probably failed attempt at
> throwing machinery into the dirt. Dirk Vdm

You must be thinking Relativity, and related outside its domain of
applicability.

[JanPB]

There is no point in preparing detailed refutations of gobbledygook.
The value of this work is strictly (Ken's) entertainment. Nothing wrong
with _that_ BTW.

--
Jan

[kenseto]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:06:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 11:05:39 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 9:51:42 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 9:27:04 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Moron, ....the link in your post works perfectly.
> >>>>
> >>>> I tried his link, and it doesnt work. So how can I get to read your book
> >>>> if your link doesnt work?
> >>>
> >>> The link in my post is designed to exclude morons link you from reading it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ken, just about everything you write is designed to keep people from
> >> reading it. You are very successful at that.
> >
> > ODD you are a fanatic SRian.
> >
>
> I’m a woodworker. But even interested amateurs know enough to avoid
> complete wastes of time.

You are a naive woodworker who is brain washed to believe that SR is a religion.
BTW, if you don’t want to waste time why are you keep on reading and answering my posts?????

[kenseto]

Moron, then click on to the link I provided. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

[kenseto]

You are a mathematician and you are not qualified to judge my work.

[kenseto]

That’s because there is no refutation of my work.

> The value of this work is strictly (Ken's) entertainment. Nothing wrong
> with _that_ BTW.

Bullshit.....my work is serious. It resolves all the problems of modern physics and cosmology.

[Odd Bodkin]

Because, Ken, you personally are funny. Your ideas are worthless, and I
pay no attention to them any more, but you are funny.

[kenseto]

You are a moron woodworker. You are not qualified to judge the worth of my ideas on physics and cosmology.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Kenseth drooled:

> You are a moron woodworker. You are not qualified to judge the worth of my ideas on physics and cosmology.

You, Ken, are not qualified to write about physics and cosmology... except for your own pleasure... after all, you are confused about even the simplest of concepts.

[Michael Moroney]

Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> writes:

>kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>> You are a naive woodworker who is brain washed to believe that SR is a religion.
>> BTW, if you don’t want to waste time why are you keep on reading and
>> answering my posts?????

>Because, Ken, you personally are funny. Your ideas are worthless, and I
>pay no attention to them any more, but you are funny.

Exactly. I am here mostly for kookwatching, and you are a rather entertaining
kook.

[Michael Moroney]

Stupid Ken, you are just a moron. You are not qualified to judge the
worth of anyone's physics and math, because you can't even do 3rd grade math!

[Odd Bodkin]

Well, that’s what you say. But you think NO ONE is qualified to judge the
worth of your ideas. Any not a physicist by credential (which includes you
btw) you say is not qualified. And any physicist by credential you say is
an SR fanatic and not qualified. There are no exceptions you can cite.

Therefore, since no one is qualified to judge your work, no one should
bother reading it. Which pretty much what has happened.

[John Heath]

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:57:19 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> My book entitled: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" is available for viewing in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>

> The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
> 1. It resolves all the problems of current theories.
>
> 2. It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG.
>
> 3. It unified all the forces (including gravity) of nature naturally.
>
> 4. It gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT eliminated all the problems of SRT and its math is valid for use in a gravity environments (replacing GRT).
>
> 5. It gives physical explanations for all the weir quantum observations.
>
> 6. It gives a description for the origin of our universe.
>
> 7. It gives a description for the origin of life.

I like the history of science. Nicely done. However Model Mechanics has a few issues that stand out. For example electron charge. If I flip it upside down it will become a positive charge according to your model. Also it only has 2 dimensions? If I were to add the third dimension your like charges will quickly start stacking on top of each other as they are all rotating in the same direction. Like charges do not stack on each other yet when it came to quarks you welcomed this opportunity to stack like charges as it served your purposes. You can not have to both ways.

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:53:19 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> Moron, then click on to the link I provided. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

I did, but your sound is not working. You still havent fixed that problem?

[JanPB]

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 5:57:19 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> My book entitled: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" is available for viewing in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>
> The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
> 1. It resolves all the problems of current theories.
>
> 2. It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG.
>
> 3. It unified all the forces (including gravity) of nature naturally.
>
> 4. It gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT eliminated all the problems of SRT and its math is valid for use in a gravity environments (replacing GRT).
>
> 5. It gives physical explanations for all the weir quantum observations.
>
> 6. It gives a description for the origin of our universe.
>
> 7. It gives a description for the origin of life.

What complete, total, utter nonsense! Astonishing in a way.

--
Jan

[kenseto]

Instead of wasting time

[kenseto]

Instead of wasting your time harassing me why don’t you do something creative with your time? I accomplished a lot......I got two patents, I published three books and the latest got copyright approval. The copyright reviewer commented that my ideas on physics and cosmology are original and resolve most of the problems of modern physics.
When you accomplish as much as I did, I will start listen to you. Before that, you are nothing but a moron woodworker.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:39:00 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:57:19 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > My book entitled: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" is available for viewing in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> >
> > The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
> > 1. It resolves all the problems of current theories.
> >
> > 2. It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG.
> >
> > 3. It unified all the forces (including gravity) of nature naturally.
> >
> > 4. It gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT eliminated all the problems of SRT and its math is valid for use in a gravity environments (replacing GRT).
> >
> > 5. It gives physical explanations for all the weir quantum observations.
> >
> > 6. It gives a description for the origin of our universe.
> >
> > 7. It gives a description for the origin of life.
>
> I like the history of science. Nicely done. However Model Mechanics has a few issues that stand out. For >example electron charge. If I flip it upside down it will become a positive charge according to your model.

That’s not a problem......if you flip an electron upside down it will interact with other particles like a positron.

>Also it only has 2 dimensions?

No the S-Particle is a three dimensional object. When an S-Particle in a counterclockwise orbiting motion around an E-String it becomes an electron and when an S-Particle in a clockwise orbiting motion around an E-String it becomes a positron

> If I were to add the third dimension your like charges will quickly start stacking on top of each other as >they are all rotating in the same direction.

No an electron is already three dimensions......two electrons can form stacked interaction. In fact I read somewhere that they achieved this in the field of superconductor.

>Like charges do not stack on each other yet when it came to quarks you welcomed this opportunity to >stack like charges as it served your purposes. You can not have to both ways.

See above. Like charged particles can stack together.

[kenseto]

What is total waste is 11 or 26 dimensions of space, virtual particles, length contraction, time dilation, these make-up mathematical objects dream up by mathematicians are total nonsense.

[kenseto]

Oh, I forgot......the link is designed to exclude moron like you from reading it.

[Stného Esovány]

Excellent design. Excellent idea.

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:11:38 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 2:44:30 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:34:02 AM UTC-7, Stného Esovány wrote:
> > > JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 5:57:19 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > >> The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
> > > >> 1. It resolves all the problems of current theories.
> > > >> 2. It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG.
> > > >> 3. It unified all the forces (including gravity) of nature naturally.
> > > >> 4. It gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT
> > > >> eliminated all the problems of SRT and its math is valid for use in a
> > > >> gravity environments (replacing GRT).
> > > >> 5. It gives physical explanations for all the weir quantum
> > > >> observations.
> > > >> 6. It gives a description for the origin of our universe.
> > > >> 7. It gives a description for the origin of life.
> > > >
> > > > Total nonsense from start to finish. A monumental waste of your time.
> > >
> > > Your comment is not constructive. Can't be used to anything. You are just
> > > throwing dirt into the machinery.
> >
> > There is no point in preparing detailed refutations of gobbledygook.
>
> That’s because there is no refutation of my work.

That's because it's gobbledygook and nobody has time to waste (except
perhaps someone interested in mental problems, but this would not be
on this newsgroup - try posting to alt.schizophrenia).

> > The value of this work is strictly (Ken's) entertainment. Nothing wrong
> > with _that_ BTW.
>
> Bullshit.....my work is serious. It resolves all the problems of modern physics and cosmology.

It resolves nothing. It's gobbledygook.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 1:40:52 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:39:00 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:57:19 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > My book entitled: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" is available for viewing in the following link:
> > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> > >
> > > The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
> > > 1. It resolves all the problems of current theories.
> > >
> > > 2. It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG.
> > >
> > > 3. It unified all the forces (including gravity) of nature naturally.
> > >
> > > 4. It gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT eliminated all the problems of SRT and its math is valid for use in a gravity environments (replacing GRT).
> > >
> > > 5. It gives physical explanations for all the weir quantum observations.
> > >
> > > 6. It gives a description for the origin of our universe.
> > >
> > > 7. It gives a description for the origin of life.
> >
> > I like the history of science. Nicely done. However Model Mechanics has a few issues that stand out. For >example electron charge. If I flip it upside down it will become a positive charge according to your model.
>
> That’s not a problem......if you flip an electron upside down it will interact with other particles like a positron.

Except it doesn't.

--
Jan

[Stného Esovány]

kenseto wrote:

>> What complete, total, utter nonsense! Astonishing in a way.
>
> What is total waste is 11 or 26 dimensions of space, virtual particles,
> length contraction, time dilation, these make-up mathematical objects
> dream up by mathematicians are total nonsense.

I have to agree in that. Especially those dimensions, nowhere to find, not
even theoretical. You forgot "gravitational waves", fake to an extreme.
Such a wave would apply curvature on material objects where no matter is.

Actually in direct contradiction with Relativity, and NOT endorsing it.

Our distinguished guest, mister chairman, take back those Nobel Prizes
from those people. Just retract.

[Stného Esovány]

JanPB wrote:

>> That’s not a problem......if you flip an electron upside down it will
>> interact with other particles like a positron.
>
> Except it doesn't.

Nobody ever see an electron. Positrons even less, out of discussion. You
only see interaction, and never elementary particles. However is easy to
be cheated by detectors and instruments.

[kenseto]

How do you know? Have you flipped an electron and maintain it flipped after you flipped it?
The truth is modern physics don’t even know what an electron looks like......physicists claim that an electron is a cloud orbiting around the nucleus

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:

> Oh, I forgot......the link is designed to exclude moron like you from reading it.

Nice retort! Probably the cleverest thing you have said, like, *ever*. It's all downhill for you, from now on :>)

[Stného Esovány]

kenseto wrote:

>> > That’s not a problem......if you flip an electron upside down it will
>> > interact with other particles like a positron.
>>
>> Except it doesn't.
>
> How do you know? Have you flipped an electron and maintain it flipped
> after you flipped it?
> The truth is modern physics don’t even know what an electron looks
> like......physicists claim that an electron is a cloud orbiting around
> the nucleus

We agree entirely. In my capacity, the atom-nucleus-electron paradigm is
nothing but a paradigm. Then they are pretending moving/seeing atoms in
nano-technology. And guess the shape of those atoms. They are round
according to their "real-simulation". Nowadays Physics became nothing but
a "real-simulation" you get nobelized for.

[John Heath]

I am going to go off in a direction that will not make sense. Bare with me .

Is there anything about your electron stacking that would favor a six stack ? 6 electron stacked in one package , perhaps a cube with six sides ?? I have a math model that says it should be there but no proof. It is had to detect the difference between a 6 stack VS a 1 pack as they both hit the same target in a magnetic field in an electron accelerator. 6 times the mass but 6 times the charge , you see the problem. Is there anything you can see in your model that would favor a 6 stack , not 5 not 7 but 6 ?? Or is there anything that would favor even numbers like 2 4 6 much the same as our elements for electrons ?

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 12:29:30 PM UTC-5, John Heath wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 4:40:52 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:39:00 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:57:19 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > > My book entitled: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" is available for viewing in the following link:
> > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> > > >
> > > > The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
> > > > 1. It resolves all the problems of current theories.
> > > >
> > > > 2. It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG.
> > > >
> > > > 3. It unified all the forces (including gravity) of nature naturally.
> > > >
> > > > 4. It gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT eliminated all the problems of SRT and its math is valid for use in a gravity environments (replacing GRT).
> > > >
> > > > 5. It gives physical explanations for all the weir quantum observations.
> > > >
> > > > 6. It gives a description for the origin of our universe.
> > > >
> > > > 7. It gives a description for the origin of life.
> > >
> > > I like the history of science. Nicely done. However Model Mechanics has a few issues that stand out. For >example electron charge. If I flip it upside down it will become a positive charge according to your model.
> >
> > That’s not a problem......if you flip an electron upside down it will interact with other particles like a positron.
> >
> >
> > >Also it only has 2 dimensions?
> >
> > No the S-Particle is a three dimensional object. When an S-Particle in a counterclockwise orbiting motion around an E-String it becomes an electron and when an S-Particle in a clockwise orbiting motion around an E-String it becomes a positron
> >
> > > If I were to add the third dimension your like charges will quickly start stacking on top of each other as >they are all rotating in the same direction.
> >
> > No an electron is already three dimensions......two electrons can form stacked interaction. In fact I read somewhere that they achieved this in the field of superconductor.
> >
> > >Like charges do not stack on each other yet when it came to quarks you welcomed this opportunity to >stack like charges as it served your purposes. You can not have to both ways.
> >
> > See above. Like charged particles can stack together.
>
> I am going to go off in a direction that will not make sense. Bare with me .
>
> Is there anything about your electron stacking that would favor a six stack ? 6 electron stacked in one package , perhaps a cube with six sides ?

Octahedron = 6 Vertices

Type Platonic solid
Elements
F = 8,
E = 12
V = 6
(χ = 2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octahedron


https://photos.app.goo.gl/Scou8awqOXorp8eE2

[JanPB]

If you have nothing to say, don't post.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 4:22:18 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 3:38:31 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 1:40:52 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:39:00 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:57:19 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > My book entitled: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" is available for viewing in the following link:
> > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
> > > > > 1. It resolves all the problems of current theories.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. It unified all the forces (including gravity) of nature naturally.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. It gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT eliminated all the problems of SRT and its math is valid for use in a gravity environments (replacing GRT).
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. It gives physical explanations for all the weir quantum observations.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. It gives a description for the origin of our universe.
> > > > >
> > > > > 7. It gives a description for the origin of life.
> > > >
> > > > I like the history of science. Nicely done. However Model Mechanics has a few issues that stand out. For >example electron charge. If I flip it upside down it will become a positive charge according to your model.
> > >
> > > That’s not a problem......if you flip an electron upside down it will interact with other particles like a positron.
> >
> > Except it doesn't.
>
> How do you know?

Ever studied particle physics? There are many textbooks out there, perhaps
you should consider reading them.

> Have you flipped an electron and maintain it flipped after you flipped it?

It's a waste of time to explain anything to you. I'm simply telling you
you are on a dead end and totally wasting your life away on NONSENSE.

--
Jan

[Nos Etrakis]

Which part feels like nothing to you? I am here to help. This is your
lucky day.

[Gehan Ameresekere]

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 6:27:19 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote:
> My book entitled: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" is available for viewing in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>

Congratulations on publishing your book. As I mentioned I am not qualified to review the technical aspects of the book. May I suggest you post the link on Quora and ask for reviews? If you are not afraid of criticism that is.

[John Heath]

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 1:29:30 PM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 4:40:52 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:39:00 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:57:19 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > > My book entitled: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" is available for viewing in the following link:

You can not have to both ways.
> >
> > See above. Like charged particles can stack together.
>
> I am going to go off in a direction that will not make sense. Bare with me .
>
> Is there anything about your electron stacking that would favor a six stack ? 6 electron stacked in one package , perhaps a cube with six sides ?? I have a math model that says it should be there but no proof. It is had to detect the difference between a 6 stack VS a 1 pack as they both hit the same target in a magnetic field in an electron accelerator. 6 times the mass but 6 times the charge , you see the problem. Is there anything you can see in your model that would favor a 6 stack , not 5 not 7 but 6 ?? Or is there anything that would favor even numbers like 2 4 6 much the same as our elements for electrons ?

Add on and I do this with a good heart as I admire those who stick there neck out to develop a new theory.

If you reverse your position on positive and negative charges with regards to rotation. That is rotation that is in conflict , moving in the other direction ,
is attractive force and movement in the same direction is repulsive. The opposite of what you are saying. With this in place you have energy conservation laws in your favor by the Bernoulli principal. Airplane wings blah blah , it googles up for details. Also magnetic field rotating around a wire are also in agreement. Current flowing in the same direction of two wires in an attractive force not repulsive but the magnetic direction of the fields is the opposite. Not sure if that turns your crank but it would not hurt to look into it.

[kenseto]

I did post the link in Quora..... No review so far.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Great book kenseto. Is it science fiction or science non-fiction?

[kenseto]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:58:07 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Great book kenseto. Is it science fiction or science non-fiction?

It is a proposed theory of everything. It has the following features:
_ It offers a realistic origin of the universe.
_ It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
_ It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.
_ It provides a mechanism to unify all the forces of nature.
_ It can be validated experimentally.
_ It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT).
_ It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)
_ It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets.
_ It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics.
_ It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.
_ It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle.
_ It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments.
_ It explains the structures of atoms.

Therefore it is truly a new scientific theory.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Next year you will win the Nobel prize for your book!

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

I love what you say about me on page 100.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 4:58:07 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Great book kenseto. Is it science fiction or science non-fiction?

Scientology

[kenseto]

If Model Mechanics is scientology then SR/GR and Quantum Mechanics are sci-fi.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 3:30:31 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> I love what you say about me on page 100.

How does page 100 says anything about you?

[kenseto]

ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black....all of your posts are content free.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 5:48:12 AM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 1:29:30 PM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 4:40:52 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:39:00 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:57:19 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > My book entitled: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" is available for viewing in the following link:
> You can not have to both ways.
> > >
> > > See above. Like charged particles can stack together.
> >
> > I am going to go off in a direction that will not make sense. Bare with me .
> >
> > Is there anything about your electron stacking that would favor a six stack ? 6 electron stacked in one package , perhaps a cube with six sides ?? I have a math model that says it should be there but no proof. It is had to detect the difference between a 6 stack VS a 1 pack as they both hit the same target in a magnetic field in an electron accelerator. 6 times the mass but 6 times the charge , you see the problem. Is there anything you can see in your model that would favor a 6 stack , not 5 not 7 but 6 ?? Or is there anything that would favor even numbers like 2 4 6 much the same as our elements for electrons ?
>
> Add on and I do this with a good heart as I admire those who stick there neck out to develop a new theory.

That’s the only way to make progress.

> If you reverse your position on positive and negative charges with regards to rotation. That is rotation that is in conflict , moving in the other direction ,
> is attractive force and movement in the same direction is repulsive. The opposite of what you are saying. With this in place you have energy conservation laws in your favor by the Bernoulli principal. Airplane wings blah blah , it googles up for details. Also magnetic field rotating around a wire are also in agreement. Current flowing in the same direction of two wires in an attractive force not repulsive but the magnetic direction of the fields is the opposite. Not sure if that turns your crank but it would not hurt to look into it.

I don’t understand your points. Please explain in details.

[John Heath]

If I blow air between two ping pong balls the force is attractive between the two ping pong balls despite the intuitive guess that the force would be to separate the two ping pong balls. The same is true of magnetic fields. With this in mind maybe you would reconsider your position on the spinning dynamics of a Coulomb force. I am only looking at this from a quick read so take it with a grain of salt. I could be wrong but then again I could be right so it would not hurt to revisit the spin dynamics of a Coulomb force in Model Mechanics.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

I love your new book. Please keep writing and the Nobel prize is waiting for you. Go Kenseto the great. You're the greatest physicist that has every lived. I am proud for this moment of my short life to make this humble connection with such a wonderful and esteem person. Thank you for this great opportunity to express my gratitude for this wonder work of physics. I am almost brought to tears reading every word of your book. Now I can go into the ether when my time comes with the true thought that man and all its goodness will continue and not disappear into the ashes an un-Kenseto future.



Your're beloved admirer and true friend,


##1964

[John Heath]

Am I sensing a hint of sarcasm here ? Is it just me?

[kenseto]

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 5:32:26 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

> I love your new book. Please keep writing and the Nobel prize is waiting for you. Go Kenseto the great. You're the greatest physicist that has every lived. I am proud for this moment of my short life to make this humble connection with such a wonderful and esteem person. Thank you for this great opportunity to express my gratitude for this wonder work of physics. I am almost brought to tears reading every word of your book. Now I can go into the ether when my time comes with the true thought that man and all its goodness will continue and not disappear into the ashes an un-Kenseto future.
>
>
>
> Your're beloved admirer and true friend,

Thank you for reading my book and understand its implications on the future development of frontier physics and cosmology.

[kenseto]

It’s just you.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 25-okt-2017 om 16:27 schreef kenseto:

Yes, it's just you.

Dirk Vdm

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Dear Kenseto


I all my life I have never seen such a beautiful collection of physical thought of the celestial universe. I believe that you will be the next Stephen Hawking when he has to face the maker of the ether and must converse with them for eternity. In that event the stellar universe will open and the physics world will become Kensetoian. Now I especially enjoy pages 32, 100 and 128 where you include my name and theories which I am extremely humbled but I do not deserve being in your wonderful book; henceforth, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Please, I am waiting for your book to arrive at the book stores and wish to buy 100 copies of your books in advance so that I can add your book to my reading list. I am sure that my students will enjoy your book. I was wondering if I could get a small discount since I am purchasing this said quantity (100). I request a 20 % discount or 39$ per book to make it easier for my students. I have only two books and I have let some of my select students read your book and the responds has all been enthusiastically positive and the hopes and wishes that you write a follow up which they also said that more of what I have said be included since they are only students and may be saying this to get a better grade. They do that sometimes but without a doubt they love your book and willing to pay money for the enjoyment and educational value of your writings. You have a substantial collection of students that are trilled by your pose and if you start a book tour please include Arcata on your list. Your best friend and grateful admirer.

Numbernumber1964

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 5:57:19 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> My book entitled: “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" is available for viewing in the following link:

> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>
> The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
> 1. It resolves all the problems of current theories.
>
> 2. It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG.
>
> 3. It unified all the forces (including gravity) of nature naturally.
>
> 4. It gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT eliminated all the problems of SRT and its math is valid for use in a gravity environments (replacing GRT).
>
> 5. It gives physical explanations for all the weir quantum observations.
>
> 6. It gives a description for the origin of our universe.
>
> 7. It gives a description for the origin of life.

A final theory?
Give it hundreds of millions of years...

Mitchell Raemsch

[John Heath]

Okay I will take your word for it. It just seemed a little over the top yes/no ?

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

This is the greatest book written by man or women. Kenseto you are the greatest.


Kensetoian physics.

[rotchm]

its not sarcasm. Its humor; he is humoring him 7 entertaining the thread.
Sarcasm would imply that he [numbernu...] understands idiot ken's work.

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 10:27:44 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 5:32:26 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com

> > Your're beloved admirer and true friend,
>
> Thank you for reading my book and understand its implications on the future development of frontier physics and cosmology.

He didnt read your book idiot ken. Can you not see that?

[Carl Susumu]

Greatness of Kensetonian physics.

[Carl Susumu]

I read your book and it inspired me to do what I did today. I am in the presents of God that created Kensetoian physics. Great job. Don't listen to all these negative people. They are just jealous of your Kensetonian greatness.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

"The microwave background radiation is posited
as a property of the E-Matrix detected by our instruments. In
the “put in place” universe by God both the E-Matrix and the EStrings
are finite. Also, it is likely that each E-String in this
universe would be as a loop similar to that of an ordinary
rubber band. In this case, the universe is self-contained. The
microwave background radiation would be the remnant of the
Big Bang explosion, as posited in the Standard Big Bang"

________________________________________________________________________



Great work ken-seto!!!! I've read every word of your book and rec. it to everyone that is alive. Even pointed ears love your book and is saying how much he worships every word of your book. Please keep up this beautiful release of positive energy and the vast knowledge of man that is only being touch but now that someone as brilliant as yourself is working on the problems of the celestial universe and it's origin. I am brought to tears by the sear wonderment. Please continue your great work of physics and life.