Unification of all the forces of nature

[Ken Seto]

A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
This new theory not only united all the existing four forces of gravity, electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak forces. It also posits the existing a repulsive force called the CRE force (cosmological repulsive effect force). The CRE force is important. It is part of gravity and it enables gravity to unify wth the other forces.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 23-nov.-2021 om 19:10 schreef Ken Seto:

>
> A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s available in the following link:

> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unificatoin.pdf

> This new theory not only united all the existing four forces of gravity, electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak forces. It also posits the existing a repulsive force called the CRE force (cosmological repulsive effect force). The CRE force is important. It is part of gravity and it enables gravity to unify wth the other forces.
>

Link does not work.

Dirk Vdm

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 1:41:41 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 23-nov.-2021 om 19:10 schreef Ken Seto:

> Link does not work.

You are right, the link doesn't work. It doesn't work because on newer systems we need https.
Mr seto needs to get the https certificate.
Someone needs to tell him that you can go buy these at the local pharmacy. He just has to go to the counter and ask them.

[Ken Seto]

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 1:41:41 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

You are a mother fucker. In my link ”unification” in your link you changed to “unificatoin”. I will report to google again.
> >
> Link does not work.

I am hoping that google will stop you from posting.

[Michael Moroney]

Stupid Ken, Dirk doesn't even post through Google!

[Buddie Webb]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> > force). The CRE force is important. It is part of gravity and it
>> > enables gravity to unify wth the other forces.
>
> You are a mother fucker. In my link ”unification” in your link you
> changed to “unificatoin”. I will report to google again.
>> >
>> Link does not work.
>
> I am hoping that google will stop you from posting.

and put you in prison, you disgusting charlatan, stealing theories and
changing names to obfuscate things you don't understand. You repulsive
sack of shit.

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 3:13:53 PM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 1:41:41 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > Op 23-nov.-2021 om 19:10 schreef Ken Seto:

> You are a mother fucker. In my link ”unification” in your link you changed to “unificatoin”. I will report to google again.

Oh, your co-author mistyped again. So I tried your original link; its doesn't work (on new computers like mine) because of the SSL/https.
You need to go get a certificate. Go ask at the counter at the pharmacy where they sell credit cards. They sell https certificates too.
Did you get one yet?

[Odd Bodkin]

Most people don’t post through Google. I don’t.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[J. J. Lodder]

Great. And \alpha is predicted to be.....?

Jan

[Ken Seto]

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 3:13:53 PM UTauthorC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 1:41:41 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > Op 23-nov.-2021 om 19:10 schreef Ken Seto:
> > You are a mother fucker. In my link ”unification” in your link you changed to “unificatoin”. I will report to google again.
> Oh, your co-author mistyped again.

Hey idiot how many times do I have to tell you that Vdm is not my co-author.

>So I tried your original link; its doesn’t work (on new computers like mine)

So go and get an old computer or don’t bother to read my paper.

[Ken Seto]

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 10:14:15 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 1:41:41 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >> Op 23-nov.-2021 om 19:10 schreef Ken Seto:
> >>>
> >>> A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
> >>> available in the following link:
> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unificatoin.pdf
> >>> This new theory not only united all the existing four forces of
> >>> gravity, electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak forces. It also
> >>> posits the existing a repulsive force called the CRE force
> >>> (cosmological repulsive effect force). The CRE force is important. It
> >>> is part of gravity and it enables gravity to unify wth the other forces.
> >
> > You are a mother fucker. In my link ”unification” in your link you
> > changed to “unificatoin”. I will report to google again.
> >>>
> >> Link does not work.
> >

> > I am hoping that groughoogle will stop you from posting.

> >
> Most people don’t post through Google. I don’t.
>

Good for you that you don’t post through Google. But I do and Vdm does.

[Ken Seto]

Sorry I don’t know how to calculate \alpha base on my physics theory

[Odd Bodkin]

So Google can’t ban me.

> But I do and Vdm does.

Vdm does not. So Google can’t ban him.

You do. So Google can ban you.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 3:13:53 PM UTauthorC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 1:41:41 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>> Op 23-nov.-2021 om 19:10 schreef Ken Seto:
>>> You are a mother fucker. In my link ”unification” in your link you
>>> changed to “unificatoin”. I will report to google again.
>> Oh, your co-author mistyped again.
> Hey idiot how many times do I have to tell you that Vdm is not my co-author.
>
>> So I tried your original link; its doesn’t work (on new computers like mine)
> So go and get an old computer or don’t bother to read my paper.

Lol. One way to make sure your paper falls into digital dust. “Go get an
old computer”

>
>> because of the SSL/https.
>> You need to go get a certificate. Go ask at the counter at the pharmacy
>> where they sell credit cards. They sell https certificates too.
>> Did you get one yet?
>

[Daron Hess]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unificatoin.pdf This new theory

>> >> Link does not work.
>> >
>> > I am hoping that groughoogle will stop you from posting.
>> >
>> Most people don’t post through Google. I don’t.
>>
> Good for you that you don’t post through Google. But I do and Vdm does.

you "abandoned the traditional mathematical approach of doing physics"??

where is the abandoned math approach, you lying braindead stinking
bitch?? All you have in there is stolen stuff, math abandoned, since you
don't understand.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 24-nov.-2021 om 22:59 schreef Odd Bodkin:

Heh.
I tried Google Groups when my ISP dumped their news server. Junk.
I absolutely love Google's search engines, but I hate their Usenet
interface. And their Gmail. And their Android. And their just about
everything else.

Dirk Vdm

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 4:22:50 PM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Oh, your co-author mistyped again.
> Hey idiot how many times do I have to tell you that Vdm is not my co-author.

Hey, be polite and learn some respect. This is the first time you tell me that he is not your co-author. So stop lying. Does your text contain as many lies? If so, I will not read it.

> >So I tried your original link; its doesn’t work (on new computers like mine)
> So go and get an old computer or don’t bother to read my paper.

No, it is up to you to adhere to the modern way. If you don't, no one will be able to access your file. So don't be lazy, go to the pharmacy and go ask to buy an SSL certificate. They cost only a few dollars for one whole year.

[J. J. Lodder]

OK, so you have nothing.

No surprise,

Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
>>>> available in the following link:
>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf This new theory not only
>>>> united all the existing four forces of gravity, electromagnetic force,
>>>> clear strong and weak forces. It also posits the existing a repulsive
>>>> force called the CRE force (cosmological repulsive effect force). The CRE
>>>> force is important. It is part of gravity and it enables gravity to unify
>>>> wth the other forces.
>>> Great. And \alpha is predicted to be.....?
>>>
>> Sorry I don't know how to calculate \alpha base on my physics theory
>
> OK, so you have nothing.
>
> No surprise,
>
> Jan
>

Exactly.

He just has an “alternate explanation” which he mistakenly calls science.

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

[Ken Seto]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:33:30 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
> > > > available in the following link:
> > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf This new theory not only
> > > > united all the existing four forces of gravity, electromagnetic force,
> > > > clear strong and weak forces. It also posits the existing a repulsive
> > > > force called the CRE force (cosmological repulsive effect force). The CRE
> > > > force is important. It is part of gravity and it enables gravity to unify
> > > > wth the other forces.
> > > Great. And \alpha is predicted to be.....?
> > >
> > Sorry I don't know how to calculate \alpha base on my physics theory

> OK, so you have nothing. Mo

Yeh, I have nothing according to your obsolete theory.....the stand model.
My theory can unify all the forces.....does Standard model do that with all its
mathematical abstractions? I thank not.
>
> No surprise,
>
> Jan

[Ken Seto]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:38:04 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
> >>>> available in the following link:
> >>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf This new theory not only
> >>>> united all the existing four forces of gravity, electromagnetic force,
> >>>> clear strong and weak forces. It also posits the existing a repulsive
> >>>> force called the CRE force (cosmological repulsive effect force). The CRE
> >>>> force is important. It is part of gravity and it enables gravity to unify
> >>>> wth the other forces.
> >>> Great. And \alpha is predicted to be.....?
> >>>
> >> Sorry I don't know how to calculate \alpha base on my physics theory
> >
> > OK, so you have nothing.
> >
> > No surprise,
> >

> > Jan s better than the standard model
> >
> Exactly.
>
> He just has an “alternate explanation” this bettich he mistakenly calls science.

Model Mechanics is better than current theories that failed too unite all the forces of nature. Specifically it failed to have a quantum theory of gravity.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:38:04 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
>>>>>> available in the following link:
>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf This new theory not only
>>>>>> united all the existing four forces of gravity, electromagnetic force,
>>>>>> clear strong and weak forces. It also posits the existing a repulsive
>>>>>> force called the CRE force (cosmological repulsive effect force). The CRE
>>>>>> force is important. It is part of gravity and it enables gravity to unify
>>>>>> wth the other forces.
>>>>> Great. And \alpha is predicted to be.....?
>>>>>
>>>> Sorry I don't know how to calculate \alpha base on my physics theory
>>>
>>> OK, so you have nothing.
>>>
>>> No surprise,
>>>
>>> Jan s better than the standard model
>>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> He just has an “alternate explanation” this bettich he mistakenly calls science.
>
> Model Mechanics is better than current theories that failed too unite all
> the forces of nature. Specifically it failed to have a quantum theory of gravity.

Yours certainly isn’t a quantum theory of gravity. You don’t even know what
those words mean.

[Odd Bodkin]

Look at what you wrote, Ken. Does that look like coherent English to you?
Should you still be posting?

>>
>> No surprise,
>>
>> Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Executive summary:
If you can predict the free parameters of the standard model,
or even some of them, you are in business.
If not, you are worthless,

Jan

[Ken Seto]

ron my thheoryOn Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:32:10 AM UTC-5, book...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:33:30 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
> >>>>> available in the following link:
> >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf This new theory not only
> >>>>> united all the existing four forces of gravity, electromagnetic force,
> >>>>> clear strong and weak forces. It also posits the existing a repulsive
> >>>>> force called the CRE force (cosmological repulsive effect force). The CRE
> >>>>> force is important. It is part of gravity and it enables gravity to unify
> >>>>> wth the other forces.
> >>>> Great. And \alpha is predicted to be.....?
> >>>>
> >>> Sorry I don't know how to calculate \alpha base on my physics theory
> >> OK, so you have nothing. Mo
> >
> > Yeh, I have nothing according to your obsolete theory.....the stand model.
> > My theory can unify all the forces.....does Standard model do that with all its
> > mathematical abstractions? I thank not.
> Look at what you wrote, Ken. Does that look like coherent English to you?
> Should you still be posting?

What I wrote is better than the jibalists of QFT that failed too have valid quantum gravity.

[Ken Seto]

Idiot my theory is not base on the failed standard model. It is based on the absolute motions of the S-Particles in a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix. Your problem s that you assumed that the quantum model is absolutely correct. It is not and that’s the reason why it failed to come up with a valid theory of quantum gravity.

[Odd Bodkin]

Did this look like English to you, Ken?

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ken Seto]

Even is not 100% correct....so what? we are not discussing English.

[Odd Bodkin]

You are not discussing anything while you’re writing incoherently.

[Chason Aceta]

uneducated crank spammer rotchm evacuated:

> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 4:22:50 PM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> > Oh, your co-author mistyped again.
>> Hey idiot how many times do I have to tell you that Vdm is not my
>> co-author.
>
> Hey, be polite and learn some respect. This is the first time you tell

keep your mouth shut, you failed imbecile. You are not allowed to talk.

[Ken Seto]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:33:30 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
> > > > > > available in the following link:
> > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf This new theory
> > > > > > not only united all the existing four forces of gravity,
> > > > > > electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak forces. It also
> > > > > > posits the existing a repulsive force called the CRE force
> > > > > > (cosmological repulsive effect force). The CRE force is important.
> > > > > > It is part of gravity and it enables gravity to unify wth the
> > > > > > other forces.
> > > > > Great. And \alpha is predicted to be.....?
> > > > >
> > > > Sorry I don't know how to calculate \alpha base on my physics theory
> > > OK, so you have nothing. Mo
> >
> > Yeh, I have nothing according to your obsolete theory.....the stand model.
> > My theory can unify all the forces.....does Standard model do that with
> > all its mathematical abstractions? I thank not.

> > > err is no free parameters

> > > No surprise,
> > >
> > > Jan
> Executive summary:
> If you can predict the free parameters of the standard model,
> or even some of them, you are in business.
> If not, you are worthless,

There is no free parameter in Model MMchanics.
>
> Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

As you don’t actually know what “free parameter” means, then this is no
surprise.

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

[Ken Seto]

I know what free parameter mens. It means a fudge factor in their equations scientists have no idea what it represents physically. In Model Mechanics there is no fudge factor......every item is represented physically.
As in the nucleus strong force, scientists have no idea how the the protons and neutrons are able to stick together so they invented the color forces. In Model the proton and neutrons are able to stick together via stacked interactions. So you see there is no need for the fudge factor of the color forces.

[Odd Bodkin]

See? You don’t have any idea what a free parameter is. No surprise.

> In Model Mechanics there is no fudge factor......every item is represented physically.
> As in the nucleus strong force, scientists have no idea how the the
> protons and neutrons are able to stick together so they invented the
> color forces. In Model the proton and neutrons are able to stick together
> via stacked interactions. So you see there is no need for the fudge
> factor of the color forces.
>
>

[Ken Seto]

I look up in Wiki for the definition of “free parameter” It look like fudge factor to me. No surprise.

[Odd Bodkin]

But it’s not.

> No surprise.
>>>
>>> I know what free parameter mens. It means a fudge factor in their
>>> equations scientists have no idea what it represents physically.
>> See? You don’t have any idea what a free parameter is. No surprise.
>>> In Model Mechanics there is no fudge factor......every item is represented physically.
>>> As in the nucleus strong force, scientists have no idea how the the
>>> protons and neutrons are able to stick together so they invented the
>>> color forces. In Model the proton and neutrons are able to stick together
>>> via stacked interactions. So you see there is no need for the fudge
>>> factor of the color forces.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Sylvia Else]

On 24-Nov-21 8:44 am, rotchm wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 3:13:53 PM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 1:41:41 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>> Op 23-nov.-2021 om 19:10 schreef Ken Seto:
>

>> You are a mother fucker. In my link ”unification” in your link you changed to “unificatoin”. I will report to google again.
>

> Oh, your co-author mistyped again. So I tried your original link; its doesn't work (on new computers like mine) because of the SSL/https.

> You need to go get a certificate. Go ask at the counter at the pharmacy where they sell credit cards. They sell https certificates too.
> Did you get one yet?
>

What systems are just outright refusing to retrieve http links?

Sylvia.

[J. J. Lodder]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:33:30 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >

> > > > > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:

> > > > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of
> > > > > > > nature s available in the following link:
> > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf This new theory
> > > > > > > not only united all the existing four forces of gravity,
> > > > > > > electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak forces. It also
> > > > > > > posits the existing a repulsive force called the CRE force
> > > > > > > (cosmological repulsive effect force). The CRE force is important.
> > > > > > > It is part of gravity and it enables gravity to unify wth the
> > > > > > > other forces.
> > > > > > Great. And \alpha is predicted to be.....?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Sorry I don't know how to calculate \alpha base on my physics theory
> > > > OK, so you have nothing. Mo
> > >
> > > Yeh, I have nothing according to your obsolete theory.....the stand model.
> > > My theory can unify all the forces.....does Standard model do that with
> > > all its mathematical abstractions? I thank not.
> > > > err is no free parameters
> > > > No surprise,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > Executive summary:
> > If you can predict the free parameters of the standard model,
> > or even some of them, you are in business.
> > If not, you are worthless,
>
> There is no free parameter in Model MMchanics.

Great, then you have the theory of everything.
So you are able to predict (or retrodict) everything known.
Please tell us what \alpha should be,

Jan
(not holding my breath)

[J. J. Lodder]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 11:17:51 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:33:30 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>

> > >>>>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:

Now that is really great.
And your prediction for the proton to neutron mass ratio is?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:33:30 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >

> > > > > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:

> > > > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of
> > > > > > > nature s available in the following link:
> > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf This new theory
> > > > > > > not only united all the existing four forces of gravity,
> > > > > > > electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak forces. It also
> > > > > > > posits the existing a repulsive force called the CRE force
> > > > > > > (cosmological repulsive effect force). The CRE force is important.
> > > > > > > It is part of gravity and it enables gravity to unify wth the
> > > > > > > other forces.
> > > > > > Great. And \alpha is predicted to be.....?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Sorry I don't know how to calculate \alpha base on my physics theory
> > > > OK, so you have nothing. Mo
> > >
> > > Yeh, I have nothing according to your obsolete theory.....the stand model.
> > > My theory can unify all the forces.....does Standard model do that with
> > > all its mathematical abstractions? I thank not.
> > > >
> > > > No surprise,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > Executive summary:
> > If you can predict the free parameters of the standard model,
> > or even some of them, you are in business.
> > If not, you are worthless,
>
> Idiot my theory is not base on the failed standard model.

Of course not. If your theory has any worth
it should be able *to predict* the standard model.
(or at least some parts of it)

You can't, therefore whatever you say is without value,

Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

The standard model is ancient... jan...

[Ken Seto]

> it should be able *to predict* the standard mother universe expandsdel.

> (or at least some parts of it)

Model Mechanics is different than the Standard Model.It’s mode of force transmission is due to the absolute motions of the interacting particles in the E-Matrix. The Standard Model failed to
find the valid graviton after100 years of trying. Why? Because no such valid graviton exists. The reason is that gravity is a composite force as follows:
1. It is an attractive EM force due to the inertacting particles are expanding in the same
directions as the universe expands
2. The interacting particlese E-Matrix are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix
This gives rise to a repulsive force between them.....this repulsive effect is called the CRE force.
3. Gravity according to Model Mechanics is the combined result of the above opposing forces.forces.
the stacked interaction
Another failure of the Standard Model its failure to describe the nuclear strong forces. It introduces many fudge factors as color forces. Model Mechanics describes the Nuclear Strong as stacked intaction of the
up-quarks.....no fudge factors are needed.

> You can't, therefore whatever you say is without value,

> fined result of the
> JanDARDfokkowsabove forces

[Odd Bodkin]

I see you don’t even know what a “fudge factor” is. To you it’s just an
explanation you don’t believe or understand. Anything that’s not your idea
you call names like “fudge factor” because it sounds bad.

[J. J. Lodder]

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 6:20:18 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >

> > > > > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:33:30 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:

Sure, ancient problems that are still open are the hardest,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 9:20:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >

> > > > > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:33:30 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:

> > > > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
> > > > > > > > > of nature s available in the following link:
> > > > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf This new
> > > > > > > > > theory not only united all the existing four forces of
> > > > > > > > > gravity, electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak
> > > > > > > > > forces. It also posits the existing a repulsive force
> > > > > > > > > called the CRE force (cosmological repulsive effect
> > > > > > > > > force). The CRE force is important. It is part of gravity
> > > > > > > > > and it enables gravity to unify wth the other forces.
> > > > > > > > Great. And \alpha is predicted to be.....?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry I don't know how to calculate \alpha base on my physics
> > > > > > > theory
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, so you have nothing. Mo
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeh, I have nothing according to your obsolete theory.....the

> > > > > standard model. My theory can unify all the forces.....does

> > > > > Standard model do that with all its mathematical abstractions? I
> > > > > thank not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No surprise,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jan
> > > > Executive summary:
> > > > If you can predict the free parameters of the standard model,
> > > > or even some of them, you are in business.
> > > > If not, you are worthless,
> > >
> > > Idiot my theory is not base on the failed standard model.
> > Of course not. If your theory has any worth

> > it should be able *to predict* the standard model.

> > (or at least some parts of it)
>
> Model Mechanics is different than the Standard Model.It's mode of force
> transmission is due to the absolute motions of the interacting particles
> in the E-Matrix. The Standard Model failed to find the valid graviton
> after100 years of trying. Why? Because no such valid graviton exists. The
> reason is that gravity is a composite force as follows:
> 1. It is an attractive EM force due to the inertacting particles are
> expanding in the same directions as the universe expands
> 2. The interacting particlese E-Matrix are confined to follow the
> divergent structure of the E-Matrix This gives rise to a repulsive force
> between them.....this repulsive effect is called the CRE force.
> 3. Gravity according to Model Mechanics is the combined result of the
> above opposing forces.forces. the stacked interaction
> Another failure of the Standard Model its failure to describe the nuclear
> strong forces. It introduces many fudge factors as color forces. Model
> Mechanics describes the Nuclear Strong as stacked intaction of the
> up-quarks.....no fudge factors are needed.

And your predictions are?
What's the pion mass for example,
if predicting the neutron/proton mass ratio is too hard for you?
Or just any other prediction?

Jan

[Ken Seto]

> of neutron/protron
> Jan

In Model Mechanics the mass of any particle is the diameter of the orbiting motion of its
S-Particle around the E-String(s). At this time I have no idea how to predict the mass ratio
of neutron/protron based on my model. Perhaps you can help? Thanks. Ken Seto

[Reese Page]

Ken Seto wrote:

> In Model Mechanics the mass of any particle is the diameter of the
> orbiting motion of its S-Particle around the E-String(s). At this time
> I have no idea how to predict the mass ratio of neutron/protron based
> on my model. Perhaps you can help? Thanks. Ken Seto

different dimension and units, you fucking imbecile. You cant have a
diameter being a mass. Stop stealing theories, you scumbag.

[Odd Bodkin]

Well, then, this leads to a problem you can’t solve.

1. If you cannot predict quantities like neutron/proton mass ratio (or any
other number), then it certainly is not a “theory of everything” as you
claim. A theory of everything with no free parameters should be able to
calculate anything measurable in nature, such as this mass ratio or the
gyro magnetic ratio or the fine structure constant. So far you haven’t
demonstrated that ANY constant can be calculated.

2. If things like the diameter of the orbiting motion of an S-particle have
to be measured, then this is an example of a free parameter, which you said
your theory does not have.

Either way, your “theory” doesn’t match the promises you’ve made for it.

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

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 06-dec.-2021 om 18:37 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> In Model Mechanics the mass of any particle is the diameter of the orbiting motion of its
>> S-Particle around the E-String(s). At this time I have no idea how to
>> predict the mass ratio
>> of neutron/protron based on my model. Perhaps you can help? Thanks. Ken Seto
>>
>
> Well, then, this leads to a problem you can’t solve.
>
> 1. If you cannot predict quantities like neutron/proton mass ratio (or any
> other number), then it certainly is not a “theory of everything” as you
> claim. A theory of everything with no free parameters should be able to
> calculate anything measurable in nature, such as this mass ratio or the
> gyro magnetic ratio or the fine structure constant. So far you haven’t
> demonstrated that ANY constant can be calculated.
>
> 2. If things like the diameter of the orbiting motion of an S-particle have
> to be measured, then this is an example of a free parameter, which you said
> your theory does not have.
>
> Either way, your “theory” doesn’t match the promises you’ve made for it.
>

Don't encourage poor Ken to think he even has a "theory".
He doesn't even have a ""theory"".

Dirk Vdm

[J. J. Lodder]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:59:53 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 9:20:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:33:30 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 J. J. Lodder:

Of course not. As noted already, you have nothing.
You cannot predict something on basis of nothing,

Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

This is where Ken struggles. To physics, the value comes from being able to
make quantitative, verifiable predictions. To Ken, the value comes from
being able to “see” what’s going on, to be able to explain with pictures
the process. Those two are an ocean apart. A physicist will say that the
ability to say you know “see” what’s going on DEPENDS ON the verified
quantitative predictions. If the numbers don’t work out, then you can’t
claim you “see” anything true. It’s just a picture that you’ve made up that
is toothless and valueless.

[Maciej Wozniak]

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

[Odd Bodkin]

To elaborate, Ken, I think you are satisfied that you are answering the
question you have heard somewhere, “Where does mass come from?” This you
answer that it is the diameter of the orbit of some new kind of particles
about some new kind of string. But this doesn’t really answer the question
from a physicist’s perspective, because then the next obvious question is
“Well, where does the diameter of these orbits come from?”

The way a physicist knows when he has the answer to questions like “Where
does mass come from” is when he can CALCULATE some masses from the theory,
or at least the ratio of masses, like the mass of the neutron to the proton
or the ratio of the mass of the Z to the W. One of the signs that the
Standard Model was correct, by the way, was that it allowed Weinberg to
CALCULATE the ratio of the mass of the Z to the mass of the W, even before
the W and the Z particles were ever seen, let alone their masses measured.
And that calculation of the mass ratio turned out to be on the money. So
THAT is how a physicist knows he’s got an understanding of the answers to
some questions like that.

You, on the other hand, can’t calculate ANYTHING from your theory. So when
you say the mass of some particle is the diameter of the orbit of some
other particle, you haven’t really answered anything.

[Ken Seto]

I have the S-Particles and the motions of the S-Particles give rise to all the forces and all the
particles . This is beyond current physics. So go ahead and hang on your obsolete theory
of color forces for another 100 years.

[Odd Bodkin]

See my reply to you. You saying the “motions of the S-particles give rise”
to everything doesn’t accomplish anything. The obvious next question is
just, “Well, where do the motions of the S-particles come from?” If you
can’t CALCULATE the motions of the S-particles, if you can’t CALCULATE the
diameters of their orbits, if you can’t CALCULATE the masses of particles
from those diameters, you can’t demonstrate to anyone that you’ve gotten
anything of value. In physics, the way you know that you have an
explanation worth anything is by being able to CALCULATE measurable
quantities that later turn out to match with experimental measurements. You
can’t do any of that.

[Maciej Wozniak]

[Ken Seto]

From the BB: An S-Particle orbiting left handed around the E-String gives rise to an electron
and an S-Particle orbiting right handed around an E-Sting give rise to an up-quark.
An electron interacts with an up quark gives rise to a down quark and a positron.
These are all the particles created during the BB. And these primary particles will
interact with each other via the eM force and the nuclear strong force to give
rise all the particles of the universe.

>If you
> can’t CALCULATE the motions of the S-particles,

The motions of the S-Particles can be calculated and assumed.

[Odd Bodkin]

And notice nowhere in there is any explanation of where those orbital
motions come from.

>> If you
>> can’t CALCULATE the motions of the S-particles,
> The motions of the S-Particles can be calculated and assumed.

Nowhere in ANY of your stuff is a single calculation of the motion of an
S-particle. Nowhere.

You’ve got nothing.

[Odd Bodkin]

In particular, just saying the Big Bang did it doesn’t explain why some
S-particles have different diameters of motion than others, why some are
clockwise and why some are counterclockwise, how the Big Bang can create a
helical motion in the first place, whether they have the same orbital speed
(and why) or not (and what the different speed values come from), and so
on. Just saying “The Big Bang did all this” is NOT AN EXPLANATION.

[J. J. Lodder]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 9:16:45 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 8:38:04 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:59:53 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 9:20:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:

Great.
And your calculation for the electron to up quark mass ratio
yields a prediction of....?

Jan

[Ken Seto]

nothing.> Nowhere in ANY of your stuff is a single calculation of the motion of an
> S-particle. Nowhere.

In current theory, notice no where is any calculations of the seize or mass of the electron or of up quark.....no where.
>
> You’ve got nothing.
Current theory got


> >
> >> if you can’t CALCCurrent theories got ULATE the

> >> diameters of their orbits, if you can’t CALCULATE the masses of particles

> >> from those diamnothing.eters, you can’t demonstrate to anyone that you’ve gotten

[Ken Seto]

If you had read my book, you would know how the left handed and the right handed orbital
motions of the S-Particles come from. When an S-Particle enters into orbit on the top side
of an E-String, it will orbiting the E-String left hand direction and thus become an electron
and when an S-Particle enter into orbit at the bottom side of the E-string it will become
an up quark.

> >> If you
> >> can’t CALCULAectronTE the motions of the S-particles,

[Ken Seto]

What assumption did you made to calculate the electron and up-quark mass.....?
>
> Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

But also note that there ARE free parameters in the Standard Model, which
doesn’t pretend to be rid of free parameters like you claim your idea is,
and doesn’t claim to be a theory of everything like you claim your idea is.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ken, suppose the Big Bang has just happened. There you are, with everything
receding around you in all directions. Look, there, there’s an E-string.
Which side is the “top side”? Which way is up, out there in the middle of
the universe?

You mean, away from the ground? What ground?

[Odd Bodkin]

You don’t use any assumptions, remember? You can just calculate, since it’s
a theory of everything with no free parameters. So let’s see it.

>>
>> Jan

[Ken Seto]

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?
>
> But also note that there ARE free parameters in the Standard Model, which at

> doesn’t pretend to be rid of free parameters like you claim your idea is,

> and doesn’t claim to be a theory here are those fundament everything like you claim your idea is.
>
My theory assumes that if the S-Particle enters into orbit in the right hand side (the top side)
the and product is the negatively charged electron. If the S-Particle enters into orbit the left
hand side (the bottom side the end product is the positively charged up-quark.

The reason why the S-Particle enters into orbits at the different sides of the E-String is because
during the BB the E-Matrix is releasing its tension in the right hand side direction.
.I guess that the free parameters in the MM are the diameters of the electron and the up-quark.
>>
> >> You’ve got nothing.
> > Current theory got nothing.


> > tap

[Odd Bodkin]

Weinberg’s books on Quantum Field Theory are a good place to look.
As always, Ken, the answers you think don’t exist are in books that you
won’t read.
As a result, the answers will still be there, but you’ll be ignorant of
them.

>>
>> But also note that there ARE free parameters in the Standard Model, which at
>> doesn’t pretend to be rid of free parameters like you claim your idea is,
>> and doesn’t claim to be a theory here are those fundament everything
>> like you claim your idea is.
>>
> My theory assumes that if the S-Particle enters into orbit in the right
> hand side (the top side)

LOL. What is “right” or “top” at the Big Bang. Which was is up at the Big
Bang?

> the and product is the negatively charged electron. If the S-Particle
> enters into orbit the left
> hand side (the bottom side the end product is the positively charged up-quark.

You do know that a positron is positively charged, and a down quark is
negatively charged, right?
And which side do neutrinos enter on, top or bottom?

[J. J. Lodder]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 12:15:24 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 9:16:45 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 8:38:04 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>

> > > > >>> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:59:53 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 9:20:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:

> > > > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>

> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:33:30 AM J. J. Lodder:

It is -you- who pretends to be able to calculate.
So show some results, or admit that you have nothing,

Jan

[Ken Seto]

If you are looking at an E-String and an S-Patricle enters into orbit at the left hand side
of the E-String then the final product is a positively charged up-quark. Similarly, if the
S-Particle enters into orbit at the right hand side of the E-String then the final product

[Odd Bodkin]

Ken, pay attention. At the Big Bang, there is no “up” or “down”. So say you
look at an E-string and you put a little sticky flag over on the what you
call the “left” side. Now you rotate in space so that your head is where
your feet were, and your feet are where your head was. Now look at the same
E-string. The little sticky flag is now on the “right” side.

Where there is no “up” and “down”, there is also no “left” and “right”.
There is no ground, there is no “up”.

[Ken Seto]

Hey idiot.....the S-Particle enters into orbit around an E-String as follows:
1. when it enters into an anti-clockwise motion we call that an negatively charged particle (an electron).
2 When it enters into a clockwise motion we call that a positively charged particle particle (a up-quark).
3. These are the only particles created during the BB.
4. The electrons and the up-quarks are close to each other during the BB they interacted and formed the down-quarks and the anti--electroneutrinos.
5 The electrons, the up quarks and the down quarks are the only particles formed during the BB.

> > option

> >>> the and product is the negatively charged electron. If the S-Particle

> >>> enters into orbit the left .
> >>> hand side (the bottom the end product is the positively charged up-quark.

[Ken Seto]

No I did not say that I am able to calculate, In fact I asked you guys to help.

> So show some results, or admit that you have nothing,

I have no mathematical proof of MM.

[Michael Moroney]

Stupid Ken, consider the situation where two observers are oriented so
that the head of one is at the foot of the other and vice versa. That
would mean that one observer sees a clockwise motion and the other sees
a counterclockwise motion. They have different views of left and right.
What's to the left of one is to the right of the other. What happens?
Does one observer see an electron being created and the other sees an up
quark created? Do the two of them have different realities?

[Michael Moroney]

So you finally admit that your Muddle Mechanics is just a load of
assertions with no proof. If it really was a 'theory of everything', it
would have no free parameters, and everything could be calculated.

[Python]

It's an old blunder from Ken Seto, look for "vertical" there:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html

[Odd Bodkin]

What causes an S-particle to enter an anti-clockwise motion?

> 2 When it enters into a clockwise motion we call that a positively
> charged particle particle (a up-quark).

What causes an S-particle to enter a clockwise motion?

> 3. These are the only particles created during the BB.

I beg to differ. There are also negative quarks, for example, like the
d-quark, without which you’d never make a proton. There are also neutral
particles, like neutrinos, which were there right from the Big Bang.

> 4. The electrons and the up-quarks are close to each other during the BB
> they interacted and formed the down-quarks and the anti--electroneutrinos.

You can’t have an electron interact with an up-quark without a W present.

[Odd Bodkin]

Unfortunately, Ken, if you cannot calculate, you don’t have a physics
theory. Calculations are part of every single physical theory. You can even
look at Newton’s Principia — FILLED with calculations.

>> So show some results, or admit that you have nothing,
>
> I have no mathematical proof of MM.
>

The mathematics required is not a mathematical proof. Mathematics is needed
to calculate numbers, not just to make proofs. I think you’ve lost touch
with basic math skills so badly that you think 8th grade geometry is what
math is about.

Unless you can calculate numbers, like Newton did, like Einstein did, like
Feynman did, like Fermi did, like ANY physicist does, then you’ve got
nothing.

[Ken Seto]

> > 1. when it enters into an anti-clockwise motion n we call that an
> > negatively charged clockwise article (an electron). wise direct anticlokcwise directionion

> What causes an S-particle to enter an anti-clockwise motion?

Because the E-Marix was releasing stress in the clockwise direction and the S-Particles
are moving in the anticlockwsie direction as the S-Particle ball was rotating in the antilockwise
direction when it was exploded.

> > 2 When it enters into a clockwise motion we call that a positively
> > charged particle particle (a up-quark).
> What causes an S-particle to enter a clockwise motion?

The S-Particle can enter into orbit in the clockwise directio. or in the anti clockwise direction.

> > 3. These ae first particles re the only particles created during the l BB.
> I beg to differ. There are also negative quarks, for example, like the neutrinos,

>which were there right from the Big Bang.

Yes the neutrinos were the first observable particle formed......actually a neutrino is an electron
if it is observed side by side.
> > 4. The electrons and the up-quarks are clock w close to neutrino is nact other during the BB

> > they interacted and formed the down-quarks and the anti--electroneutrinos.

> You can’t have an electron interact with an up-quark without entrant a W.

That’s according to your failed standard model.....according to MM the electron interact with the
up quark gives rise to the down quark and antineutrino.

> > 5 The electrons, the up quarks and the down quarks are the only particles
> > formed during the BB.

> > in the

> >>> option
> >>>>> the and product is the negatively charged electron. If the S-Particle
> >>>>> enters into orbit the left .
> >>>>> hand side (the bottom the end product is the positively charged up-quark.
> >>>> You do know that a positron is positively charged, and a down quark is
> >>>> negatively charged, right?
> >>>> And which side do neutrinos enter on, top or bottom?

> > model. According to MM the electron interacted with the up quark

[Odd Bodkin]

Lol. Wish that made sense. Did you know that after you look down a string
at something going clockwise around it, then look down the same string the
other direction, that orbiting body is now going counterclockwise?

>>> 2 When it enters into a clockwise motion we call that a positively
>>> charged particle particle (a up-quark).
>> What causes an S-particle to enter a clockwise motion?
> The S-Particle can enter into orbit in the clockwise directio. or in
> the anti clockwise direction.

What determines which way?

>
>>> 3. These ae first particles re the only particles created during the l BB.
>> I beg to differ. There are also negative quarks, for example, like the neutrinos,
>> which were there right from the Big Bang.
> Yes the neutrinos were the first observable particle formed......actually
> a neutrino is an electron
> if it is observed side by side.

Neutrinos have no charge. Your S-particles orbiting only yield positive
charge and negative charge.

>>> 4. The electrons and the up-quarks are clock w close to neutrino is
>>> nact other during the BB
>>> they interacted and formed the down-quarks and the anti--electroneutrinos.
>> You can’t have an electron interact with an up-quark without entrant a W.
>
> That’s according to your failed standard model.....according to MM the
> electron interact with the
> up quark gives rise to the down quark and antineutrino.

Nope. The presence of the W is an experimental fact. Actually observed.

[J. J. Lodder]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 5:04:55 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 12:15:24 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >

> > > > > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 9:16:45 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 8:38:04 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:

> > > > > > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:59:53 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>

> > > > > > >>>>> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 9:20:18 J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19, J. J. Lodder:

> > > > > these primary particlecalculates will interact with each other via

> > > > > the eM force and the nuclear strong force to give rise all the
> > > > > particles of the universe.
> > > > > >If you
> > > > > > can't CALCULATE the motions of the S-particles,
> > > > > The motions of the S-Particles can be calculated and assumed.
> > > > Great.
> > > > And your calculation for the electron to up quark mass ratio
> > > > yields a prediction of....?
> > >
> > > What assumption did you made to calculate the electron and up-quark
> > > mass.....?
> > It is -you- who pretends to be able to calculate.
>
> No I did not say that I am able to calculate, In fact I asked you guys to
> help.

Oh? What did I misunderstand about your:

"The motions of the S-Particles can be calculated and assumed."

Should that be read as:
"The motions of the S-Particles can not be calculated
and must be assumed."

> > So show some results, or admit that you have nothing,
>
> I have no mathematical proof of MM.

So not even that,

Jan

--
Es ist sogar nicht Falsch! (Wolfgang Pauli)

[Ken Seto]

Moron, during the BB it was specified that the E-Matrix was releasing stress in the anti-clockwise
direction and that the S-Particles are enter into clockwise or anti-clockwise directions.
>
> Where there is no “up” and “down”, them ere is also no “left” and “right”.

> There is no ground, there is no “up”.
> >

> >>> the and product is the negatively charged electron. If the S-Particle clockwise

[Odd Bodkin]

So that’s called a “free parameter”. You are saying that your model HINGES
on the assumption of a non-derivable parameter (counter-clockwise stress
release, whatever that means). There is also another free parameter that is
the ratio of S-particles entering clockwise and counter-clockwise
directions. If you say that ratio is 1 (for no good reason), then you are
saying that electrons and up-quarks were produced in equal numbers in the
Big Bang. This is counter to observational facts of course. For example,
the measured ratio of helium to hydrogen is about 1:3. In hydrogen the
ratio of up-quarks to electrons is 2:1. In helium, the ratio of up-quarks
to electrons is 6:2=3:1. Thus, even to first approximation, using helium
abundances, the ratio of up-quarks to electrons is 2.3:1. To account for
this, you’d need to explain why the ratio of S-particles entering orbits
clockwise or counterclockwise has that ratio. If you can’t calculate it,
then it’s a free parameter and your idea is no longer a theory of
everything.

The sanity check calculations I just did in my head are the kinds of things
you simply cannot do.

[Michael Moroney]

On 12/9/2021 5:30 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:53:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 4:09:05 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> My theory assumes that if the S-Particle enters into orbit in the right
>>>>> hand side (the top side)
>>>> LOL. What is “right” or “top” at the Big Bang. Which was is up at the Big
>>>> Bang?
>>>
>>> If you are looking at an E-String and an S-Patricle enters into orbit at
>>> the left hand side
>>> of the E-String then the final product is a
>>> positively charged up-quark. Similarly, if the
>>> S-Particle enters into orbit at the right hand side of the E-String then the final product
>>> is the negatively charged electron.
>> Ken, pay attention. At the Big Bang, there is no “up” or “down”. So say you
>> look at an E-string and you put a little sticky flag over on the what you
>> call the “left” side. Now you rotate in space so that your head is where
>> your feet were, and your feet are where your head was. Now look at the same
>> E-string. The little sticky flag is now on the “right” side.
>
> Moron, during the BB it was specified that the E-Matrix was releasing stress in the anti-clockwise
> direction and that the S-Particles are enter into clockwise or anti-clockwise directions.

Clockwise and counterclockwise with respect to what? Remember, if the
observer stands on their head, clockwise becomes counterclockwise and
counterclockwise becomes clockwise.

This has been pointed out several times yet you haven't commented on it.

[Ken Seto]

> > on

> > Hey idiot.....the S-Particle enters into orbit around an E-String as follows:
> > 1. when it enters into an anti-clockwise motion we call that an
> > negatively charged particle (an electron).
> What causes an S-particle to enter an anti-clockwise motion?
> > 2 When it enters into a clockwise motion we call that a positively

> > charged particle particle (a up-quark).en this happened

> What causes an S-particle to enter a clockwise motion?

The BB explosion causes the gS-Particles to speed out from the point of t)he BB. and causing th
When an S-Particle meets a re[ulsive E-String it must curve to the right or left. When
This happened the E-Strings surrounding the original E-String will push back causing the
S-Particle to continue on a curve path (orbital motion)around the original E-String
.
> > 3. These are the only particles created back during the BB.

> I beg to differ. There are also negative quarks, for example, like the

> d-quark, without which you’d never make act or left of the E-String proton. There are also neutral

> particles, like neutrinos, which were there right from the Big Bang.

These particles happened via the interactions between the primary particles.

> > 4. The electrons and the up-quarks are close to each other during the BB
> > they interacted and formed the down-quarks and the anti--electroneutrinos.

> You can’t have an eleeeded for the citron interact with an up-quark without a W present.
Yes you can the W is needed only for the failed standard model.

> > 5 The electrons, their the up quarks and the down quarks are the only particles

> > formed during the BB.
> >
> >>> option
> >>>>> the and product is the negatively charged electron. If the S-Particle
> >>>>> enters into orbit the left .
> >>>>> hand side (the bottom the end product is the positively charged up-quark.
> >>>> You do know that a positron is positively charged, and a down quark is

> >>>> negatively charged, right? ted

[Ken Seto]

> > Because the E-Marix was releasing stress in the clockwise di E-Stringsection and the S-Particles

> > are moving in the anticlockwsie direction as the S-Particle ball was

> > rotating in the antilock wise ti come upon an

> > direction when it was exploded.
> Lol. Wish that made sense. Did you know that after you look down a string

> at something going clockwise apidround it, then look down the sename string the

> other direction, that orbiting body is now going counterclockwise?

Idiot, the S-Particle does look up or down when it upon an E-String. It just react to
the situation when it comes upon an E=String. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

[Odd Bodkin]

I see you’ve had a cognitive slide again today and can no longer write
coherent English. These lapses are more frequent lately.

>>> 3. These are the only particles created back during the BB.
>> I beg to differ. There are also negative quarks, for example, like the
>> d-quark, without which you’d never make act or left of the E-String
>> proton. There are also neutral
>> particles, like neutrinos, which were there right from the Big Bang.
> These particles happened via the interactions between the primary particles.

The rate at which e+p->n+nu is too low to account for measured population
of those products. Note that this requires a calculation to know this.

>
>>> 4. The electrons and the up-quarks are close to each other during the BB
>>> they interacted and formed the down-quarks and the anti--electroneutrinos.
>> You can’t have an eleeeded for the citron interact with an up-quark without a W present.
> Yes you can the W is needed only for the failed standard model.

Well, but you see, it exists. The W has been observed and measured in
exquisite detail. Are you going to say that in your mind, it isn’t needed,
and so those W’s that have been seen just don’t exist after all?

[Odd Bodkin]

There IS NO UP just after the Big Bang. What’s your reference for up or
down. There is no ground. There is no sky.

When you’re in deep space, which direction is up?

[J. J. Lodder]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 10:56:54 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:53:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 4:09:05 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 1:02:32 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 10:45:20 AM bodk...@gmail.com:
> > >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 9:16:45 AM, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 8:38:04 PM, J. J. Lodder:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:59:53 AM, J. J. Lodder:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 9:20:18 AM, J. J. Lodder:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19 PM, J. J. Lodder:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:33:30, J. J. Lodder:

As confirmed at LEP200 by CERN to great accuracy,
in many different experiments.

Just an advice: ranting against the standard model
inevitably brands you as a crackpot.
While not the last word,
the standard model is empirically adequate, so far.
There are no observations that contradict it.
(but possibly some minor anomalies at precision 10^-9)

Best advice: don't do it,

Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

It’s even more foolish to claim that things like quarks and Ws and gluons
are theoretical fictions that should just be dispensed with, in exchange
for a simpler model that doesn’t include them. It makes no sense to
dispense with things that have actually been observed. You wouldn’t try to
propose a model that did away with atoms or neutrinos, would you?

[Ken Seto]

There is no valid quantum gravity.

[Odd Bodkin]

That is not an experimental observation in contradiction to the standard
model.

Yours is not a model of quantum gravity either, mostly because you don’t
know what those words mean.

>
>> (but possibly some minor anomalies at precision 10^-9)
>>
>> Best advice: don't do it,
>>
>> Jan
>

[Ken Seto]

> > gluons
> > Jan
> >em

> It’s even more foolish to claim that things like quarks and Ws and gluons
> are theoretical fictions that should just be dispensed with,
>

Ws and gluons and color forces are indeed theoretical fictions.If the Ws exists we should be able to see them easily....instead we need billion dollar machines to see them.

>in exchange
> for a simpler model that doesn’t include them. It makes no sense to
> dispense with things that have actually been observed. You wouldn’t try to

> propose color forceolor forces are indeedmodel that did away with atoms or neutrinos, would you?

[Odd Bodkin]

Don’t be silly. Not everything that exists can be seen with the naked eye.
Lots of things exist that you can’t see without expensive equipment.

You can’t see electrons without expensive equipment. You can’t see atoms
without expensive equipment. You can’t see the shape of molecules without
expensive equipment. You can’t see genes without expensive equipment. You
can’t see quasars without expensive equipment. You can’t see extrasolar
planets without expensive equipment.

You CERTAINLY could never see E-strings or S-particles easily without
expensive equipment.

[J. J. Lodder]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 10:18:46 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> > > On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 10:56:54 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail:

> > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:53:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > > > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 4:09:05 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > > > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > >>>>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 1:02:32 PM bodk...@gmail.com:

> > > > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 10:45:20 AM bodk...@gmail.com:
> > > > >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 9:16:45 AM, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 8:38:04 PM, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:59:53 AM, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 9:20:18 J. J. Lodder:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19 J. J. Lodder:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 J. J. Lodder:

Yes, and so what?
Quantum gravity is not part of the standard model,
so its absence or presence can't say anything about the standard model.

The standard model deals with what it deals with,
and that with incredible succes.

FYI: You can't argue with succes,
and ranting against it marks you as a crackpot,

Jan

[Ken Seto]

So that means that Standard Model is incomplete.

> Quantum gravity is not part of the standard model,

That means that the Standard model cannot be the theory of everything and
that means that we need to search for a different model as a theory of everything.

> so its absence or presence can't say anything about the standard model.
>
> The standard model deals with what it deals with,
> and that with incredible succes.
>

> FYI: You can't argue with succes, thing

[Ken Seto]

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:45:56 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:53:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 4:09:05 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 1:02:32 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 10:45:20 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 9:16:45 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 8:38:04 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:59:53 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 9:20:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 3:59:19 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed model of the Standard model.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:33:30 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:

No the rate is not 1 for the simple reason that in one direction the E-Matrix is pushing the
S-Particle to complete an orbit faster and in the other direction the S-Particle must catch
up with the E-String to complete an orbit.

>then you are
> saying that electrons and up-quarks were produced in equal numbers in the
> Big Bang.

That’s your erroneous assumption. There were more electron produced than the up-quark.

>This is counter to observational facts of course. For example,
> the measured ratio of helium to hydrogen is about 1:3. In hydrogen the
> ratio of up-quarks to electrons is 2:1. In helium, the ratio of up-quarks
> to electrons is 6:2=3:1. Thus, even to first approximation, using helium
> abundances, the ratio of up-quarks to electrons is 2.3:1. To account for
> this, you’d need to explain why the ratio of S-particles entering orbits
> clockwise or counterclockwise has that ratio. If you can’t calculate it,
> then it’s a free parameter and your idea is no longer a theory of
> everything.
>

Your calculations is based on the wrong assumptions

[Emmet Buchs]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> So that’s called a “free parameter”. You are saying that your model
>> HINGES on the assumption of a non-derivable parameter
>> (counter-clockwise stress release, whatever that means). There is also
>> another free parameter that is the ratio of S-particles entering
>> clockwise and counter-clockwise directions. If you say that ratio is 1
>> (for no good reason),
>>
> No the rate is not 1 for the simple reason that in one direction the
> E-Matrix is pushing the S-Particle to complete an orbit faster and in
> the other direction the S-Particle must catch up with the E-String to
> complete an orbit.

shut up, thief.

[Odd Bodkin]

Yes, so? ALL real physics theories to date are incomplete. Even yours is
incomplete, because there are things you cannot explain with your theory,
despite you claiming that it is a theory of everything.

A theory’s incompleteness is in no way an indication that there are
observations that contradict it.

>
>> Quantum gravity is not part of the standard model,
> That means that the Standard model cannot be the theory of everything and

The Standard Model does not pretend to be a theory of everything.

> that means that we need to search for a different model as a theory of everything.

Yes, that’s true. That’s underway, and the work of physicists.

What you’ve offered, however, is not even a theory, let alone a theory of
everything. You *claiming* it is a theory of everything means nothing. I’ve
asked how your theory explains psychosis — nothing from you. I’ve asked how
your theory explains tornado formation — nothing. I’ve asked how your
theory explains plate tectonics — nothing. I’ve asked you to calculate the
ratio of protons to neutrons in the universe — nothing from you. Yours is
not a theory of everything as you have claimed.

>
>> so its absence or presence can't say anything about the standard model.
>>
>> The standard model deals with what it deals with,
>> and that with incredible succes.
>>
>> FYI: You can't argue with succes, thing
>> and ranting against it marks you as a crackpot,
>>
>> Jan
>

[Odd Bodkin]

“More” is a qualitative statement. A physics theory will tell you HOW MUCH
MORE, a quantitative statement.

It’s wrong, by the way. See below. There are more up quarks than electrons
in the universe, measured.

>
>> This is counter to observational facts of course. For example,
>> the measured ratio of helium to hydrogen is about 1:3. In hydrogen the
>> ratio of up-quarks to electrons is 2:1. In helium, the ratio of up-quarks
>> to electrons is 6:2=3:1. Thus, even to first approximation, using helium
>> abundances, the ratio of up-quarks to electrons is 2.3:1. To account for
>> this, you’d need to explain why the ratio of S-particles entering orbits
>> clockwise or counterclockwise has that ratio. If you can’t calculate it,
>> then it’s a free parameter and your idea is no longer a theory of
>> everything.
>>
> Your calculations is based on the wrong assumptions

What assumptions do you think I’m making? The only assumption made is that
there are two up quarks and a down quark in a proton, and two down quarks
and one up quark in a neutron, and that there is one proton in hydrogen,
and two protons and two neutrons in helium. If you think these numbers are
wrong, then you tell me the quark composition of protons and neutrons. The
hydrogen-helium ratio is a MEASURED quantity, no assumptions involved.