Model Mechanics: A "Theory of "Everything"

[Ken Seto]

Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
This book describes a new theory of physics based on the concept
of absolute motion. Absolute motion is that motion of an object
relative to a stationary light conducting medium. The resulting group
of theories is called Model Mechanics. The main features of Model
Mechanics are as follows:
• It off ers a realistic origin of the universe.
• It off ers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
• It provides a format to unify all of the forces of nature.
• It can be confi rmed experientially.
• It gives rise to Improved Relativity Theory. (IRT)
• It off ers a new theory of gravity.
• It includes a Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory
of Relativity as subsets and it is compatable with Quantum
Mechanics.
• It postulates a new repulsive fi fth force identifi ed as the CRE force.
• It explains the charge of a particle.
• It explains the cell-division and the consciousness
processes of life.
• It explains the weird results of all quantum experiments.
• It explains the structures of atoms.

[Ken Seto]

The link for my book:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
> The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:

[snip empty talk]

And your new predictions are.....?

Jan

[Ken Seto]

MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force. The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
MM also shows how an electron maintain a negative charge forever..
MM shows how the positively charged up quarks are able to stick together to form the nucleus of an atom.....the secret is stact interaction....instead of the invention of color forces.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:

> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
>>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
>> [snip empty talk]
>>
>> And your new predictions are.....?
>>
> MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.

I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be experimentally
tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a prediction.

> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is
> not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.

We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to
look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.

> MM also shows how an electron maintain a negative charge forever..
> MM shows how the positively charged up quarks are able to stick
> together to form the nucleus of an atom.....the secret is stact
> interaction....instead of the invention of color forces.

Likewise.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
> > > The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
> > [snip empty talk]
> >
> > And your new predictions are.....?
> >
> MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force. The CRE force is
> part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a
> stable orbit for billions of years.
>

OK, so falsified at count #1

> MM also shows how an electron maintain a negative charge forever..

Charge conservation is nothing new.

> MM shows how the positively charged up quarks are able to stick together
> to form the nucleus of an atom.....the secret is stact
> interaction....instead of the invention of color forces.

SU(3) colour force explains the nuclear interactions well enough,
and in great practical detail.
(stability/instability, nuclear spectra/lifetimes, etc.)
You do not have a verifiable prediction falsifying any of this.

So in summary, you have nothing,
(beyond verbiage)

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
> >> [snip empty talk]
> >>
> >> And your new predictions are.....?
> >>
> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
>
> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be experimentally
> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a prediction.

Certainly. Mu previous challenge,
to predict free parameters of the Standard Model
(what the Theory Of Everything must do be able to do)
is still as wide open as ever.

> > The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is
> > not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
>
> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to
> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.

Having laser reflectors on the Moon allows us to measure
where the moon is, to an accuracy of a few centimeter.
Relativistic celestial mechanics allows us
to calculate where it should be, to similar accuracy.

Agreement between measurement and calculation
confirms general relativity, and it rules out
certain alternative theories of gravity (such as Brans-Dicke)

There is no room for muddle mechanics here,
(and it is not even an alternative)

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 6 October 2022 at 21:09:41 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Agreement between measurement and calculation
> confirms general relativity, and

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

504

[Ken Seto]

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
> >> [snip empty talk]
> >>
> >> And your new predictions are.....?
> >>
> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be experimentally
> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a prediction.
> > The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is
> > not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to
> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
>

You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why. Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force. We know that a single attractive force is not able to make an object to go in circles.We also know that no experiment on earth can make an object go around in circles by a single attractive force...similarly if gravity is a single attractive force it is not able to make the moon go around in circles......you need the repulsive CRE force to do that.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:

> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Thursday, October
>> 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
>> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid
>> Theory of Everything"> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as
>> follows:> >> [snip empty talk]> >>> >> And your new predictions
>> are.....?> >>> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
>> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be
>> experimentally> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a
>> prediction.
>>> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is> >
>>> not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
>> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to>
>> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
>>
> You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why.
> Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force.

When did I assert that? Reference please.

[Ken Seto]

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Thursday, October
> >> 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
> >> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid
> >> Theory of Everything"> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as
> >> follows:> >> [snip empty talk]> >>> >> And your new predictions
> >> are.....?> >>> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
> >> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be
> >> experimentally> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a
> >> prediction.
> >>> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is> >
> >>> not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
> >> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to>
> >> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
> >>
> > You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why.
> > Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force.
> When did I assert that? Reference please.

I was talking to Mike and JJ . They asserted that gravity is a single attractive force.
I disagree because Gravity is a composite force as follows:
1. One of the component ia an attractive EM force because the interacting objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force.. This force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands..
3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force. That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.

[Urbano Stilo]

Ken Seto wrote:

> I was talking to Mike and JJ . They asserted that gravity is a single
> attractive force.
> I disagree because Gravity is a composite force as follows:
> 1. One of the component ia an attractive EM force because the
> interacting objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe
> expands.
> 2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force.. This
> force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined
> to follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as
> the universe expands..
> 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force.
> That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.

I fart in your coffee. Gravity has nothing to do with EM. You are stealing
models and theories, you bad teeth japanese.

[Volney]

On 10/7/2022 4:27 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>>
>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Thursday, October
>>>> 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
>>>> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid
>>>> Theory of Everything"> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as
>>>> follows:> >> [snip empty talk]> >>> >> And your new predictions
>>>> are.....?> >>> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
>>>> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be
>>>> experimentally> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a
>>>> prediction.
>>>>> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is> >
>>>>> not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
>>>> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to>
>>>> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
>>>>
>>> You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why.
>>> Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force.
>> When did I assert that? Reference please.
>
> I was talking to Mike and JJ . They asserted that gravity is a single attractive force.
> I disagree because Gravity is a composite force as follows:

You mean that you assert that gravity is a composite force as follows:

> 1. One of the component ia an attractive EM force because the interacting objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.

Absurd assertion. Gravity is not EM, and what's that garbage about
expansion?

> 2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force..

Assertion, plus Newton Proved a second force was unnecessary.

> This force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands..

You mean you assert whatever that word salad is supposed to mean.

> 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force. That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.

No need for any "CRE force", as Newton proved.

[Ken Seto]

I didn't say that gravity is EM alone. I said that gravity is a combination of an attractive EM force and a repulsive CRE force. Howcome anything that you don't understand is assertion on my prt?

> > 2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force..
> Assertion,

It is not an assertion......that's what my theory say.

>plus Newton Proved a second force was unnecessary.

Newton's theory and Einstein 's theory failed to provide a physical model for gravity.
I provide a true physical model for gravity.

> > This force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands..
> You mean you assert whatever that word salad is supposed to mean.

Hey stupid Mike, that's what my theory says and it is not an assertion.

> > 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force. That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.
> No need for any "CRE force", as Newton proved.

You are dead wrong. No orbiting motion is possible without the CRE force.
Newton didn't prove anything.

[Urbano Stilo]

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:37:16 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> Absurd assertion. Gravity is not EM, and what's that garbage about
>> expansion?
>
> I didn't say that gravity is EM alone. I said that gravity is a
> combination of an attractive EM force and a repulsive CRE force. Howcome
> anything that you don't understand is assertion on my prt?

your theory is a fart in a bottle trying to escape.

[Volney]

Yet you said attractive gravity was an EM force. It isn't. Since the
only component of gravity is attractive (proven by Newton), my statement
remains correct.

> Howcome anything that you don't understand is assertion on my prt?

No, unsupported claims are assertions. That's all you make are
unsupported claims, a.k.a. assertions. Science rejects assertions such
as yours, science requires scientific observations and experimental
evidence. Without any such evidence, your Muddle Mechanics will remain
as a complete, total, absolute failure.

>
>>> 2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force..
>> Assertion,
>
> It is not an assertion......that's what my theory say.

You don't even have a theory, not without scientific observations and
experimental evidence of your claims. It doesn't even qualify as a
hypothesis. Call it what it really is, a conjecture, a hunch, a guess.

>
> >plus Newton Proved a second force was unnecessary.
> Newton's theory and Einstein 's theory failed to provide a physical model for gravity.

Newton PROVED only a single, attractive force was necessary to make
gravity work and the moon to orbit.

> I provide a true physical model for gravity.

You don't even have a model at all! A scientific model has a set of
predictions that can be worked out mathematically when initial
conditions and parameters are entered, it makes a prediction which can
be compared to real life results.

>
>>> This force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands..
>> You mean you assert whatever that word salad is supposed to mean.
>
> Hey stupid Mike, that's what my theory says and it is not an assertion.

It's not even a scientific theory, all it is is assertions. A package of
assertions is not a theory.

>>> 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force. That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.
>> No need for any "CRE force", as Newton proved.
>
> You are dead wrong. No orbiting motion is possible without the CRE force.

Assertion. Disproved by Newton.

> Newton didn't prove anything.

Sorry, Newton proved that a single attractive force was all that is
required for a moon to orbit a planet forever. The fact you cannot
understand it (the math is beyond third grade level, which is why you
can't understand it) does not mean it's wrong. It just means you are stupid.

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> >

> > > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force.
> That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.

Fine. Now either:
1. Your combined force equals Newtonian gravity,
in which case you have nothing to say.
Or:
2. Your combined force differs from Newtonian gravity,
in which case you should be able to predict something
that conflicts with the standard account of motion in the solar system.

What will it be?
If 2., what is your novel and verifiable prediction?
If unverifiable you have again nothing to say.

We are waiting,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 8 October 2022 at 07:25:54 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> > I provide a true physical model for gravity.
> You don't even have a model at all! A scientific model has a set of
> predictions that can be worked out mathematically when initial
> conditions and parameters are entered, it makes a prediction which can
> be compared to real life results.

And, of course, as anyone can check in GPS, real life results
are - t'=t. Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

506

[Ken Seto]

Get this through your relative head:
If gravity is a single attractive force then the moon is not able to orbit around the earth. This means that Newton and you are wrong. Without the wrong assertion that gravity is a single attractive force, MM can use the newtonian equation to predict gravity.

> Or:
> 2. Your combined force differs from Newtonian gravity,
> in which case you should be able to predict something
> that conflicts with the standard account of motion in the solar system.

No I don't have to do thay. MM uses the standard math of physics. After all the math deleloped is not the exclusive properties of Newtonian physics.

[Michel Marconi]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> Fine. Now either:
>> 1. Your combined force equals Newtonian gravity,
>> in which case you have nothing to say.
>
> Get this through your relative head:
> If gravity is a single attractive force then the moon is not able to
> orbit around the earth. This means that Newton and you are wrong.
> Without the wrong assertion that gravity is a single attractive force,
> MM can use the newtonian equation to predict gravity.

you can't, fucking stupid. There is no "attractive force" in freefall.
Therefore the Newtone is wrong, so are you. Fucking stoopid. You steal
models and theories you don't undrestand.

[Michel Marconi]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> Fine. Now either:
>> 1. Your combined force equals Newtonian gravity,
>> in which case you have nothing to say.
>
> Get this through your relative head:
> If gravity is a single attractive force then the moon is not able to
> orbit around the earth. This means that Newton and you are wrong.
> Without the wrong assertion that gravity is a single attractive force,
> MM can use the newtonian equation to predict gravity.

you can't, fucking stupid. There is no "attractive force" in freefall.
Therefore the Newtone is wrong, so are you. Fucking stoopid. You steal

models and theories you don't undrestand. I fart on you.

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 8:02:24 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> > > > On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> > > >

> > > > > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden:

OK, very good. That is clarity at last.

So you have nothing of physical relevance to say.
You could have said that using fewer words,
or even none at all,

Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Jan? Everyone is playing with their Big TOE...

[Ken Seto]

Fucking idiot, there is attractive and repulsive effect force between any two objects as they expand in the aether. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
See page 40and 41 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[Ken Seto]

I do have a lot to say. See page 44 of my book for the modified Netonian equation that fits observations better than the Newtonian equation.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[Jase Profeta]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> you can't, fucking stupid. There is no "attractive force" in freefall.
>> Therefore the Newtone is wrong, so are you. Fucking stoopid. You steal
>> models and theories you don't undrestand.
>
> Fucking idiot, there is attractive and repulsive effect force between
> any two objects as they expand in the aether. Gee you are so fucking
> stupid. See page 40and 41 of my book in the following link:

\033[1;31m what attractive force is in freefall, you fucking imbecile.

[J. J. Lodder]

Then do so. So far you have said nothing.

> See page 44 of my book for the modified Netonian
> equation that fits observations better than the Newtonian equation.
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

No commercials for your book please,
verifiable results is what is needed,

[Michel Marconi]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> So you have nothing of physical relevance to say.
>> You could have said that using fewer words,
>> or even none at all,
>
> I do have a lot to say. See page 44 of my book for the modified
> Netonian equation that fits observations better than the Newtonian
> equation. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

good paper, my friend, but they *bombed_your_country* with two atomic
bombs, then you forget *these_snakes*. They have to account for their
severe *crimes_against_humanity*, my friend. These snakes. They have to
account for Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Japan, the blown
gas and oil pipelines in Europe, the 45 Bio_Weapon labs illegally placed in
nazi fictitious shithole country said "uKraine", and the "vaccines"
withwhich mortal serum, these khakholes khazars immigrants wants to kill
the planet. Nobody forgets these bad teeth propaganda bitches. And the fake
manned "moon landing", they have to account for that too.

[Ken Seto]

> models and theories you don't undrestand. I fart on you.ing idiot

Fucking idiot, there is no free fall in a gravitational fielding Everything in the universe is moving in a gravitational field. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

[Mandy Stabile]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> you can't, fucking stupid. There is no "attractive force" in freefall.
>> Therefore the Newtone is wrong, so are you. Fucking stoopid. You steal
>> models and theories you don't undrestand. I fart on you.ing idiot
>
> Fucking idiot, there is no free fall in a gravitational fielding
> Everything in the universe is moving in a gravitational field. Gee you
> are so fucking stupid.

there is no freefall?? are you fucking stupid? And the motion of the
galaxies has nothing to do with gravity. You look like an Yeti in that
costume. They atomic bombed your country.
https://google.com/search?&tbm=isch&q=Yeti

[Ken Seto]

On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 7:30:53 PM UTC-4, Michel Marconi wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >> So you have nothing of physical relevance to say.
> >> You could have said that using fewer words,
> >> or even none at all,
> >
> > I do have a lot to say. See page 44 of my book for the modified
> > Netonian equation that fits observations better than the Newtonian
> > equation. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> good paper, my friend, but they *bombed_your_country* with two atomic
> bombs, then you forget *these_snakes*.

Moron, I am not Japanese. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

[Ken Seto]

On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 11:48:23 AM UTC-4, Mandy Stabile wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >> you can't, fucking stupid. There is no "attractive force" in freefall.
> >> Therefore the Newtone is wrong, so are you. Fucking stoopid. You steal
> >> models and theories you don't undrestand. I fart on you.ing idiot
> >
> > Fucking idiot, there is no free fall in a gravitational fielding
> > Everything in the universe is moving in a gravitational field. Gee you
> > are so fucking stupid.
> there is no freefall?? are you fucking stupid?

Hey moron, every object in the universe is confined to follow the geometry exists the aether as it move in the aether.You mistakenly call this motion as freefall. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

[Mandy Stabile]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> > equation. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>> good paper, my friend, but they *bombed_your_country* with two atomic
>> bombs, then you forget *these_snakes*.
>
> Moron, I am not Japanese. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
>>They have to account for their
>> severe *crimes_against_humanity*, my friend. These snakes. They have to
>> account for Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Japan, the
>> blown gas and oil pipelines in Europe, the 45 Bio_Weapon labs illegally
>> placed in nazi fictitious shithole country said "uKraine", and the
>> "vaccines" withwhich mortal serum, these khakholes khazars immigrants
>> wants to kill the planet. Nobody forgets these bad teeth propaganda
>> bitches. And the fake manned "moon landing", they have to account for
>> that too.

so you admit you know it was japan, but you decided not to be a japanese
anymore.

[Mandy Stabile]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> there is no freefall?? are you fucking stupid?
> Hey moron, every object in the universe is confined to follow the
> geometry exists the aether as it move in the aether.You mistakenly call
> this motion as freefall. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

you can't even speech engilsh, fucking stupid. They didn't tell you about,
at the chemicalia, what a *freefall* stands for in physics. You unskilled
idiot.

https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/channel/rt/

Thousands of Haitians reject call for foreign troops to quell unrest

Bucha 2.0 | Ukrainian neo-Nazi blames Russia for 'mass grave'

Not all referendums equal | Canada backs secessionist Indian Sikh grouping

Elon Musk slammed after Ukraine loses Starlink signal

'We can't afford war' | Hundreds march against Germany's policy on Ukraine

Sweden won't share Nord Stream probe findings with Russia

US uses sanctions to deter EU countries from getting gas elsewhere

Russia resumes airstrikes on Ukrainian infrastructure

Worlds Apart | Striking escalation? - Daniel Kovalik

Tense clashes erupt between Palestinians and Israeli soldiers

Indigenous Chileans soaked by water cannons at Columbus Day march

Belarus announces troop deal with Russia

'Point of no return' | Moscow warns US against labeling Russia terrorism
sponsor

[Ken Seto]

Fucking idiot, I told you that I am not Japanese and I was not born in Japan. You are so fucking stupid. Bye.