http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/book.html

Has anyone studied Ken Seto hypotheses at length. Have
you found major flaws in his model. I'm thinking whether
to get his book or not. Just point me one flaw and I'll
avoid his stuff like a plague. I'm looking for an atomic model
with more degree of freedom. Also an alternative one in
case the higgs are not found as well as one that has
natural parameter that can unify General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics. And one that also explains Dark
Matter, Dark Energies and dozens of other interconnecting
riddles. Thanks in advance for the feedback.

Landle

"Landle" wrote in message ups.com...

http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/book.html

Has anyone studied Ken Seto hypotheses at length. Have
you found major flaws in his model. I'm thinking whether
to get his book or not. Just point me one flaw and I'll
avoid his stuff like a plague. I'm looking for an atomic model
with more degree of freedom. Also an alternative one in
case the higgs are not found as well as one that has
natural parameter that can unify General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics. And one that also explains Dark
Matter, Dark Energies and dozens of other interconnecting
riddles. Thanks in advance for the feedback.

Landle

Prof. Ian P. Freely from the University of S****horpe is an
authority on Seto E-Matrix and Model Mechanics.
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...ity+S****horpe

Dirk Vdm

Landle wrote:
http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/book.html

Has anyone studied Ken Seto hypotheses at length. Have
you found major flaws in his model. I'm thinking whether
to get his book or not. Just point me one flaw and I'll
avoid his stuff like a plague. I'm looking for an atomic model
with more degree of freedom. Also an alternative one in
case the higgs are not found as well as one that has
natural parameter that can unify General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics. And one that also explains Dark
Matter, Dark Energies and dozens of other interconnecting
riddles. Thanks in advance for the feedback.

Landle


It must be embarrasing for Landle to droole over a Seto.

He doesn't even have a theory, but Seto sure does have a lot of
immortal fumbles
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+...ers.pandora.be

and he is a registered crank
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ke...Awww.crank.net

and nobody is interested in his crackpot ideas, as they lack any real
scientific basis.

Seto get ****ed (not drunk) and call many of us runts... which seems to
be more self descriptive! It must be embarrasing for Landle to droole
over a Seto.

Sam Wormley wrote:


It must be embarrasing for Landle to droole over a Seto.

He doesn't even have a theory, but Seto sure does have a lot of
immortal fumbles

http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+...ers.pandora.be

and he is a registered crank

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ke...Awww.crank.net

and nobody is interested in his crackpot ideas, as they lack any
real
scientific basis.

Seto get ****ed (not drunk) and call many of us runts... which
seems to
be more self descriptive! It must be embarrasing for Landle to
droole
over a Seto.


In 1996 he wrote a letter to former Pres. Clinton asking for
support of his work. See:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...be6d07b55c62d8


8 years later, he is still singing his Model Mechanics. Has no
one debunked it successfully that's why he still promote it?
Can anyone give an example where he got it wrong? He said only
S-Particles as in quarks exist and the rest are assembled.
Also the forces come from interplay between the S-Particles
and the E-Matrix. But the pions have been isolated and in fact
used in cancer treatment. It is shown to have an effect on
the nucleus as it is one component that binds the protons
together. What can Seto or supporters say about the pion??

I'm looking for an atomic model in which atoms can be disassembled
and reassembled. If only superstrings modification can do that
and the technology is in the far distant future. Then so be it.

Landle

Landle wrote:

In 1996 he wrote a letter to former Pres. Clinton asking for
support of his work. See:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...be6d07b55c62d8

8 years later, he is still singing his Model Mechanics. Has no
one debunked it successfully that's why he still promote it?
Can anyone give an example where he got it wrong?

Can you give an example of him getting it right, i.e., accounting for
everything it has to replace, and making new predictions supported by
empirical data?

"Landle" wrote in message
ups.com...



In 1996 he wrote a letter to former Pres. Clinton asking for
support of his work. See:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...be6d07b55c62d8


8 years later, he is still singing his Model Mechanics. Has no
one debunked it successfully that's why he still promote it?

No ...no one has debunked my theory successfully. In fact that the reason
why runts such as Wormley, Uncle Al and Dinky goes berserk whenever I posted
my theory.

Can anyone give an example where he got it wrong?

No body can give you an example where my theory got it wrong. My theory is
published in the Journal of the Theoretics and it is also approved for
publication in the Journal "Galilean Electrodynamics"
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf


He said only
S-Particles as in quarks exist and the rest are assembled.

Only S-Particles exist.....all the other particles (stable or unstable) such
as the quarks and electrons and pions are the results of different orbiting
motions of the S-Particles around the E-String(s).

Also the forces come from interplay between the S-Particles
and the E-Matrix.

That's right....all the forces of nature are the result of absolute motions
of the interacting S-Particle(s) or S-Patricle System(s) in the E-Matrix. If
the interacting particles are moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix
we have an attractive force. If the interacting particles are moving in the
opposite directions in the E-Matrix.we have a repulsive force.

But the pions have been isolated and in fact
used in cancer treatment. It is shown to have an effect on
the nucleus as it is one component that binds the protons
together. What can Seto or supporters say about the pion??

The pion is just another unstable orbiting S-Particle. The reason that it is
unstable is because it orbits around a bundle of E-Strings. instead of a few
or one
E-String (the electron is stable because it's S-Particle orbits around one
E-String)..

I'm looking for an atomic model in which atoms can be disassembled
and reassembled. If only superstrings modification can do that
and the technology is in the far distant future. Then so be it.

Model Mechanics is the answer.

Ken Seto

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:BVhGd.8588$IV5.4025@attbi_s54...
Landle wrote:
http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/book.html

Has anyone studied Ken Seto hypotheses at length. Have
you found major flaws in his model. I'm thinking whether
to get his book or not. Just point me one flaw and I'll
avoid his stuff like a plague. I'm looking for an atomic model
with more degree of freedom. Also an alternative one in
case the higgs are not found as well as one that has
natural parameter that can unify General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics. And one that also explains Dark
Matter, Dark Energies and dozens of other interconnecting
riddles. Thanks in advance for the feedback.

Landle


It must be embarrasing for Landle to droole over a Seto.

ROTFLOL.....Wormy is a runt of the SR experts and a low-life (a worm??)
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.

Ken Seto

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:3QlGd.9223$EG1.6204@attbi_s53...
Landle wrote:

In 1996 he wrote a letter to former Pres. Clinton asking for
support of his work. See:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...be6d07b55c62d8

8 years later, he is still singing his Model Mechanics. Has no
one debunked it successfully that's why he still promote it?
Can anyone give an example where he got it wrong?

Can you give an example of him getting it right, i.e., accounting for
everything it has to replace, and making new predictions supported by
empirical data?

ROTFLOL.....Wormy is a runt of the SR experts and a low-life (a worm??)
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:

But the pions have been isolated and in fact
used in cancer treatment. It is shown to have an effect on
the nucleus as it is one component that binds the protons
together. What can Seto or supporters say about the pion??

The pion is just another unstable orbiting S-Particle. The reason
that it is
unstable is because it orbits around a bundle of E-Strings. instead
of a few
or one
E-String (the electron is stable because it's S-Particle orbits
around one
E-String)..

I'm looking for an atomic model in which atoms can be disassembled
and reassembled. If only superstrings modification can do that
and the technology is in the far distant future. Then so be it.

Model Mechanics is the answer.

Ken Seto


Hmm... if you are right or in the right path. The Superstring or
M-Theory may not be needed at all.

You didn't have complete mathematics right. In fact, you requested
from Clinton for funding to produce the mathematics. Why don't
you work with Thomson. He has the complete mathematics while
you may have the more complete theoretical foundation. If you
two combined. The world is all yours someday. In the Manhattan
Project, thousands of scientists collaborated. Don't expect to
do it alone. Look for experiments in which you can hold out
the pressure of the E-matrix in forming matter. In other
words, try to disassemble atoms and reassemble them at a
distance.. aka Manhattan Project II (Teleportation).. granted
your theory is sound and not hot air.

Landle

"Landle" wrote in message
oups.com...
kenseto wrote:

But the pions have been isolated and in fact
used in cancer treatment. It is shown to have an effect on
the nucleus as it is one component that binds the protons
together. What can Seto or supporters say about the pion??

The pion is just another unstable orbiting S-Particle. The reason
that it is
unstable is because it orbits around a bundle of E-Strings. instead
of a few
or one
E-String (the electron is stable because it's S-Particle orbits
around one
E-String)..

I'm looking for an atomic model in which atoms can be disassembled
and reassembled. If only superstrings modification can do that
and the technology is in the far distant future. Then so be it.

Model Mechanics is the answer.

Ken Seto


Hmm... if you are right or in the right path. The Superstring or
M-Theory may not be needed at all.

Superstring or M-theory are pure mathematical fantasy. Model Mechanics does
not depend on non-existing dimensions.

You didn't have complete mathematics right. In fact, you requested
from Clinton for funding to produce the mathematics. Why don't
you work with Thomson. He has the complete mathematics while
you may have the more complete theoretical foundation. If you
two combined. The world is all yours someday.

I don't know Thomson but I would be welling to work with anybody who is
qualfied mathematically. So far the math of Model Mechanics can be
summarized as follows:
1. A new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG) as
described in the following link:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf

2. A complete theory of motion called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). A
description of IRT is included at the end of this post. IRT includes SR as a
subset. The equations of IRT are valid in all environments....including
gravity.

3. The QFT math can be used as the Model Mechanical description of the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces. The field in the QFT math is the
distortions imparted to the E-Matrix by the interacting particles. The
virtual particles in the QFT math is the reaction of the interacting
particles to the distortions in the E-Matrix.

A description of Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)
__________________________________________________ ________
IRT (Improved Relativity Theory) is a New Theory of Motion.
It includes SR and GR as subsets. Its equations are valid in all
environments....including gravity.

The following is a brief description of IRT:
The postulates:
1) The laws of physics based on a clock second and light path
length of a measuring rod are the same for all observers in
all inertial reference frames.
2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock second
and the light path length of a measuring rod has the same
mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames.
3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second
and the physical length of a rod is different in different frames
of reference.
4) The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The
speed of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical
length of a measuring rod is maximum in the rest frame of the aether.

The Consequences of these Postulates:
(1). The speed of light is not a universal constant. It is a constant math
ratio as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458 m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
Detailed explannation of this new definition:
By definition the speed of light in the rest frame of the ether is as
follows:
Light path length in the ether frame=gamma*299,792,458m. This is reduced
to--
(299,792,458m)-- because gamma is equal to one in the ether frame.
The absolute time content for a clock second in the ether frame=gamma*1
ether frame clock second. This is reduced to__ (1 ether frame clock
second)__ because gamma is equal to one in the ether frame.
Therefore the speed of light in the ether frame is:
299,792,458m/1 ether frame clock second
The speed of light in any frame moving in the stationary ether is determined
as follows:
The light path length of rod in the moving frame=gamma*299,792,458m
The absolute itme content for a moving clock second
=gamma*1 ether frame clock second
Therefore the speed of light in any moving frame in the stationary ether is
as follows:
gamma*299,792,458m/gamma*1 ether frame clock second.
This is reduce to a constant math ratio of:: 299,792,458m/1 ether frame
clock second

(2). The physical length of a rod remains the same in all frames of
reference. The light path length of a rod changes with the state of absolute
motion of the rod. The higher is the state of absolute motion the longer is
its light path length.
(3). The rate of a clock is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
clock. The higher is the state of absolute motion the slower is its clock
rate.
(4). Absolute time exists. The relationship between clock time and absolute
time is as follows: A clock second will contain a different amount of
absolute time in different state of absolute motion (different frames of
reference). The higher is the state of absolute motion of the clock the
higher is the absolute time content for a clock second.
(5) Simultaneity is absolute. If two events are simultaneous in one frame,
identical events will also be simultaneous in different frames. However the
time interval for the simultaneity to occur will be different in different
frame. This is due to that different frames are in different states of
absolute motion.
(6) Relative motion between two observers A and B is the vector difference
of their absolute motions along the line joining A and B

C. The Math:

1. The time dilation (contraction) or expansion equations:
A and B are in relative motion from observer A's point of view:

Tab=Taa(Faa/Fab) OR Tab=Taa(Fab/Faa)

Taa=A clock time interval in observer A's frame
as measured by A
Tab= A's prediction of B's clock time interval for
an interval of Taa in his frame
Note: Even though Taa and Tab are two different clock time
intervals but in terms of absolute time content Taa=Tab

The light path length contraction or expansion equations for a physical rod:
Lab=Laa(Faa/Fab) OR Lab=Laa(Fab/Faa)

Laa=the light path length of a rod in A's frame as
measured by A.
Lab=the light path length of an identical rod in B's
frame as predicted by A
Note: Even though Laa and Lab are two different light
path lengths but these two light path lengths are
derived from identical rod that have the same
physical rod length. The different light path lengths
are the result of different states of absolute motion
of the rods.

2. The coordinate transform equations:
x'= Faa/Fab[x + t(Faa-Fab)(lambda)]
t'= Faa/Fab[t + x(Faa-Fab)/(Faa^2)(lambda)]
y'=y
z'=z

OR

x'= Fab/Faa[x - t(Faa-Fab)(lambda)]
t'= Fab/Faa[t - x(Faa-Fab)/(Faa^2)(lambda)]
y'=y
z'=z

A is the observer's frame (unprimed) and B is the observed frame (primed).
Faa = frequency of a standard light source in A's frame as measured by A.
Fab = frequency of an identical light source in B's frame as measured by A.
If Fab is not constant the mean value is used.
lambda = wave length of the standard light source in A's frame as measured
by A.

These coordinate transform equations are valid in all
environments ---including gravity. This means that
IRT includes SR/GR as subsets

3. Momentum of an object:
p=Mo(lambda)(Faa-Fab)

4. Kinetic Energy of an object::
K=Mo(Lambda)^2(Faa)^2(Faa/Fab-1)

5. Energy of a single particle:
E=Mo(Lambda)^2(Faa)^2

6. Gravtational Red or Blue Shift:
Delta (Faa) =Faa(1-Fab/Faa)
A positve value represents a red shift from A's location.
A negative value represents a blue shift from A's location

7. Gravitational Time Contraction or Expansion:
Delta(Taa)=Taa(1-Fab/Faa)
A positive value represents gravitational time contraction (dilation)
from A's location.
A negative value represents gravitational time expansion
from A's location.

8. The IRT procedure for determining the perihelion precession of
Mercury without recourse to GRT is:
a) Set up a corrdinate system for the Sun and Mervury.
b) Use the IRT Corrdinate tansformation equations to predict the
future positions of the Sun and Mercury.
c) The perihelion shift of Mercury will be revealed when these
future positions are plotted against time. Also, the value of the
shift can be determined from the plot.

Summarizing:
IRT is a complete theory of motion. It contains SR and GR as subsets.
It's equations are valid in all environments. In addition it resolves the
following observed difficulties of GR:
1. GR predicts that the expansion of the universe should be slowing down.
Actual observations show that the expansion is speeding up. IRT have no
such problem. It predicts what is observed.
2. GR gives the wrong prediction for the path of the space craft Pioneer 10.
IRT has no such problem. It predicts that the space craft is accelerating
toward the Sun because of a concentration of dark matter contained
within the solar system---especially around the Sun.
3. GR gives the wrong rotational curve for galaxies. Again IRT has no
such problem because IRT includes the effects of dark matter in its
calculations.

Ken Seto
__________________________________________________ __________