kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:


"kenseto" wrote in message
...


A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics"

is

available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto


I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this very
important

paper.

Seto, you haven't even been able to learn a simple fact like what
the standard for length measurement is despite having it drummed
into you at least 50 times; who in the world do you think is going
to believe you could have anything important to say about anything?


So you think that I should accept a circular argument for a meter
length??? I don't think so.

I know, Seto. And the fact that you still see circularity where none exists, after having it explained to you so many times, is one of the reasons you have zero credibility, and when you have zero credibility, you get "no meaningful responds" to your "very important paper[s]".

On Jun 17, 8:58 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
.. .

A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics"

is

available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this very
important

paper.

Seto, you haven't even been able to learn a simple fact like what
the standard for length measurement is despite having it drummed
into you at least 50 times; who in the world do you think is going
to believe you could have anything important to say about anything?

So you think that I should accept a circular argument for a meter
length??? I don't think so.

I know, Seto. And the fact that you still see circularity where none exists, after having it explained to you so many times, is one of the reasons you have zero credibility, and when you have zero credibility, you get "no meaningful responds" to your "very important paper[s]".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.

On Jun 17, 8:08 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Tom McDonald" wrote in message

...





kenseto wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message
.. .
A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model Mechanics"
is
available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this very important
paper.

Let me get this straight:

S-particles repel each other.

No....the S-Particles and the E-Strings are reuplsive to each other. The
S-Particles do not repel each other. The E-Strings are repel to each other
and that's why the need of the unknown compacting force to compact them
together to form the E-Matrix.

Are there any X-particles? Then we could S, E, and X getting together.




There is an unknown force that forces them together.

There is an unknown force that conpacts the E-Strings together to form the
E-Matrix.

Is the "Compacting force"?




Sometimes, when enough S-particles are moving in the same
direction, they clump together (presumably, but not stated, the
result of the unknown pushing-together force).

No when the S-Particles or S-Particle systems moving in the same direction
in the E-Matrix they converge to each other.....an attractive force. When
the S-Particles or S-Particle systems are moving in the E-Matrix in the
opposite directions the diverge from each other.....a repulsive for.



At some undefined point, the clumped-together S-particles start a
new universe, inflating for a while, but having electrons and
up-quarks from the beginning.

The E-Matrix is eternal, and the number of S-particles is
infinite; but you invoke God as necessary to have started the
E-matrix (or is it only the new universes?).

The E-Matrix and the S-Particles cannot occur naturally as a system. The
only alternative is that God made it that way.

Then who made God?




Huh. Seems somewhat less than half-baked to me.

No its your misuderstanding of the theory is half-baked.

Actually, the theory isn't even half-baked. It is completely frozen
and raw.


BTW, any progress on defining the unknowns in your 'theory'?

The only unknown is the compacting force that forms the E-Matrix. God made
it that way.

Is that why you like to be stupid, because God made you that way?

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

kenseto wrote:
On Jun 17, 8:58 am, jem wrote:

kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by
Model Mechanics"

is

available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this very
important

paper.

Seto, you haven't even been able to learn a simple fact like
what the standard for length measurement is despite having it
drummed into you at least 50 times; who in the world do you
think is going to believe you could have anything important to
say about anything?

So you think that I should accept a circular argument for a meter
length??? I don't think so.

I know, Seto. And the fact that you still see circularity where
none exists, after having it explained to you so many times, is one
of the reasons you have zero credibility, and when you have zero
credibility, you get "no meaningful responds" to your "very
important paper[s]".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.


I've spent 2 protracted sessions trying to get /you/ to understand this 7th grade concept, Seto, but I'll pass on a third.

Learn to live without "meaningful responds".

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:03:13 -0400, jem enriched this
group when s/he wrote:

kenseto wrote:
On Jun 17, 8:58 am, jem wrote:

kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by
Model Mechanics"

is

available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this very
important

paper.

Seto, you haven't even been able to learn a simple fact like
what the standard for length measurement is despite having it
drummed into you at least 50 times; who in the world do you
think is going to believe you could have anything important to
say about anything?

So you think that I should accept a circular argument for a meter
length??? I don't think so.

I know, Seto. And the fact that you still see circularity where
none exists, after having it explained to you so many times, is one
of the reasons you have zero credibility, and when you have zero
credibility, you get "no meaningful responds" to your "very
important paper[s]".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.


I've spent 2 protracted sessions trying to get /you/ to understand this 7th grade concept, Seto, but I'll pass on a third.

Learn to live without "meaningful responds".

Jem, could you fix your line lengths please?

--
Bob.

Ye Old One wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:03:13 -0400, jem enriched this
group when s/he wrote:


kenseto wrote:

On Jun 17, 8:58 am, jem wrote:


kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by
Model Mechanics"

is

available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this
very important

paper.

Seto, you haven't even been able to learn a simple fact
like what the standard for length measurement is despite
having it drummed into you at least 50 times; who in the
world do you think is going to believe you could have
anything important to say about anything?

So you think that I should accept a circular argument for a
meter length??? I don't think so.

I know, Seto. And the fact that you still see circularity
where none exists, after having it explained to you so many
times, is one of the reasons you have zero credibility, and
when you have zero credibility, you get "no meaningful
responds" to your "very important paper[s]".- Hide quoted text
-

- Show quoted text -


Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an
indoctinated idiot.


I've spent 2 protracted sessions trying to get /you/ to understand
this 7th grade concept, Seto, but I'll pass on a third.

Learn to live without "meaningful responds".


Jem, could you fix your line lengths please?

Actually, I thought I had fixed them by unfixing them, i.e. by not including any control characters in order to permit each reader's software to wrap the long lines however was most appropriate for viewing them. Previously, when I was posting using a fixed line length, the quoted material would frequently become a garbled mess after a few post/reply repetitions, and the unfix fix seems to have corrected that.

So, can ye tell me, Old One, how that long line looks on thy newsreader?

Is it a problem for anyone else?

"Perplexed in Peoria" wrote in message
et...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics" is
available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this very important
paper.

Ok, since I am interested in the origin of life, I will respond. I just
scanned
your paper until I got to the section that was actually about the origin
of
life. Your paper is mostly about physics - not biology. Criticism of
your paper ought to come from physicists - not biologists. I'm sure the
physicists have found much to criticize in your 'theory'.

Given that your theory is so unconvincing to physics people, and given
that
it really IS a physics theory, I think that it is very premature to try to
apply it to biology. There isn't a hint of evidence that the problems of
biology need new laws of physics for their solution. If you know of such
evidence, you should present it - show that there are biological phenomena
which we can observe TODAY which seem to escape explanation using standard
physics, but which can be explained using your new improved physics.

In trying to apply your new physics to biological phenomena (origin of
life)
which we cannot observe today and for which we have only the vaguest idea
of
WHAT happened (let alone WHY), I think that you are systematically trying
to
avoid contact between your theory and experimental reality. I am tempted
to
label you a kook and a crank for this reason alone, even without looking
in
detail at your physics and at your explanation for the origin of life.

Ok, now lets look at your origin theory itself. The first fact which
comes
through is that you know almost nothing about biology nor about the
existing
research and speculation regarding the origin. You don't even seem to
realize what the real problems in this field are. Your only substantial
contribution is the speculation that some new force (unknown to physics,
but known to you) could force apart the two strands of a DNA molecule.
To be honest, this is laughable. Does this force always operate - if so,
how did the strands come together (or become produced together) so that
they
could later be forced apart? Forced apart when? Just in time for the
cell
to reproduce, apparently. You suggest that the force is effective only
for large DNA molecules. Well, the general thinking is that DNA molecules
are much larger today than they were when life originated, and we see no
sign of this force. There is no problem today separating the strands - in
fact, in PCR it is done simply by raising the temperature.

You suggest that DNA molecules just naturally grow until they become large
enough to split apart. But this simply ignores the REAL problem - which
is why would they grow?

I didn't even read your stuff on consciousness. I suppose if Roger
Penrose thinks that physics has something to contribute to the
consciousness
question, I shouldn't jump on you for following suit. But to be honest,
I think that you (and Penrose) are simply crazy to even attempt this.

So my advice is to take your 'theory' back to the sci.physics groups and
leave the job of generating ridiculous biology theories to the biology
cranks and creationists here on talk.origins.

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"Perplexed in Peoria" wrote in message
et...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics" is
available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this very important
paper.

Ok, since I am interested in the origin of life, I will respond. I just
scanned
your paper until I got to the section that was actually about the origin
of
life. Your paper is mostly about physics - not biology. Criticism of
your paper ought to come from physicists - not biologists. I'm sure the
physicists have found much to criticize in your 'theory'.

There is no valid critcism of my paper from the indoctrinated runts of the
physicists. Model Mechanics includes SR/GR as subsets. It is also
compatible
with QM.


Given that your theory is so unconvincing to physics people, and given
that
it really IS a physics theory, I think that it is very premature to try
to
apply it to biology. There isn't a hint of evidence that the problems
of
biology need new laws of physics for their solution. If you know of
such
evidence, you should present it - show that there are biological
phenomena
which we can observe TODAY which seem to escape explanation using
standard
physics, but which can be explained using your new improved physics.

That's what I did with this paper. Current physics doesn't provide an
explanation why a cell should divide and why the RNA molecule is able to
rip
away from the DNA template after replication.

In trying to apply your new physics to biological phenomena (origin of
life)
which we cannot observe today and for which we have only the vaguest
idea
of
WHAT happened (let alone WHY), I think that you are systematically
trying
to
avoid contact between your theory and experimental reality. I am
tempted
to
label you a kook and a crank for this reason alone, even without looking
in
detail at your physics and at your explanation for the origin of life.

The physics of my explanation for the origin of life is included in the
paper. I don't understand why you claimed that I was trying to avoid
contact
between my theory and experimental reality. My theory was born from
experimental reality. It is not refute by any experiments and it proposes
doable experiment for its refutation. That's more than the current physics
of relativity.

Ok, now lets look at your origin theory itself. The first fact which
comes
through is that you know almost nothing about biology nor about the
existing
research and speculation regarding the origin.

That's true. But my propose theory on the origin of life is based on my
physical theory. So what is currently being carried out is irrelevant.

You don't even seem to
realize what the real problems in this field are. Your only substantial
contribution is the speculation that some new force (unknown to physics,
but known to you) could force apart the two strands of a DNA molecule.
To be honest, this is laughable.

Why is this laughable? The CRE force is a natural part of my theory. When
the DNA strand grows to the point that the natural CRE force could
overcome
the attractive EM force that for forms it then it will split apart to give
two smaller strands. Each of the smaller strands will become the neuleus
of
a new cell.

Does this force always operate - if so,
how did the strands come together (or become produced together) so that
they
could later be forced apart? Forced apart when?Just in time for the
cell
to reproduce, apparently.

The DNA strand is formed by the attractive EM force.....such as hydrogen
bonding. When the strand is small the CRE force exerted on the strand is
small and thus it is not able to overcome the EM force that forms the
strand. When the strand grows to a large size the CRE force on the strand
grows proportionately. When the CRE grows to the point that it can
overcome
the attrractive EM force the strand will split into two strands.

You suggest that the force is effective only
for large DNA molecules. Well, the general thinking is that DNA
molecules
are much larger today than they were when life originated, and we see no
sign of this force. There is no problem today separating the strands -
in
fact, in PCR it is done simply by raising the temperature.

The earlier DNA molecules have a weaker EM bond and thus cell division
occur
with smaller strand. That's why life began at a simpler form and evolves
into a more complex form that we are today.

You suggest that DNA molecules just naturally grow until they become
large
enough to split apart. But this simply ignores the REAL problem - which
is why would they grow?

The attractive EM force grows the strand from the constituent broth.

I didn't even read your stuff on consciousness. I suppose if Roger
Penrose thinks that physics has something to contribute to the
consciousness
question, I shouldn't jump on you for following suit. But to be honest,
I think that you (and Penrose) are simply crazy to even attempt this.

You are wrong. My model of the universe provides a natural explanation for
the consciousness process. It is probably the most significant
contribution
in the study of human consciuosness.

So my advice is to take your 'theory' back to the sci.physics groups and
leave the job of generating ridiculous biology theories to the biology
cranks and creationists here on talk.origins.

I reject your advice. Your advice is based on your poor understand of my
theory. I do however thank you for your discussion.

Ken Seto

On Jun 17, 6:37 am, kenseto wrote:
On Jun 17, 8:58 am, jem wrote:



kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
.. .

A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics"

is

available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this very
important

paper.

Seto, you haven't even been able to learn a simple fact like what
the standard for length measurement is despite having it drummed
into you at least 50 times; who in the world do you think is going
to believe you could have anything important to say about anything?

So you think that I should accept a circular argument for a meter
length??? I don't think so.

I know, Seto. And the fact that you still see circularity where none exists, after having it explained to you so many times, is one of the reasons you have zero credibility, and when you have zero credibility, you get "no meaningful responds" to your "very important paper[s]".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.

"How tall is that tree?"
Gets tape measure and protractor and calculator
"32.4 meters, give or take a few centimeters."

How is this circular? You measure a phenomenon in the real world, and
get a value. IANAPhysicist, but this doesn't seem like a tricky idea.

Kermit

In sci.physics.relativity jem wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:



Jem, could you fix your line lengths please?

Actually, I thought I had fixed them by unfixing them, i.e. by not including any control characters in order to permit each reader's software to wrap the long lines however was most appropriate for viewing them. Previously, when I was posting using a fixed line length, the quoted material would frequently become a garbled mess after a few post/reply repetitions, and the unfix fix seems to have corrected that.

So, can ye tell me, Old One, how that long line looks on thy newsreader?

It does not look good.

Is it a problem for anyone else?

It is likely a problem for anyone using a real newsreader.

Stephen