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

On Jun 14, 4:20 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
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

How about showing how 'model mechanics' correctly predict the
perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit?

kenseto wrote:
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



You're overreaching again, Seto.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

"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.

Ken Seto

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?

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:nQSci.166528$_c5.157612@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:


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

Ken Seto



Seto, the following is a response that you need to come to grips with.
For example, you continually get it wrong, the fact that no observer
is anymore privileged than another.

Then why an SR observer asserts that his clock is the fastest running clock
in the universe if he did not assume that he is in a preferred frame??

Beside this thread is about the origin of life as interpreted by Model
Mechanics.

You are at least 20 year behind me in understand real physics. From now on I
will not waste anymore time with you. I can't learn anything from you.

Ken Seto

"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.

On Jun 16, 11:13 am, "kenseto" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:nQSci.166528$_c5.157612@attbi_s22...

kenseto wrote:

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

Ken Seto

Seto, the following is a response that you need to come to grips with.
For example, you continually get it wrong, the fact that no observer
is anymore privileged than another.

Then why an SR observer asserts that his clock is the fastest running clock
in the universe if he did not assume that he is in a preferred frame??

SR asserts no such thing.

This is your *******ized understanding of SR that you are complaining
about.


Beside this thread is about the origin of life as interpreted by Model
Mechanics.

You are at least 20 year behind me in understand real physics. From now on I
will not waste anymore time with you. I can't learn anything from you.

That much is clear, Ken. God knows Sam has been trying..


Ken Seto

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.

There is an unknown force that forces them together.

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).

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?).

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

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

"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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.