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.

[rotchm]

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]

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 google will stop you from posting.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Ken Seto

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 google will stop you from posting.

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

[Buddie Webb]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto
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]

Post by 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?

[Ken Seto]

Post by rotchm

Post by 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.

Post by rotchm
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.

Post by rotchm
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]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by rotchm

Post by 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.

Post by rotchm
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”

Post by Ken Seto

Post by rotchm
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?

[rotchm]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by rotchm
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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by rotchm
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.

[Chason Aceta]

Post by rotchm

Post by Ken Seto

Post by rotchm
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.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by rotchm

Post by 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.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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 google will stop you from posting.

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

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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.

So Google can’t ban me.

Post by Ken Seto
But I do and Vdm does.

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

You do. So Google can ban you.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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.

So Google can’t ban me.

Post by Ken Seto
But I do and Vdm does.

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

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

[Daron Hess]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

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.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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.....?

Jan

[Ken Seto]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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

[Ken Seto]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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?

Post by Ken Seto

No surprise,
Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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.

Did this look like English to you, Ken?

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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.

Did this look like English to you, Ken?

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

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

ron my thheoryOn Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:32:10 AM UTC-5,

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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.

Did this look like English to you, Ken?

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

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

[Ken Seto]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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

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. 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.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of
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

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

[Ken Seto]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of
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

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 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.

Post by J. J. Lodder
You can't, therefore whatever you say is without value,
fined result of the
JanDARDfokkowsabove forces

[Ken Seto]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

[snip]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

[Ken Seto]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

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.

Post by Ken Seto

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.

Post by Ken Seto

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

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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?
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

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

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.

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?"

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.

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

Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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?
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

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

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.

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?"

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.

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.....?

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.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jan

[Ken Seto]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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?
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

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

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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

I have no mathematical proof of MM.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by rotchm
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.

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

I have no mathematical proof of MM.

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.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the
forces of nature s available in the following
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

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?
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

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

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.

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?"

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 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."

Post by Ken Seto

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

I have no mathematical proof of MM.

So not even that,

Jan

[Ken Seto]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

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.

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

Post by Odd Bodkin
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

Post by Ken Seto
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?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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

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

[Ken Seto]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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

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.

Post by Ken Seto
option

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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

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.

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?

[Python]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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

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.

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?

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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

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?

Post by Ken Seto
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?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Ken Seto
5 The electrons, the up quarks and the down quarks are the only particles
formed during the BB.

Post by Ken Seto
option

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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

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

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

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

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

Post by Ken Seto
option

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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
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.
--

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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

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.

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?

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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?

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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

Post by Ken Seto
option

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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
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.
--

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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

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 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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Odd Bodkin

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?

Post by Odd Bodkin

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

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

Post by Ken Seto
option

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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
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.
--

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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

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 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.

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?

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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?

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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

Post by Ken Seto
option

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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
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.
--

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

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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

on
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
.

Post by Odd Bodkin

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

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

Post by Ken Seto
option

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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
And which side do neutrinos enter on, top or bottom?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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
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.
--

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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

on
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
.

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

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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?

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

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

Post by Ken Seto
option

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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
And which side do neutrinos enter on, top or bottom?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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
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.
--

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

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by 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. >>
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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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?

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

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.

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?"

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.

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. > 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. Well, that's actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

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

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?

Post by Ken Seto
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
.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by 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. >>
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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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?

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

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.

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?"

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.

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. > 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. Well, that's actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

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

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?

Post by Ken Seto
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
.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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

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]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by 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. >>
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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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?

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

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.

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?"

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.

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. > 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. Well, that's actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

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

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?

Post by Ken Seto
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
.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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,
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.

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by 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. >>
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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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?

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

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.

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?"

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.

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. > 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. Well, that's actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

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

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?

Post by Ken Seto
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
.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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,
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.

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.

Post by Ken Seto

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

[Ken Seto]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by 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. >>
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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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?

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

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.

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?"

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.

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. > 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. Well, that's actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

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

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?

Post by Ken Seto
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
.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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.

There is no valid quantum gravity.

Post by J. J. Lodder
(but possibly some minor anomalies at precision 10^-9)
Best advice: don't do it,
Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by 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. >>
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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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?

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

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.

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?"

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.

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. > 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. Well, that's actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

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

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?

Post by Ken Seto
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
.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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.

There is no valid quantum gravity.

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder
(but possibly some minor anomalies at precision 10^-9)
Best advice: don't do it,
Jan

[Ken Seto]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by 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. >>
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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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?

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

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.

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?"

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.

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. > 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. Well, that's actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

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

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?

Post by Ken Seto
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
.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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.

There is no valid quantum gravity.

Yes, and so what?

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
and ranting against it marks you as a crackpot,
Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification

of all the forces >>> of nature s available
in the following link: >>>
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unificatio
n.pdf This new >>> theory not only united
all the existing four forces of >>> gravity,
electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak

Post by Ken Seto
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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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? >> 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 Of
course not. As noted already, you have nothing. You
cannot predict something on basis of nothing,

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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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?"

Post by 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. >>>> 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. > 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.
Well, that's actually not so, Ken. > > So where are those
fundamental calculations from scratch? 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.

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.
Where there is no "up" and "down", there is also no "left"

and >> "right". There is no ground, there is no "up". > on > Hey
idiot.....the S-Particle enters into orbit around an E-String as

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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.

There is no valid quantum gravity.

Yes, and so what?

So that means that Standard Model is incomplete.

Gosh, what a great discovery.
Was there ever anyone who said that the Standard Model was complete?

Post by Ken Seto

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.

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.
Can't you find another open door to kick down?

Jan

Post by Ken Seto

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

[Ken Seto]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification

of all the forces >>> of nature s available
in the following link: >>>
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unificatio
n.pdf This new >>> theory not only united
all the existing four forces of >>> gravity,
electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak

Post by Ken Seto
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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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? >> 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 Of
course not. As noted already, you have nothing. You
cannot predict something on basis of nothing,

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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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?"

Post by 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. >>>> 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. > 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.
Well, that's actually not so, Ken. > > So where are those
fundamental calculations from scratch? 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.

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.
Where there is no "up" and "down", there is also no "left"

and >> "right". There is no ground, there is no "up". > on > Hey
idiot.....the S-Particle enters into orbit around an E-String as

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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.

There is no valid quantum gravity.

Yes, and so what? that they have a TOE>

So that means that Standard Model is incomplete.

Gosh, what a great discovery.
Was there ever anyone who said that the Standard Model was complete?

Post by Ken Seto

Quantum gravity is not part of the standard model,

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that, that’s why they work so hard to find a valid theory of graviton. When they find that
they can claim that they have a valid TOE.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Can’t you find another open door to kick down?

No need to do that. There are plenty of doors to kick down

Post by J. J. Lodder
Janat ...

Post by Ken Seto

so its absen.ce or presence can’t say anything about the standard model.
ey
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]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification

of all the forces >>> of nature s available
in the following link: >>>
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unificatio
n.pdf This new >>> theory not only united
all the existing four forces of >>> gravity,
electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak

Post by Ken Seto
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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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? >> 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 Of
course not. As noted already, you have nothing. You
cannot predict something on basis of nothing,

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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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?"

Post by 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. >>>> 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. > 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.
Well, that's actually not so, Ken. > > So where are those
fundamental calculations from scratch? 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.

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.
Where there is no "up" and "down", there is also no "left"

and >> "right". There is no ground, there is no "up". > on > Hey
idiot.....the S-Particle enters into orbit around an E-String as

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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.

There is no valid quantum gravity.

Yes, and so what? that they have a TOE>

So that means that Standard Model is incomplete.

Gosh, what a great discovery.
Was there ever anyone who said that the Standard Model was complete?

Post by Ken Seto

Quantum gravity is not part of the standard model,

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that,

Name two and where they said it.

You’re making it all up, Ken. Nobody ever claimed the standard model is a
theory of everything.

Post by Ken Seto
that’s why they work so hard to find a valid theory of graviton. When they find that
they can claim that they have a valid TOE.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Can’t you find another open door to kick down?

No need to do that. There are plenty of doors to kick down

Post by J. J. Lodder
Janat ...

Post by Ken Seto

so its absen.ce or presence can’t say anything about the standard model.
ey
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

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification

of all the forces >>> of nature s available
in the following link: >>>
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unificatio
n.pdf This new >>> theory not only united
all the existing four forces of >>> gravity,
electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak

Post by Ken Seto
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 y 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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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? >> 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 Of
course not. As noted already, you have nothing. You
cannot predict something on basis of nothing,

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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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?"

Post by 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. >>>> 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. > 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.
Well, that's actually not so, Ken. > > So where are those
fundamental calculations from scratch? 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.

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.
Where there is no "up" and "down", there is also no "left"

and >> "right". There is no ground, there is no "up". > on > Hey
idiot.....the S-Particle enters into orbit around an E-String as

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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.

There is no valid quantum gravity.

Yes, and so what? that they have a TOE>

So that means that Standard Model is incomplete.

Gosh, what a great discovery.
Was there ever anyone who said that the Standard Model was complete?

Post by Ken Seto

Quantum gravity is not part of the standard model,

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that,

Name two and where they said it.

Why do I have to name any body? Everybody knows that if they found the
graviton.....they found the theory of everything.

Post by Odd Bodkin
You’re making it all up, Ken. Nobody ever claimed the standard gravitond model is a
theory of everything.ey died

Post by Ken Seto
that’s why they work so hardhyhy to find a valid theory of graviton. When they find that
they can claim that they have a valid TOE.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Can’t you find another open door to kick down?

No need to do that. There are plenty of doors to kick down

Post by J. J. Lodder
Janat ...

Post by Ken Seto

so its absen.ce or presence can’t say anything about the standard model.
ey
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 -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification

of all the forces >>> of nature s available
in the following link: >>>
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unificatio
n.pdf This new >>> theory not only united
all the existing four forces of >>> gravity,
electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak

Post by Ken Seto
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 y 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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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? >> 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 Of
course not. As noted already, you have nothing. You
cannot predict something on basis of nothing,

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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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?"

Post by 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. >>>> 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. > 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.
Well, that's actually not so, Ken. > > So where are those
fundamental calculations from scratch? 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.

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.
Where there is no "up" and "down", there is also no "left"

and >> "right". There is no ground, there is no "up". > on > Hey
idiot.....the S-Particle enters into orbit around an E-String as

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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.

There is no valid quantum gravity.

Yes, and so what? that they have a TOE>

So that means that Standard Model is incomplete.

Gosh, what a great discovery.
Was there ever anyone who said that the Standard Model was complete?

Post by Ken Seto

Quantum gravity is not part of the standard model,

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that,

Name two and where they said it.

Why do I have to name any body?

Because you claimed there are 'lots of'.
What will it be, admit that you are a liar, or retract?

Post by Ken Seto
Everybody knows that if they found the
graviton.....they found the theory of everything.

For very small values of 'everybody', of about one,
namely you, and...?

Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification

of all the forces >>> of nature s available
in the following link: >>>
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unificatio
n.pdf This new >>> theory not only united
all the existing four forces of >>> gravity,
electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak

Post by Ken Seto
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 y 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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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? >> 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 Of
course not. As noted already, you have nothing. You
cannot predict something on basis of nothing,

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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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?"

Post by 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. >>>> 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. > 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.
Well, that's actually not so, Ken. > > So where are those
fundamental calculations from scratch? 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.

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.
Where there is no "up" and "down", there is also no "left"

and >> "right". There is no ground, there is no "up". > on > Hey
idiot.....the S-Particle enters into orbit around an E-String as

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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.

There is no valid quantum gravity.

Yes, and so what? that they have a TOE>

So that means that Standard Model is incomplete.

Gosh, what a great discovery.
Was there ever anyone who said that the Standard Model was complete?

Post by Ken Seto

Quantum gravity is not part of the standard model,

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that,

Name two and where they said it.

Why do I have to name any body? Everybody knows that if they found the
graviton.....they found the theory of everything.

No, it is not true that “everybody knows” that. It is something you made up
and no physicist would say that.

You said that lots of physicists have claimed that. You have a horrible
habit of lying through your teeth.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
You’re making it all up, Ken. Nobody ever claimed the standard gravitond model is a
theory of everything.ey died

Post by Ken Seto
that’s why they work so hardhyhy to find a valid theory of graviton. When they find that
they can claim that they have a valid TOE.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Can’t you find another open door to kick down?

No need to do that. There are plenty of doors to kick down

Post by J. J. Lodder
Janat ...

Post by Ken Seto

so its absen.ce or presence can’t say anything about the standard model.
ey
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 -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that,

Name two and where they said it.

Why do I have to name any body? Everybody knows that if they found the
graviton.....they found the theory of everything.

No, it is not true that “everybody knows” that a TOE:. It is something you made up
and no physicist would say that.
for
You said that lots of physicists have claimed that. You have a horrible
habit of lying through your teeth.eed at OK.

I don’t care what the SM need for a toe and I don’t care.

OK, so you just lied when you said that “lots [of] physicists claim that”
the Standard Model is a theory of everything. You just flat out lied, and
you don’t care that you lied.
No, Ken. If you don’t know what a theory of everything means to a
physicist, you don’t get to just decide “Well, this is what I think a
theory of everything is. It’s just what my stuff is. That’s what a theory
of everything is.” That’s just making a fraudulent claim.
It’s like claiming that ground peach pits are a cure for cancer without
knowing what “cure for cancer” means to medical professionals, and just
deciding that “cure for cancer” means what ground peach pits are. That
would be a felony offense. It’s a good thing you’re already confined to a
home for the infirm, making crazy statements like that.

1. detect the E-Matrix.........Chapter 5 of my book.
2. detect absolute motion of objects.......Chapter 5 of my book
3 show that absolute motion of objects in the E-Matrix is a valid TOE......read my book

By reading cheesy popularizations about science, you have somehow come to
the impression that a theory of everything means having a theory that has
validated force messengers for each of the fundamental forces. And so you
think that physicists are claiming that if gravitons are validated in
experiment as the force messengers of gravity, like photons, gluons and
weak bosons have been validated, that will have accomplished making a
theory of everything.

But that has NOTHING TO DO with what constitutes a theory of everything.

That’s what happens when your exposure to physics is limited to three
things:

1. Cheesy popularizations like “A History of Time”.

2. A first-year physics book that you can’t do any of the problems in.

3. Some YouTube videos, Wikipedia, and a few web pages.


It’s laughable, Ken. Or rather, it would be laughable if it weren’t so
pitiful. Or rather, it’s both pitiful and laughable.

[thor stoneman]

“Maybe you're just wandering around out here with your thumb up your ass, waiting for some answer that might let you off the hook.” ― Peter Matthiessen, In Paradise

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that,

Name two and where they said it.

Why do I have to name any body? Everybody knows that if they found the
graviton.....they found the theory of everything.

No, it is not true that “everybody knows” that a TOE:. It is something you made up
and no physicist would say that.
for
You said that lots of physicists have claimed that. You have a horrible
habit of lying through your teeth.eed at OK.

I don’t care what the SM need for a toe and I don’t care.

OK, so you just lied when you said that “lots [of] physicists claim that”
the Standard Model is a theory of everything. You just flat out lied, and
you don’t care that you lied.
No, Ken. If you don’t know what a theory of everything means to a
physicist, you don’t get to just decide “Well, this is what I think a
theory of everything is. It’s just what my stuff is. That’s what a theory
of everything is.” That’s just making a fraudulent claim.
It’s like claiming that ground peach pits are a cure for cancer without
knowing what “cure for cancer” means to medical professionals, and just
deciding that “cure for cancer” means what ground peach pits are. That
would be a felony offense. It’s a good thing you’re already confined to a
home for the infirm, making crazy statements like that.

1. detect the E-Matrix.........Chapter 5 of my book.
2. detect absolute motion of objects.......Chapter 5 of my book
3 show that absolute motion of objects in the E-Matrix is a valid TOE......read my book

By reading cheesy popularizations about science, you have somehow come to
the impression that a theory of everything means having a theory that has b
validated force messengers for each of the fundamental forces. And so you
think that physicists are claiming that if gravitons are validated in
exp nothing in book eriment as the force messengers of gravity, like photons, gluons and
weak bosons have been validated, that will have accomplished making a
theory of everything.
But that has NOTHING TO DO with what constitutes a theory of evuerything.

That’s something you made up. So according to you nothing in popular books

Which popular book, specifically, told you that a validated graviton would
make the Standard Model a theory of everything.

Once again, you make these vague claims about what physicists say, but you
cannot cite ANYTHING that backs up what you say. Not one thing. Not an
author, title, page number, quote…. NOTHING.

has anything to do with TOE......nothing.
You are a lying piece of......s.

Post by Odd Bodkin
That’s what happens when your exposure to physics is limited to three
1. Cheesy popularizations like “A History of Time”.
2. A first-year physics book that you can’t do any of the problems in.
3. Some YouTube videos, Wikipedia, and a few web pages.
It’s laughable, Ken. Or rather, it would be laughable if it weren’t so
pitiful. Or rather, it’s both pitiful and laughable.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that,

Name two and where they said it.

Why do I have to name any body? Everybody knows that if they found the
graviton.....they found the theory of everything.

No, it is not true that “everybody knows” that a TOE:. It is something you made up
and no physicist would say that.
for
You said that lots of physicists have claimed that. You have a horrible
habit of lying through your teeth.eed at OK.

I don’t care what the SM need for a toe and I don’t care.

OK, so you just lied when you said that “lots [of] physicists claim that”
the Standard Model is a theory of everything. You just flat out lied, and
you don’t care that you lied.
No, Ken. If you don’t know what a theory of everything means to a
physicist, you don’t get to just decide “Well, this is what I think a
theory of everything is. It’s just what my stuff is. That’s what a theory
of everything is.” That’s just making a fraudulent claim.
It’s like claiming that ground peach pits are a cure for cancer without
knowing what “cure for cancer” means to medical professionals, and just
deciding that “cure for cancer” means what ground peach pits are. That
would be a felony offense. It’s a good thing you’re already confined to a
home for the infirm, making crazy statements like that.

1. detect the E-Matrix.........Chapter 5 of my book.
2. detect absolute motion of objects.......Chapter 5 of my book
3 show that absolute motion of objects in the E-Matrix is a valid TOE......read my book

By reading cheesy popularizations about science, you have somehow come to
the impression that a theory of everything means having a theory that has b
validated force messengers for each of the fundamental forces. And so you
think that physicists are claiming that if gravitons are validated in
exp nothing in book eriment as the force messengers of gravity, like photons, gluons and
weak bosons have been validated, that will have accomplished making a
theory of everything.
But that has NOTHING TO DO with what constitutes a theory of evuerything.

That’s something you made up. So according to you nothing in popular books

Which popular book, specifically, told you that a validated graviton would
make the Standard Model a theory of everything.

All you do is asking questions. I bet you have no id what a TOE is.

Post by Odd Bodkin
Once again, you make these vague claims about what physicists say, but you
cannot cite ANYTHING that backs up what you saavy. Not one thing. Not an
author, title, page number, quote…. NOTHING.

has anything to do with TOE......nothing.
You are a lying piece of......s. e n

Post by Odd Bodkin
That’s what happens when your exposure to physics is limited to three
things: soave
1. Cheesy popularizations like “A History of Time”.
2. A first-year physics book that you can’t do any of the problems in.
3. Some YouTube videos, Wikipedia, and a few web pages.
It’s laughable, Ken. Or rather, it would be laughable if it weren’t so
pitiful. Or rather, it’s both pitiful and laughable.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that,

Name two and where they said it.

Why do I have to name any body? Everybody knows that if they found the
graviton.....they found the theory of everything.

No, it is not true that “everybody knows” that a TOE:. It is something you made up
and no physicist would say that.
for
You said that lots of physicists have claimed that. You have a horrible
habit of lying through your teeth.eed at OK.

I don’t care what the SM need for a toe and I don’t care.

OK, so you just lied when you said that “lots [of] physicists claim that”
the Standard Model is a theory of everything. You just flat out lied, and
you don’t care that you lied.
No, Ken. If you don’t know what a theory of everything means to a
physicist, you don’t get to just decide “Well, this is what I think a
theory of everything is. It’s just what my stuff is. That’s what a theory
of everything is.” That’s just making a fraudulent claim.
It’s like claiming that ground peach pits are a cure for cancer without
knowing what “cure for cancer” means to medical professionals, and just
deciding that “cure for cancer” means what ground peach pits are. That
would be a felony offense. It’s a good thing you’re already confined to a
home for the infirm, making crazy statements like that.

1. detect the E-Matrix.........Chapter 5 of my book.
2. detect absolute motion of objects.......Chapter 5 of my book
3 show that absolute motion of objects in the E-Matrix is a valid
TOE......read my book

By reading cheesy popularizations about science, you have somehow come to
the impression that a theory of everything means having a theory that has b
validated force messengers for each of the fundamental forces. And so you
think that physicists are claiming that if gravitons are validated in
exp nothing in book eriment as the force messengers of gravity, like
photons, gluons and
weak bosons have been validated, that will
have accomplished making a
theory of everything.
But that has NOTHING TO DO with what constitutes a theory of evuerything.

That’s something you made up. So according to you nothing in popular books

Which popular book, specifically, told you that a validated graviton would
make the Standard Model a theory of everything.

All you do is asking questions. I bet you have no id what a TOE is.

And you bait people to tell you here. Because you sure can’t get to the
library.

A theory of everything has no empirical constants or free parameters and
explicitly shows how you can directly calculate those numbers without
relying on observational measurements. This would include every numerical
parameter from the speed of light to the mass of down quarks, from the
charge on an electron to the gravitational constant.

It would also have universal scope, which means it would let you calculate
predicted values of just about anything, from the speed of a lightning
strike to the rate of supernovas in a galaxy.

Note neither the Standard Model nor your crap can claim that.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
Once again, you make these vague claims about what physicists say, but you
cannot cite ANYTHING that backs up what you saavy. Not one thing. Not an
author, title, page number, quote…. NOTHING.

has anything to do with TOE......nothing.
You are a lying piece of......s. e n

Post by Odd Bodkin
That’s what happens when your exposure to physics is limited to three
things: soave
1. Cheesy popularizations like “A History of Time”.
2. A first-year physics book that you can’t do any of the problems in.
3. Some YouTube videos, Wikipedia, and a few web pages.
It’s laughable, Ken. Or rather, it would be laughable if it weren’t so
pitiful. Or rather, it’s both pitiful and laughable.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that,

Name two and where they said it.

Why do I have to name any body? Everybody knows that if they found the
graviton.....they found the theory of everything.

No, it is not true that “everybody knows” that a TOE:. It is something you made up
and no physicist would say that.
for
You said that lots of physicists have claimed that. You have a horrible
habit of lying through your teeth.eed at OK.

I don’t care what the SM need for a toe and I don’t care.

OK, so you just lied when you said that “lots [of] physicists claim that”
the Standard Model is a theory of everything. You just flat out lied, and
you don’t care that you lied.
No, Ken. If you don’t know what a theory of everything means to a
physicist, you don’t get to just decide “Well, this is what I think a
theory of everything is. It’s just what my stuff is. That’s what a theory
of everything is.” That’s just making a fraudulent claim.
It’s like claiming that ground peach pits are a cure for cancer without
knowing what “cure for cancer” means to medical professionals, and just
deciding that “cure for cancer” means what ground peach pits are. That
would be a felony offense. It’s a good thing you’re already confined to a
home for the infirm, making crazy statements like that.

1. detect the E-Matrix.........Chapter 5 of my book.
2. detect absolute motion of objects.......Chapter 5 of my book
3 show that absolute motion of objects in the E-Matrix is a valid
TOE......read my book

By reading cheesy popularizations about science, you have somehow come to
the impression that a theory of everything means having a theory that has b
validated force messengers for each of the fundamental forces. And so you
think that physicists are claiming that if gravitons are validated in
exp nothing in book eriment as the force messengers of gravity, like
photons, gluons and
weak bosons have been validated, that will
have accomplished making a
theory of everything.
But that has NOTHING TO DO with what constitutes a theory of evuerything.

That’s something you made up. So according to you nothing in popular books

Which popular book, specifically, told you that a validated graviton would
make the Standard Model a theory of everything.

All you do is asking questions. I bet you have no id what a TOE is.

And you bait people to tell you here. Because you sure can’t get to the
library.
A theory of everything has no empirical constants or free parameters and
explicitly shows how you can directly calculate those numbers without
relying on observational measurements. This would include every numerical
parameter from the speed of light to the mass of down quarks, from the
charge on an electron to the gravitational constant.
It would also have universal scope, which means it would let you calculate
predicted values of just about anything, from the speed of a lightning
strike to the rate of supernovas in a galaxy.

And the bitcoin's exchange rate tomorrow at 14:00 UTC.
Everything is everything, isn't it, poor halfbrain?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
That means that the Standard model cannot be the theory of

everything. >>>>>> that means that we need to search for a
different model as a theory of >>>>>> everything. >>>>> Again,
nobody ever claimed that it was. >>>> >>>> Yes, lots physicists
claim that, >>> Name two and where they said it. >> >> Why do I
have to name any body? Everybody knows that if they found the >>
graviton.....they found the theory of everything. > No, it is not
true that "everybody knows" that a TOE:. It is something you made
up > and no physicist would say that. > for > You said that lots
of physicists have claimed that. You have a horrible > habit of
lying through your teeth.eed at OK. > I don't care what the SM
need for a toe and I don't care.

OK, so you just lied when you said that "lots [of] physicists
claim that" the Standard Model is a theory of everything. You just
flat out lied, and you don't care that you lied.
No, Ken. If you don't know what a theory of everything means to a
physicist, you don't get to just decide "Well, this is what I
think a theory of everything is. It's just what my stuff is.
That's what a theory of everything is." That's just making a
fraudulent claim.
It's like claiming that ground peach pits are a cure for cancer
without knowing what "cure for cancer" means to medical
professionals, and just deciding that "cure for cancer" means what
ground peach pits are. That would be a felony offense. It's a good
thing you're already confined to a home for the infirm, making
crazy statements like that.

1. detect the E-Matrix.........Chapter 5 of my book. 2. detect
absolute motion of objects.......Chapter 5 of my book 3 show that
absolute motion of objects in the E-Matrix is a valid
TOE......read my book >

By reading cheesy popularizations about science, you have somehow

come to >> the impression that a theory of everything means having a
theory that has b >> validated force messengers for each of the
fundamental forces. And so you >> think that physicists are claiming
that if gravitons are validated in >> exp nothing in book eriment as
the force messengers of gravity, like >> photons, gluons and >> weak
bosons have been validated, that will >> have accomplished making a >>
theory of everything. >> >> But that has NOTHING TO DO with what
constitutes a theory of evuerything. > > That's something you made up.
So according to you nothing in popular books Which popular book,
specifically, told you that a validated graviton would make the
Standard Model a theory of everything.

All you do is asking questions. I bet you have no id what a TOE is.

And you bait people to tell you here. Because you sure can't get to the
library.
A theory of everything has no empirical constants or free parameters and
explicitly shows how you can directly calculate those numbers without
relying on observational measurements. This would include every numerical
parameter from the speed of light to the mass of down quarks, from the
charge on an electron to the gravitational constant.
It would also have universal scope, which means it would let you calculate
predicted values of just about anything, from the speed of a lightning
strike to the rate of supernovas in a galaxy.

And the bitcoin's exchange rate tomorrow at 14:00 UTC.
Everything is everything, isn't it, poor halfbrain?

Dear Nitwit, the TOE will predict the laws of Nature.

Dear mystician halfbrain, there is no laws of Nature; they
are fabricated similiar way to the laws of God and for
similiar reasons. Your laws of your physics are YOUR
laws. As long as they didn't violate common sense - we
obeyed them. Not anymore.

[Ken Seto]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that,

Name two and where they said it.

Why do I have to name any body? Everybody knows that if they
found the graviton.....they found the theory of everything.

No, it is not true that "everybody knows" that a TOE:. It is
something you made up and no physicist would say that. for
You said that lots of physicists have claimed that. You have a
horrible habit of lying through your teeth.eed at OK.

I don't care what the SM need for a toe and I don't care.

OK, so you just lied when you said that "lots [of] physicists claim
that" the Standard Model is a theory of everything. You just flat
out lied, and you don't care that you lied.
No, Ken. If you don't know what a theory of everything means to a
physicist, you don't get to just decide "Well, this is what I think
a theory of everything is. It's just what my stuff is. That's what a
theory of everything is." That's just making a fraudulent claim.
It's like claiming that ground peach pits are a cure for cancer
without knowing what "cure for cancer" means to medical
professionals, and just deciding that "cure for cancer" means what
ground peach pits are. That would be a felony offense. It's a good
thing you're already confined to a home for the infirm, making crazy
statements like that.

1. detect the E-Matrix.........Chapter 5 of my book.
2. detect absolute motion of objects.......Chapter 5 of my book
3 show that absolute motion of objects in the E-Matrix is a valid TOE..

....read my book

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Odd Bodkin
By reading cheesy popularizations about science, you have somehow
come to the impression that a theory of everything means having a
theory that has b validated force messengers for each of the
fundamental forces. And so you think that physicists are claiming
that if gravitons are validated in exp nothing in book eriment as the
force messengers of gravity, like photons, gluons and weak bosons
have been validated, that will have accomplished making a theory of
everything.
But that has NOTHING TO DO with what constitutes a theory of evuerything.

That's something you made up. So according to you nothing in popular books

Which popular book, specifically, told you that a validated graviton would
make the Standard Model a theory of everything.

All you do is asking questions. I bet you have no id what a TOE is.

We may have no idea about what -your- TOE is,
but we have a good idea about what -the- TOE would be.
And FYI, there once is no such thing as 'a theory of everything'.
There is only one, -the- theory of everything.
We know we will have it, once we have it.
Yours isn't,
moving in the E[force is much

A valid TOE must be able to explain all the processes oat exactlyf nature from the initial physical model it assumed. Current physics can’t do that. For example: current physics explain the nuclear strong force with color forces. These add on color forces do not flow from the assumed physical model and thus the current explanation of the nuclear strong force is outside any physical TOE.
Model Mechanics explanation of the nuclear strong force flow from the physical model naturally. It is simply the stacked interactions of the up-quarks. The physical model of MM says that any two objects moving in the E-Matrix in the same direction will attract to each other and the stacked interactions of the up-quarks will do that exactly. This means that the MM description description of the nuclear strong force is preferred than the current complicated explanation.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that,

Name two and where they said it.

Why do I have to name any body? Everybody knows that if they
found the graviton.....they found the theory of everything.

No, it is not true that "everybody knows" that a TOE:. It is
something you made up and no physicist would say that. for
You said that lots of physicists have claimed that. You have a
horrible habit of lying through your teeth.eed at OK.

I don't care what the SM need for a toe and I don't care.

OK, so you just lied when you said that "lots [of] physicists claim
that" the Standard Model is a theory of everything. You just flat
out lied, and you don't care that you lied.
No, Ken. If you don't know what a theory of everything means to a
physicist, you don't get to just decide "Well, this is what I think
a theory of everything is. It's just what my stuff is. That's what a
theory of everything is." That's just making a fraudulent claim.
It's like claiming that ground peach pits are a cure for cancer
without knowing what "cure for cancer" means to medical
professionals, and just deciding that "cure for cancer" means what
ground peach pits are. That would be a felony offense. It's a good
thing you're already confined to a home for the infirm, making crazy
statements like that.

1. detect the E-Matrix.........Chapter 5 of my book.
2. detect absolute motion of objects.......Chapter 5 of my book
3 show that absolute motion of objects in the E-Matrix is a valid TOE..

....read my book

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Odd Bodkin
By reading cheesy popularizations about science, you have somehow
come to the impression that a theory of everything means having a
theory that has b validated force messengers for each of the
fundamental forces. And so you think that physicists are claiming
that if gravitons are validated in exp nothing in book eriment as the
force messengers of gravity, like photons, gluons and weak bosons
have been validated, that will have accomplished making a theory of
everything.
But that has NOTHING TO DO with what constitutes a theory of evuerything.

That's something you made up. So according to you nothing in popular books

Which popular book, specifically, told you that a validated graviton would
make the Standard Model a theory of everything.

All you do is asking questions. I bet you have no id what a TOE is.

We may have no idea about what -your- TOE is,
but we have a good idea about what -the- TOE would be.
And FYI, there once is no such thing as 'a theory of everything'.
There is only one, -the- theory of everything.
We know we will have it, once we have it.
Yours isn't,
moving in the E[force is much

A valid TOE must be able to explain all the processes oat exactlyf nature
from the initial physical model it assumed.

No, that’s not what a theory of everything means. You’ve been told by a
couple people here what a ToE has to be able to do. Did you not read that?
Until you do, you don’t know what a ToE means.

Post by Ken Seto
Current physics can’t do that.

Current physdreamt up ics does not claim to be a ToE.

Post by Ken Seto
For example: current physics explain the nuclear strong force with color
forces. These add on color forces do not flow from the assumed physical model

Of course they do. The physical model DOES feature strong charge and SU(3)
symmetry. It’s built right into the physical model. You didn’t know that?
You being unfit that familiar with the physical model under the Standard Model is no
reason to try to m up a new one. Like, “I don’ t understand how this
works at all, so I’ll make my own.” REALLY?

Moron, my TOE is that all the processes of nature are the results of the
interacting particles moving absolutely in the E-Mtrix.The fact that
physicists dreamt up more complicated model means nothing.

On the contrary, the two are not even in the same ballpark. You see, the
one that the physicists dreamed up involved real calculations of measurable
quantities — numbers came out, calculated by the physicists themselves.
Yours does not have any calculations from you of any measurable quantities.
Not one. Furthermore, observations of particles like gluons, W’s, Higgs
bosons, heavy hadrons all validated predictions made early by this model.
You on the other hand want to pretend that those OBSERVED particles do not
exist, because you find them “complicated”.

So then you try to lie your way out.

You lied that physicists claim the standard model is a ToE, or would be if
the graviton were validated. They do not claim that and you have nothing to
back up your lie.

You then lied that there is no physical model under the Standard Model’s
predictions. There certainly is, though you have no idea what it is, simply
because you haven’t read about it.

You lied that your theory has no free parameters, and then you turned right
around and described that there is an incalculable ratio of clockwise and
counterclockwise rotations of S-particles around an E-string — which is
precisely a free parameter.

You lied that your idea is a Theory of Everything, when you didn’t even
know what those words mean or require. So then you just said you have a
different idea of what “theory of everything” means, just to make your idea
sound better. It’s like calling a cardboard box an automobile, by
redefining what “automobile” means to fit the cardboard box you have.

Gee you are a stupid woodworker

Post by Ken Seto
and thus the current explanation of the nuclear strong force is outside
any physical TOE.
Model Mechanics explanation of the nuclear
strong force flow from the
physical model naturally. It is simply the stacked interactions of the
up-quarks. The physical model of MM says that any two objects moving in
the E-Matrix in the same direction will attract to each other and the
stacked interactions of the up-quarks will do that exactly. This means
that the MM description description of the nuclear strong force is
preferred than the current complicated explanation.

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

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification

of all the forces >>> of nature s available
in the following link: >>>
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unificatio
n.pdf This new >>> theory not only united
all the existing four forces of >>> gravity,
electromagnetic force, clear strong and weak

Post by Ken Seto
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 y 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

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

Post by Ken Seto
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

Post by Ken Seto
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? >> 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 Of
course not. As noted already, you have nothing. You
cannot predict something on basis of nothing,

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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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?"

Post by 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. >>>> 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. > 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.
Well, that's actually not so, Ken. > > So where are those
fundamental calculations from scratch? 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.

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.
Where there is no "up" and "down", there is also no "left"

and >> "right". There is no ground, there is no "up". > on > Hey
idiot.....the S-Particle enters into orbit around an E-String as

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Ken Seto
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.

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.

There is no valid quantum gravity.

Yes, and so what? that they have a TOE>

So that means that Standard Model is incomplete.

Gosh, what a great discovery.
Was there ever anyone who said that the Standard Model was complete?

Post by Ken Seto

Quantum gravity is not part of the standard model,

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

Again, nobody ever claimed that it was.

Yes, lots physicists claim that,

Name two and where they said it.

Why do I have to name any body? Everybody knows that if they found the
graviton.....they found the theory of everything.

No, it is not true that "everybody knows" that a TOE:. It is something
you made up and no physicist would say that. for You said that lots of
physicists have claimed that. You have a horrible habit of lying through
your teeth.eed at OK.

I don't care what the SM need for a toe and I don't care. Here's what MM need
1. detect the E-Matrix.........Chapter 5 of my book.
2. detect absolute motion of objects.......Chapter 5 of my book
3 show that absolute motion of objects in the E-Matrix is a valid TOE......re

ad my book

OK, so show us your predictions. Anything new will do,
it doesn't have to be \alpha, or M_up/M_down,
as long as it is new and verifiable.

Just pick one you can do,

Jan
(not holding my breath)

[Ken Seto]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
the and product is the negatively charged electron. If the S-Particle clockwise
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?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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

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

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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.

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.

Post by Ken Seto

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

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
the and product is the negatively charged electron. If the S-Particle clockwise
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?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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

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

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

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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.

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin
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

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
the and product is the negatively charged electron. If the S-Particle clockwise
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?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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
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.
--

[Emmet Buchs]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by 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),

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]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

failed model of the Standard model.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday,

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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.

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin
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.

“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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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.

Post by Ken Seto

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
the and product is the negatively charged electron. If the S-Particle clockwise
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?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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
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.
--

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

failed model of the Standard model.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday,

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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.

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin
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.

“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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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,
includeand two protons and two neutrons in helium’s means that. 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.

You didn’t incclude the neutrinos which are the first electron formed. The down quarks
are formed from an electron and an up quark. This means that a down quark can be counted
as an electron. When you include these factors, There is no more up-quark formed than
the electrons during the BB.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

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

Post by Ken Seto

Where there is no “up” and “down”, them ere is also no “left” and “right”.
There is no n> >>>>>> You do know that a positron is positively charged, and a down quark is

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
negatively charged, right?
And which side do neutrinos int er on, top or bottom?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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
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.
--

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

failed model of the Standard model.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday,

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

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.

Well, that’s actually not so, Ken.

So where are those fundamental calculations from scratch?

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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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?

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.

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.

Post by Odd Bodkin
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.

“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.

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
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,
includeand two protons and two neutrons in helium’s means that. 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.

You didn’t incclude the neutrinos which are the first electron formed.

That’s idiotic. Electrons are not neutrinos.

Post by Ken Seto
The down quarks
are formed from an electron and an up quark. This means that a down quark can be counted
as an electron.

That’s also idiotic. Down quarks are not electrons. Down quarks are also
not neutrinos.

Post by Ken Seto
When you include these factors, There is no more up-quark formed than
the electrons during the BB.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

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

Post by Ken Seto

Where there is no “up” and “down”, them ere is also no “left” and “right”.
There is no n> >>>>>> You do know that a positron is positively
charged, and a down quark is

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin
negatively charged, right?
And which side do neutrinos int er on, top or bottom?

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

You’ve got nothing.

Current theory got nothing.
tap

Post by Ken Seto

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
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.
--

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

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

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.

Post by Ken Seto

If you
can’t CALCULAectronTE 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.

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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
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?
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

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

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.

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?”

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.

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

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.

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?

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

If you
can’t CALCULAectronTE 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.

Post by Ken Seto

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

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

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces
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

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

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

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

Jan

[Ken Seto]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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

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]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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

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

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

[Ken Seto]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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

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

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

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]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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

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

As you don’t actually know what “free parameter” means, then this is 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.

Post by Ken Seto
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]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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

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

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

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

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Ken Seto
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]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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

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

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

I look up in Wiki for the definition of “free parameter” It look like
fudge factor to me.

But it’s not.

Post by Ken Seto
No surprise.

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Ken Seto
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.

Post by Ken Seto
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

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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

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

As you don't actually know what "free parameter" means, then this is no
surprise.

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.

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

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of
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

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)

[Ken Seto]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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 -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ken Seto

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Ken Seto
A new theory describes the unification of all the forces of nature s
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.

Post by Ken Seto

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