Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #596157 > unrolled thread

Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 07:46 -0800
    Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-25 17:22 +0100
      Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-25 18:42 -0500
        Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 23:00 -0800
        Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 07:58 -0800
          Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" Bobby Spanò <byy@bybpbayo.ay> - 2022-11-29 17:53 +0000
          Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-29 14:03 -0800
          Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-30 14:41 -0500
      Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 07:50 -0800
        Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-29 18:50 +0100
          Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-29 22:51 +0100
          Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-30 22:40 +0100
        Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-30 14:48 -0500
          Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-30 22:58 +0100
          Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-30 23:26 +0100
    Re: Model Mechanics: The Final Theory" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 12:15 -0800

#596157 — Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"

Model Mechanics (MM) is the only valid Theory of Everything (TOE)
The full description of MM is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#596158

On 2022-11-25 15:46:22 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said:

> Model Mechanics (MM) is the only valid Theory of Everything (TOE)
> The full description of MM is available in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Haven't you told us that before? What new information is there in this post?


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596205

On 11/25/2022 11:22 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-11-25 15:46:22 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said:
> 
>> Model Mechanics (MM) is the only valid Theory of Everything (TOE)
>> The full description of MM is available in the following link:
>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> 
> Haven't you told us that before? What new information is there in this 
> post?

Forgive Ken, he is senile.

Ken posts about his Idiot MM, someone tells him it's bogus, someone 
explains why it's wrong, Ken forgets that Idiot MM is wrong, go back to 
start.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596229

On Saturday, 26 November 2022 at 00:42:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 11/25/2022 11:22 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> > On 2022-11-25 15:46:22 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said: 
> > 
> >> Model Mechanics (MM) is the only valid Theory of Everything (TOE) 
> >> The full description of MM is available in the following link: 
> >> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf 
> > 
> > Haven't you told us that before? What new information is there in this 
> > post?
> Forgive Ken, he is senile. 
> 
> Ken posts about his Idiot MM, 

Still believing, that your  9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is
a consequence of Newtonian physics, stupid Mike?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596419

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 6:42:17 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 11/25/2022 11:22 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> > On 2022-11-25 15:46:22 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said: 
> > 
> >> Model Mechanics (MM) is the only valid Theory of Everything (TOE) 
> >> The full description of MM is available in the following link: 
> >> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf 
> > 
> > Haven't you told us that before? What new information is there in this 
> > post?
> Forgive Ken, he is senile. 
> 
> Ken posts about his Idiot MM, someone tells him it's bogus, someone 
> explains why it's wrong, Ken forgets that Idiot MM is wrong, go back to 
> start.
Someone? who is that someone? What is wrong with MM?
You knew that MM is the only valid TOE. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596425

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 6:42:17 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> Ken posts about his Idiot MM, someone tells him it's bogus, someone
>> explains why it's wrong, Ken forgets that Idiot MM is wrong, go back to
>> start.
> Someone? who is that someone? What is wrong with MM?
> You knew that MM is the only valid TOE.

without a luminousferos aether, that crap is unrecycled garbage and trash.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596457

Have you thought about changing the titie to:  God Mechanics: The Final
Theory 

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596526

On 11/29/2022 10:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 6:42:17 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/25/2022 11:22 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-25 15:46:22 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said:
>>>
>>>> Model Mechanics (MM) is the only valid Theory of Everything (TOE)
>>>> The full description of MM is available in the following link:
>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>>>
>>> Haven't you told us that before? What new information is there in this
>>> post?
>> Forgive Ken, he is senile.
>>
>> Ken posts about his Idiot MM, someone tells him it's bogus, someone
>> explains why it's wrong, Ken forgets that Idiot MM is wrong, go back to
>> start.
> Someone? who is that someone?

Just about anyone who sees it.

> What is wrong with MM?

Just about everything. You must know it yourself, otherwise why would 
you yourself call it "Idiot MM"?

> You knew that MM is the only valid TOE.

I know it is a worthless collection of assertions, with no value to 
physics at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596418

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:22:33 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-11-25 15:46:22 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said: 
> 
> > Model Mechanics (MM) is the only valid Theory of Everything (TOE) 
> > The full description of MM is available in the following link: Cory of 
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdferything
> Haven't you told us that before? What new information is there in this post? 

This is to remind you all that Model Mechanics is the only valid "theory of everything".
I notice that there is no comment on my book, Does that mean that you all agree with my work?
> 
> -- 
> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly 
> in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596424

On 2022-11-29 15:50:51 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said:

> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:22:33 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-11-25 15:46:22 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said:
>> 
>>> Model Mechanics (MM) is the only valid Theory of Everything (TOE)
>>> The full description of MM is available in the following link: Cory of
>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdferything
>> Haven't you told us that before? What new information is there in this post?
> 
> This is to remind you all that Model Mechanics is the only valid 
> "theory of everything".
> I notice that there is no comment on my book, Does that mean that you 
> all agree with my work?

Of course not. It means that people have better things to do than to 
plough through a lot of crackpottery.

Changing the subject, you've insisted several times that you're not 
Japanese. OK, you're not Japanese, but how do you come to have a 
Japanese name, both halves: Ken is a common given name in Japan, and 
Seto exists as a family name in Japan. Although neither looks 
impossible as Chinese, they don't look very Chinese either.

Changing the subject a second time, your puff pieces, at 
https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/469024/ken-h-seto-celebrates-more-than-five-decades-of-success-in-physics-and-chemical-engineering 
or https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Ken_H_Seto for 
example, say things like "Mr. Seto has penned multiple articles 
published in such peer reviewed journals as Science, Nature, Galilean 
Electrodynamics and EPISTEME." However, I haven't been able to find any 
of these, and Web of Science doesn't seem to know about them: can you 
explain? Can you provide a reference one of your articles in Science or 
Nature? (I don't care about Galilean Electrodynamics and EPISTEME.)

-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596455

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

> On 2022-11-29 15:50:51 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said:
> 
> > On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:22:33 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> >> On 2022-11-25 15:46:22 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said:
> >> 
> >>> Model Mechanics (MM) is the only valid Theory of Everything (TOE)
> >>> The full description of MM is available in the following link: Cory of
> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdferything
> >> Haven't you told us that before? What new information is there in this post
> > 
> > This is to remind you all that Model Mechanics is the only valid 
> > "theory of everything".
> > I notice that there is no comment on my book, Does that mean that you
> > all agree with my work?
> 
> Of course not. It means that people have better things to do than to 
> plough through a lot of crackpottery.
> 
> Changing the subject, you've insisted several times that you're not 
> Japanese. OK, you're not Japanese, but how do you come to have a 
> Japanese name, both halves: Ken is a common given name in Japan, and 
> Seto exists as a family name in Japan. Although neither looks 
> impossible as Chinese, they don't look very Chinese either.
> 
> Changing the subject a second time, your puff pieces, at 
> https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/469024/ken-h-seto-celebrates-mo
re-than-five-decades-of-success-in-physics-and-chemical-engineering 
> or https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Ken_H_Seto for 
> example, say things like "Mr. Seto has penned multiple articles 
> published in such peer reviewed journals as Science, Nature, Galilean
> Electrodynamics and EPISTEME." However, I haven't been able to find any
> of these, and Web of Science doesn't seem to know about them: can you
> explain? Can you provide a reference one of your articles in Science or
> Nature? (I don't care about Galilean Electrodynamics and EPISTEME.)

Galilean Electrodynamics is a crackpot journal.
It describes itself as;
=============================================================================
Galilean Electrodynamics seeks to publish high-quality scientific papers
that discuss challenges to accepted orthodoxy in physics, especially in
the realm of relativity theory, both special and general.  In
particular, the journal seeks papers arguing that Einstein's theories
are unnecessarily complicated, have been confirmed only in a narrow
sector of physics, lead to logical contradictions, and are unable to
derive results that must be postulated, though they are derivable by
classical methods.
=============================================================================
It seems to be a hobby of a certain Cynthia Kolb Whitney.
(engineer, retired)

It seems highly unlikely that there could be overlap
between the authors publishing in Science or Nature
and those publishing in Galilean Electrodynamics.
(but Science and Nature has made some notorious mistakes too)

Jan

PS, and FYA: despite pretending to be a physics journal
(La)TeX is unknown to the editor, who prefers that articles
be submitted in Word for Macintosh.



  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596547

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

[-]
> 
> Changing the subject a second time, your puff pieces, at 
> https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/469024/ken-h-seto-celebrates-mo
re-than-five-decades-of-success-in-physics-and-chemical-engineering 
> or https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Ken_H_Seto for 
> example, say things like "Mr. Seto has penned multiple articles 
> published in such peer reviewed journals as Science, Nature, Galilean
> Electrodynamics and EPISTEME." However, I haven't been able to find any
> of these, and Web of Science doesn't seem to know about them: can you
> explain? Can you provide a reference one of your articles in Science or
> Nature? (I don't care about Galilean Electrodynamics and EPISTEME.)

[Watching the grass grow]

Please Ken, we are all eagerly awaiting your list 
of your publications in Science and Nature.

Do post it,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596527

On 11/29/2022 10:50 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> This is to remind you all that Model Mechanics is the only valid "theory of everything".

You only need to remind us that your Idiot Model Mechanics is a 
worthless pile of useless assertions.

> I notice that there is no comment on my book, Does that mean that you all agree with my work?

Typical crankspeak. "Nobody commented on my crap, so you must agree with 
it!"

To others: I see that Baez's crackpot index is quite popular still, but 
it's over 20 years old, and cranks have come up with many new techniques 
since then. Is there any interest if I create an updated version?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596551

On 2022-11-30 19:48:52 +0000, Volney said:

> On 11/29/2022 10:50 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> This is to remind you all that Model Mechanics is the only valid 
>> "theory of everything".
> 
> You only need to remind us that your Idiot Model Mechanics is a 
> worthless pile of useless assertions.
> 
>> I notice that there is no comment on my book, Does that mean that you 
>> all agree with my work?
> 
> Typical crankspeak. "Nobody commented on my crap, so you must agree with it!"
> 
> To others: I see that Baez's crackpot index is quite popular still, but 
> it's over 20 years old, and cranks have come up with many new 
> techniques since then. Is there any interest if I create an updated 
> version?

Yes, do, please. We can all recognize a crackpot when we see one but 
it's useful to have a definition as well.


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596552

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 11/29/2022 10:50 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > This is to remind you all that Model Mechanics is the only valid "theory
> > of everything".
> > 
> You only need to remind us that your Idiot Model Mechanics is a 
> worthless pile of useless assertions.
> 
> > I notice that there is no comment on my book, Does that mean that you
> > all agree with my work?
> > 
> Typical crankspeak. "Nobody commented on my crap, so you must agree with
> it!"
> 
> To others: I see that Baez's crackpot index is quite popular still, but
> it's over 20 years old, and cranks have come up with many new techniques
> since then. Is there any interest if I create an updated version?

I think you shouldn't try to update.
Leave the monument for what it is.
If you feel the urge, write an original one of your own,
adapted to what you find here,

Jan

PS The // group t.o. has a periodic 'by their works' posting.
It summarises who the currently active creationists are,
with some pertinent quoted material.


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596533

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 7:46:24 AM UTC-8, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> Model Mechanics (MM) is the only valid Theory of Everything (TOE) 
> The full description of MM is available in the following link: 
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

It's nonsense. 

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web