Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
This book describes a new theory of physics based on the concept
of absolute motion. Absolute motion is that motion of an object
relative to a stationary light conducting medium. The resulting group
of theories is called Model Mechanics. The main features of Model
Mechanics are as follows:
• It off ers a realistic origin of the universe.
• It off ers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
• It provides a format to unify all of the forces of nature.
• It can be confi rmed experientially.
• It gives rise to Improved Relativity Theory. (IRT)
• It off ers a new theory of gravity.
• It includes a Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory
of Relativity as subsets and it is compatable with Quantum
Mechanics.
• It postulates a new repulsive fi fth force identifi ed as the CRE force.
• It explains the charge of a particle.
• It explains the cell-division and the consciousness
processes of life.
• It explains the weird results of all quantum experiments.
• It explains the structures of atoms.

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 8:32:18 AM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
> Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
> The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
> This book describes a new theory of physics based on the concept
> of absolute motion. Absolute motion is that motion of an object
> relative to a stationary light conducting medium. The resulting group
> of theories is called Model Mechanics. The main features of Model
> Mechanics are as follows:
> • It off ers a realistic origin of the universe.
> • It off ers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
> • It provides a format to unify all of the forces of nature.
> • It can be confi rmed experientially.
> • It gives rise to Improved Relativity Theory. (IRT)
> • It off ers a new theory of gravity.
> • It includes a Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory
> of Relativity as subsets and it is compatable with Quantum
> Mechanics.
> • It postulates a new repulsive fi fth force identifi ed as the CRE force.
> • It explains the charge of a particle.
> • It explains the cell-division and the consciousness
> processes of life.
> • It explains the weird results of all quantum experiments.
> • It explains the structures of atoms.

The link for my book:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
> The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
[snip empty talk]

And your new predictions are.....?

Jan

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
> > The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
> [snip empty talk]
>
> And your new predictions are.....?
>
MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force. The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
MM also shows how an electron maintain a negative charge forever..
MM shows how the positively charged up quarks are able to stick together to form the nucleus of an atom.....the secret is stact interaction....instead of the invention of color forces.

On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:

> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
>>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
>> [snip empty talk]
>>
>> And your new predictions are.....?
>>
> MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.

I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be experimentally
tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a prediction.

> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is
> not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.

We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to
look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.

> MM also shows how an electron maintain a negative charge forever..
> MM shows how the positively charged up quarks are able to stick
> together to form the nucleus of an atom.....the secret is stact
> interaction....instead of the invention of color forces.

Likewise.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
> > > The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
> > [snip empty talk]
> >
> > And your new predictions are.....?
> >
> MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force. The CRE force is
> part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a
> stable orbit for billions of years.
>

OK, so falsified at count #1

> MM also shows how an electron maintain a negative charge forever..

Charge conservation is nothing new.

> MM shows how the positively charged up quarks are able to stick together
> to form the nucleus of an atom.....the secret is stact
> interaction....instead of the invention of color forces.

SU(3) colour force explains the nuclear interactions well enough,
and in great practical detail.
(stability/instability, nuclear spectra/lifetimes, etc.)
You do not have a verifiable prediction falsifying any of this.

So in summary, you have nothing,
(beyond verbiage)

Jan

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

> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
> >> [snip empty talk]
> >>
> >> And your new predictions are.....?
> >>
> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
>
> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be experimentally
> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a prediction.

Certainly. Mu previous challenge,
to predict free parameters of the Standard Model
(what the Theory Of Everything must do be able to do)
is still as wide open as ever.

> > The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is
> > not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
>
> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to
> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.

Having laser reflectors on the Moon allows us to measure
where the moon is, to an accuracy of a few centimeter.
Relativistic celestial mechanics allows us
to calculate where it should be, to similar accuracy.

Agreement between measurement and calculation
confirms general relativity, and it rules out
certain alternative theories of gravity (such as Brans-Dicke)

There is no room for muddle mechanics here,
(and it is not even an alternative)

Jan

On Thursday, 6 October 2022 at 21:09:41 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Agreement between measurement and calculation
> confirms general relativity, and

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

On 2022-10-07 06:38:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

> On Thursday, 6 October 2022 at 21:09:41 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Agreement between measurement and calculation
>> confirms general relativity, and
>
> And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
> by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
> t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

504

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid Theory of Everything"
> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as follows:
> >> [snip empty talk]
> >>
> >> And your new predictions are.....?
> >>
> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be experimentally
> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a prediction.
> > The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is
> > not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to
> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
>
You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why. Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force. We know that a single attractive force is not able to make an object to go in circles.We also know that no experiment on earth can make an object go around in circles by a single attractive force...similarly if gravity is a single attractive force it is not able to make the moon go around in circles......you need the repulsive CRE force to do that.
>
> > MM also shows how an electron maintain a negative charge forever..
> > MM shows how the positively charged up quarks are able to stick
> > together to form the nucleus of an atom.....the secret is stact
> > interaction....instead of the invention of color forces.
> Likewise.
>
>
> --
> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:

> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Thursday, October
>> 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
>> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid
>> Theory of Everything"> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as
>> follows:> >> [snip empty talk]> >>> >> And your new predictions
>> are.....?> >>> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
>> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be
>> experimentally> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a
>> prediction.
>>> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is> >
>>> not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
>> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to>
>> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
>>
> You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why.
> Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force.

When did I assert that? Reference please.

> We know that a single attractive force is
> not able to make an object to go in circles.We also know that no
> experiment on earth can make an object go around in circles by a single
> attractive force...similarly if gravity is a single attractive force it
> is not able to make the moon go around in circles......you need the
> repulsive CRE force to do that.>
>>> MM also shows how an electron maintain a negative charge forever..> >
>>> MM shows how the positively charged up quarks are able to stick> >
>>> together to form the nucleus of an atom.....the secret is stact> >
>>> interaction....instead of the invention of color forces.
>> Likewise.>>> --> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England
>> until 1987.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Thursday, October
> >> 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
> >> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid
> >> Theory of Everything"> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as
> >> follows:> >> [snip empty talk]> >>> >> And your new predictions
> >> are.....?> >>> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
> >> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be
> >> experimentally> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a
> >> prediction.
> >>> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is> >
> >>> not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
> >> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to>
> >> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
> >>
> > You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why.
> > Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force.
> When did I assert that? Reference please.

I was talking to Mike and JJ . They asserted that gravity is a single attractive force.
I disagree because Gravity is a composite force as follows:
1. One of the component ia an attractive EM force because the interacting objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force.. This force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands..
3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force. That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.

> > We know that a single attractive force is
> > not able to make an object to go in circles.We also know that no
> > experiment on earth can make an object go around in circles by a single
> > attractive force...similarly if gravity is a single attractive force it
> > is not able to make the moon go around in circles......you need the
> > repulsive CRE force to do that.>
> >>> MM also shows how an electron maintain a negative charge forever..> >
> >>> MM shows how the positively charged up quarks are able to stick> >
> >>> together to form the nucleus of an atom.....the secret is stact> >
> >>> interaction....instead of the invention of color forces.
> >> Likewise.>>> --> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England
> >> until 1987.
>
>
> --
> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Ken Seto wrote:

> I was talking to Mike and JJ . They asserted that gravity is a single
> attractive force.
> I disagree because Gravity is a composite force as follows:
> 1. One of the component ia an attractive EM force because the
> interacting objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe
> expands.
> 2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force.. This
> force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined
> to follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as
> the universe expands..
> 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force.
> That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.

I fart in your coffee. Gravity has nothing to do with EM. You are stealing
models and theories, you bad teeth japanese.

On 10/7/2022 4:27 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>>
>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Thursday, October
>>>> 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
>>>> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid
>>>> Theory of Everything"> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as
>>>> follows:> >> [snip empty talk]> >>> >> And your new predictions
>>>> are.....?> >>> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
>>>> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be
>>>> experimentally> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a
>>>> prediction.
>>>>> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is> >
>>>>> not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
>>>> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to>
>>>> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
>>>>
>>> You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why.
>>> Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force.
>> When did I assert that? Reference please.
>
> I was talking to Mike and JJ . They asserted that gravity is a single attractive force.
> I disagree because Gravity is a composite force as follows:

You mean that you assert that gravity is a composite force as follows:

> 1. One of the component ia an attractive EM force because the interacting objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.

Absurd assertion. Gravity is not EM, and what's that garbage about
expansion?

> 2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force..

Assertion, plus Newton Proved a second force was unnecessary.

> This force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands..

You mean you assert whatever that word salad is supposed to mean.

> 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force. That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.

No need for any "CRE force", as Newton proved.

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:37:16 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 10/7/2022 4:27 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Thursday, October
> >>>> 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
> >>>> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid
> >>>> Theory of Everything"> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as
> >>>> follows:> >> [snip empty talk]> >>> >> And your new predictions
> >>>> are.....?> >>> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
> >>>> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be
> >>>> experimentally> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a
> >>>> prediction.
> >>>>> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is> >
> >>>>> not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
> >>>> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to>
> >>>> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
> >>>>
> >>> You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why.
> >>> Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force.
> >> When did I assert that? Reference please.
> >
> > I was talking to Mike and JJ . They asserted that gravity is a single attractive force.
> > I disagree because Gravity is a composite force as follows:
> You mean that you assert that gravity is a composite force as follows:
> > 1. One of the component ia an attractive EM force because the interacting objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
> Absurd assertion. Gravity is not EM, and what's that garbage about
> expansion?

I didn't say that gravity is EM alone. I said that gravity is a combination of an attractive EM force and a repulsive CRE force. Howcome anything that you don't understand is assertion on my prt?

> > 2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force..
> Assertion,

It is not an assertion......that's what my theory say.

>plus Newton Proved a second force was unnecessary.
Newton's theory and Einstein 's theory failed to provide a physical model for gravity.
I provide a true physical model for gravity.

> > This force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands..
> You mean you assert whatever that word salad is supposed to mean.

Hey stupid Mike, that's what my theory says and it is not an assertion.

> > 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force. That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.
> No need for any "CRE force", as Newton proved.

You are dead wrong. No orbiting motion is possible without the CRE force.
Newton didn't prove anything.

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:37:16 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> Absurd assertion. Gravity is not EM, and what's that garbage about
>> expansion?
>
> I didn't say that gravity is EM alone. I said that gravity is a
> combination of an attractive EM force and a repulsive CRE force. Howcome
> anything that you don't understand is assertion on my prt?

your theory is a fart in a bottle trying to escape.

On 10/7/2022 8:27 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:37:16 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 10/7/2022 4:27 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Thursday, October
>>>>>> 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
>>>>>> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid
>>>>>> Theory of Everything"> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as
>>>>>> follows:> >> [snip empty talk]> >>> >> And your new predictions
>>>>>> are.....?> >>> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
>>>>>> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be
>>>>>> experimentally> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a
>>>>>> prediction.
>>>>>>> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is> >
>>>>>>> not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
>>>>>> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to>
>>>>>> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why.
>>>>> Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force.
>>>> When did I assert that? Reference please.
>>>
>>> I was talking to Mike and JJ . They asserted that gravity is a single attractive force.
>>> I disagree because Gravity is a composite force as follows:
>> You mean that you assert that gravity is a composite force as follows:
>>> 1. One of the component ia an attractive EM force because the interacting objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
>> Absurd assertion. Gravity is not EM, and what's that garbage about
>> expansion?
>
> I didn't say that gravity is EM alone. I said that gravity is a combination of an attractive EM force and a repulsive CRE force.

Yet you said attractive gravity was an EM force. It isn't. Since the
only component of gravity is attractive (proven by Newton), my statement
remains correct.

> Howcome anything that you don't understand is assertion on my prt?

No, unsupported claims are assertions. That's all you make are
unsupported claims, a.k.a. assertions. Science rejects assertions such
as yours, science requires scientific observations and experimental
evidence. Without any such evidence, your Muddle Mechanics will remain
as a complete, total, absolute failure.
>
>>> 2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force..
>> Assertion,
>
> It is not an assertion......that's what my theory say.

You don't even have a theory, not without scientific observations and
experimental evidence of your claims. It doesn't even qualify as a
hypothesis. Call it what it really is, a conjecture, a hunch, a guess.
>
> >plus Newton Proved a second force was unnecessary.
> Newton's theory and Einstein 's theory failed to provide a physical model for gravity.

Newton PROVED only a single, attractive force was necessary to make
gravity work and the moon to orbit.

> I provide a true physical model for gravity.

You don't even have a model at all! A scientific model has a set of
predictions that can be worked out mathematically when initial
conditions and parameters are entered, it makes a prediction which can
be compared to real life results.
>
>>> This force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands..
>> You mean you assert whatever that word salad is supposed to mean.
>
> Hey stupid Mike, that's what my theory says and it is not an assertion.

It's not even a scientific theory, all it is is assertions. A package of
assertions is not a theory.

>>> 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force. That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.
>> No need for any "CRE force", as Newton proved.
>
> You are dead wrong. No orbiting motion is possible without the CRE force.

Assertion. Disproved by Newton.

> Newton didn't prove anything.

Sorry, Newton proved that a single attractive force was all that is
required for a moon to orbit a planet forever. The fact you cannot
understand it (the math is beyond third grade level, which is why you
can't understand it) does not mean it's wrong. It just means you are stupid.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> >
> > > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> > >> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Thursday, October
> > >> 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
> > >> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid
> > >> Theory of Everything"> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as
> > >> follows:> >> [snip empty talk]> >>> >> And your new predictions
> > >> are.....?> >>> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
> > >> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be
> > >> experimentally> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a
> > >> prediction.
> > >>> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is> >
> > >>> not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
> > >> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to>
> > >> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
> > >>
> > > You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why.
> > > Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force.
> > When did I assert that? Reference please.
>
> I was talking to Mike and JJ . They asserted that gravity is a single
> attractive force. I disagree because Gravity is a composite force as
> follows:
> 1. One of the component ia an attractive EM force because the interacting
> objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
> 2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force.. This
> force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined to
> follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as the
> universe expands.
> 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force.
> That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.

Fine. Now either:
1. Your combined force equals Newtonian gravity,
in which case you have nothing to say.
Or:
2. Your combined force differs from Newtonian gravity,
in which case you should be able to predict something
that conflicts with the standard account of motion in the solar system.

What will it be?
If 2., what is your novel and verifiable prediction?
If unverifiable you have again nothing to say.

We are waiting,

Jan

On Saturday, 8 October 2022 at 07:25:54 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> > I provide a true physical model for gravity.
> You don't even have a model at all! A scientific model has a set of
> predictions that can be worked out mathematically when initial
> conditions and parameters are entered, it makes a prediction which can
> be compared to real life results.

And, of course, as anyone can check in GPS, real life results
are - t'=t. Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

On 2022-10-08 14:32:26 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

> On Saturday, 8 October 2022 at 07:25:54 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>
>>> I provide a true physical model for gravity.
>> You don't even have a model at all! A scientific model has a set of
>> predictions that can be worked out mathematically when initial
>> conditions and parameters are entered, it makes a prediction which can
>> be compared to real life results.
>
> And, of course, as anyone can check in GPS, real life results
> are - t'=t. Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

506

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 8:02:24 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > > On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> > > >> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Thursday, October
> > > >> 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
> > > >> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid
> > > >> Theory of Everything"> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics are as
> > > >> follows:> >> [snip empty talk]> >>> >> And your new predictions
> > > >> are.....?> >>> > MM predicts the existence of the repulsive CRE force.
> > > >> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be
> > > >> experimentally> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a
> > > >> prediction.
> > > >>> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon is> >
> > > >>> not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
> > > >> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we care to>
> > > >> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
> > > >>
> > > > You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why.
> > > > Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force.
> > > When did I assert that? Reference please.
> >
> > I was talking to Mike and JJ . They asserted that gravity is a single
> > attractive force. I disagree because Gravity is a composite force as
> > follows:
> > 1. One of the component ia an attractive EM force because the interacting
> > objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
> > 2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force.. This
> > force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined to
> > follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as the
> > universe expands.
> > 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force.
> > That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.
> Fine. Now either:
> 1. Your combined force equals Newtonian gravity,
> in which case you have nothing to say.

Get this through your relative head:
If gravity is a single attractive force then the moon is not able to orbit around the earth. This means that Newton and you are wrong. Without the wrong assertion that gravity is a single attractive force, MM can use the newtonian equation to predict gravity.
> Or:
> 2. Your combined force differs from Newtonian gravity,
> in which case you should be able to predict something
> that conflicts with the standard account of motion in the solar system.

No I don't have to do thay. MM uses the standard math of physics. After all the math deleloped is not the exclusive properties of Newtonian physics.
>
> What will it be?
> If 2., what is your novel and verifiable prediction?
> If unverifiable you have again nothing to say.
>
> We are waiting,
>
> Jan

Ken Seto wrote:

>> Fine. Now either:
>> 1. Your combined force equals Newtonian gravity,
>> in which case you have nothing to say.
>
> Get this through your relative head:
> If gravity is a single attractive force then the moon is not able to
> orbit around the earth. This means that Newton and you are wrong.
> Without the wrong assertion that gravity is a single attractive force,
> MM can use the newtonian equation to predict gravity.

you can't, fucking stupid. There is no "attractive force" in freefall.
Therefore the Newtone is wrong, so are you. Fucking stoopid. You steal
models and theories you don't undrestand.

Ken Seto wrote:

>> Fine. Now either:
>> 1. Your combined force equals Newtonian gravity,
>> in which case you have nothing to say.
>
> Get this through your relative head:
> If gravity is a single attractive force then the moon is not able to
> orbit around the earth. This means that Newton and you are wrong.
> Without the wrong assertion that gravity is a single attractive force,
> MM can use the newtonian equation to predict gravity.

you can't, fucking stupid. There is no "attractive force" in freefall.
Therefore the Newtone is wrong, so are you. Fucking stoopid. You steal
models and theories you don't undrestand. I fart on you.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 8:02:24 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> > > > On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> > > > >> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Thursday, October
> > > > >> 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
> > > > >> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid
> > > > >> Theory of Everything"> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics
> > > > >> are as follows:> >> [snip empty talk]> >>> >> And your new
> > > > >> predictions are.....?> >>> > MM predicts the existence of the
> > > > >> repulsive CRE force.
> > > > >> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be
> > > > >> experimentally> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a
> > > > >> prediction.
> > > > >>> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon
> > > > >>> is> > not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
> > > > >> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we
> > > > >> care to> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
> > > > >>
> > > > > You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why.
> > > > > Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force.
> > > > When did I assert that? Reference please.
> > >
> > > I was talking to Mike and JJ . They asserted that gravity is a single
> > > attractive force. I disagree because Gravity is a composite force as
> > > follows:
> > > 1. One of the component ia an attractive EM force because the interacting
> > > objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
> > > 2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force.. This
> > > force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined to
> > > follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as the
> > > universe expands.
> > > 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force.
> > > That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.
> > Fine. Now either:
> > 1. Your combined force equals Newtonian gravity,
> > in which case you have nothing to say.
>
> Get this through your relative head: If gravity is a single attractive
> force then the moon is not able to orbit around the earth. This means that
> Newton and you are wrong. Without the wrong assertion that gravity is a
> single attractive force, MM can use the newtonian equation to predict
> gravity.

OK, very good. That is clarity at last.

So you have nothing of physical relevance to say.
You could have said that using fewer words,
or even none at all,

Jan

> > Or:
> > 2. Your combined force differs from Newtonian gravity,
> > in which case you should be able to predict something
> > that conflicts with the standard account of motion in the solar system.
>
> No I don't have to do thay. MM uses the standard math of physics. After
> all the math deleloped is not the exclusive properties of Newtonian
> physics.
> >
> > What will it be?
> > If 2., what is your novel and verifiable prediction?
> > If unverifiable you have again nothing to say.
> >
> > We are waiting,
> >
> > Jan

On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 12:47:08 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 8:02:24 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> > > > > On 2022-10-07 14:51:27 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:06:02 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> > > > > >> On 2022-10-06 16:54:21 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Thursday, October
> > > > > >> 6, 2022 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
> > > > > >> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> >>> Model Mechanics is the only valid
> > > > > >> Theory of Everything"> >>> The main features of ModelMechanics
> > > > > >> are as follows:> >> [snip empty talk]> >>> >> And your new
> > > > > >> predictions are.....?> >>> > MM predicts the existence of the
> > > > > >> repulsive CRE force.
> > > > > >> I think what Jan has in mind is a prediction that can be
> > > > > >> experimentally> tested. Muddle Mechanics doesn't offer such a
> > > > > >> prediction.
> > > > > >>> The CRE force is part of gravity. Without the CRE force the moon
> > > > > >>> is> > not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
> > > > > >> We know that the Moon will stay in its orbit for as long as we
> > > > > >> care to> look. That is not a prediction of Muddle Mechanics.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > You know that THE MOON will stay in orbit, But you don't know why.
> > > > > > Since you assert that gravity is a single attractive force.
> > > > > When did I assert that? Reference please.
> > > >
> > > > I was talking to Mike and JJ . They asserted that gravity is a single
> > > > attractive force. I disagree because Gravity is a composite force as
> > > > follows:
> > > > 1. One of the component ia an attractive EM force because the interacting
> > > > objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
> > > > 2. The other component of gravity is a repulsive the CRE force.. This
> > > > force is derived by the fact that the interacting objects are confined to
> > > > follow the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix as the
> > > > universe expands.
> > > > 3. Gravity is the combined attractive EM and the repulsive CRE force.
> > > > That's why gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.
> > > Fine. Now either:
> > > 1. Your combined force equals Newtonian gravity,
> > > in which case you have nothing to say.
> >
> > Get this through your relative head: If gravity is a single attractive
> > force then the moon is not able to orbit around the earth. This means that
> > Newton and you are wrong. Without the wrong assertion that gravity is a
> > single attractive force, MM can use the newtonian equation to predict
> > gravity.
> OK, very good. That is clarity at last.
>
> So you have nothing of physical relevance to say.
> You could have said that using fewer words,
> or even none at all,
>
> Jan
> > > Or:
> > > 2. Your combined force differs from Newtonian gravity,
> > > in which case you should be able to predict something
> > > that conflicts with the standard account of motion in the solar system.
> >
> > No I don't have to do thay. MM uses the standard math of physics. After
> > all the math deleloped is not the exclusive properties of Newtonian
> > physics.
> > >
> > > What will it be?
> > > If 2., what is your novel and verifiable prediction?
> > > If unverifiable you have again nothing to say.
> > >
> > > We are waiting,
> > >
> > > Jan

Jan? Everyone is playing with their Big TOE...