Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Ken Seto: on 8/8/13 at 14:26pm UTC, wrote Anthony, The link to my website is as follows: ...

Antony Ryan: on 8/7/13 at 21:35pm UTC, wrote Hi Ken, The link to your website doesn't seem to work. Do you have another...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 21:14pm UTC, wrote Dear Ken, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Peter Jackson: on 8/4/13 at 19:49pm UTC, wrote Ken, Thanks. I hope you can read and score my essay by the deadline if you...

Antony Ryan: on 8/4/13 at 2:15am UTC, wrote Dear Ken, I think you have been very brave to put your fundamental ideas...

Akinbo Ojo: on 7/26/13 at 12:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Ken, A model worth looking at. In particular I will study more your...

Than Tin: on 7/26/13 at 4:45am UTC, wrote Ken Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech ...

Sreenath N: on 7/24/13 at 4:08am UTC, wrote Dear Ken, Thanks for your kind comments on my essay and also for rating it...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Georgina Woodward: "I wrote " As the EMr has periodic motion it is invariant under..." in Breaking the Universe's...

Georgina Woodward: "That should say: Pythagorean mathematics can be used to compare the seen..." in Breaking the Universe's...

Joe Fisher: "Robert Lawrence Kuhn ℅ Closer To Truth November 17, 2018 Ref: Get out..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Agus uye: "The page is very amazing happy to be on your page I found your page from..." in If the world ended...

Zimmer man: "Excellent and useful information, thanks for the list. androdumpper apk..." in Neutrino mysteries,...

Edwin Knox: "The genuine Earth had a genuine VISIBLE surface for many years previously..." in Superhuman: Book Review...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Zeeya Merali, Reality am not a humanly contrived finite..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

Constructing a Theory of Life
An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will.

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.


FQXi FORUM
November 19, 2018

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Model Mechanics: A Proposed Theory of Everything by Ken Hon Seto [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Ken Hon Seto wrote on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 17:50 GMT
Essay Abstract

A new physical model of our universe called Model Mechanics has been formulated. Model Mechanics posits that a structured and elastic medium called the E-Matrix occupies all of pure space. The S-Particles are the only mass bearing fundamental particles that exist in our universe. The different absolute motions of the S-Particles in the E-Matrix give rise to all the different basic particles such as the electron and quarks. Also the different absolute motions of the S-Particles or S-Particle systems give rise to physical explanation for all the forces, processes and interactions in our universe. Specifically Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG and a new theory of relativity called IRT. DTG in combination with IRT provides physical solutions to the following problematic observations of the current theories: 1.The accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of our universe; 2. Dark Energy; 3. Dark Matter; 4. The horizon problem; 5. The galactic rotational curve problem; 6. The Pioneer 10 does not follow the predicted path of the current theories. In short Model Mechanics is a viable candidate for a theory of everything.

Author Bio

Ken H. Seto obtained a Chemical Engineering degree from Queen's University. He worked as a Technical Representative for Polymer Corporation. He obtained a Patent on Polymer Technology. He worked as Product Manager for Protective Treatment Inc and I developed several successful products for the automotive and construction industries. He obtained another patent on Polymer Technology. He established Seto Chemical Co. and qualified as a GM supplier for adhesive and sealant products. He published following books: 1. Model Mechanics: A New Interpretation of Nature. ISBN0-9647136-0-8 2. The Physics of Absolute Motion. SIBN 0-9647136-1-6

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 15:06 GMT
Mr Seto,

Although I have no doubt that your meticulous description of the behavior of abstract forces and elements would work perfectly in an abstract universe, I have gone to great trouble in my essay BITTERS to list all of the real absolutes the real Universe obeys.

One (1) real Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real “speed” of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 23:00 GMT
Mr. Fisher,

I don't think that you can compare my essay with yours directly to reach your conclusions that your assumtpions are real while my assumptions are abstractive and not real. Your essay is more of a philosophical and non-mathematical while my essay have some math and is based on a simple physical model.

Sincerely,

Ken Seto

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 14:30 GMT
Mr Seto,

Let us do a Wheeler.

Is the Universe real? Yes

Is mathematics real? No

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 15:53 GMT
Mr Fisher,

Are you saying that any theory has math is not real? In that case, how does your theory makes prediction?

Bookmark and Share



John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 15:21 GMT
Ken,

While I can't say that this essay is all that compatible with the contest-topic (correct me if I'm wrong), I enjoyed it thoroughly and is the only essay thus far that I've bothered to print out and add to my article collection. All the best to you!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 21:10 GMT
John,

Thank you for your kind words. I think that my essay is compatible with the contest-topic becsue it is a proposed theory of everything.

If you are intersted please visit my website for more papers on my theory.

Sincerely,

Ken

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 19:34 GMT
Dear Ken

It looks like you've found the TOE, but it looks like it is a bit difficult to verify.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 19:31 GMT
Dear Hoang,

Model Mechanics is a good candidate for a TOE. I agree that it is unlikely that we can detect the S-Particles directly. However we can detect its effects on massive objects....for example: the anomalous galactic rotational curves are caused by a concentration of free S-Particles in the galactic center. The divergent structure of the E-Matrix gives rise to a repulsive effect between massive objects supports the observed weak strength of the gravitational force compared to the electromagnetic force.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Ken

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 21:05 GMT
Dear Ken

I hope you will guide:

How your Model Mechanics explains for the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force ?

What is the definition of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force?

Why have the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force ?

Manny thankyou - Hải.Caohoàng

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 14:34 GMT
Hai.Caothoahg,

I suggest that you read my paper in the following link carefully.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf

K
en

Bookmark and Share



John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 02:49 GMT
Ken,

Is the 'pure void' part of the matrix itself? Do the E-Strings + S-Particles compose the entire continuum, or does this 'pure void' constitute a kind of 3rd component? Or are gaps themselves never 'voids' in that they are filled by EM-wave structures if ever a 'void' exists? Hope this makes sense.

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Ken Hon Seto wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 19:50 GMT
John,

The E-Matrix occupies all the pure void. Yes, the E-Strings + the S-Particles compose the entire continuum. The S-Patricles are repulsive to the E-Strings and thus they maintain their motion in the E-Matrix. A photon is a wave-packet in neighboring E-Strings. It follows the geometries of these E-Strings on it way to the target.

A schematic drawing of the photon is available in the following link:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011experiment.pdf

Ken

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 01:32 GMT
Hi John,

Looks like a lot of time and effort has gone into your ToE. I too am interested in this type of unification of forces. What conclusions did you reach re- It from Bit or vice versa?

I've not gone down the same route as you on this occasion but utilised geometry crossed with the Fibonacci Sequence. If you get chance I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on my essay.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 01:33 GMT
Apologies Ken - I was just reading the last thread you had with John C Maguire.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 13:37 GMT
Antony,

No problem. I suggest that you visit my website for more information about my theory.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/

Especially the paper in the following link:

http://www.modelmechanics.ofg/2011universe.pdf

Best,

Ken

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 12:31 GMT
Hi Ken,

Bookmarker it!

Cheers & best wishes for the contest,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:34 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
Ken,

I recall reading about model mechanics before, but not you haven't submitted an essay previously. I must have visited your web page.

Fascinating theory and original ideas, it's just a shame it's so difficult to prove or even evidence anything at such scales. However the cracks in mainstream doctrine are now showing through the patches so anything credible may be looked at more seriously.

It's a bit of a shame you didn't address this years topic a 'bit' more directly (lol) and that may contribute to your low placing so far. When I come to scoring I'll base it more on quality than direct relevance or whether my thoughts at the time happen to coincide in every detail with the authors.

I'd be interested to read your comments on my own essay which finds much empirical evidence and gives a practical test of the power of the proposal. I think our fundamental assumption that there must be something with a 'state of motion' are importantly in agreement. From then on anything becomes possible!

Well done

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 13:21 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for reading my essay.

The low rating of my essay is understandable. It represents a complete overturn of mainstream paradigm. In a way, I expected this kind of reaction. I post in the news group sci.physics.relativity. The mainstream physicists there reacted to me violently.

Although my essay appears to be off topic. However, it is a proposed theory of everything so in that sense it is on topic.

I agree with you that there is a crack in the mainstream doctrine and in time mainstream physicists will come around and evaluate some of these new ideas presnted in the internet.

I will read your paper.

Regards,

Ken

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:49 GMT
Ken,

Thanks. I hope you can read and score my essay by the deadline if you haven't yet done so, and give me your opinion.

Please don't be put off as some have by the dense abstract, the essay itself is very readable with blog comments including; "groundbreaking, clearly significant, astonishing, fantastic job, wonderful, remarkable!, deeply impressed", etc.  I believe the ontology I construct is fundamentally consistent with model mechanics as well presented in your excellent essay, but am very interested in your own views.

Very best of luck in the final scoring. I believe and hope you agree mine is also worth a top score. Best wishes.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:11 GMT
Ken,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 19:58 GMT
Hello, Ken,

The most important thing in the FQXi-new ideas. You have a lot of new revolutionary ideas. We are close to you in spirit, especially the idea of ​​"absolute motion." Excellent rating. Best regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ken Hon Seto replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 21:19 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

Thank you for your comments and the rating. I hope that others will join in the revolution.

Please visit my website for more papers on my theory.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/

regards,

Ken

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT
Hi Ken,

I invite you to read my essay and also put a fair rating. I read with interest the study on your site. Regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Ken Hon Seto wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 17:38 GMT
Hi All,

I am disappointed that there is only ONE public rating on my essay.

Ken Seto

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 18:39 GMT
Dear Ken Hon Seto,

I will give you high rating if you go through my essay and post your comments on it in my thread.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 21:52 GMT
Ken,

I truly enjoyed your insight and innovative theory of Model Mechanics. Although you have a different approach than I do, I find your analytical findings inspiring and most worthy of merit.

I have visited your web site and have bookmarked it for future reading. I wish you good luck with your entry.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 04:08 GMT
Dear Ken,

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay and also for rating it very highly. Just now I have also rated your essay accordingly with maximum possible points.

Sincerely,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 04:45 GMT
Ken

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 12:55 GMT
Dear Ken,

A model worth looking at. In particular I will study more your mechanism for action-at-a distance. Will appreciate a look at my essay and rate if you like it.

Thanks,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 02:15 GMT
Dear Ken,

I think you have been very brave to put your fundamental ideas out here. I was afraid to! I have a theory of everything, so enjoyed reading yours. I've partly unified the four forces and resolved the three paradoxes of cosmogony. For this reason I rate you top marks. I think you deserve to have more ratings and comments, and be read much more! Please take a look at my essay if you get chance - although not my main theory of everything, it is creating waves like yours seems to be - which is good.

Best wishes & kind regards,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:14 GMT
Dear Ken,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:35 GMT
Hi Ken,

The link to your website doesn't seem to work. Do you have another place where it's posted.

Thanks,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Ken Hon Seto wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 14:26 GMT
Anthony,

The link to my website is as follows:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/

The link to the paper of this essay is:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf

Ken

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.