newedana wrote:

Could you *please* try to get your attributions correct?


How does Dr. Yoon explain the photo effect and the Compton effect?



That is why I recommended you to read Dr.Yoon's book.

I already told you under what conditions I'll look at it.


Dr. Yoon treated with these two monumental works in his book, but he
explained them with his own principles set up without any postulations,
and entirely different from current one,

Does he present mere qualitative, vague handwavings, or actual
*quantitative* descriptions?



saying that readers would be
able to find, how A. Einstein and Compton's explanations for these
physical events are so childish and primitive.

Wow. Insulting two of the greatest known scientists (and essentially
hundreds of thousands of physicists along with them, because they
agree with these explanations) is really a good start when one wants
to propose an alternative explanation.

Tell me, what is "childish" and "primitive" about wave-particle dualism?


Only mathematicians who
do not know what is natural science can do such interpretations,

So mathematics is childish and primitive?

And why does Dr. Yoon think he can judge better than Einstein what
natural science is, and what it isn't?


in order to cheat people in the name of mathematical justification.

So Einstein invented all that stuff merely in order to cheat people?
He was a fraud? Wow. Dr. Yoon really is full of himself.


It signifies that mathematical measurement

What is a "mathematical measurement"?


is not so valuable than true
understanding things qualitatively.

Why does Dr. Yoon think that qualitative handwavings are more valuable
than quantitative scientific descriptions? For starters, with
qualitative handwavings, one can't construct technology.


newedana says to Bjoern Feuerbacher

Yet again displaying his ignorance of science. Yet again refusing to
answer most of my questions. Yet again ignoring most of my arguments.



Bye,
Bjoern