New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model

Fission has nothing to do with electrons. You're an idiot.

hi there Hansik Yoon, unrepentant crank.........

I newedana posted on May 26, 3;38, you have to know the stupid origin of e=
quation, E=3DMc^2.
According to Dr.Yoon, it starts from the special theory of relativity for =
mass, m=3Dm'(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. If we expand this to be a poly-nominal series=
, it gives, m=3Dm'[1+1/2(v/c)^2 + 3/8(v/c)^4 +. . . . .]. Since v/c is negl=
igibly small as in usual, we can eliminate after third term. Thus the simpl=
ified equation becomes, (m-m')c^2 =3D1/2m'v^2=3DE, and E=3DMc^2. Do you bel=
ieve this equation can explain the atomic nuclear energy? nonsense!

Then you replied we cannot cancel v/c.

If so, you have to know another way of proving the stupidity of E=3Dmc^2.
Dr.Yoon ridiculed both deBroglei equation, =CE=BB=3Dh/p, and the key equat=
ion of your particle physicists, E=3Dh=CE=BD. From these two stupid equatio=
ns another stupid equation, E=3Dmc^2 is straightly deduced. You see?
When deBroglei equation is applied to a photon( QM theorists defined
photon has zero mass, so they defined arbitrarily, E=3Dpc, pc=3Dh=CE=BD) it
becomes 1/=CE=BD=3Dh/mc, where =CE=BB=3D1/=CE=BD, p=3Dmc. So the E=3Dmc^2 i=
s established,
combining with E=3Dh=CE=BD. Right??

Fission has nothing to do with electrons. You're an idiot.

You are quite free to believe such a stupid equation, E=3DMc^2. But you ha=
ve to reconsider to use this equation E=3Dmc^2, if you teach younger gener=
ations of your science disciples who are innocently eager to know what is t=
he atomic nuclear energy. If you explain atomic fission and fusion energy w=
ith the same, E=3Dmc^2, you have to realized that you become also stupid.
According to current physics, atomic fission and fusion are philosophicall=
y opposit reactions, in the former case, mass gain occurs, while in the lat=
er case, mass deficit or loss, due to nuclear reaction. Despite that both r=
eactions are the same exothermic. Gained and defisitted mass are transforme=
d alike into energy. It is not a science but a kind of funny comics! Dr. Yo=
on explains elegantly both nuclear reactions with atomic electron rings and=
nuclear electron rings without violating any natural laws, unlike your par=
ticle physicists do desperately. Then you would rebut, how electrons can be=
in a nuclear structure, forming ypur strange nuclear electron ring? Yes, i=
t is quite possible. Evidence is the =CE=B2-ray electrons ejected out from =
radioactive atomic nuclei, carrying a huge energy. Dr Yoon defined this nuc=
lear electron ring to act as the nuclear strong force, possible to bind a n=
umber of protons in atomic nuclei against their repulsions.
I recommend you better read his textbook(www.yoonsatom.net)if you want to =
know more details, what is the origin of the rest of =CE=B1 and =CE=B3 rays=
.. newedana wrote