New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
newedana wrote:

But this field theory is faudulent, since these electric force
fluxes
moves with the charge

And why does this make the "field theory" "fraudulent"?


and can shift behind the charge,

Unsupported assertion, actually contradicted by the evidence. E.g.
synchrotron radiation shows precisely the *opposite*: the fields are
strongest *in front of* the charge, not behind it!

But you and Dr. Yoon don't care for inconvenient things like
observations which contradict you, right?

Newedana, if what Bjoern described that synchrotron radiation
shows precisely the opposite of what Dr. Yoon claimed. Then
the foundation of his model is shattered and the rest of the
book fall apart. Dr. Yoon primary claim is that a moving electron
is like a comet with the tails composing of the the electric
field lines or force fluxes (Yoon term) lagging behind the moving
charged particle. If synchrotron radiation stuff proves the
opposite. Then bid Yoonsatom model goodbye. Yoonsatom model is
another attempt to explain QM and Relativity the newtonian way.
But reality is far from newtonian and QM/Relativity may just
be the tip of the iceburg. To illustrate. I can concentrate
myself to be in your and Dr. Yoon room at night and if I will
hard enough. You can see me image of me as apparition. There is
nothing newtonian about this. And only a model that makes QM
and relativity as subset can explain it.

Dr. Yoon and Newedana. Try to challenge synchrotron radiation
thing and this is your only salvation to make yoonatom stand any
chance. Should you fail. Then admit defeat and start learning
real stuff. Reality is not queerer than you think, but more
queerer than you can possibly imagine.. as the familiar saying
goes.

Ch.

Charlie wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

newedana wrote:


But this field theory is faudulent, since these electric force

fluxes

moves with the charge

And why does this make the "field theory" "fraudulent"?



and can shift behind the charge,

Unsupported assertion, actually contradicted by the evidence. E.g.
synchrotron radiation shows precisely the *opposite*: the fields are
strongest *in front of* the charge, not behind it!

But you and Dr. Yoon don't care for inconvenient things like
observations which contradict you, right?


Newedana, if what Bjoern described that synchrotron radiation
shows precisely the opposite of what Dr. Yoon claimed.

It does. Here is the calculation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node34.html

Quote: "Thus, the radiation emitted by a highly relativistic charge is
focused into an intense beam of angular extent $1/\gamma$ pointing in
the instantaneous direction of motion."

*In* the direction of motion. *Not* opposite to it!

If someone wants to quibble that this is merely a calculation, then a
small hint: synchrotron radiation has been known and studied for
decades now. It is routinely used at lots of accelerators facilities
for lots of purposes. Its characteristics are very well studied.


Then the foundation of his model is shattered and the rest of the
book fall apart.

Indeed. And that's by *far* not the only trouble with his model.


Dr. Yoon primary claim is that a moving electron
is like a comet with the tails composing of the the electric
field lines or force fluxes (Yoon term) lagging behind the moving
charged particle.

And that's complete utter nonsense, contradicted by the experimental
evidence.


If synchrotron radiation stuff proves the
opposite. Then bid Yoonsatom model goodbye. Yoonsatom model is
another attempt to explain QM and Relativity the newtonian way.

I'm not sure if it's really "Newtonian". Looks more like a weird
way of interpreting Faraday's ideas.


But reality is far from newtonian and QM/Relativity may just
be the tip of the iceburg. To illustrate. I can concentrate
myself to be in your and Dr. Yoon room at night and if I will
hard enough. You can see me image of me as apparition.

Prove this to me, please.

(oh, BTW, as I suspected: you are indeed Cinquirer/Qion/etc.)

[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Charlie wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

[snip]

It does. Here is the calculation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/t=ADeaching/jk1/lectures/node34.ht=ADml

Quote: "Thus, the radiation emitted by a highly relativistic charge is

focused into an intense beam of angular extent $1/\gamma$ pointing in
the instantaneous direction of motion."

*In* the direction of motion. *Not* opposite to it!

If someone wants to quibble that this is merely a calculation, then a
small hint: synchrotron radiation has been known and studied for
decades now. It is routinely used at lots of accelerators facilities
for lots of purposes. Its characteristics are very well studied.

[snip]

IF you are talking about Yoon's atomic model (not Charlie's), and IF
the evidence you provided is correct, then your evidence STRONGLY
SUPPORT Yoon's atomic model (or specifically Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1,
Excerpt, www.yoonsatom.net) rather than contradict it.

Why?
If you look at Fig. 1-4-1, the electric force fluxes "in" the moving
direction (in other words, in front side) is denser (or narrower
spacing) than the opposite direction(in rear side), which means the
electric force is more forceful in front side than that in rear side.
(The angular extent calculated by the evidence you provided, 1/gamma,
might give quantitative measure of Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1, IF your evidence
is correct.)

If you know high school physics, you can understand that.
It seems beyond your ability for you to understand the synchrotron
radiation or Yoon's theory, either.

Learn high school physics first, idiot Bye Bjoern.

Waldo Graham wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:


Charlie wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:


[snip]


It does. Here is the calculation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/t*eaching/jk1/lectures/node34.ht*ml

Quote: "Thus, the radiation emitted by a highly relativistic charge is
focused into an intense beam of angular extent $1/\gamma$ pointing in
the instantaneous direction of motion."


*In* the direction of motion. *Not* opposite to it!


If someone wants to quibble that this is merely a calculation, then a
small hint: synchrotron radiation has been known and studied for
decades now. It is routinely used at lots of accelerators facilities
for lots of purposes. Its characteristics are very well studied.


[snip]

IF you are talking about Yoon's atomic model (not Charlie's), and IF
the evidence you provided is correct,

Do you have any reason to doubt that?


then your evidence STRONGLY
SUPPORT Yoon's atomic model (or specifically Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1,
Excerpt, www.yoonsatom.net) rather than contradict it.

Why?
If you look at Fig. 1-4-1, the electric force fluxes

*sigh* Field lines.


"in" the moving
direction (in other words, in front side) is denser (or narrower
spacing) than the opposite direction(in rear side), which means the
electric force is more forceful in front side than that in rear side.

But synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with "the electric force
is more forceful in front side". Thanks for showing that you did not
understand a word of that webpage.


(The angular extent calculated by the evidence you provided, 1/gamma,
might give quantitative measure of Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1, IF your evidence
is correct.)

The angular extent was given for something completely different than any
angle shown in Fig. 1-4-1.

Get an education.



If you know high school physics, you can understand that.

I think even someone knowing high school physics could see the errors
in your reasing.


It seems beyond your ability for you to understand the synchrotron
radiation or Yoon's theory, either.

Why do you think so?



Learn high school physics first, idiot

Do the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" say anything to you?


Bye,
Bjoern

Waldo Graham wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Charlie wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

[snip]

It does. Here is the calculation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/t=ADeaching/jk1/lectures/node34.ht=ADml

Quote: "Thus, the radiation emitted by a highly relativistic charge
is

focused into an intense beam of angular extent $1/\gamma$ pointing
in
the instantaneous direction of motion."

*In* the direction of motion. *Not* opposite to it!

If someone wants to quibble that this is merely a calculation, then
a
small hint: synchrotron radiation has been known and studied for
decades now. It is routinely used at lots of accelerators facilities
for lots of purposes. Its characteristics are very well studied.

[snip]

IF you are talking about Yoon's atomic model (not Charlie's), and IF
the evidence you provided is correct, then your evidence STRONGLY
SUPPORT Yoon's atomic model (or specifically Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1,
Excerpt, www.yoonsatom.net) rather than contradict it.

Why?
If you look at Fig. 1-4-1, the electric force fluxes "in" the moving
direction (in other words, in front side) is denser (or narrower
spacing) than the opposite direction(in rear side), which means the
electric force is more forceful in front side than that in rear side.
(The angular extent calculated by the evidence you provided, 1/gamma,
might give quantitative measure of Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1, IF your
evidence
is correct.)

If you know high school physics, you can understand that.
It seems beyond your ability for you to understand the synchrotron
radiation or Yoon's theory, either.

Learn high school physics first, idiot Bye Bjoern.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...tronfluxes.jpg

Waldo. In figure 1.4.1.b The field lines or force fluxes
(as Yoon called it) is not completely behind it because
the electron is moving in slow speed. But in very fast
speed such as 0.7C (or relativistic speed), Dr. Yoon
claimed the force fluxes is almost parallel (as shown in
the bottom of the web site above). This means,
there is no more electric field in 75% of the surrounding
of the electron as all the field is behind it just like Halley's
Comet. Now in synchrotron physics lab. It is claimed
that at relativistic speed, the shape of the electric field is
prolate spheroid. Now we have to find empirical
evidence for this claim. If the lab is correct, then
Yoon is wrong.

I'm just interested in Yoon stuff to get ideas of alternative
electron dynamics that can explain the same data as well
see how creative a guy could get to explain everything without
QM and Relativity. And how ridiculous things would become
before the qm-relativity less model breaks down.

Ch.