New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model

In article .com,
"newedana" wrote:
newedana wrote:

This is a recap of messages posted at other threads (such as 'Wave as
Wave, Particle as Particl' 4 May 2005, and 'Yoonatom vs Standard
Model'. 14 May 2005):

Bohr's atomic model and other primitive models like Quantum oscillator
were established before the discovery of neutron in 1934. These atomic
models are imperfect and incorrect even in explaining hydrogen spectrum
in addition to their numerous fallacies.


Which is why we now have things like QM, which work. Unlike your crap.

However, the hydrogen spectrum can be more scientifically analyzed by
Dr. Yoon's physics.

Liar.

The wavelength of all 6 sets of hydrogen spectra,
Humprey, Pfund, Brackett, Ritz-Paschen, Balmer, and Lyman, calculated
by Dr. Hansik Yoon's formula surprisingly coincided with the
experimentally observed ones.

Rydberg did that long ago.


Of course, Dr. Yoon didn't use such unscientific models as QM or
relativity in this calculation.


Idiot.

Moreover, his formula estimated
(predicted) other wavelengths not yet observed up to the time. For
example, in the case of Ritz-Paschen series, the estimated wavelengths
were 8201.40 Angstrom,... 8860.40, 9012.5, 9226.6, 9545.97(*),
10049.4(*), 10938.1(*), 12818.1(*), etc. Here, wavelengths with (*)
symbol have been experimentally observed up to the time. In the case of
Lyman series, 911.269A,... 926.226(*), 930.748(*), 937.803(*),
949.743(*), 972.537(*), 1025.722(*), 1215.668(*).

If someone already observed the wavelengths without (*) symbol, try to
observe the Pfund series, 22781.2A, ... 28714.5, 3.375.6, 32952.1,
37385.4, 46525.1(*), 74578.0(*) etc. According to Dr. Yoon's theory on
the hydrogen spectrum, for Lyman series the bombarding electrons must
have a frequency of longitudinal oscillation resonant to the frequency
of 'orbital electron rings' with radial parameter gamma= 1 in order
them to oscillate without destructing it. The energy capacity of
orbital electron ring with radial parameter gamma = 1 that emits Lyman
series of hydrogen spectrum is at least 1295 times greater than the
electron ring with radial parameter gamma=6 that emits Humphrey series.

Quoting Dr. Hansik Yoon's book, "Natural Science Founded on A New
Atomic Model"(www.yoonsatom.net): "If we arrange these 6 sets of
hydrogen spectra on an energy scale based on their wavelengths, we find
an energy interval between each set of these spectral series, as shown
in Fig., and table (a map of spectral series). It signifies that there
exists an energy gap(barrier) between each set of spectra. The largest
energy gap is found between Lyman and Balmer series, the secondary
larger gab is between Balmer and Ritz-Paschen series and no energy gap
between Ritz-Paschen and Brackett series. After Brackett series, we
find that their spectral series turn out to overlap with one another,
and the overlapping zone becomes progressively broader and broader".

He explains for this finding that when the radius of orbital electron
ring expands to be out of the size of emitting Ritz-Paschen and
Brackett series, it can take up electromagnetic radiations without
frequency choice. That is why the spectra emitted by these orbital
electron rings has like a continuous pattern, and any kind of mass
bodies can takes up heat radiation without wavelength choice.

He explains further that as the orbital electron ring shrinks to be
shorter and shorter in reverse, the energy gap increases to be greater
and greater to be reciprocally in proportional to 4 powers of its
radius, and it takes up radiation energy selectively by frequency
choice. It is concerned to directly to black body radiation. And that
is why orbital electron ring becomes increasingly difficult to approach
its nucleus.

He assumed that this energy barrier originates to the restructuring the
texturized electric and magnetic force fluxes produced by orbital
electron rings, as it changes its orbital radius; the shorter the
radius of electron ring the greater the energy input for the
restructuring its electromagnetic force fluxes. When the shrunk orbital
electron ring expands its radius it has to emit reversely this energy
it absorbed. This fact is closely related with atomic fission and
fusion energy. Atomic energy has nothing to do with the stupid
equation, E=mc^2.

Dr. Yoon starts to build the equation of hydrogen spectrum from
differential equation of torsional mass oscillation, since orbital
electron ring is elastically connected to its nucleus, and perform a
precessional oscillation around its nucleus. He applies the classical
rule of one string vibration instead of quantizing electron energy.
Anyway his final equation is, delta-nu = nu-zero[1/r^2-1/(r+n)^2].
Delta-nu: frequency of hydrogen spectrum, nuzero: Rydbery frequency, r:
radial parameter of electron ring, n: precessing parameter.

These two parameters change by integer multiples, due to the frequency
rule of one string vibration. When r =1 it is the shortest radius of
electron ring. We change n, as n =1. 2, 3, 4, ..... by fixing r,
because r does not change until its energy capacity is saturated. Thus
Lyman series is given, including its series limit that is like a
continuous spectrum. The orbital electron ring shrinks from r =6
downward, r=6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 by folding its circumference(electron ring
becomes stiffer and stiffer) when old ring is saturated with absorbed
energy. Thus 6 sets of hydrogen spectrum are given.

He does not accept the spin motion because this motion is imaginary
mathematical motion and invented for Pauli's exclusion principle.
Instead he takes account one or two electrons in an electron ring
sitting opposite side, and exert Meissoner's magnetism with definite
directionality by revolving the same direction, so the revolving
directionality determines the direction of Meissoner's magnetism. He
does not use e=h nu, the basic equation of QM theory.

Dr. Yoon also proves that the light is not a flow of photons in his
work.

Newedana


You're an idiot. Please seek professional help.

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article .com,

[snip]

Liar.

Idiot.
You're an idiot. Please seek professional help.


What else do you know except "Liar" or "fool", idiot, Lloyd Parker?
Then how on earth you could understand Yoon's theory? You better learn
more words, first.

Dr. Yoon's theory seems to explain physics logically in his way.
However, your rebuttal is only to shout "Liar", "Idiot"... . Where did
you learn? From your obsolete QM book? Is that all you can memorize?
You vividly display that QM is nothing but a childish shouting. Why
don't you look at the mirror yourself? You'll find a real idiot.

Next time, you better say why other person's opinions are wrong with
scientific data rather than just shouting or crying like a baby.
(Unfortunately, you seems not to have any your own view.) If not, many
people think you are a dumb or dumber or both. Keep in mind. It's good
for you.

The world is changing very rapidly except QM and relativity, and you.

Waldo Tall wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article .com,


[snip]


Liar.

Idiot.
You're an idiot. Please seek professional help.



What else do you know except "Liar" or "fool", idiot, Lloyd Parker?

For example, he knows that QM works, and that newedana sets up a lot
of silly strawmen.


Then how on earth you could understand Yoon's theory? You better learn
more words, first.

Does "Pot. Kettle. Black." say anything to you?


Dr. Yoon's theory seems to explain physics logically in his way.

ROTFL LOL BITC!


However, your rebuttal is only to shout "Liar", "Idiot"...

Liar. For example, he also wrote "Which is why we now have things like
QM, which work." And he is 100% right and on the point on that.


Where did
you learn? From your obsolete QM book?

Why do you call something that works so well obsolte?


[snip more ranting]


Next time, you better say why other person's opinions are wrong with
scientific data

Data was provided. Lots of times. Newedana simply ignores it.


rather than just shouting or crying like a baby.
(Unfortunately, you seems not to have any your own view.) If not, many
people think you are a dumb or dumber or both. Keep in mind. It's good
for you.

I for one don't think he is dumb. It's quite clear who the dumb one
here is.


The world is changing very rapidly except QM and relativity, and you.

Why should one change theories which work so succesfully?


Bye,
Bjoern