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

newedana wrote:

I newedana posted on May 26, 3;38,

I declare on May 27, 2005 declare that Newedana is a crank.
furthermore, if he is not Hansik Yoon then he must be a Yoon clone.

get over the silly third person talk..... newedana wrote, Newedana
said. what kind of silly person are you?

you have to know the stupid origin of equation, E=3DMc^2.
According to Dr.Yoon, it starts from the special theory of relativity fo=
r mass, m=3Dm'(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. If we expand this to be a poly-nominal seri=
es, it gives, m=3Dm'[1+1/2(v/c)^2 + 3/8(v/c)^4 +. . . . .]. Since v/c is ne=
gligibly small as in usual, we can eliminate after third term. Thus the sim=
plified equation becomes, (m-m')c^2 =3D1/2m'v^2=3DE, and E=3DMc^2. Do you b=
elieve this equation can explain the atomic nuclear energy? nonsense!

Then you replied we cannot cancel v/c.


i never said that knucklehead. can you read? can you comprehend? if
not, how can you even write a textbook Yoon?


If so, you have to know another way of proving the stupidity of E=3Dmc^=
2=2E
Dr.Yoon ridiculed both deBroglei equation, =CE=BB=3Dh/p, and the key equ=
ation of your particle physicists, E=3Dh=CE=BD. From these two stupid equa=
tions another stupid equation, E=3Dmc^2 is straightly deduced. You see?

there is a more fundamental derivation of E=3Dmc^2. no, i don't see
anything but you giving a lot of crap. if you want to prove it wrogn
show us an experiment which shows that and show us what your high
school maths give us....

yes, i do know another way of proving E=3Dmc^2, it's in all standard
textbooks. no need to use a taylor series expansion like you
knucklehead. it is exact. obviously, you've never had a decent physics
education. you are just dumb, Yoon.


I recommend you better read his textbook(www.yoonsatom.net)if you want t=
o know more details, what is the origin of the rest of =CE=B1 and =CE=B3 r=
ays. newedana wrote

newedana wrote a lot of crap. Yoon is full of crap. only teo
unimportant publications in his whole life, yet making big,
unsubstantiated claims about rewriting the whole foundations of
physics.

newedana wrote:
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
equation, E=Mc^2.

And then you displayed nicely that you don't know its origin. Thanks
for playing.


According to Dr.Yoon, it starts from the special theory of relativity for mass,
m=m'(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. If we expand this to be a poly-nominal series, it gives
m=m'[1+1/2(v/c)^2 + 3/8(v/c)^4 +. . . . .]. Since v/c is negligibly small as
in usual, we can eliminate after third term. Thus the simplified equation
becomes, (m-m')c^2 =1/2m'v^2=E, and E=Mc^2. Do you believe this equation can
explain the atomic nuclear energy? nonsense!


Then you replied we cannot cancel v/c.

No, he did not say that. Try again.




If so, you have to know another way of proving the stupidity of E=mc^2.

How could one prove the stupidity of an equation which isn't stupid?


Dr.Yoon ridiculed both deBroglei equation, λ=h/p,

Then how does he explain that it agrees with experiment?

and the key equation of your particle physicists, E=hν.

1) That's not our "key equation".
2) Then how does he explain that it agrees with experiment?


From these two stupid equations

What's stupid about them?


another stupid equation, E=mc^2 is straightly deduced.

Plain nonsense. E=mc^2 does in no way follow from the previous two
equations.

Thanks yet again for demonstrating that you have no clue what you are
talking about.


You see?

Yes, I see that you are an ignorant, arrogant idiot.



When deBroglei equation is applied to a photon ( QM theorists defined
photon has zero mass,

Wrong. We do not "define" that, we obtain that result from
experimental data.

Thanks yet again for demonstrating that you have no clue what you are
talking about.


so they defined arbitrarily, E=pc, pc=hν)

This is not an arbitrary definition, this follows straightforwardly
from E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4.

Thanks yet again for demonstrating that you have no clue what you are
talking about.


it becomes 1/ν=h/mc, where λ=1/ν, p=mc.

Plain utter *nonsense*. p=mc does *not* hold for photons.


So the E=mc^2 is established,
combining with E=hν. Right??

No, wrong. Utterly wrong. Plain nonsense. Bull****.

Thanks yet again for demonstrating that you have no clue what you are




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


You are quite free to believe such a stupid equation, E=Mc^2.

IT WORKS!


But you have to reconsider to use this equation E=mc^2, if you teach
younger generations of your science disciples who are innocently eager
to know what is the atomic nuclear energy.

Explaining what this energy *is* has little to do with that equation.

Thanks yet again for demonstrating that you have no clue what you are


If you explain atomic fission and fusion energy with the same, E=mc^2,
you have to realized that you become also stupid.

Indeed, someone who did do that would indeed be stupid. Fortunately,
no one ever did. That formula can be used to calculate the energy
which is released, but it is *not* used for explaining the *processes*
themselves!

Thanks yet again for demonstrating that you have no clue what you are



According to current physics, atomic fission and fusion are philosophically
opposit reactions,

Physics is not about "philosophically opposite".


in the former case, mass gain occurs, while in the later case, mass deficit or loss,

Wrong yet again.

Thanks yet again for demonstrating that you have no clue what you are


due to nuclear reaction. Despite that both reactions are the same exothermic.

Indeed, both are exothermic, and in *both* mass is lost. And that mass
which is lost is related to the released energy by E=mc^2. That is
an *experimental* *fact*. Live with it.


Gained and defisitted mass are transformed alike into energy.

Plain nonsense. Only *lost* mass is transformed into energy. According
to E=mc^2.


It is not a science but a kind of funny comics!

Yes, your straw men are indeed a kind of funny comics.

What about learning what physics *actually* says, for a change?


Dr. Yoon explains elegantly both nuclear reactions with atomic electron
rings and nuclear electron rings

And how does he explain that the lost mass and the released energy,
***ACCORDING TO OBSERVATIONS***, are related by E=mc^2, if he claims
that that formula is wrong?


without violating any natural laws, unlike your particle physicists do
desperately.

What natural laws do we violate, in your opinion?


Then you would rebut, how electrons can be in a nuclear structure, forming ypur
strange nuclear electron ring? Yes, it is quite possible.

1) It is not possible.
2) Experiments have shown clearly that it indeed does not happen. Read
up on "Hofstadter".


Evidence is the β-ray
electrons ejected out from radioactive atomic nuclei, carrying a huge energy.

In what way is that evidence for electrons in the nuclei?


Dr Yoon defined this nuclear electron ring to act as the nuclear strong force,

What on earth is "defined" supposed to mean here?


possible to bind a number of protons in atomic nuclei against their repulsions.

How does he explain the observed saturation?


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 α and γ rays. newedana wrote

Why should we read the book of someone who obviously has no clue of
what physics
actually says, and, worse, what observations actually say?


Bye,
Bjoern

You don't know, nuclear fission and fusion are philosophically opposite reaction, right? For example, meeting and departing are the same? You know only energy. Do you know energy is a macroscopic concept? Your people reversely interprets the natural law like that way? If a reaction is exothermic there must occur a mass loss. Nonsense! We know when particle physicists encounter a logical crises they hide themselves behind this energy shadow, under the name of quantitative calculation, done based on a stupid non-scientific postulation. newedana

newedana wrote:
You don't know, nuclear fission and fusion are philosophically opposite reaction,

Nuclear fission and fusion are *physically* opposite reactions. They
have nothing to do with philosophy.


right? For example, meeting and departing are the same?

No.


You know only energy.

Why do you think so?



Do you know energy is a macroscopic concept?

It originally was, but it works also nicely in the microscopic world.


Your people reversely interprets the natural law like that way?

Huh?


If a reaction is exothermic there must occur a mass loss. Nonsense!

Why is that nonsense?


BTW: you have *still* not explained why in nuclear reactions, the lost
mass m is related to the released energy E by E=mc^2, *ACCORDING TO
OBSERVATIONS*.


We know when particle physicists encounter a logical crises they hide
themselves behind this energy shadow,

Huh?


under the name of quantitative calculation,

Hint: that are these things which Yoon is apparently unable to do.


done based on a stupid non-scientific postulation.

This "postulation" *AGREES WITH OBSERVATIONS*. So how could it be
stupid and non-scientific?

Why do you keep fleeing the experimental evidence?


Bye,
Bjoern

In article .com,
"newedana" wrote:
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
equation, E=Mc^2.
According to Dr.Yoon, it starts from the special theory of relativity for
mass, m=m'(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. If we expand this to be a poly-nominal series,
it gives, m=m'[1+1/2(v/c)^2 + 3/8(v/c)^4 +. . . . .]. Since v/c is
negligibly small as in usual, we can eliminate after third term. Thus the
simplified equation becomes, (m-m')c^2 =1/2m'v^2=E, and E=Mc^2. Do you
believe 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=mc^2.
Dr.Yoon ridiculed both deBroglei equation, λ=h/p, and the key equation of
your particle physicists, E=hν. From these two stupid equations another
stupid equation, E=mc^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=pc, pc=hν) it
becomes 1/ν=h/mc, where λ=1/ν, p=mc. So the E=mc^2 is established,
combining with E=hν. Right??

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

You are quite free to believe such a stupid equation, E=Mc^2. But you have
to reconsider to use this equation E=mc^2, if you teach younger generations
of your science disciples who are innocently eager to know what is the
atomic nuclear energy. If you explain atomic fission and fusion energy with
the same, E=mc^2, you have to realized that you become also stupid.
According to current physics, atomic fission and fusion are
philosophically opposit reactions, in the former case, mass gain occurs,
while in the later case, mass deficit or loss, due to nuclear reaction.
Despite that both reactions are the same exothermic. Gained and defisitted
mass are transformed alike into energy. It is not a science but a kind of
funny comics! Dr. Yoon explains elegantly both nuclear reactions with atomic
electron rings and nuclear electron rings without violating any natural
laws, unlike your particle physicists do desperately. Then you would rebut,
how electrons can be in a nuclear structure, forming ypur strange nuclear
electron ring? Yes, it is quite possible. Evidence is the β-ray electrons
ejected out from radioactive atomic nuclei, carrying a huge energy. Dr Yoon
defined this nuclear electron ring to act as the nuclear strong force,
possible to bind a number 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 α and γ rays..
newedana wrote

If I want to read fiction, there's lots better out there.

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??

newedana wrote:

[snip]

When deBroglei equation is applied to a photon( QM theorists defined
photon has zero mass,

Wrong, we did not "define" that, we determined that experimentally.

so they defined arbitrarily, E=pc,

Wrong, we did not define that, we derived that mathematically from the
general equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4.


pc=hν) it
becomes 1/ν=h/mc, where λ=1/ν,

Right.


p=mc.

Utter nonsense.


So the E=mc^2 is established,

Utter nonsense.


combining with E=hν. Right??

No, wrong.

Thanks for showing yet again that you have not the faintest clue what
you are talking about.


Bye,
Bjoern

In article ,
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
newedana wrote:

[snip]

When deBroglei equation is applied to a photon( QM theorists defined
photon has zero mass,

Wrong, we did not "define" that, we determined that experimentally.

so they defined arbitrarily, E=pc,

Wrong, we did not define that, we derived that mathematically from the
general equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4.

Rather, that was another way to get to the same result known from
classical electromagnetism. Either way, a theoretical conclusion with
experimental validation, not a definition.


--
"I fart for joy and I laugh more than if I had cast my old age, as a
serpent does its skin." -- Aristophanes, Peace, 421 BC

general equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4.

You do not know this equation came out from a fraudulent bases. Newedana