New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model

May 26, 3:38 am show options

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.astro,
alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: 26 May 2005 00:38:35 -0700
Local: Thurs,May 26 2005 3:38 am
Subject: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

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


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 as 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! Newedana

why don't you just admit that you are Yoon himself, instead of
constantly using the referral 'according to Dr. Yoon'... it wil sure
save a lot of typing for you. and stop the silly newedana says,
newadana crap thing...

and what is M? be clear when you write something. and hey stupid, why
must i take v/c neglible? the equation E=mc^2 holds for a mass at any
speed, not only when vc. it is an exact relation.... go back to
Halliday & Resnick (a proper textbook!) .....

In article . com,
"newedana" wrote:
What bombarding electrons???

In order to get hydrogen spectrum in a usual way is to bombard orbital
electrons of hydrogen atoms with external electrons accelerated.

And how does the manage to get the Rydberg frequency?

Niels Bohr obtained Rydberg frequency theoretically based on his atomic
model very precisely, but it is quite natural since Planck's constant h is
originally estimated from observed Rydberg frequency, and ionizing energy E
is artificially modulated to be, E= hcν=2.18x10^-18 J, where h: Planck
constant, c: speed of light, ν: Rydberg frequency. Don't be cheated so
nicely!

already told you that there is a strong analogy between the two!

Balmer equation is an empirically built equation, but Dr.Yoon's equation
is theoretically deduced one, based on the energy of orbital electron ring,
E=E1 + E2, E: total energy, E1: energy for maintaining atomic structure, or
circling energy of orbital electron around its nucleus keeping its radius
constant until its energy capacity is saturated, E2: precessing energy by
absorbing external radiation, which is extractable as radiations. In quantum
atomic physics, as you may know, the energy of orbital electron is
E=(1/2+n)hv, in which 1/2hν is to maintain atomic structure,which is nicely
modulated by handwaving, while nhν is extractable energy. How primitive is
this equation?


Anyway, how does he explain the photo effect without that equation? Or
the Compton effect? Or blackbody radiation?

I posted previously the Dr.Yoon's interpretation for Comton Effect with
his different principle.

Atomic energy has nothing to do with the stupid equation, E=mc^2.

What is stupid about this equation? And how do you explain that it
*works*?

Dr.Yoon's equation explaining hydrogen spectrum can explain also the
energy source of atomic nuclear fission and fusion. He ridicules the stupid
equation, E= hν as well as A. Einstein's E=mc^2
The energy of one string vibration changes in proportional to its
frequency square. So his energy equation of electron rings emitting
hydrogen spectrum is, â–³E=E'[1/r^2 -1/(r+n)^2]^2. E': energy of
electron ring emitting Humpry series. When n=infinite, â–³E=E'(1/r^4).
The explosive TNT is a compound with three -NO2 on toluene molecules.
These radicals are bound by their outermost electron rings by their
expansion of a little bit. However, suppose that uranium atoms with
atomic volume 12.5 turn into two Pb(lead) atoms with atomic volume
18.3. All of their 46 electron rings in K, L, M,. . . . . shells have
to redistribute over newly created two Pb atoms by expanding their
radii all at once, when there occurs the atomic fission of uranium 235.
But their radial expansion is not so remarkable since energy of
orbital electron ring is inversely proportional to 4 powers of radius.
Nevertheless an enormous energy emission takes place there. It is the
source of atomic fission energy. Newedana wrote

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

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 if you are going to teach younger generations of science students who are eager to know what is the atomic nuclear energy.
If you explain atomic fission and fusion energy you have to utiize this same stupid equation E=mc^2. However, according to current physics, atomic fission and fusion are philosopically opposit reaction, right???. But both reactions are exothermic. It is not a science but a comics. Yoon explains both nuclear reactions with atomic electron rings and nuclear electron rings without violating any natural law, unlike your particle physicists do. Newedana

it is not a science for those people who find mathematics as
dispensible, like you Hansik Yoon AKA Newedana. some people think that
you can make a "correct" theory by doing away with the complicated
mathematics which they cannot comprehend or can be bothered to
understand. well, nature is complex and not high school maths theory
as you have out it. get an education git.

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.

In article .com,
"newedana" wrote:
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 if you are going to teach younger generations of science
students who are eager to know what is the atomic nuclear energy.

We teach them just fine thank you. Too bad nobody taught you.

If you explain atomic fission and fusion energy you have to utiize this
same stupid equation E=mc^2. However, according to current physics, atomic
fission and fusion are philosopically opposit reaction, right???.

Yes and no. They both involve nuclear binding energy.


But both reactions are exothermic. It is not a science but a comics.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.


Yoon explains both nuclear reactions with atomic electron rings and nuclear
electron rings without violating any natural law, unlike your particle
physicists do.

You're a liar.

Newedana

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.

newedana wrote:
What bombarding electrons???

In order to get hydrogen spectrum in a usual way is to bombard orbital electrons of hydrogen atoms with external electrons accelerated.

That would be news to me. Reference, please.



And how does the manage to get the Rydberg frequency?

Niels Bohr obtained Rydberg frequency theoretically based on his atomic model

Which was wrong.


very precisely, but it is quite natural since Planck's constant h is
originally estimated from observed Rydberg frequency,

Wrong. Where on earth did you get that from???


and ionizing energy E is artificially modulated to be, E= hcν=2.18x10^-18 J,

What on earth is this supposed to mean?


where h: Planck constant, c: speed of light, ν: Rydberg frequency. Don't be
cheated so nicely!

Huh?


BTW, you did not answer my question: how did Yoon manage to get the
Rydberg frequeny in his model?



already told you that there is a strong analogy between the two!


Balmer equation is an empirically built equation, but Dr.Yoon's equation
is theoretically deduced one,

Please tell me how exactly he deduced it. Especially why the Rydberg
frequency appears in his formula. How did he manage to sneak that in?


based on the energy of orbital electron ring
E=E1 + E2, E: total energy, E1: energy for maintaining atomic structure, or
circling energy of orbital electron around its nucleus keeping its radius
constant until its energy capacity is saturated, E2: precessing energy
by absorbing external radiation, which is extractable as radiations.

Blah blah blah. Stop the rhetoric; you have told us this nonsense
already enough times.


In quantum atomic physics, as you may know, the energy of orbital electron
is E=(1/2+n)hv,

That is *utterly* wrong. This is *not* the energy of an electron in an
atom; these are the energy niveaus of a harmonic oscillator, which has
precisely nil to do with atomic physics!


in which 1/2hν is to maintain atomic structure,

Plain utter bull****ting *nonsense*.


which is nicely modulated by handwaving,

For example?


while nhν is extractable energy. How primitive is this equation?

Care to tell me what exactly you mean when you call an equation
"primitive"?



Anyway, how does he explain the photo effect without that equation? Or
the Compton effect? Or blackbody radiation?

I posted previously the Dr.Yoon's interpretation for Comton Effect with his different principle.

As usual, you posted merely a lot of rhetoric and handwaving, not
*one* *single* *quantitative* description.

And what about the photo effect and blackbody radiation?


Atomic energy has nothing to do with the stupid equation, E=mc^2.

What is stupid about this equation?

Care to tell me?


And how do you explain that it *works*?

Dr.Yoon's equation explaining hydrogen spectrum can explain also the
energy source of atomic nuclear fission and fusion.

Nice for him. However, that does *not* explain why the above equation
*works*: the energy released in nuclear reaction is related to the
mass difference of the nuclei *precisely* by E=mc^2. Hence the
equation *works*.-


He ridicules the stupid equation, E= hν as well

What is stupid about that?

And how does the explain the *quantitative* results of the photo
effect without it?


as A. Einstein's E=mc^2


The energy of one string vibration changes in proportional to its
frequency square.

Incomprehensible.


So his energy equation of electron rings emitting
hydrogen spectrum is, â–³E=E'[1/r^2 -1/(r+n)^2]^2.

But that equation does *not* agree with the observations!!!


E': energy of electron ring emitting Humpry series.

Why does E' appear in the formula?

[snip irrelevant rant]


Bye,
Bjoern