|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
May 28th 05, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#82
May 28th 05, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#83
May 28th 05, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#84
May 28th 05, 11:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yoon has IQ 250? what a laugh. if he has that level of IQ and can only
produce rubbish then imust b a super-genius LOL. you are boing and incompetent. now, go away.
|
|
#85
May 28th 05, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
newedana wrote: wrote: why don't you just admit that you are Yoon himself, instead of constantly using the referral 'according to Dr. Yoon'... If you say so, I'm very flattered by you because Dr. Yoon's IQ is 250 yea right, and looking at all the crap Yoon is peddling then my IQ must be 500 or something. You seem like the infamous psyco stalker with IQ 87, on last count, and by your standards, it seems my IQ is 500. and what is M? be clear when you write something. and hey stupid, Don't you know M? stupid! It's alphabet letter,....... L, "M", N, .... There are other things too, like A, B, C, D, ....... well, this response doesn't answer mine, and just shows you for the ignoramus that you are. If you were in my class, I'll present you F triple plus. You don't know what F is, either? Don't ask me, do your own homework by yourself. idiot. and i would not teach a student as incompetent as you. who are you to talk about grades, judging by your posts i would think you've never had any education. 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!) ..... Are you still worshiping unscientific E=mc^2? Are you really worshiping it wholeheartedly? You should be either intoxicated with relativity and QM or ignorant. Here is Dr. Yoon's New Physics for that symptoms. you never supported your claim of why that equaton is "unscientific" moron. you are just spewing a lot of crap from your big mouth. you're full of nothing but unsubstantiated claims. are you just pretending to worship it on purpose? Then you're a coward. You don't need to confess. Don't ask me why. idiot. I already said many times. Think about it with your own head or mind if you've any. i think is clear to every who the idiot is. on last count, at least four people have called you and idiot: Llyod, Bjoern, Al and me. so, who is the idiot, idiot? QM and relativity gained its acceptance by experimental verification. it's not just a whole lot of fancy theory and difficult maths (which i see that both you and Yoon cannot cope with, hence you turn to high school maths). the Yoon stuff you trying to shove up other people's ass has no experimental credibility whatsoever. I accept it because of overwhelming evidence. you deny it by handwaving, which is why you rightly deserve the title "idiot". Newedana wrote. idiot. no sane person constantly speaks in the third person. as i told you before, you are so boring and incompetent, so go away. far away.
|
|
#86
May 30th 05, 01:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The energy emission taking place when orbital electron rings expand, can b=
e observed in the case when chemical explosives such as TNT (trinitrotoluen= ) explodes. The outermost orbital electron rings of their component atoms c= ontributing to combine them, expand only a little bit in this case of explo= sion, due to dissociation of TNT to form various kinds of gas molecules, su= ch as H2O, CO2, and NO2 etc. It is well known that the explosion of only about 7 kgs of uranium 235 pro= duces an enormous energy equivalent to that emitted by explosion of TNT 20,= 000 metric tons. The mass ratio of these two explosive materials is about,= 1 : 2.86x10^6. If the orbital electron rings in K shell of uranium atom with radial param= eter, say, =CE=B3=3D1/100, expands to be the orbital electron rings in K sh= ell of newly created atoms, such as Pb that has radial parameter, say, =CE= =B3=3D1/99.28, then the ratio of energy capacity of these two orbital elect= ron rings becomes identical to the mass ratio, 2.86x10^6, as shown above wh= en we estimate it with Eq.=E2=96=B3E=3DE'[1/r^2 -1/(r+n)^2]^2. The differen= ce of radial parameter between these two electron rings is negligibly small= , or =CE=94=CE=B3=3D1/99.28-1/100=3D1/13,789, but the ratio of their energy= capacity is such enormous, as shown above. However, this energy emission c= omes only from the expansion of orbital electron rings in K shell of uraniu= m 235. Other orbital electron rings in L, M, N,. . . .shells of uranium 235= should also have to expand their orbital radii emitting huge energies also= as in the case of electron rings of K shell. Thus the explosion of only 7 = kg of uranium 235 gives rise to producing such a tremendous energy. newedan= na wrote
|
|
#87
May 30th 05, 01:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The energy emission taking place when orbital electron rings expand, can b=
e observed in the case when chemical explosives such as TNT (trinitrotoluen= ) explodes. The outermost orbital electron rings of their component atoms c= ontributing to combine them, expand only a little bit in this case of explo= sion, due to dissociation of TNT to form various kinds of gas molecules, su= ch as H2O, CO2, and NO2 etc. It is well known that the explosion of only about 7 kgs of uranium 235 pro= duces an enormous energy equivalent to that emitted by explosion of TNT 20,= 000 metric tons. The mass ratio of these two explosive materials is about,= 1 : 2.86x10^6. If the orbital electron rings in K shell of uranium atom with radial param= eter, say, =CE=B3=3D1/100, expands to be the orbital electron rings in K sh= ell of newly created atoms, such as Pb that has radial parameter, say, =CE= =B3=3D1/99.28, then the ratio of energy capacity of these two orbital elect= ron rings becomes identical to the mass ratio, 2.86x10^6, as shown above wh= en we estimate it with Eq.=E2=96=B3E=3DE'[1/r^2 -1/(r+n)^2]^2. The differen= ce of radial parameter between these two electron rings is negligibly small= , or =CE=94=CE=B3=3D1/99.28-1/100=3D1/13,789, but the ratio of their energy= capacity is such enormous, as shown above. However, this energy emission c= omes only from the expansion of orbital electron rings in K shell of uraniu= m 235. Other orbital electron rings in L, M, N,. . . .shells of uranium 235= should also have to expand their orbital radii emitting huge energies also= as in the case of electron rings of K shell. Thus the explosion of only 7 = kg of uranium 235 gives rise to producing such a tremendous energy. newedan= na wrote
|
|
#88
May 30th 05, 02:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
newedana wrote: The energy emission taking place when orbital electron rings expand, can= be observed in the case when chemical explosives such as TNT (trinitrotolu= en) explodes. The outermost orbital electron rings of their component atoms= contributing to combine them, expand only a little bit in this case of exp= losion, due to dissociation of TNT to form various kinds of gas molecules, = such as H2O, CO2, and NO2 etc. It is well known that the explosion of only about 7 kgs of uranium 235 p= roduces an enormous energy equivalent to that emitted by explosion of TNT 2= 0,000 metric tons. The mass ratio of these two explosive materials is abou= t, 1 : 2.86x10^6. If the orbital electron rings in K shell of uranium atom with radial par= ameter, say, =CE=B3=3D1/100, expands to be the orbital electron rings in K = shell of newly created atoms, such as Pb that has radial parameter, say, = =CE=B3=3D1/99.28, then the ratio of energy capacity of these two orbital el= ectron rings becomes identical to the mass ratio, 2.86x10^6, as shown above= when we estimate it with Eq.=E2=96=B3E=3DE'[1/r^2 -1/(r+n)^2]^2. The diffe= rence of radial parameter between these two electron rings is negligibly sm= all, or =CE=94=CE=B3=3D1/99.28-1/100=3D1/13,789, but the ratio of their ene= rgy capacity is such enormous, as shown above. However, this energy emissio= n comes only from the expansion of orbital electron rings in K shell of ura= nium 235. Other orbital electron rings in L, M, N,. . . .shells of uranium = 235 should also have to expand their orbital radii emitting huge energies a= lso as in the case of electron rings of K shell. Thus the explosion of only= 7 kg of uranium 235 gives rise to producing such a tremendous energy. newe= danna wrote
|
|
#89
May 30th 05, 02:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The energy emission taking place when orbital electron rings expand, can =
be observed in the case when chemical explosives such as TNT (trinitrotolue= n) explodes. The outermost orbital electron rings of their component atoms = contributing to combine them, expand only a little bit in this case of expl= osion, due to dissociation of TNT to form various kinds of gas molecules, s= uch as H2O, CO2, and NO2 etc. It is well known that the explosion of only about 7 kgs of uranium 235 pro= duces an enormous energy equivalent to that emitted by explosion of TNT 20,= 000 metric tons. The mass ratio of these two explosive materials is about,= 1 : 2.86x10^6. If the orbital electron rings in K shell of uranium atom with radial param= eter, say, =CE=B3=3D1/100, expands to be the orbital electron rings in K sh= ell of newly created atoms, such as Pb that has radial parameter, say, =CE= =B3=3D1/99.28, then the ratio of energy capacity of these two orbital elect= ron rings becomes identical to the mass ratio, 2.86x10^6, as shown above wh= en we estimate it with Eq.=E2=96=B3E=3DE'[1/r^2 -1/(r+n)^2]^2. The differen= ce of radial parameter between these two electron rings is negligibly small= , or =CE=94=CE=B3=3D1/99.28-1/100=3D1/13,789, but the ratio of their energy= capacity is such enormous, as shown above. However, this energy emission c= omes only from the expansion of orbital electron rings in K shell of uraniu= m 235. Other orbital electron rings in L, M, N,. . . .shells of uranium 235= should also have to expand their orbital radii emitting huge energies also= as in the case of electron rings of K shell. Thus the explosion of only 7 = kg of uranium 235 gives rise to producing such a tremendous energy. newedan= na wrote
|
|
#90
May 30th 05, 04:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The energy emission taking place when orbital electron rings expand, can b=
e observed in the case when chemical explosives such as TNT (trinitrotoluen= ) explodes. The outermost orbital electron rings of their component atoms c= ontributing to combine them, expand only a little bit in this case of explo= sion, due to dissociation of TNT to form various kinds of gas molecules, su= ch as H2O, CO2, and NO2 etc. It is well known that the explosion of only about 7 kgs of uranium 235 pro= duces an enormous energy equivalent to that emitted by explosion of TNT 20,= 000 metric tons. The mass ratio of these two explosive materials is about,= 1 : 2.86x10^6. If the orbital electron rings in K shell of uranium atom with radial param= eter, say, =CE=B3=3D1/100, expands to be the orbital electron rings in K sh= ell of newly created atoms, such as Pb that has radial parameter, say, =CE= =B3=3D1/99.28, then the ratio of energy capacity of these two orbital elect= ron rings becomes identical to the mass ratio, 2.86x10^6, as shown above wh= en we estimate it with Eq.=E2=96=B3E=3DE'[1/r^2 -1/(r+n)^2]^2. The differen= ce of radial parameter between these two electron rings is negligibly small= , or =CE=94=CE=B3=3D1/99.28-1/100=3D1/13,789, but the ratio of their energy= capacity is such enormous, as shown above. However, this energy emission c= omes only from the expansion of orbital electron rings in K shell of uraniu= m 235. Other orbital electron rings in L, M, N,. . . .shells of uranium 235= should also have to expand their orbital radii emitting huge energies also= as in the case of electron rings of K shell. Thus the explosion of only 7 = kg of uranium 235 gives rise to producing such a tremendous energy. newedan= na wrote
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| new paradigm for physics update | Gary Forbat | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | June 21st 04 06:26 AM |
| new paradigm for physics update | Gary Forbat | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 20th 04 06:47 AM |
| The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics | Stephen Mooney | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | May 31st 04 04:30 AM |
| The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics | Stephen Mooney | SETI | 0 | May 30th 04 08:53 PM |
| when will our planet stop rotating? | meat n potatoes | Amateur Astronomy | 61 | March 27th 04 12:50 PM |
Linear Mode
