New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model

hanson wrote:
ahahaha.... yeah, yeah, yeah, right, sure and ok... but now,
"why does mercury not dissolve iron cobalt and nickle despite
that it dissolves gold, silver, copper and etc."?
ahaha... ahahanson


You're idiot or jerk.
Or both.

SIMPLE SONG aka "newedana" wrote in
ups.com...
hanson wrote:
ahahaha.... yeah, yeah, yeah, right, sure and ok... but now,
"why does mercury not dissolve iron cobalt and nickle despite
that it dissolves gold, silver, copper and etc."?
ahaha... ahahanson

["SIMPLE SONG" got caught his her pants down and angrily barks]
You're idiot or jerk.
Or both.

[hanson]
ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.......
but now, "why does mercury not dissolve iron cobalt and nickle
despite that it dissolves gold, silver, copper and etc."? ...or
did you just make a SIMPLE SONG because you do not know?
ahahahaha... ahahanson

hanson wrote:
SIMPLE SONG aka "newedana" wrote in
ups.com...
hanson wrote:
[snip brutal sexist stuff]
[hanson]
ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.......
but now, "why does mercury not dissolve iron cobalt and nickle
despite that it dissolves gold, silver, copper and etc."? ...or
did you just make a SIMPLE SONG because you do not know?
ahahahaha... ahahanson

Copper, silver, and gold, are in the
same column of THE Periodic Table.

They are not compounds. Iron cobalt
is.

Nickle is just plain weird (i before
e except after w?).


Atty (And then there was the time
I was confronted by 30 LAPD
queers ....)

In sci.physics, Attila the Bum

wrote
on 23 Jul 2005 14:23:37 -0700
.com:


hanson wrote:
SIMPLE SONG aka "newedana" wrote in
ups.com...
hanson wrote:
[snip brutal sexist stuff]
[hanson]
ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.......
but now, "why does mercury not dissolve iron cobalt and nickle
despite that it dissolves gold, silver, copper and etc."? ...or
did you just make a SIMPLE SONG because you do not know?
ahahahaha... ahahanson

Copper, silver, and gold, are in the
same column of THE Periodic Table.

They are not compounds. Iron cobalt
is.

Nickle is just plain weird (i before
e except after w?).

ITYM "nickel". As for "iron cobalt", I'm not sure precisely
what that is but suspect it's more of a metallic alloy than
a true covalent compound. However, I'm not all that skilled
in chemistry.

Iron: group 8; others in group: rubidium, osmium, hassium.
Cobalt: group 9; others in group: rhodium, iridium, meitnerium.

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Mr. Ghost. I newedana posted for the problem you raised on April 25, 6:06 in the topic of sci. physics: physical basis for melting-points of allots? You may find how beautifully your question was explained in the post. This problem is almost impossible to explain with established science knowledge. If you want to know more you can read Dr. Yoon's textbook(www.yoonsatom.net). I am sure his book is now available in the University Library of Chicago, MIT, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, Berlin, and Congress Library of the USA. So you can read his book without buying it. newedana

There is no reliable science concerned to dissolution or compatibility problem between materials. The mechanism of forming metal allies turns out to be also a problem of compatibility or dissolution between a different kind of materials. However, there is no such science established yet.
There is neither science concerned to the fundamental structure of
solid metal, nor exists also a basic science for formation of metal
alloy. For example, why iron does not make an alloy with copper? Why
mercury does not dissolve iron cobalt and nickle despite that it
dissolves gold, silver, copper and etc.? Answers for the problem:
physical basis for melting points of alloys is very simple explained in
Dr. Hansik Yoon's New Physics' titled " Natural Science Founded on a
New atomic Model(www.yoonsatom.net).
His atomic model is constructed with tiny persistent current rings
surrounding its nucleus, which produces an intensive Meissoner's
magnetism with a somewhat different character from that of ordinary
solenoid/current magnetism. Since it exhibits the diamagnetism when
both electron rings have different orbital radii, there acts strong
attraction between these orbital electron rings with resonant
frequency, while repulsion takes place between them if they have
non-resonant frequencies, which is determined by their orbital
parameter, the same or different. Energy level of the current ring is
higher when it is closer to its nucleus, just in reverse to that of
current atomic model. It is very natural, metals built with the same
kind of atoms have a higher melting point, because all of their
electron rings in their every electron shells are exactly the same
respectively, thus there acts the strongest attraction between them to
give a higher melting point. On the other hand metals built with
different kinds of atoms have a lowerer melting point because they have
limited number of electron rings mutually resonant in their electron
shells, so weaker attractions between its component atoms to give a
lowerer melting points. If their component atoms have no resonant
electron rings at all in their structure they do not make an alloy,
instead they have to repulse. Dissolution problem between all kinds of
materials can be explained with this same principle, for example, like
dissolves like.

We should note that k shells of all the element atoms have different
radii, and L, M, N, ..etc. shells are also different, because their
atomic volumes are all different. For example, atomic volume of
hydrogen is 14.1 while uranium's is 12. 5 despite that it is wrapped
with 15 layers of electron shells. Imagine the radii of k shells of
both atoms.

I find in his book, the structure of metal crystal with following
physical characters: higher density, higher conductivity of heat and
electricity, higher ductility and stiffness, and silvery appearance, is
clearly explained with his new understanding of periodic table.
newedana

I can't understand how you could live with such contradictions.
Billions
of dollars worth of equipments shows an electron moving at fast
speed still has electric field left at the front and sides while
Dr. Yoon totally ignores this and claim it completely lags behind
which is the entire basis of his model. How could you accept this
contradiction and still accept it. Do you believe all particle
experiments
are wrong and the scientists are all stupid not to detect the
completely
lagging electric field?

p6


newedana wrote:
There is no reliable science concerned to dissolution or compatibility problem between materials. The mechanism of forming metal allies turns out to be also a problem of compatibility or dissolution between a different kind of materials. However, there is no such science established yet.
There is neither science concerned to the fundamental structure of
solid metal, nor exists also a basic science for formation of metal
alloy. For example, why iron does not make an alloy with copper? Why
mercury does not dissolve iron cobalt and nickle despite that it
dissolves gold, silver, copper and etc.? Answers for the problem:
physical basis for melting points of alloys is very simple explained in
Dr. Hansik Yoon's New Physics' titled " Natural Science Founded on a
New atomic Model(www.yoonsatom.net).
His atomic model is constructed with tiny persistent current rings
surrounding its nucleus, which produces an intensive Meissoner's
magnetism with a somewhat different character from that of ordinary
solenoid/current magnetism. Since it exhibits the diamagnetism when
both electron rings have different orbital radii, there acts strong
attraction between these orbital electron rings with resonant
frequency, while repulsion takes place between them if they have
non-resonant frequencies, which is determined by their orbital
parameter, the same or different. Energy level of the current ring is
higher when it is closer to its nucleus, just in reverse to that of
current atomic model. It is very natural, metals built with the same
kind of atoms have a higher melting point, because all of their
electron rings in their every electron shells are exactly the same
respectively, thus there acts the strongest attraction between them to
give a higher melting point. On the other hand metals built with
different kinds of atoms have a lowerer melting point because they have
limited number of electron rings mutually resonant in their electron
shells, so weaker attractions between its component atoms to give a
lowerer melting points. If their component atoms have no resonant
electron rings at all in their structure they do not make an alloy,
instead they have to repulse. Dissolution problem between all kinds of
materials can be explained with this same principle, for example, like
dissolves like.

We should note that k shells of all the element atoms have different
radii, and L, M, N, ..etc. shells are also different, because their
atomic volumes are all different. For example, atomic volume of
hydrogen is 14.1 while uranium's is 12. 5 despite that it is wrapped
with 15 layers of electron shells. Imagine the radii of k shells of
both atoms.

I find in his book, the structure of metal crystal with following
physical characters: higher density, higher conductivity of heat and
electricity, higher ductility and stiffness, and silvery appearance, is
clearly explained with his new understanding of periodic table.
newedana