New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model

newedana wrote:
".................. However, man gradually turned out to be like an
animal in viewing the nature ever since the first discovery of atomic
structure by Rutherford, and the electron by Irish physicist G. J.
Stoney and British physicist J. J. Thomson et al around 1897. They
stated that the electron was nothing else than a mass particle building

atoms of all the material system, in respect that its motion obeying
projectile mechanics. The philosophical implication of their thoughts
was profound. ...................... These ideologies say that reliable

knowledge never comes from a shadowy work of human brain, but from real

things touchable, visible and audible with their sensory organs, since
human being is nothing else than a kind of animal species evolved from
single-cell life happen to be emerged on the earth, according to
Charles Darwin's evolutional doctrine. ....................."

" ..................... Under this philosophical background, there
emerged two basic physical theories in the beginning of last century.
One was the quantum mechanical theory initiated by Max Plank, and the
other was [a set of] two theories of relativity, proposed by Albert
Einstein. .................. Both are allegedly particle physics based
on the philosophy of materialism or positivism. In order to describe
the nature with their logic of particle physics, energy and light that
are essentially continuous entities in character had to be subdivided
into unit particles. These particles were called quanta and photon, the

smallest ultimate energy and light particles, indivisible further into
much smaller units. However, this postulation was immediately against
the natural law. .................."

Dr. Hansik Yoon stated in the preface of his book, "Natural Science
Founded on A New Atomic Model". You may read the whole preface from
http://www.yoonsatom.net

Dr. Hansik Yoon continued. "............... It was the same idea as
that the numerical gap between 1 and 2 could be filled with the
smallest ultimate decimals of infinite numbers. It is a trick to
persuade people to believe improbable things or events as real. If we
use this trick, for example, we can readily prove that [the length of]
two sides of a triangle is equal to the third one.
..................... However, obviously this is no more a triangle."

"............... Continuous entities are theoretically impossible to
subdivide into final subunits, since they are divisible endlessly, and
subdivided final products have the same as their initia1 character.
Energy and light are such entities. Atoms or bio-cells are exceptions,
because they are impossible to be subdivided into much smaller unit
particles without sacrificing their initial atomic or cellular
characters. ........................"

"............... For example, the quantum oscillator, the latest atomic

model, was built based on this idea of particle physics. The kinetic
energy of orbital electron orbiting in three dimensional space forming
an electron cloud cannot balance out theoretically with its potential
energy. .................. Nevertheless, these two energies of orbital
electron are unreasonably balanced in the Shrodinger's wave equation.
It conflicts with a plain truth of physical law. .....................
So the orbital electron of the quantum oscillator cannot perform a real

oscillation, but only an imaginary oscillation in the mathematical
equation. ..............................=AD......"

Dr. Hansik Yoon also stated in the preface of his book that
"............... The magnetism induced by this tiny persistent current
ring that has allegedly the Meissoner's diamagnetism effect against
external magnetism governs all the physicochemical phenomena occurring
in material world. It is not the electric attraction force believed
from the 17th century up to now. ..............................=AD..."

From Dr. Yoon's book(http://www.yoonsatom.net).

newedana

My dear Newedana,

You will deceive yourself so much if you will only rely on
Dr. Yoon book. He practically misrepresented the entire
foundation of science. Many of his data are wrong. His
principles don't make any actual scientific sense. He is
very creative though and *appear* to explain a lot.. but it's
all just handwaving.

I don't blame him though because he just couldn't accept
the *unconvensional* ideas of physics. He wants to justify
things as being purely classical and newtonian. This is the
same problem with physicists like Uncle Al who can't
accept the bizarre nature of qi. So they settle in the
familiar world of QM and Relativity and the mathematical
equations. Dr. Yoon is just a step backward from Uncle Al.

The following is a brief account of what is reality.

Fields are the real thing. Particles are just aspects
of it. For illustration. Think of the head of your dick
(or any guy dick). Imagine there are beings who can
only see the dick head and not the entire body (whose
anatomy from head to foot is invisible to him). He
would think the dick head represents the entire person.
But he is just not aware that the entire anatomy from
head to toe, which represents the "fields" are what is
the mother structure of the dick head (representing particle).
So when he would see liquid sprouting from it or the dick
oscillating or throbbing when entering a pussy. He would
think it describes the dick angular momemtum, magnetic spin,
mass, etc. Do you understand?? So don't treat particles
as the main actors. They are just supporting cast like
the dick. You must study the fields or the entire human
anatomy.

Another is that you must understand that before measurement,
there is no properties in quantum system. I have direct
constant experience in this. For example. When I'd treat
migrane in your brain. I can project the neurons hidden EM
scalar qi state (not yet known by science) in front of me
anywhere I am in the planet and I can manipulate the unmanifested
holographic template which can ultimately affect the wave
function of your brain. I'm still thinking if mainstream
humanity must be made aware of this. We are at a time when
psychological balance is far from okay and something like
this extra hidden function of reality may overwhelm the
human psychological load. Although the worldwide scrutiny of
this extended physics breakthrough may reverberate in all
aspects of science, medicine, psychology, etc. We need to
gauge the pros and cons of it. If you want to study qi.
First read some good QM textbook. You must have utter mastery
of it including the mathemetical formalism if you want
to describe the physics of qi in all its glory. Don't
waste time with Yoon. Study Qi and you will know firsthand
that the teachings of many stuff in Quantum physics and
even relativity is true.=20

p6

newedana wrote:
".................. However, man gradually turned out to be like an
animal in viewing the nature ever since the first discovery of atomic
structure by Rutherford, and the electron by Irish physicist G. J.
Stoney and British physicist J. J. Thomson et al around 1897. They
stated that the electron was nothing else than a mass particle building

atoms of all the material system, in respect that its motion obeying
projectile mechanics. The philosophical implication of their thoughts
was profound. ...................... These ideologies say that reliable

knowledge never comes from a shadowy work of human brain, but from real

things touchable, visible and audible with their sensory organs, since
human being is nothing else than a kind of animal species evolved from
single-cell life happen to be emerged on the earth, according to
Charles Darwin's evolutional doctrine. ....................."

" ..................... Under this philosophical background, there
emerged two basic physical theories in the beginning of last century.
One was the quantum mechanical theory initiated by Max Plank, and the
other was [a set of] two theories of relativity, proposed by Albert
Einstein. .................. Both are allegedly particle physics based
on the philosophy of materialism or positivism. In order to describe
the nature with their logic of particle physics, energy and light that
are essentially continuous entities in character had to be subdivided
into unit particles. These particles were called quanta and photon, the

smallest ultimate energy and light particles, indivisible further into
much smaller units. However, this postulation was immediately against
the natural law. .................."

Dr. Hansik Yoon stated in the preface of his book, "Natural Science
Founded on A New Atomic Model". You may read the whole preface from
http://www.yoonsatom.net

Dr. Hansik Yoon continued. "............... It was the same idea as
that the numerical gap between 1 and 2 could be filled with the
smallest ultimate decimals of infinite numbers. It is a trick to
persuade people to believe improbable things or events as real. If we
use this trick, for example, we can readily prove that [the length of]
two sides of a triangle is equal to the third one.
..................... However, obviously this is no more a triangle."

"............... Continuous entities are theoretically impossible to
subdivide into final subunits, since they are divisible endlessly, and
subdivided final products have the same as their initia1 character.
Energy and light are such entities. Atoms or bio-cells are exceptions,
because they are impossible to be subdivided into much smaller unit
particles without sacrificing their initial atomic or cellular
characters. ........................"

"............... For example, the quantum oscillator, the latest atomic

model, was built based on this idea of particle physics. The kinetic
energy of orbital electron orbiting in three dimensional space forming
an electron cloud cannot balance out theoretically with its potential
energy. .................. Nevertheless, these two energies of orbital
electron are unreasonably balanced in the Shrodinger's wave equation.
It conflicts with a plain truth of physical law. .....................
So the orbital electron of the quantum oscillator cannot perform a real

oscillation, but only an imaginary oscillation in the mathematical
equation. ..............................=AD......"

Dr. Hansik Yoon also stated in the preface of his book that
"............... The magnetism induced by this tiny persistent current
ring that has allegedly the Meissoner's diamagnetism effect against
external magnetism governs all the physicochemical phenomena occurring
in material world. It is not the electric attraction force believed
from the 17th century up to now. ..............................=AD..."

From Dr. Yoon's book(http://www.yoonsatom.net).

newedana

To continue with the above. I'll give you some hope about Yoon.
Although he misrepresented so many things. There is something
in the last paragraph above. The right point of view to consider
is that in addition to electric attractive force, there is also
hidden magnetism effect that govern all physiochemical phenomena.
Using microscopic scalar sensor. We can detect that in an
element. It is NOT just the electric field at work. There is
also some kind of magnetic coupling effect that escape
the magnetic field probe such as stern gerlach experiment,
etc. It is to this that qi is related. Contrary to science
which says that only moving charges can produce magnetic
field. We can precipitate magnetic field out of thin air or
quantum vacuum without any moving charges or electron. Also
try to study Lockyer stuff. I'm thinking if the magnetic effect
involves the entire nucleus too where Lockyer argued it is not
gluon and pion exchanging mediating strong force but entirely
electromagnetic with magnetic moments hyperfunctions. We
are still determining the validity (if there is) of his model
and how qi is related to it all. Invest in qi research and
you will learn many truth as it involves the most cutting
edge area of Quantum physics and even relativity.

p6

At present day there is no reliable science concerned to the structure
of solid metal. Neither 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.?

You better read Dr. Hansik Yoon's New Physics' titled " Natural Science

Founded on a New atomic Model" (www.yoonsatom.net). The answer for the
problemhysical basis for melting points of alloys is very simple
according to his new principle.

His atomic model is constructed with tiny persistent current rings
surrounding its nucleus. Energy level of the current ring is higher
when it is closer to its nucleus, just in reverse to that of current
atomic model. There acts 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.

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. You shoud note that k shells of all the element atoms have
different radii, and L, M, N, ..etc. shells also, depending on their
atomic volumes. 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 ceystal is clearly explained, satisfying following physical
characters:
higher density, higher conductibity of heat and electricity, higher
ductility and
stiffness, and silvery apperance.

newedana

"newedana" wrote in message
oups.com...
At present day there is no reliable science concerned to the structure
of solid metal. Neither 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.?

You better read Dr. Hansik Yoon's New Physics' titled " Natural Science

Founded on a New atomic Model" (www.yoonsatom.net). The answer for the
problemhysical basis for melting points of alloys is very simple
according to his new principle.

His atomic model is constructed with tiny persistent current rings
surrounding its nucleus. Energy level of the current ring is higher
when it is closer to its nucleus, just in reverse to that of current
atomic model. There acts 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.

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. You shoud note that k shells of all the element atoms have
different radii, and L, M, N, ..etc. shells also, depending on their
atomic volumes. 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 ceystal is clearly explained, satisfying following physical
characters:
higher density, higher conductibity of heat and electricity, higher
ductility and
stiffness, and silvery apperance.

newedana

[hanson]
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

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 ....)

newedana wrote:
At present day there is no reliable science concerned to the structure
of solid metal. Neither 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.?

You better read Dr. Hansik Yoon's New Physics' titled " Natural Science

Founded on a New atomic Model" (www.yoonsatom.net). The answer for the
problemhysical basis for melting points of alloys is very simple
according to his new principle.

His atomic model is constructed with tiny persistent current rings
surrounding its nucleus. Energy level of the current ring is higher
when it is closer to its nucleus, just in reverse to that of current
atomic model. There acts 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.

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. You shoud note that k shells of all the element atoms have
different radii, and L, M, N, ..etc. shells also, depending on their
atomic volumes. 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 ceystal is clearly explained, satisfying following physical
characters:
higher density, higher conductibity of heat and electricity, higher
ductility and
stiffness, and silvery apperance.

newedana


The only way for Yoon model to have possibility of existence is
if the law of physics inside the atom is not the same outside.

I recommend you to get this book:



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

It shows the complete foundational development of Quantum
Mechanics from Planck to Born. It has complete mathematics
and the derivations of all equations from Bohr to Heisenberg
to Schrodinger. It's one of a kind that you can't find in
other books.

Master it first before trying to debunk QM.

Also try to get this.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...=UTF8&v=glance

It's complete conceptual foundation and mathematics of Fourier
methods that completely give the account of the atoms in terms
of the wave properties of the electron. In Yoon book. He tried
to remove the wave properties and make it completely modified
Bohr orbit style. How can you ignore the fact that QM almost
explain everything.

To show Yoon can explain more than QM as well as explain the
same data. You must try to explain how the Yoon methods can
approximate all the wave behavior and calculations of QM.
For it, you have to modify some of Yoon principles and add
more such as more degree of freedtom inside the atomic realm.

First have utter master of QM. Without doing that. How can
you break it apart without knowing its full treatment of the
fact and concepts.

Goodluck.

p6

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