New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model

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

Dear Mr. p6! You look very anxious to know the fact the electric and magnetic force fluxes(electric and magnetic field in QM) turn out to lag behind the moving charge. Imagine what build up the electromagnetic waves. They are built up with electric and magnetic force fluxes emanated from oscillating electrons, lagged behind the moving electrons, and building closed circuits respectively. Do you need a more clearer evidence than this fact? This is written in Dr. Yoon's text on p-22~... newedana

Interpretation of periodicity of element atoms by QM theory, such as 2, 8, 18, 32, and 50 is incorrect, and related invention of orbitals such as s, p, d, f etc., are nonsense, according to Dr. Yoon's new physics. He asserts that the real periodicity of element atoms obeys the number series 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32, 50 and (50), the double periodicity which is recurring cycles of element atom's chemical character from noble elements to alkali metal elements. When we peer the character of, 18, 32 and 50, we find that the number 18 consists of 2, 8, 8, the number 32 is the sum of 8, 8, 8, 8, and 50 is built with 2, 8, 8, and 8, 8, 8, 8. That is, the number series can be reexpressed as 2, 8, 8, 2, 8, 8(18), 2, 8, 8(18), 8, 8, 8, 8(32), 8, 8, 8, 8(32), 2, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8(50), so it suggests that the number 2 and 8 is the basic, and they are the full number of orbital electrons in any electron shells of element atoms in the periodic table, so the all numbers of 2 and 8 represnt the number of electron shells of aoms in the periodic table. For example, Uranium with 92 electrons has 13 electron shells with fully saturated electrons and its final shell contains 6 electrons, in lack of 2 in full 8 electrons, according to Dr. Yoon's physics, while in the QM theory, Uranium has 9 electron shells and its final electron shell, Q 7s shell contains 2 electrons, in lack of 6 in full 8 electrons.
According to Dr Yoon's physics, 8 electrons forming 4 orbital electron
rings in each electron shell, arrange to build a tetrahedral structure
of para-magnetic orientation, which exerts their constructed
Meissoner's magnetic attraction toward the chemical bound.
Thus the electro-negativity, the chemical reactivity, is governed by
electron numbers in the outermost electron shell of element atoms, and
spherical radii of electron shells; the larger the number of electrons
within 8 electrons, and the shorter the spherical radii of electron
shells ( K, L, M, L etc.) containing them, the greater the
electro-negativity of element atoms. The fluorine atom with the utmost
value of electro-negativity 4.0 is the example, 7 electrons in its
outermost electron shell which has the shortest spherical radius.
When the electron rings in each shell of atoms forming tetrahedral
para-magnetic orientation, exert inward their intensive magnetic
compression on its sequential inner electron shells, it results to
reduce their atomic volume, which makes atoms pack in compact to have a
higher density, a higher conductivity of electricity and heat. This is
nothing else than metal structures.
Then what is the reality of metal lattice of linking individual atoms,
the binding entity of metal atoms? It is not the snapshotting electric
attraction between atomic nuclei and neighboring other orbital
electrons, as believed today, but is Meissoner's magnetic attraction
acting between inner and the outermost orbital electron rings of
packing atoms, according to Dr Yoon. It signifies that lattice of
metallic structure is Meissoner's magnetic force fluxes, linking
orbital electron rings of every metal atoms.

How far apart is the distance between individual metal nuclei and its
outermost electron rings? It is well known hydrogen atom has 10^-10,
and proton, 10^-15 in diameters. Assuming that the proton has a base
ball size, the hydrogen electron is few miles away from it. Nothing is
so different in the case of metal atoms.

In the QM theory, essence of heat is oscillating kinetic energy of
atoms or molecules. In the case of solid metal, oscillation of metal
lattice is the essence of heat. However this basic concept for heat in
the QM theory is wrong. Electrically neutral mass particles such as
atoms or molecules cannot oscillate in free space, because there exist
no fixing bases holding them to oscillate back and forth, against their
inertial motion. In the case of metal lattice there is also no such
entity to give the elasticity to the lattice to oscillate back and
forth.

The metal lattice can not absorb or emit phonons. The oscillation of
atomic orbital electron rings connecting metallic atomic nuclei does
not generate so called phonon. In addition there does not exist any
medium to transmit phonon in the atomic space, so wide in relative to
real mass volume of metal atoms.

Thus the story of Cooper pair electron and its extended logic of BCS
theory explaining the persistent current are all fraudulent science.
Newedana

Anybody can suspect how can orbital electron keep its position around
its nucleus without merging to its nucleus. Uncertainty principle was
applied for the reason, their merging is prevented. However, I don't
believe it is a real science.

In a standard text of QM theory, this uncertainty principle is the
first postulation of the theory. Measureing order of the nature by
mankind cannot change the scientific truth.

In its second postulation, the orbital electron builds an electron
cloud around its nucleus, and one can find it with an equal
probability. I believe this is rather an ignorant science.

QM man believes that orbital electron can float around its nucleus as a
wave form like a tiny water dropletts of clouds in the sky. However,
the standard text says that kinetic energy of orbital electron can be
in balance with its potential energy by nuclear attraction, We find
also in the Shroedinger's equation that kinetic energy plus potential
energy equals constant.

However, in order for one to be possible to find the electron forming a
three dimensional, spharical cloud with the same probability, the
electron has to move at a few thousand times of greater speed than that
of Bohr's orbital electron forming a two dimentional ring orbit.

If so, it is impossible to balance between its kinetic and potential
energy. It is a plain science, it is a basic mistake to apply the
probability mathematics in explaining the orbital electron forming a
three dimensional spherical cloud. Because it is out of science.

Based on the Book, "Natural Science Founded on A New Atomic Model", by
Dr. Hansik Yoon (www.yoonsatom.net)

In article . com,
"newedana" wrote:
Anybody can suspect how can orbital electron keep its position around
its nucleus without merging to its nucleus. Uncertainty principle was
applied for the reason, their merging is prevented. However, I don't
believe it is a real science.

Actually quantum theory explains it. And nature doesn't care what you
believe. Neither does anyone here.


In a standard text of QM theory, this uncertainty principle is the
first postulation of the theory. Measureing order of the nature by
mankind cannot change the scientific truth.

You think you can.


In its second postulation, the orbital electron builds an electron
cloud around its nucleus, and one can find it with an equal
probability. I believe this is rather an ignorant science.

How ironic, since the rest of the world believes you're rather ignorant.


QM man believes that orbital electron can float around its nucleus as a
wave form like a tiny water dropletts of clouds in the sky.

No, the electron exists as a probability wave. Try to learn QM before you
criticize it.


However,
the standard text says that kinetic energy of orbital electron can be
in balance with its potential energy by nuclear attraction, We find
also in the Shroedinger's equation that kinetic energy plus potential
energy equals constant.

However, in order for one to be possible to find the electron forming a
three dimensional, spharical cloud with the same probability, the
electron has to move at a few thousand times of greater speed than that
of Bohr's orbital electron forming a two dimentional ring orbit.

If so, it is impossible to balance between its kinetic and potential
energy.

Yet it does. I guess the electron is smarter than you.


It is a plain science, it is a basic mistake to apply the
probability mathematics in explaining the orbital electron forming a
three dimensional spherical cloud. Because it is out of science.

Based on the Book, "Natural Science Founded on A New Atomic Model", by
Dr. Hansik Yoon (www.yoonsatom.net)


Which is based on "Grimm's Fairy Tales."

newedana wrote:
Anybody can suspect how can orbital electron keep its position around
its nucleus without merging to its nucleus. Uncertainty principle was
applied for the reason, their merging is prevented. However, I don't
believe it is a real science.

In a standard text of QM theory, this uncertainty principle is the
first postulation of the theory. Measureing order of the nature by
mankind cannot change the scientific truth.

In its second postulation, the orbital electron builds an electron
cloud around its nucleus, and one can find it with an equal
probability. I believe this is rather an ignorant science.

QM man believes that orbital electron can float around its nucleus as a
wave form like a tiny water dropletts of clouds in the sky. However,
the standard text says that kinetic energy of orbital electron can be
in balance with its potential energy by nuclear attraction, We find
also in the Shroedinger's equation that kinetic energy plus potential
energy equals constant.

However, in order for one to be possible to find the electron forming a
three dimensional, spharical cloud with the same probability, the
electron has to move at a few thousand times of greater speed than that
of Bohr's orbital electron forming a two dimentional ring orbit.

If so, it is impossible to balance between its kinetic and potential
energy. It is a plain science, it is a basic mistake to apply the
probability mathematics in explaining the orbital electron forming a
three dimensional spherical cloud. Because it is out of science.

Based on the Book, "Natural Science Founded on A New Atomic Model", by
Dr. Hansik Yoon (www.yoonsatom.net)


Try to get this book

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

It's the most complete advanced layman book of Quantum
Mechanics which gives the history, mathematical derivations
of every equations from Planck to Schrodinger/Born. You
can clearly see inside that probability law is the norm
in QM.. something Dr. Yoon missed.

Try to be familiar first with convensional concept before
you attack them.

p6

Dr. Hansik Yoon defines that light emission by its source and
propagation through empty space is an equilibrating process of energy
produced by oscillatory electrons in its source.

So the energy of electromagnetic wave flows not only along the
direction the wave proceeds but also the direction in perpendicular to
its proceeding direction when its wave front is destroyed by some
shields. Thus a wave front sliced by atomic nuclei in material system
constructs numerous micro spherical waves.

Light pencils packed in spherical waves bend roundly with respective
curvatures which increase depending on their deviation form the center
light pencil that has a straight pathway, as they propagate through the
space. However, all the distance of their curved pathways are exactly
the same as that of straight pathway because the speed of light is the
same and constant.

Human eye cannot sense the curved pathway of the light, but only the
straight distance projected on the center light pencil. Denser the
nuclei and the shorter the wavelength the greater the curvature of
bending light pencil.

This is directly connected to the fact that speed of light does not
change even in material system, and explains elegantly how light coming
out from material system returns to its original pathway, which was
impossible to explain with current optical science.

Thus Dr. Hansik Yoon asserts that light refraction does not take place
due to speed difference of light in different material systems with
different density, but because of the reason; the atomic nuclei in mass
system subdivides incoming light wave front into numerous micro beams
which develope into spherical waves to build a refractive light due
their constructive interference at the interface of two material
systems.

With this simple principle applied to explain light refraction, Dr.
Yoon explains also light diffraction, as well as the mechanism of
separating white light into its component mono-chromic lights by
diffraction gratings, in his book, "Natural Science Founded on A New
atomic Model".(www.yoonsatom.net)

He also shows a number of schematical demonstration of light
refraction, utilizing transparent plastic films upon which a large
number of concentric half circles is drawn, representing sequential
wave phases. Superimposing them and sliding one of them with the way of
his suggestion, it shows the schematic light refraction.

And Dr. Yoon concludes that light refraction can take place even in the
vacant space if the light wave is sliced by atomic nuclei such as those
contained in the solar wind.

This fact disproves Einstein's assertion, star light behind the sun
bending at near the sun is due to the solar gravitation, and its red
shift is due to losing its energy in order to escape from the solar
gravitational field. However, these are all fairy stories!

The real fact is that the solar wind containing nuclear particles make
the star light bend, and its red-shift is due to the reason, the
nuclear particles in the solar wind travel for the earth along the same
direction as that of star light travels.

Solar gravitation attracts the star light passing nearby the sun?
Stephan hawking's Black hole absorbs lights passing nearby? Star light
turns out to lose energy and being red-shifted due to solar
gravitation? false! False! How are so miserable your QM men. You were
really hopelessly toyed by Dr. Einstein during the last century!

newedana

Based on Dr. Hansik Yoon's new physics, "Natural Science Founded on A
New Atomic Model". (www.yoonsatom.net)

in article , newedana
at wrote on 8/11/05 9:20 PM:

SNIP

How are so miserable your QM men. You were
really hopelessly toyed by Dr. Einstein during the last century!

newedana

Based on Dr. Hansik Yoon's new physics, "Natural Science Founded on A
New Atomic Model". (www.yoonsatom.net)


If your argument isn't good enough to refute your opponent's argumment,
attack your opponent instead. Old debating trick.

"The Smart Model"
( An Alternative Atomic Model....)

http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/