New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model

In article .com,
"newedana" wrote:
Your quantum physicists do not know in reality how can the orbital
electron of atoms generate electromagnetic waves with wavelengths
ranging from gammer rays to microwaves. You better read Dr.Yoon's text.

You're an idiot. A blooming idiot.

You will find how beautifully he could explain the mechanism of
generating such electromaghetic waves with a variety of wavelengths by
atoms. The mechanism is exactly the same as that of generating radio
waves with a RC resonant circuit. Perhaps you will find that how
scientific is his explanation. You admit that gammer rays, x-rays, Uv,
visible lights infrared, micro waves and radio waves are all included
in the same family of electromagnetic energy waves. So they should have
the same mechanism of generating them by orbital electrons, right? Then
have you ever heard such a science decribing the mechanism of
generating a variety of electromagnetic wave by atoms? But, perhaps you
may have no doubt, microwaves constructing proton NMR( nuclear magnetic
resonance) spectrum are generated by protons magnetically resonated by
field magnetism, because QM theory says so. But according to Dr. Yoon's
science it is a big mistate! I am sure you would say, how on earth did
Yoon manage to obtain a PhD. He apparenty knows less than many layman
crackpots. However Dr. Yoon says in his book, quantum mechanical
interpretation of emitting NMR is one of the biggest lie in the history
of human science. The signal of NMR spectrum has nothing to do with
proton's magnetic resonance. It also comes from the orbital electron
ring of hydrogen atom. QM physicists are quite ignorant as to the
dimension of proton, compared with a hydrogen atom. It has merely
1/10^15 of hydrogen atom. Do you know how large is the dimension of
microwave's wavelength? It is 0,1mm to 10 dm. really huge compared to
the dimension of proton. In the standard text, hydrogen atom can
generate electromagnetic waves with wavlength of maximum 1,23 micron.
So such a tiny sized proton can never generate microwaves with such a
huge wavelengths. It appears that the quantum mechanists could say this
kind of big lie during the last 20th century, because they are
completely ignorant for the mechanism of generating electromagnetic
waves by atoms, and even for radio waves generated by RC resonant
circuits. I find in his book it is explaind very scientifically the
mechanism of emitting and absorbing microwaves by electron rings of
hydrogen atoms involved in test chemicals, with the aid of field
magnetism, which construct so called NMR spectrum. newedana says to
Bjoen Feuerbacher


Dr. Yoon is a quack.

newedana wrote:

Could you *please* try to get your attributions correct?


How does Dr. Yoon explain the photo effect and the Compton effect?



That is why I recommended you to read Dr.Yoon's book.

I already told you under what conditions I'll look at it.


Dr. Yoon treated with these two monumental works in his book, but he
explained them with his own principles set up without any postulations,
and entirely different from current one,

Does he present mere qualitative, vague handwavings, or actual
*quantitative* descriptions?



saying that readers would be
able to find, how A. Einstein and Compton's explanations for these
physical events are so childish and primitive.

Wow. Insulting two of the greatest known scientists (and essentially
hundreds of thousands of physicists along with them, because they
agree with these explanations) is really a good start when one wants
to propose an alternative explanation.

Tell me, what is "childish" and "primitive" about wave-particle dualism?


Only mathematicians who
do not know what is natural science can do such interpretations,

So mathematics is childish and primitive?

And why does Dr. Yoon think he can judge better than Einstein what
natural science is, and what it isn't?


in order to cheat people in the name of mathematical justification.

So Einstein invented all that stuff merely in order to cheat people?
He was a fraud? Wow. Dr. Yoon really is full of himself.


It signifies that mathematical measurement

What is a "mathematical measurement"?


is not so valuable than true
understanding things qualitatively.

Why does Dr. Yoon think that qualitative handwavings are more valuable
than quantitative scientific descriptions? For starters, with
qualitative handwavings, one can't construct technology.


newedana says to Bjoern Feuerbacher

Yet again displaying his ignorance of science. Yet again refusing to
answer most of my questions. Yet again ignoring most of my arguments.



Bye,
Bjoern

Claims based on stupidity of its author cannot be disputed. Nothing
will convince an idiot.

muha wrote:
Claims based on stupidity of its author cannot be disputed. Nothing
will convince an idiot.

Well, Dr. Yoon *has* obtained somehow a doctorate, so I've still got
some hope that he is *not* a total idiot.

Unfortunately, he is not here himself for debate. And the intelligence
and knowledge level of his disciple "newedana" seems to be quite low...


Bye,
Bjoern

Newedena,

Dr. Yoon doesn't believe in quantum mechanics nor relativity. Does he
believe in the Aether??

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...tronfluxes.jpg

Notice that he begins his book by mentioning about electron force
fluxes (or electric field lines) as being like a thing just like a high
speed boat moving across water producing water waves. In his model.
The tails produced intensive magnetic field allegedly explaining all
the
data of experiments. He didn't explain why the force fluxes are
the way he believed them to be. Could he be following the Aether
concept?? In which case, the electric field lines (or force fluxes)
are disturbances in the aether caused by the particle. He mentions
about the waves of moving electrons producing interferences. I haven't
gotten the book as it's just too costly at $180 (maybe you can
convince him to lower it to $25. I wonder how many here actually
bought the book..


Ch.

Where does the earth's heat come from?
habshi - Apr 24, 2:27 pm
How much comes from the sun and how much from the internal radioactive
sources ? If the latter is the major part could it be the reason Venus
is so hot ?
read more =BB 5 new of 10 messages - 8 authors

I like to suggest to all of you to refer the newadenas reply for above
question, "Where does the earth's heat come from? Dr.Yoon denys ont
only A. Einstein but also Bethe's thought. The energy source of the sun
is not the nuclear fusion of deuterium or hydrogen atoms distributed in
the cosmic space, as people today believes, but is the fusion of bare
deuterons coexisting in the neutron mass building the core phase of the
sun. Deuteron is made possible by coupling a neutron and a proton
produced by beta-decay of neutron. The electro ring of hydrogen atom
shrinks to be the nearest to its nucleus due to absorption of energy,
and it makes its proton be a neutron. It is called nuclear electron
ring which can bind two protons to be a proton and a neutron; while
electron locates over a proton it makes a neutron. Thus the oscillatory
frequency changing between proton and neutron is enormous. This binding
force is nothing else than the nuclear strong force. As you may know in
the case of hydrogen bomb, deuterium atoms are combined to lithium as a
solid metal halide. So the nuclear fusion between deuterons is made
possible in such an ultra critical environment given by explosion of
atomic bomb. So that Dr.Yoon overlooks that the controllable hot
nuclear fusion experiment led by main stream physicists is not so
promising, because the energy required in preparing such an ultra
environment of unclear fusion is enormous, surpassing the out put
energy by nuclear fusion. And the container material to keep the fusion
environment is a real problem. However, cold nuclear fusion is
promising if scientists today abandon the statistical concept over the
scientific phenomena. Number of experimental evidences for a possiblity
of cold nuclear fusion were reported, and energy division of fedral
government in the USA is reviewing the possibility of cold nuclear
fusion. Another revolutionay suggestion to be taken account by particle
physicists is in Dr.Yoon's book which was introduced by newedana that
will be found in the same google topics, sci.physics; Why alloys have
lowerer melting points than any of component pure metals? Can you
calculate the reason with QM theory? Can you explain why uranium atom
has lesser volume, 12.5, than that of hydrogen atom, 14.1, with QM
calculation?

Michael Faraday thought that electric charge emanates electric force
fluxes in radial symmetric around it, and these force fluxes have
shrinking elasticity. That is why the charge can attract light
substances. This is clearly described in the book with a title 'a
History of the Science' by Stephen F. Mason, published by Macmillan
Publishing Co. You can confirm this. He was really the greatest
physicist in the history. But contemporsry main stream physicists
disregarded him because Faraday was a chemist at the start of his
research life. Perhaps you have learned high school physics. You open
your old text and look again the map of electric force fluxes made
between two counter charges. Dr.Yoon and Michael Faraday thought that
these electric force fluxes are emanated from the charge and they can
move with the moving charge. But your particle physicists thought them
as force lines, and electric attraction between light thigs and counter
charges can occur without any mechanism. Thus your mathematical
physicists established the electric field theory, E=e1 +e2 + e3....+en.
But this field theory is faudulent, since these electric force fluxes
moves with the charge and can shift behind the charge, due to a time
lag between their motion and charge. That is why moving electrons
forming a persistent current in a superconductor never makes their
electric field in the direction perpendicular to its moving path. These
elastic force fluxes make electrons perform a longitudinal oscillation,
which can generate an electromagnetic wave. Charged particles or
electrons can never travel by inertial motion in vacant space, because
the eletric force fluxes emanated from them makes them to emit
radiation energy. It is energy dumping behavior of moving charge when
accelerated. Thus A. Einstein's theory, difficulty of accelerating
charged particle at near the speed of light, is not due to increase of
its absolute mass, but is due to energy dumping behavior of charged
particles when accelerated.

newedana wrote:

[snip]

I like to suggest to all of you to refer the newadenas reply for above
question, "Where does the earth's heat come from? Dr.Yoon denys ont
only A. Einstein but also Bethe's thought. The energy source of the sun
is not the nuclear fusion of deuterium or hydrogen atoms distributed in
the cosmic space, as people today believes,

How strongly does Dr. Yoon want to demonstrate that he is an ignorant
idiot who doesn't care for evidence?

Every single observation made of the sun so far is consistent with the
idea of nuclear fusion going on in it, including the neutrino
observations of SNO. How does Dr. Yoon explain this ugly fact?


but is the fusion of bare
deuterons coexisting in the neutron mass building the core phase of the
sun.

He is free to explain the observations (quantitatively!) based on that
idea.


[snip more nonsense]


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
newedana wrote:

But this field theory is faudulent, since these electric force
fluxes
moves with the charge

And why does this make the "field theory" "fraudulent"?


and can shift behind the charge,

Unsupported assertion, actually contradicted by the evidence. E.g.
synchrotron radiation shows precisely the *opposite*: the fields are
strongest *in front of* the charge, not behind it!

But you and Dr. Yoon don't care for inconvenient things like
observations which contradict you, right?

Newedana, if what Bjoern described that synchrotron radiation
shows precisely the opposite of what Dr. Yoon claimed. Then
the foundation of his model is shattered and the rest of the
book fall apart. Dr. Yoon primary claim is that a moving electron
is like a comet with the tails composing of the the electric
field lines or force fluxes (Yoon term) lagging behind the moving
charged particle. If synchrotron radiation stuff proves the
opposite. Then bid Yoonsatom model goodbye. Yoonsatom model is
another attempt to explain QM and Relativity the newtonian way.
But reality is far from newtonian and QM/Relativity may just
be the tip of the iceburg. To illustrate. I can concentrate
myself to be in your and Dr. Yoon room at night and if I will
hard enough. You can see me image of me as apparition. There is
nothing newtonian about this. And only a model that makes QM
and relativity as subset can explain it.

Dr. Yoon and Newedana. Try to challenge synchrotron radiation
thing and this is your only salvation to make yoonatom stand any
chance. Should you fail. Then admit defeat and start learning
real stuff. Reality is not queerer than you think, but more
queerer than you can possibly imagine.. as the familiar saying
goes.

Ch.

What's wrong with quantum mechanics and relativity that these well
tested, well established models be replaced with anything, let alone
Yoon's fanciful theory?

Dave