New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model

In article . com,
"Waldo Tall" wrote:
wrote:
uhmmm, why has this guy only published two papers in his entire
academic career? how is it that someone (Yoon) who lacks experience
and
has made only a miniscule contribution to science suddenly comes up
with an answer to everything (though only according to him because of
his crankiness)


How many tons of papers did you waste for your academic contribution,
bryant_j_j?

According to Dr. Yoon's resume, he worked almost 30 years at the top
Korean research center and retired as a chair scientist, and the Korean
version of Yoon's book was known to public since 1999. What's your
experience?

1. Anybody can make up a resume.
2. Yoon is full of crap.
3. What's your scientific background?


Suddenly? Only to you. The world is changing very rapidly. Don't you
know that?

In article .com,
"Waldo Tall" wrote:
wrote:
uhmmm, why has this guy only published two papers in his entire
academic career? how is it that someone (Yoon) who lacks experience
and
has made only a miniscule contribution to science suddenly comes up
with an answer to everything (though only according to him because of
his crankiness)


How many tons of papers did you waste for your academic contribution,
bryant_j_j?

According to Dr. Yoon's resume, he worked almost 30 years at the top
Korean research center and retired as a chair scientist, and the Korean
version of Yoon's book was known to public since 1999. What's your
experience?

Suddenly? Only to you. The world is changing very rapidly. Don't you
know that?


Gee, you discovered cut and paste. Maybe you'll discover science next.

newedana wrote:
newedana wrote:

This is a recap of messages posted at other threads (such as 'Wave as
Wave, Particle as Particl' 4 May 2005, and 'Yoonatom vs Standard
Model'. 14 May 2005):

Bohr's atomic model and other primitive models like Quantum oscillator

You have still not explained what's primitive about them.


were established before the discovery of neutron in 1934.

Yes. So what???


These atomic
models are imperfect and incorrect even in explaining hydrogen spectrum

Bohr's atomic model is long outdated, and the quantum oscillator is
not a model for hydrogen. So where exactly is the problem? The *real*
models used for the hydrogen atom (by applying the Schroedinger or,
even better, the Dirac equation, or QED) work quite nicely, and agree
with the observations to very good accuracy.


in addition to their numerous fallacies.

You have presented no evidence so far that they contain even one
single fallacy.



However, the hydrogen spectrum can be more scientifically analyzed by
Dr. Yoon's physics. The wavelength of all 6 sets of hydrogen spectra,
Humprey, Pfund, Brackett, Ritz-Paschen, Balmer, and Lyman, calculated
by Dr. Hansik Yoon's formula surprisingly coincided with the
experimentally observed ones.

Because what he uses is essentially simply the Balmer formula!

That reproduces the *main* features of the spectrum, obviously!

But what Yoon totally fails to explain and ignores are the finer
details, like the fine structure, the hyperfine structure, the Lamb
shift, the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the Zeeman effect,
the Stark effect, etc.

OTOH, standard physics addresses and explains all these effects.



Of course, Dr. Yoon didn't use such unscientific models as QM or
relativity in this calculation.

What is unscientific about those?


Moreover, his formula estimated
(predicted) other wavelengths not yet observed up to the time.

Hydrogen has been studied for at least 100 years now. The probability
that there are spectral lines which have somehow been overlooked in
all that time is virtually non-existent. Hence if Yoon's model
predicts that such additional lines should exist, that nicely
disproves his model.


For example, in the case of Ritz-Paschen series, the estimated wavelengths
were 8201.40 Angstrom,... 8860.40, 9012.5, 9226.6, 9545.97(*),
10049.4(*), 10938.1(*), 12818.1(*), etc. Here, wavelengths with (*)
symbol have been experimentally observed up to the time. In the case of
Lyman series, 911.269A,... 926.226(*), 930.748(*), 937.803(*),
949.743(*), 972.537(*), 1025.722(*), 1215.668(*).

If someone already observed the wavelengths without (*) symbol, try
to observe the Pfund series, 22781.2A, ... 28714.5, 3.375.6,
32952.1, 37385.4, 46525.1(*), 74578.0(*) etc.


All these additional lines lie in spectral regions which can be easily
observed, and have been studied for about 100 years. They don't exist.
Yoon's model is wrong. Live with it.




According to Dr. Yoon's theory on
the hydrogen spectrum, for Lyman series the bombarding electrons

What bombarding electrons???


[snip more gibberish]



Atomic energy has nothing to do with the stupid equation, E=mc^2.

What is stupid about this equation? And how do you explain that it
*works*?


Dr. Yoon starts to build the equation of hydrogen spectrum from
differential equation of torsional mass oscillation, since orbital
electron ring is elastically connected to its nucleus, and perform a
precessional oscillation around its nucleus.

And how does the manage to get the Rydberg frequency?


He applies the classical
rule of one string vibration instead of quantizing electron energy.

I already told you that there is a strong analogy between the two!


[snip]


He does not accept the spin motion

How often do we need to tell you that spin has nothing to do with motion?


because this motion is imaginary
mathematical motion and invented for Pauli's exclusion principle.

How often do we have to tell you that these claims are nonsense?


Instead he takes account one or two electrons in an electron ring
sitting opposite side,

Why should only two fit into there?


and exert Meissoner's magnetism

How often do I need to tell you that the name is Meissner?


with definite
directionality by revolving the same direction, so the revolving
directionality determines the direction of Meissoner's magnetism. He
does not use e=h nu, the basic equation of QM theory.

That is *not* the basic equation of QM!

Anyway, how does he explain the photo effect without that equation? Or
the Compton effect? Or blackbody radiation?


Dr. Yoon also proves that the light is not a flow of photons in his
work.

Don't confuse "assert" with "prove".



Bye,
Bjoern
#

Waldo Tall wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article .com,


[snip]


Liar.

Idiot.
You're an idiot. Please seek professional help.



What else do you know except "Liar" or "fool", idiot, Lloyd Parker?

For example, he knows that QM works, and that newedana sets up a lot
of silly strawmen.


Then how on earth you could understand Yoon's theory? You better learn
more words, first.

Does "Pot. Kettle. Black." say anything to you?


Dr. Yoon's theory seems to explain physics logically in his way.

ROTFL LOL BITC!


However, your rebuttal is only to shout "Liar", "Idiot"...

Liar. For example, he also wrote "Which is why we now have things like
QM, which work." And he is 100% right and on the point on that.


Where did
you learn? From your obsolete QM book?

Why do you call something that works so well obsolte?


[snip more ranting]


Next time, you better say why other person's opinions are wrong with
scientific data

Data was provided. Lots of times. Newedana simply ignores it.


rather than just shouting or crying like a baby.
(Unfortunately, you seems not to have any your own view.) If not, many
people think you are a dumb or dumber or both. Keep in mind. It's good
for you.

I for one don't think he is dumb. It's quite clear who the dumb one
here is.


The world is changing very rapidly except QM and relativity, and you.

Why should one change theories which work so succesfully?


Bye,
Bjoern

Waldo Tall wrote:
wrote:

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?



Who knows that Yoon's theory will be turned out to be fantastic and
cool theory? We don't know the whole picture, yet.

For starters, Yoon's theory predicts spectral lines for hydrogen which
don't exist. Bad for him.


Bye,
Bjoern

uhmmm, why has this guy only published two papers in his entire
academic career? how is it that someone (Yoon) who lacks experience and

has made only a miniscule contribution to science suddenly comes up
with an answer to everything (though only according to him because of
his crankiness)


I know James Watson wrote a paper concerned to DNA double helix in Nature in 1953, which had only one page that corresponded less than 1/3 of the space of the present Nature. He wrote that paper during his one year stay as a guest scientist at Kings College in U. K. With this single little paper he received Nobel Medical Price 1n 1962. After he published this paper in Nature in 1953, no more technical papers, but wrote a voluminous textbook of bio-chemistry. I think Dr. Yoon is the same case. After publishing his paper in nature in 1987 it seems he began to write a textbook of natural science. His two papers published in Nature vol 326 and the others in MRS, Symposium Proceedings, vol.174 are really monumental works in the history of natural science, particularly in the field of fiber science and bio-science. I am sure any fiber scientist and biological scientist should read these two papers, otherwise all of their work would be remained obsolete. I find extention of these two papers is pricisely discribed in his textbook( www.yoonsatom.net)Newedana

you are the only one claiming his work is important, right? does
anybody else out there think so? c'mon don't compare you to Watson. his
work is widely recognized, even to people outside his area. what about
Yoon? he is unknown, even to people in biochemistry or whatever area he
specializes in (if any)..... and Watson may have written a voluminous
textbook, but he didn't set out to change the whole subject and do it
alone like some kind of mad scientist, like Yoon. that's why Watson is
a nobel prize winner while Yoon is a crank with a capita l c.

say Newedana, you aren't Yoon are ya?

it is sudden and Yoon is a crank. maybe you are as well.

What bombarding electrons???

In order to get hydrogen spectrum in a usual way is to bombard orbital ele=
ctrons of hydrogen atoms with external electrons accelerated.

And how does the manage to get the Rydberg frequency?

Niels Bohr obtained Rydberg frequency theoretically based on his atomic mo=
del very precisely, but it is quite natural since Planck's constant h is or=
iginally estimated from observed Rydberg frequency, and ionizing energy E i=
s artificially modulated to be, E=3D hc=CE=BD=3D2.18x10^-18 J, where h: Pla=
nck constant, c: speed of light, =CE=BD: Rydberg frequency. Don't be cheate=
d so nicely!

already told you that there is a strong analogy between the two!

Balmer equation is an empirically built equation, but Dr.Yoon's equation i=
s theoretically deduced one, based on the energy of orbital electron ring, =
E=3DE1 + E2, E: total energy, E1: energy for maintaining atomic structure, =
or circling energy of orbital electron around its nucleus keeping its radiu=
s constant until its energy capacity is saturated, E2: precessing energy by=
absorbing external radiation, which is extractable as radiations. In quant=
um atomic physics, as you may know, the energy of orbital electron is E=3D(=
1/2+n)hv, in which 1/2h=CE=BD is to maintain atomic structure,which is nice=
ly modulated by handwaving, while nh=CE=BD is extractable energy. How primi=
tive is this equation?


Anyway, how does he explain the photo effect without that equation? Or
the Compton effect? Or blackbody radiation?

I posted previously the Dr.Yoon's interpretation for Comton Effect with hi=
s different principle.

Atomic energy has nothing to do with the stupid equation, E=3Dmc^2.

What is stupid about this equation? And how do you explain that it
*works*?

Dr.Yoon's equation explaining hydrogen spectrum can explain also the energ=
y source of atomic nuclear fission and fusion. He ridicules the stupid equa=
tion, E=3D h=CE=BD as well as A. Einstein's E=3Dmc^2
The energy of one string vibration changes in proportional to its
frequency square. So his energy equation of electron rings emitting
hydrogen spectrum is, =E2=96=B3E=3DE'[1/r^2 -1/(r+n)^2]^2. E': energy of
electron ring emitting Humpry series. When n=3Dinfinite, =E2=96=B3E=3DE'(1/=
r^4).
The explosive TNT is a compound with three -NO2 on toluene molecules.
These radicals are bound by their outermost electron rings by their
expansion of a little bit. However, suppose that uranium atoms with
atomic volume 12.5 turn into two Pb(lead) atoms with atomic volume
18.3. All of their 46 electron rings in K, L, M,. . . . . shells have
to redistribute over newly created two Pb atoms by expanding their
radii all at once, when there occurs the atomic fission of uranium 235.
But their radial expansion is not so remarkable since energy of
orbital electron ring is inversely proportional to 4 powers of radius.
Nevertheless an enormous energy emission takes place there. It is the
source of atomic fission energy. Newedana wrote

hi there Hansik Yoon, unrepentant crank.........