New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model

Charlie wrote:
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.

It does. Here is the calculation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node34.html

Quote: "Thus, the radiation emitted by a highly relativistic charge is
focused into an intense beam of angular extent $1/\gamma$ pointing in
the instantaneous direction of motion."

*In* the direction of motion. *Not* opposite to it!

If someone wants to quibble that this is merely a calculation, then a
small hint: synchrotron radiation has been known and studied for
decades now. It is routinely used at lots of accelerators facilities
for lots of purposes. Its characteristics are very well studied.


Then the foundation of his model is shattered and the rest of the
book fall apart.

Indeed. And that's by *far* not the only trouble with his model.


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.

And that's complete utter nonsense, contradicted by the experimental
evidence.


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.

I'm not sure if it's really "Newtonian". Looks more like a weird
way of interpreting Faraday's ideas.


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.

Prove this to me, please.

(oh, BTW, as I suspected: you are indeed Cinquirer/Qion/etc.)

[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

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?

They are not understandable with nice pretty pictures and without
math. So many people don't like them.


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Charlie wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

[snip]

It does. Here is the calculation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/t=ADeaching/jk1/lectures/node34.ht=ADml

Quote: "Thus, the radiation emitted by a highly relativistic charge is

focused into an intense beam of angular extent $1/\gamma$ pointing in
the instantaneous direction of motion."

*In* the direction of motion. *Not* opposite to it!

If someone wants to quibble that this is merely a calculation, then a
small hint: synchrotron radiation has been known and studied for
decades now. It is routinely used at lots of accelerators facilities
for lots of purposes. Its characteristics are very well studied.

[snip]

IF you are talking about Yoon's atomic model (not Charlie's), and IF
the evidence you provided is correct, then your evidence STRONGLY
SUPPORT Yoon's atomic model (or specifically Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1,
Excerpt, www.yoonsatom.net) rather than contradict it.

Why?
If you look at Fig. 1-4-1, the electric force fluxes "in" the moving
direction (in other words, in front side) is denser (or narrower
spacing) than the opposite direction(in rear side), which means the
electric force is more forceful in front side than that in rear side.
(The angular extent calculated by the evidence you provided, 1/gamma,
might give quantitative measure of Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1, IF your evidence
is correct.)

If you know high school physics, you can understand that.
It seems beyond your ability for you to understand the synchrotron
radiation or Yoon's theory, either.

Learn high school physics first, idiot Bye Bjoern.

You didn't read whole arguments newedana said. Do you belive that the
lightest elements such as hydrogen, deuterium and helium atom can
gather to a place without compressing them? If you belives so how do
you explain the decrement of entrophy, and a baloon filled with such
gases turns out to explode at high altitude of the air phase? How can
the sun collect such cosmic gases from the space for fuel of its
nuclear fusion? Don't believe blindly the ridiculous assumptions of
pioneer of physics, particularly the particle physicists. newedana says
to Bjoen Feuerbacher

Waldo Graham wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:


Charlie wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:


[snip]


It does. Here is the calculation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/t*eaching/jk1/lectures/node34.ht*ml

Quote: "Thus, the radiation emitted by a highly relativistic charge is
focused into an intense beam of angular extent $1/\gamma$ pointing in
the instantaneous direction of motion."


*In* the direction of motion. *Not* opposite to it!


If someone wants to quibble that this is merely a calculation, then a
small hint: synchrotron radiation has been known and studied for
decades now. It is routinely used at lots of accelerators facilities
for lots of purposes. Its characteristics are very well studied.


[snip]

IF you are talking about Yoon's atomic model (not Charlie's), and IF
the evidence you provided is correct,

Do you have any reason to doubt that?


then your evidence STRONGLY
SUPPORT Yoon's atomic model (or specifically Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1,
Excerpt, www.yoonsatom.net) rather than contradict it.

Why?
If you look at Fig. 1-4-1, the electric force fluxes

*sigh* Field lines.


"in" the moving
direction (in other words, in front side) is denser (or narrower
spacing) than the opposite direction(in rear side), which means the
electric force is more forceful in front side than that in rear side.

But synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with "the electric force
is more forceful in front side". Thanks for showing that you did not
understand a word of that webpage.


(The angular extent calculated by the evidence you provided, 1/gamma,
might give quantitative measure of Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1, IF your evidence
is correct.)

The angular extent was given for something completely different than any
angle shown in Fig. 1-4-1.

Get an education.



If you know high school physics, you can understand that.

I think even someone knowing high school physics could see the errors
in your reasing.


It seems beyond your ability for you to understand the synchrotron
radiation or Yoon's theory, either.

Why do you think so?



Learn high school physics first, idiot

Do the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" say anything to you?


Bye,
Bjoern

So mathematics is childish and primitive?
So Einstein invented all that stuff merely in order to cheat people?
He was a fraud?

Mathematics is very very honest so garbage in garbage out, and not
primitive and childish, but user's way of thinking for these two
physical events was chilish and primitive.

Yes! But I dont think he intended to cheat people, but unfortunately
he resulted to cheat people with his childish idea. Dr,Yoon said in his
book it is not only these two case but also all the other principles
established by him are froudulent! newedana says to Bjoen Feurbacher

When a charge is at rest numerous electric force fluxes emerged from
it stretche in straight in radial symmetric around it, inducing no
magnetism. However if it moves rapidly these electric force fluxes
being shifed behind it and being polarized to induce magnetic force
fluxes.It is because there is a time lag between the moving speed of
charge and its electric force fluxes.( Do you want evidence?
Electromagnetic wave is built with modulated electric and magnetic
force fluxes forming wave phases, right? There exists evidently a time
lag between the oscillatory speed of electron and moving speed of
electromagnetic force fluxes it emits.) The faster the speed of moving
charge the smaller the solid angle made between individual force
fluxes, and finally turn out to make parallel orientation when the
charge attains at utmost speed. Such is the case electrons build a
persistent current. Upon these polarized electric force fluxes magnetic
force fluxes are induced and wrap them from outside. Thus these two
forces are in balance in relation with the moving speed of charge. This
is all written in Dr.Yoon's book. Don't compare his electric force
fluxes with Commet tail.
newedana says to charlie

In article .com,
"newedana" wrote:
So mathematics is childish and primitive?
So Einstein invented all that stuff merely in order to cheat people?
He was a fraud?

Mathematics is very very honest so garbage in garbage out, and not
primitive and childish, but user's way of thinking for these two
physical events was chilish and primitive.

Yes! But I dont think he intended to cheat people, but unfortunately
he resulted to cheat people with his childish idea. Dr,Yoon said in his
book it is not only these two case but also all the other principles
established by him are froudulent! newedana says to Bjoen Feurbacher


Yeah, sure. Now this blowhard is elevating himself over Einstein? Has he
no shame?

Waldo Graham wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Charlie wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

[snip]

It does. Here is the calculation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/t=ADeaching/jk1/lectures/node34.ht=ADml

Quote: "Thus, the radiation emitted by a highly relativistic charge
is

focused into an intense beam of angular extent $1/\gamma$ pointing
in
the instantaneous direction of motion."

*In* the direction of motion. *Not* opposite to it!

If someone wants to quibble that this is merely a calculation, then
a
small hint: synchrotron radiation has been known and studied for
decades now. It is routinely used at lots of accelerators facilities
for lots of purposes. Its characteristics are very well studied.

[snip]

IF you are talking about Yoon's atomic model (not Charlie's), and IF
the evidence you provided is correct, then your evidence STRONGLY
SUPPORT Yoon's atomic model (or specifically Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1,
Excerpt, www.yoonsatom.net) rather than contradict it.

Why?
If you look at Fig. 1-4-1, the electric force fluxes "in" the moving
direction (in other words, in front side) is denser (or narrower
spacing) than the opposite direction(in rear side), which means the
electric force is more forceful in front side than that in rear side.
(The angular extent calculated by the evidence you provided, 1/gamma,
might give quantitative measure of Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1, IF your
evidence
is correct.)

If you know high school physics, you can understand that.
It seems beyond your ability for you to understand the synchrotron
radiation or Yoon's theory, either.

Learn high school physics first, idiot Bye Bjoern.

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

Waldo. In figure 1.4.1.b The field lines or force fluxes
(as Yoon called it) is not completely behind it because
the electron is moving in slow speed. But in very fast
speed such as 0.7C (or relativistic speed), Dr. Yoon
claimed the force fluxes is almost parallel (as shown in
the bottom of the web site above). This means,
there is no more electric field in 75% of the surrounding
of the electron as all the field is behind it just like Halley's
Comet. Now in synchrotron physics lab. It is claimed
that at relativistic speed, the shape of the electric field is
prolate spheroid. Now we have to find empirical
evidence for this claim. If the lab is correct, then
Yoon is wrong.

I'm just interested in Yoon stuff to get ideas of alternative
electron dynamics that can explain the same data as well
see how creative a guy could get to explain everything without
QM and Relativity. And how ridiculous things would become
before the qm-relativity less model breaks down.

Ch.

newedana wrote:
You didn't read whole arguments newedana said.

It contained no quantitative description and no evidence. Merely
unsupported assertions and word salad. As usual.


Do you belive that the
lightest elements such as hydrogen, deuterium and helium atom can
gather to a place without compressing them?

If there is enough of them, gravity will do the job.


If you belives so how do
you explain the decrement of entrophy,

If gravity draws them to each other, entropy does not decrease. Do the
math.


and a baloon filled with such
gases turns out to explode at high altitude of the air phase?

Try to understand pressure.


How can
the sun collect such cosmic gases from the space for fuel of its
nuclear fusion?

The sun doesn't collect cosmic gases for fusion. Where did you get
that strange idea from?

The sun contained the gases which now undergo fusion right from its birth!


Don't believe blindly the ridiculous assumptions of
pioneer of physics,

Like Dr. Yoon.


particularly the particle physicists.

I don't blindly believe particle physicists. I look at the data they
provide, and compare them with the theoretical predictions.

When will Dr. Yoon start doing that?


Bye,
Bjoern