| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Syd" |
| Date: |
30 Apr 2005 09:05:20 AM |
| Object: |
Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
Standard model has long ago discarted the concept of
newtonianly orbiting electrons because the revolving
electron is said to radiate away its energy and collapse
into the nucleus. This led to the QM we have now where
the electrons movements are ruled by probability without
continuous designated movement or orbital. But Dr. Hansik
Yoon, a man with an IQ of 250 or so (note a genius has 200)
declared the electron electric field move behind it as the
electron moves at near light speed around the nucleus.
As a result, the intensive magnetic field induced in the
tail is able to repel the nucleus resulting in it not
falling to it. Dr. Yoon also mentions about the lowest
orbit having higher energy in contrast to standard
model which says the lowest orbital is the ground state
of the atom.
Before going to that. My primary question is, how does the intensive
magnetism of the electron actually repel the
nucleus causing stable continuous revolution. Aren't there instances
that it will cause attraction to the nucleus
instead of repulsion??
Anyone here with IQ as high as Dr. Yoon who could penetrate
his mind and explain it to us layman??
Syd
.
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
30 Apr 2005 01:05:33 PM |
|
|
"Syd" <fieldphoton99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114869920.200222.9240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
continuous designated movement or orbital. But Dr. Hansik
Yoon, a man with an IQ of 250 or so (note a genius has 200)
declared the electron electric field move behind it as the
Wow... can he take a day off of his physics miracles and solve world hunger,
bring peace to the middle east, eradicate all illness, win a land war in
asia, and calculate all prime numbers through all subsets of infinity. And
after lunch can he publish some pictures of tj frazir on his boat?
Anyone here with IQ as high as Dr. Yoon who could penetrate
his mind and explain it to us layman??
I don't think that the only other entities with such an IQ, God and Allah,
have the time to do it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
30 Apr 2005 01:06:32 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:NNPce.50152$hu5.47573@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"Syd" <fieldphoton99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114869920.200222.9240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
continuous designated movement or orbital. But Dr. Hansik
Yoon, a man with an IQ of 250 or so (note a genius has 200)
declared the electron electric field move behind it as the
Wow... can he take a day off of his physics miracles and solve world hunger,
bring peace to the middle east, eradicate all illness, win a land war in
asia, and calculate all prime numbers through all subsets of infinity. And
after lunch can he publish some pictures of tj frazir on his boat?
and can he finally convince the world that there is no God?
Anyone here with IQ as high as Dr. Yoon who could penetrate
his mind and explain it to us layman??
I don't think that the only other entities with such an IQ, God and Allah,
have the time to do it.
huh.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
30 Apr 2005 04:55:45 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:IOPce.77861$GG5.4979812@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Anyone here with IQ as high as Dr. Yoon who could penetrate
his mind and explain it to us layman??
I don't think that the only other entities with such an IQ, God and
Allah,
have the time to do it.
huh.
i was using sarcasm there.. heh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
01 May 2005 07:45:56 AM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:B9Tce.35294$h6.4507@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:IOPce.77861$GG5.4979812@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Anyone here with IQ as high as Dr. Yoon who could penetrate
his mind and explain it to us layman??
I don't think that the only other entities with such an IQ, God and
Allah,
have the time to do it.
huh.
i was using sarcasm there.. heh
Hah :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
30 Apr 2005 08:22:47 PM |
|
|
Syd wrote:
Anyone here with IQ as high as Dr. Yoon who could penetrate
his mind and explain it to us layman??
Syd
hey Syd/Q-on/A.S./Qion/What is Qi/Landle/Caltechdude/cinquirer you
unrepenting, silly, crank/crackpot. so your back again for more
discussion of crank theories? what happened to your reading of the
Feynman's lecture notes? you stopped already and decided to go back to
crank stuff? how do you come up with your weird nicks? how about using
the nick i_love_crackpots ? don't tell me you are not Qi-on since your
posting from the Phillipines.
why do you fall for cranks like Yoon, Thomson, etc so easily. is it
because you don't need maths to understand, that you don't need to do
much work? doesn't matter if they are correct or have been justified by
experiments right? Yoon's IQ, if he does have not that high, does not
make him anymore credible than any other physicist. if his theory is
not verifeid by experiment, then it's rubbish even if he is the
"smartest" guy on this planet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
30 Apr 2005 08:49:05 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Syd wrote:
Anyone here with IQ as high as Dr. Yoon who could penetrate
his mind and explain it to us layman??
Syd
hey Syd/Q-on/A.S./Qion/What is Qi/Landle/Caltechdude/cinquirer you
unrepenting, silly, crank/crackpot. so your back again for more
discussion of crank theories? what happened to your reading of the
Feynman's lecture notes? you stopped already and decided to go back
to
crank stuff? how do you come up with your weird nicks? how about
using
the nick i_love_crackpots ? don't tell me you are not Qi-on since
your
posting from the Phillipines.
why do you fall for cranks like Yoon, Thomson, etc so easily. is it
because you don't need maths to understand, that you don't need to do
much work? doesn't matter if they are correct or have been justified
by
experiments right? Yoon's IQ, if he does have not that high, does not
make him anymore credible than any other physicist. if his theory is
not verifeid by experiment, then it's rubbish even if he is the
"smartest" guy on this planet.
I post here every week. Maybe you are the one who is back. Anyway.
What's the matter with you. Something is wrong with the Standard
Model. It can't explain qi. Either it is not complete or it
is mostly wrong in conceptual basis. The cranks are creative. I'm
looking for one principle of them where when added to the Standard
Model can explain qi. So far I haven't found them.
As I analyzed each. I also debunked them afterwards as nonsense.
About Yoonatom. There is no solid proof that the shape of the
electric field of an electron is prolate spheroid (imagine a
circle thinned at the sides). If no one knows the real shape
of the electric field when the electron is accelerating. Then
the theory of Dr. Yoon that it lags behind forming some kind
of tail producing intensive magnetism should be studied until
proven wrong.
To under qi physics require very accurate 100% true model
that can stand scrutiny and unify General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics. Admit that there is a genuine search for it.
Anyway. I'm kinda tired and frustrated all the cranks don't
deliver. Analyzing Yoonatom and Polasek Dual Space would be
last. After this. I'd just hear out Witten M-Theory especially
when Uncle Al experiment produces null result and 80% of
M-theory is not wiped out.
If you want me to shut up. Then explain qi physics and prove it is
the true model.
About proving to you qi exists. I'm not nuts because once
done. I would lose many opportunities such as an exclusive
in Discovery channel, etc. as well as Randy's millions.
Common sense.
Nuff said. That is all there is to it. Next time you reply,
I won't answer. Just refer to this message as it answers your
questions and blind skeptisms.
Syd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
02 May 2005 04:29:34 AM |
|
|
In article <1114912145.698372.11790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Syd" <fieldphoton99@yahoo.com> wrote:
bryant_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Syd wrote:
Anyone here with IQ as high as Dr. Yoon who could penetrate
his mind and explain it to us layman??
Syd
hey Syd/Q-on/A.S./Qion/What is Qi/Landle/Caltechdude/cinquirer you
unrepenting, silly, crank/crackpot. so your back again for more
discussion of crank theories? what happened to your reading of the
Feynman's lecture notes? you stopped already and decided to go back
to
crank stuff? how do you come up with your weird nicks? how about
using
the nick i_love_crackpots ? don't tell me you are not Qi-on since
your
posting from the Phillipines.
why do you fall for cranks like Yoon, Thomson, etc so easily. is it
because you don't need maths to understand, that you don't need to do
much work? doesn't matter if they are correct or have been justified
by
experiments right? Yoon's IQ, if he does have not that high, does not
make him anymore credible than any other physicist. if his theory is
not verifeid by experiment, then it's rubbish even if he is the
"smartest" guy on this planet.
I post here every week. Maybe you are the one who is back. Anyway.
What's the matter with you. Something is wrong with the Standard
Model. It can't explain qi. Either it is not complete or it
is mostly wrong in conceptual basis. The cranks are creative. I'm
looking for one principle of them where when added to the Standard
Model can explain qi. So far I haven't found them.
As I analyzed each. I also debunked them afterwards as nonsense.
So where's your Nobel?
About Yoonatom. There is no solid proof that the shape of the
electric field of an electron is prolate spheroid (imagine a
circle thinned at the sides). If no one knows the real shape
of the electric field when the electron is accelerating. Then
the theory of Dr. Yoon that it lags behind forming some kind
of tail producing intensive magnetism should be studied until
proven wrong.
No, first it needs some data backing it up and then it needs to be c
coherent set of principles. It fails to be a theory on both counts.
To under qi physics require very accurate 100% true model
that can stand scrutiny and unify General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics. Admit that there is a genuine search for it.
Anyway. I'm kinda tired and frustrated all the cranks don't
deliver. Analyzing Yoonatom and Polasek Dual Space would be
last. After this. I'd just hear out Witten M-Theory especially
when Uncle Al experiment produces null result and 80% of
M-theory is not wiped out.
If you want me to shut up. Then explain qi physics and prove it is
the true model.
About proving to you qi exists. I'm not nuts because once
done. I would lose many opportunities such as an exclusive
in Discovery channel, etc. as well as Randy's millions.
Common sense.
Yeah, and Vulcans are going to give us warp drive.
Nuff said. That is all there is to it. Next time you reply,
I won't answer. Just refer to this message as it answers your
questions and blind skeptisms.
Syd
.
|
|
|
| User: "newedana" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
11 May 2005 04:28:53 PM |
|
|
Dr. Yoon's new physics describes a variety of physicochemical
phenomena occurring in material world without setting forth any
postulations or hypotheses, based on simple two basic principles,
existing already but hidden and neglected up to the present, owing to a
strong influence of particle physics. One principle is the Meissoner's
magnetism( discovered in 1911 by H. Kamerlingh Onnes et al) induced by
orbital persistent current ring building atomic structure and
molecules. This magnetism has a unique character not found in ordinary
magnetisms such as magnetisms exerted by permanent magnets or
solenoid-current system. The Meissoner's magnetic force fluxes the
Meissoner's magnetism attracts the orbital electron rings in atoms with
the same radial distance or resonant frequency, while repulse them with
different radii or different frequency( mechanism of forming crystals).
This Meissoner's magnetism is the binding force of atoms to build a
molecule, and governs not only all the chemical reactions, but also all
the physical characters of atom or molecules. The other principle is
energy problem. Energy does not exist as an independent entity forming
a corpuscular unit in the universe, as particle physicists believe
today. It is a continuous entity in character. So there does not exist
such a phenomenon changing in quantum jumps in material world. For
example, people today is wrongly taught, orbital electron can jump up
to another orbit with a higher energy level. It is a false story that
can persuade only children. Jumping motion means quick movement. Quick
movement does not need its moving path? Mass particle disappears
magically all of sudden and reappears at some wanted place? It appears
this idea originates to a dummy mathematician who has only
number-counting habits.
Dr. Yoon explains almost whole physicochemical phenomena occurring in
material world, with such a broad spectrum ranging from micro biology
to cosmology.
According to Dr.Yoon's New Physics based on his Universal Atomic
Model, if the sun contains pure neutron mass inside its core phase(
average density of solar material: 100g/ qubic cm), new nuclei of
element atoms are made possible. Beta-decay of neutrons produces
protons, electrons and energy, so the nearby neutrons can bind this
protons to make deuterons. These deuterons can be bound again to build
helium nuclei in the ultra super critical environment of the core phase
of the sun. Thus the energy emitted in this nuclear fusion process to
build helium and other heavier element atoms, is the energy source of
the sun and the other stars. In his physics, orbital electron of
hydrogen atom builds a persistent current ring around its nucleus,
which can shrink ultimately to be the nearest to its nucleus to make a
neutron, as it takes up energy, and this shrunk electron ring can bind
two protons to make a deuteron. He defines this binding force of
micro-persistent current ring is nothing else than the nuclear strong
force. It is noted that this mechanism of forming element nuclei and
emission of nuclear fusion energy does not conflict with the natural
law, since a number of neutron stars such as Vela-X was already
observed.
Then the question is how can the shrunk electron ring can be in stable
inside nucleus? Electron building beta-ray comes from nuclei of
radioactive atoms. So the answer is if orbital electron moves at the
highest speed to build a persistent current ring it cannot exert
electricity in the direction perpendicular to its moving path. That is
why uranium atom with 92 orbital electrons can have a lesser atomic
volume than hydrogen's.
Dr. Yoon built an equation possible to predict all 6 sets of hydrogen
spectrum, far more scientific and effective than Neil Bohr's model that
is primitive. he built the equation without quantizing the energy of
its orbital electron and the stupid equation, e=hf, which was thought
impossible to explain up to present.
In page 64~65 of Dr.Yoon's New Physics, "If we arrange these 6 sets
of hydrogen spectra on an energy scale based on their wavelengths, we
find an energy interval between each set of these spectral series, as
shown in Fig.5-5-1, and table 5-2 (a map of spectral series he
established). It signifies that there exists an energy gap(barrier)
between each set of spectra. The largest energy gap is found between
Lyman and Balmer series, the secondary larger gab is between Balmer and
Ritz-Paschen series and no energy gap between Ritz-Paschen and Brackett
series. After Brackett series, we find that their spectral series turn
out to overlap with one another, and the overlapping zone becomes
progressively broader and broader".
He explains for this finding that when the radius of orbital electron
ring expands to be out-size of emitting Ritz-Paschen and Brackett
series, it can take up electromagnetic radiations without frequency
choice. That is why the spectra emitted by these orbital electron rings
has like a continuous pattern, and any kind of mass bodies can takes up
heat radiation (IR zone)without wavelength choice. He explains further
that as the orbital electron ring shrinks to be shorter and shorter in
reverse, the energy gap increases to be greater as reciprocally in
proportional to 4 powers of its radius, and it takes up radiation
energy selectively by frequency choice. That is why orbital electron
ring becomes increasingly difficult to approach its nucleus. He assumed
that this energy barrier originates to the restructuring the texturized
electromagnetic force fluxes produced by orbital electron rings, as it
changes its orbital radius; the shorter the radius of electron ring the
greater the energy input for the restructuring its electromagnetic
force fluxes. When the shrunk orbital electron ring expands its radius
it has to emit reversely this energy it absorbed. This fact is closely
related with atomic fission and fusion energy. Atomic energy has
nothing to do with the stupid equation, E=mc^2.
Dr. Yoon believes particle physicists do not know what is natural
science. The evidence is that one of the most brilliant particle
physicist, Bethe thought that the nuclear fusion of cosmos gases such
as hydrogen, deuterium and helium is the energy source of stars.
However this idea is out of science! Despite that he could receive
Nobel Physics prize in 1967 for this incorrect idea. Why is his idea
out of science? First, this kind of the lightest element atoms cannot
gather automatically to a place, possible to be fed as a fuel of
nuclear fusion in stable. Because the repulsion between electrons
wrapping these element atoms or molecules is 4.17x10^41 times as great
as gravitational attraction between them if we calculate it with the
gravitation and Coulomb's laws. So this gathering action decreases
their entropy, which is against the thermodynamic third law. If you
release a balloon in the out-space filled with these gases, do they
reduce their volume or explode immediately breaking the balloon?
Second, the average density of solar material is about 100g/cubic cm,
so these lightest elements cannot penetrate and squeeze into the core
phase of the sun to be a fuel of nuclear fusion. Third, if these
materials are already in the core site, why there does not occur
explosive nuclear fusion? New Physics describes this fact.
Revolving electron is not an oscillatory motion, so it does not emit
energy, as though the earth revolving around the sun does not lose its
kinetic energy. Oscillation means the energy oscillation between two
forms of energies commutable, for example, between kinetic and
potential energy, or between electric and magnetic energy. Thus there
occurs no energy oscillation between its electric and magnetic energies
of revolving electron around its nucleus. As mentioned previously, Dr.
Yoon's electron ring never merges into its nucleus, because the energy
barrier between each step of its radial reduction increases
reciprocally in proportional to 4 powers of its radial parameter. Its
texturized electric and magnetic force fluxes (magnetic force fluxes
are always induced on perpendicular planes of electric force fluxes)
have to be restructured as the electron ring changes its radius. This
is the origin of energy barrier. newedana
The physical character of water molecules explained in Dr. Yoon's new
physics through 15 pages, is really revolutionary and surprising, in
terms of its scientific perfect analysis. One cannot find such
informations in any existing publications. Physics and chemistry today
do not know at all for physical characters of water molecules, except
that its chemical composition is two hydrogen and one oxygen atom.
Presently, the interaction between two OH groups of water molecules is
hydrogen bonding force, but this understanding is totally incorrect,
since water molecule is electrically perfect neutral by itself, so
there does not occur such a coulomb's attraction between them, if
coulomb's law is correct. Attraction between water molecules is due to
Meissoner's magnetic attraction induced by two OH molecular electron
rings and two non-bonded electron rings of oxygen atom( details are in
his book). So that a water molecule can have 4 hands possible to link
neighboring other water molecules. The force binding between OH*OH and
binding between O*O are temperature sensitive due to molecular heat
motion of water molecules, and their curves of attractive intensity
drawn on temperature scale have differently sloped curvatures.
Intersecting point of these two curves on temperature scale represents
the 4 degree celsius where water has the highest density. Intersecting
point between OH*OH curve and that of heat momentum of water molecule
represents boiling temperature of water, and another intersecting
point
between O*O curve and the same momentum curve represents 70 degrees
celsius. What is the meaning of this 70 degrees? Surprisingly it is
the
temperature of killing living creatures, the temperature denaturing
organic living tissues, ie, raw eggs turn into boiled eggs at this
temperature.(More details are in his book). According to Dr. Yoon's
new
physics, the single crystallography today applied in analysis of
protein or DNA structure contains full of nonsense. RNA or any protein
chains do not have such an intricately curved 3 dimensional structure
in living tissues. They must have rather straightly extended chain
forms, due to coexistence of water molecules with great numbers. DNA
does not form a double helix inside the living body, because it does
not form a single crystal inside it. He explains how is the form of
bio-waters in living creatures, not yet defined in biochemistry today.
Then is it the same as the water in a glass cup? No! It is a linear
association of water molecules laterally linking between functional
groups of bio-polymer chains arranged in parallel to build a gel
crystal, a new family of crystal which Dr.Yoon discovered first, and
published in Nature, in 1987. Chemical reaction in the network of this
gel crystal is entirely different from that in free chemical
environment. This fact suggests a great deal of new scientific truth
hidden up to the present, such as the mechanism of enzymatic reaction.
The mechanism of attacking living tissue by micro bio-cells. newedana
One surprising information I got from his text is his carbohydrate
chemistry. For example, CO2 dissolved in H2O is held between two O's of
water molecules, as H2O*CO2*OH2, since there has to occur a strong
Meissoner's magnetic attraction between the same kind of atoms,
according to his principle. It reminds us that CO2 dissolved in water
is completely driven out at 70 degrees celsius, the temperature killing
living tissues. Then what would happen to this molecular aggregation
when the solar energy is irradiated? One of molecular electron rings
binding C and O slide over the atomic core of O, and turns into
electron rings to bind two hydrogen atoms to build C*H2O, the
fundamental building block of all kinds of carbohydrate materials, such
as sugars, starch and cellulose, releasing an O. The solar energy moves
the molecular electron rings binding C and O, to build a carbohydrate
segment. As one knows the photosynthesis by vegetable is the greatest
mystery in nature, so human being could not simulate it yet. He
explains the mechanism of forming hydrocarbon segments in plant cells,
CH2-CH2 the basis of vegetable oil from carbohydrate segments with the
same chemistry. The reverse chemical reaction, the burning reaction of
carbohydrates by oxygen, is elegantly explained in his book. And he
explains that the energy source of living creature is nothing else than
the energy released from hydrogen atoms when they burn to build water
molecules, and he concludes finally that how amazingly designed is the
natural law by intelligence of nature. newedana wrote
.
|
|
|
| User: "zhayne" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
11 May 2005 05:02:04 PM |
|
|
Thanks newedana. I decided to get Dr. Yoon expensive $180 book. If
there is one page that makes sense. It is enough. You see. Most
expect too much. Remember when De_Broglie used the concept of pilot
waves and it is thumb down and Schroedinger didn't want to believe
in the probability interpretation of Born initially. Not all of
their original concepts are perfect. But De_Broglie is right in
his matter wave and Schro in his equation. Bottom line is. Supposed
Dr. Yoon got one theory right. What he is doing is trying to build
an entire science based on it. Therefore the rest could be wrong
interpretations based on a correct concept. It's like if de_Broglie
has his way, pilot waves would rule instead of statistical laws
(but not compatible with most data). Similary. People can point out
to Dr. Yoon why certain stuff doesn't work and his theory can be
singularized into one where others can build over it like Max Born
building over de_Broglie and Schroedinger.
What I'm trying to say here is don't expect too much from Dr. Yoon
or any single person. If I can just get one idea from him that
makes sense. It is enough. Later, I'd write to Dr. Yoon and
challenge him on many things in his book giving him a chance
to defend it. I'd like to know if he is like Bearden who has
decided to close his mind and just focusing on the commercial
aspect without any regards to whether it makes any scientific
sense and supported by experimental data.
By the way. I don't just accept the model of just anyone and buy
that person book. I only buy the books if I see much creativity
in the the main thesis.
In my life. I have seen things that normal mortals haven't seen
everyday. So I need to get to the bottom of it all.
zhayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
11 May 2005 09:20:59 PM |
|
|
hi there Zhayne/Syd/A.S./Q-on/Qion/What is
Qi/Landle/Caltechdude/Cinquirer -- the list becomes longer and longer
-- & crank science fan extraordinaire, so you've decided to change
your nick again eh?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
11 May 2005 10:40:52 PM |
|
|
zhayne wrote:
In my life. I have seen things that normal mortals haven't seen
everyday. So I need to get to the bottom of it all.
well multiple-nicks-guy, how about doing a reality check? make sure
that it is not your paranoid schizophrenic mind playing games, or
somebody playing tricks on you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
11 May 2005 05:11:12 PM |
|
|
zhayne wrote:
Thanks newedana. I decided to get Dr. Yoon expensive $180 book.
[snip]
Where is evolution when you need it?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila the Bum" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
11 May 2005 05:39:44 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
zhayne wrote:
Thanks newedana. I decided to get Dr. Yoon expensive $180 book.
[snip]
Where is evolution when you need it?
"Evolution" has been out-sourced,
down-sized, and, made irrelevant.
Men are evil. Get used to it,
or, organize |-)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Atty (_That's_ one for the books, eh :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "newedana" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
11 May 2005 08:01:37 PM |
|
|
I like to continue my post dated may 11
What is the meaning of this 70 degrees? Surprisingly it is the
temperature of killing living creatures, the temperature denaturing
organic living tissues, ie, raw eggs turn into boiled eggs at this
temperature.(More details are in his book). According to Dr. Yoon's
new
physics, the single crystallography today applied in analysis of
protein or DNA structure contains full of nonsense. RNA or any protein
chains do not have such an intricately curved 3 dimensional structure
in living tissues. They must have rather straightly extended chain
forms, due to coexistence of water molecules with great numbers
attached to them. DNA
does not form a double helix inside the living body, because it does
not form a single crystal inside it. He explains how is the form of
bio-waters in living cells, not yet defined in biochemistry today.
Is it the same as the water in a glass cup? No absolutely! It is a
linear
association of water molecules laterally linking between functional
groups of bio-polymer chains arranged in parallel to build a gel
crystal, a new family of crystal which Dr.Yoon discovered first, and
published in Nature(volume 326),in 1987. Chemical reaction in the
network of this
gel crystal is entirely different from that in free chemical
environment. This fact suggests a great deal of new scientific truth
hidden up to the present, such as the mechanism of enzymatic reaction.
The mechanism of attacking living tissue by micro bio-cells.
One surprising information I got from his text is his carbohydrate
chemistry. For example, CO2 dissolved in H2O is held between two O's of
water molecules, as H2O*CO2*OH2, since there has to occur a strong
Meissoner's magnetic attraction between the same kind of atoms,
according to his principle. It reminds us that CO2 dissolved in water
is completely driven out at 70 degrees celsius, the temperature killing
living tissues. Then what would happen to this molecular aggregation
when the solar energy is irradiated? One of molecular electron rings
binding C and O slide over the atomic core of O, and turns into
electron rings to bind two hydrogen atoms to build C*H2O, the
fundamental building block of all kinds of carbohydrate materials, such
as sugars, starch and cellulose, releasing an O. The solar energy moves
the molecular electron rings binding C and O, to build a carbohydrate
segment. As one knows the photosynthesis by vegetable is the greatest
mystery in nature, so human being could not simulate it yet. He
explains the mechanism of forming hydrocarbon segments in plant cells,
CH2-CH2 the basis of vegetable oil from carbohydrate segments with the
same chemistry. The reverse chemical reaction, the burning reaction of
carbohydrates by oxygen, is elegantly explained in his book. And he
explains that the energy source of living creature is nothing else than
the energy released from hydrogen atoms when they burn to build water
molecules, and he concludes finally that how amazingly designed is the
natural law by intelligence of nature. newedana wrote
.
|
|
|
| User: "newedana" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
12 May 2005 04:02:11 AM |
|
|
Viewing the resume of Dr Yoon in his website(www.yoonsatom.net), It
appears he has more than 70 years old. It means that he is not
research-money-hungry, because he discloses every thing he knows even
sensitive knowledge that can be utilized in developing commercially
valuable technology. For example, he disclosed the basic science of
photo-synthesis posted above, and also suggested that controllable
nuclear fusion is hopeless because in order for a controllable, small
scaled experiment of hot nuclear fusion, it is very difficult to
prepare an ultra critical reaction environment, so the product energy
can hardly exceed the input energy. However cold neuclear fusion is
very promising. Because deuteriums absorbed by platinum electrode are
very close in distance by their nuclei, without inserting their orbital
electrons between them, according to his theory of electron ring. This
is written in the section explaining the mechanism of catalytic action
of platium, in orbital electron level, for hydrogenation of organic
hydro carbons. The most problem of this cold nuclear fusion is its
poor reproducibility. The nuclear reaction occurs some times, and never
occus in another times even though the used reaction condition was
exactly the same. However, in the case of Hockaido university allgedly
there occurred an nuclear explosion in the benchscale experiment. Why?
If some wise researcher will be aware of this fact, the bare deuterons
are very close in distance when they absorbed by platium electrode,
perhaps he can understand why this reaction has so poor
reproducibility, and why in the case of Hockaido university there
occurred an explosion. Allgedly the invention of controllable nuclear
fusion is the greatest triumph in the human hisroty, and final research
work of experimental physicists. newedana wrote
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "newedana" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
12 May 2005 06:32:53 AM |
|
|
Viewing the resume of Dr Yoon in his website(www.yoonsatom.net), It
appears he has more than 70 years old. It means that he is not
research-money-hungry, because he discloses every thing he knows even
sensitive knowledge that can be utilized in developing commercially
valuable technology. For example, he disclosed the basic science of
photo-synthesis posted above, and also suggested that controllable
nuclear fusion is hopeless because in order for a controllable, small
scaled experiment of hot nuclear fusion, it is very difficult to
prepare an ultra critical reaction environment, so the product energy
can hardly exceed the input energy. However cold neuclear fusion is
very promising. Because deuteriums absorbed by platinum electrode are
very close in distance by their nuclei, without inserting their orbital
electrons between them, according to his theory of electron ring. This
is written in the section explaining the mechanism of catalytic action
of platium, in orbital electron level, for hydrogenation of organic
hydro carbons. The most problem of this cold nuclear fusion is its
poor reproducibility. The nuclear reaction occurs some times, and never
occus in another times even though the used reaction condition was
exactly the same. However, in the case of Hockaido university allgedly
there occurred an nuclear explosion in the benchscale experiment. Why?
If some wise researcher will be aware of this fact, the bare deuterons
are very close in distance when they absorbed by platium electrode,
perhaps he can understand why this reaction has so poor
reproducibility, and why in the case of Hockaido university there
occurred an explosion. Allgedly the invention of controllable nuclear
fusion is the greatest triumph in the human hisroty, and final research
work of experimental physicists. newedana wrote
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
11 May 2005 08:25:58 PM |
|
|
newedana wrote:
I like to continue my post dated may 11
What is the meaning of this 70 degrees? Surprisingly it is the
temperature of killing living creatures, the temperature denaturing
organic living tissues,
[snip]
Except for extremophiles that live at 110 C under presssure, idiot,
and all the hyperthermophile pond scum that lives in Yellowtone
geysers at 80-100 C, idiot.
http://www.mediscover.net/Extremophiles.cfm
<http://www.ub.rug.nl/eldoc/dis/science/j.l.c.m.van.de.vossenberg/c1.pdf>
<http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-00s.html>
<http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?id=DeepOcean&type=mediaRelease>
Idiot. You've got a room temperature IQ - in Europe.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "newedana" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
13 May 2005 02:30:41 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al May 11, 9:25 pm show options
newedana wrote:
I like to continue my post dated may 11
What is the meaning of this 70 degrees? Surprisingly it is the
temperature of killing living creatures, the temperature denaturing
organic living tissues,
Yes, you are right. There are such kind of high temperature resistive
micro-bio-cells. The denaturing temperature around 70 C is in the usual
case of heat burning of our skin and boiling all kind of animal fleshes
and raw eggs. He deals with such an unusual case of high temperature
resistive living bio-cells. In page 189 of his book(What is the
Denaturation, the dead of bio-tissues) he describes, "However we have
to realize that the shorter the chain length of bio-water in living
cell the more the temperature resistive, so the more higher sterilizing
temperature for this kind of micro-bio-cells." It signifies that the
chain length of bio-water connecting laterally between functional
groups of bio-polymer chains in building the gel crystal of
micro-bio-cells, determines their temperature resistivity for
denaturation. newedana wrote
[snip]
Except for extremophiles that live at 110 C under presssure, idiot,
and all the hyperthermophile pond scum that lives in Yellowtone
geysers at 80-100 C, idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Thorson" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
12 May 2005 02:02:28 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
zhayne wrote:
Thanks newedana. I decided to get Dr. Yoon expensive $180 book.
[snip]
Where is evolution when you need it?
I think you meant "natural selection".
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
12 May 2005 02:28:01 PM |
|
|
Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in news:4283A89A.951C9BDC@sonic.net:
Uncle Al wrote:
zhayne wrote:
Thanks newedana. I decided to get Dr. Yoon expensive $180 book.
[snip]
Where is evolution when you need it?
I think you meant "natural selection".
http://www.darwinawards.com/
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
12 May 2005 05:10:14 AM |
|
|
zhayne wrote:
Thanks newedana. I decided to get Dr. Yoon expensive $180 book.
Your problem.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
11 May 2005 05:10:27 PM |
|
|
newedana wrote:
Dr. Yoon's new physics
[snip]
Spamming idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
30 Apr 2005 09:50:52 PM |
|
|
Syd wrote:
I post here every week. Maybe you are the one who is back. Anyway.
What's the matter with you. Something is wrong with the Standard
Model. It can't explain qi.
what's the matter with you crackpot? why should anything explain qi,
when you or any other fraudulent pranic healer out there has not even
shown that qi really exists.
Either it is not complete or it
is mostly wrong in conceptual basis. The cranks are creative.
and dumb. more dumb than creative.
I'm
looking for one principle of them where when added to the Standard
Model can explain qi. So far I haven't found them.
As I analyzed each. I also debunked them afterwards as nonsense.
About Yoonatom. There is no solid proof that the shape of the
electric field of an electron is prolate spheroid (imagine a
circle thinned at the sides). If no one knows the real shape
of the electric field when the electron is accelerating. Then
the theory of Dr. Yoon that it lags behind forming some kind
of tail producing intensive magnetism should be studied until
proven wrong.
To under qi physics require very accurate 100% true model
that can stand scrutiny and unify General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics. Admit that there is a genuine search for it.
If you want me to shut up. Then explain qi physics and prove it is
the true model.
again, why should anybody prove qi when there is no solid proof that
it exists? prove that qi exists fraud. you have never shown that.
About proving to you qi exists. I'm not nuts because once
done. I would lose many opportunities such as an exclusive
in Discovery channel, etc. as well as Randy's millions.
Common sense.
you lack common sense and are in a state of self-delusion on the
existence of qi.
Nuff said. That is all there is to it. Next time you reply,
I won't answer. Just refer to this message as it answers your
questions and blind skeptisms.
i am not blind if you can show me. if you don't give me proof and i
believe you then i'd be dumb just like all those cranks you worship.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Q-on/Caltechdude is back Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
02 May 2005 06:56:29 AM |
|
|
Syd wrote:
bryant_...@yahoo.com wrote:
[snip]
I post here every week. Maybe you are the one who is back. Anyway.
What's the matter with you. Something is wrong with the Standard
Model. It can't explain qi.
Hint: that's probably because it does not exist.
Despite about 20 or 30 experiments I suggested to you, you have
*still* not produced *one* shred of credible evidence for its existence...
Either it is not complete or it
is mostly wrong in conceptual basis.
Like Qi, you mean?
The cranks are creative. I'm
looking for one principle of them where when added to the Standard
Model can explain qi. So far I haven't found them.
Suggestion: learn physics. Then you'll see for yourself how empty and
ridiculous most proposals of the cranks are, and why they are wrong.
Don't waste our time by bringing up a new crank every few weeks and
asking us to find the flaws.
As I analyzed each. I also debunked them afterwards as nonsense.
And you could do that on your own if you'd bother to spend some
time actually learning physics.
About Yoonatom. There is no solid proof that the shape of the
electric field of an electron is prolate spheroid (imagine a
circle thinned at the sides).
Why do you think so? Have you checked *all* the relevant literature?
If no one knows the real shape
of the electric field when the electron is accelerating.
But one does. Synchrotron radiation.
Then the theory of Dr. Yoon that it lags behind forming some kind
of tail producing intensive magnetism should be studied until
proven wrong.
You still don't understand science. He is making an assertion, so he
does have to provide evidence which backs him up.
[snip]
Anyway. I'm kinda tired and frustrated all the cranks don't
deliver.
That's one of the reason why they are labelled as cranks.
Analyzing Yoonatom and Polasek Dual Space would be last.
Do you promise?
After this. I'd just hear out Witten M-Theory especially
when Uncle Al experiment produces null result and 80% of
M-theory is not wiped out.
You are *really* not qualified to judge the validity of M-Theory.
Hey, I've studied physics for about 10 years (including my PhD
thesis), working specifially in Quantum Field Theory and particle
physics, and still freely admit that I don't understand it!
If you want me to shut up. Then explain qi physics and prove it is
the true model.
If you want us to explain qi, prove that it exists. Stop wiggling
out of every definite test.
About proving to you qi exists. I'm not nuts because once
done. I would lose many opportunities such as an exclusive
in Discovery channel, etc. as well as Randy's millions.
Common sense.
You really think that if you managed to convince one or two
persons here on sci.physics of the existence of qi, that would
at once make you lose all these opportunities? Man, do you really
believe yourself all these lame, silly excuses you bring up?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
02 May 2005 06:41:37 AM |
|
|
Syd wrote:
Standard model has long ago discarted the concept of
newtonianly orbiting electrons because the revolving
electron is said to radiate away its energy and collapse
into the nucleus. This led to the QM we have now where
the electrons movements are ruled by probability without
continuous designated movement or orbital.
Vaguely right.
But Dr. Hansik Yoon, a man with an IQ of 250 or so
And the evidence for this claim is what, exactly?
(note a genius has 200)
declared the electron electric field move behind it as the
electron moves at near light speed around the nucleus.
He is free to provide experimental support for that claim, and
explain why the known observations don't contradict that.
As a result, the intensive magnetic field induced in the
tail is able to repel the nucleus resulting in it not
falling to it.
That doesn't explain the radiation problem at all!
Dr. Yoon also mentions about the lowest
orbit having higher energy in contrast to standard
model which says the lowest orbital is the ground state
of the atom,
Make up your mind. Does he talk about orbits or orbitals?
Before going to that. My primary question is, how does the intensive
magnetism of the electron actually repel the
nucleus causing stable continuous revolution. Aren't there instances
that it will cause attraction to the nucleus
instead of repulsion??
Good question.
Anyone here with IQ as high as Dr. Yoon who could penetrate
his mind and explain it to us layman??
Why do you keep bringing up this crackpot,
Qion/Landle/Cinquirer/Charlie etc.?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "zhayne" |
|
| Title: Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
21 May 2005 04:33:33 AM |
|
|
Newedana. Congrats. CNN just reports about breakthrough in stem cell
cloning research done by South Korean scientists. At least it shows
that your country doesn't use stone age books and primitive ideas.
This gives more credibility to Dr. Yoon. You know what. My hope
to get his book stems from 2 things:
1.You misrepresent him and more stuff can be found in the book that
what you are depicting (which is lacking in core substance.. for
example.. until now you still haven't shown us clearly how the
yoon electron orbitals work and how he can manage to prevent
the charges from radiating since it is circle around the nucleus in
real time. Accelerating charge radiates energy don't you agree)
2. A principle in Yoon book works in real world and from there we
can develope his model to become unifying and integrating
relativity and quantum vacuum which he never touches. Another
is to incorporate some of his ideas into a new model that can put
QM and relative at compatible side, etc.
Anyway. Can you site a scientist in S. Korea taking serious
interests in Yoon work. Or are you just his secretary and spreading
his ideas without regards to whether it has any real scientific sense?
zhayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "zhayne" |
|
| Title: Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
21 May 2005 06:32:51 AM |
|
|
Newedana,
Wait a minute.... I checked www.yoonsatom.net It's not written
in the Author description that he took up a degree in physics. He may
have a Ph.D. but what if it is in botany?? He may be an instructor
in physics... but it doesn't mean he finishes a physics degree.
Any person could become a professor in physics especially teaching
in freshmen classes by just studying classical mechanics. Do you
have proof that Dr. Yoon has degree in physics and has a Ph.D. in
physics??
Only someone with degree in physics or being constantly exposed to
Bjoern and the Copenhagen disciples can be well acquainted with the
complicated world of electron spin and their evidences in the
Stern Gerlach AG Expe and Fine Structure of Hydrogen results, etc.
Maybe Dr. Yoon has not even heard of them in his entire life.
If Dr. Yoon has degree in biochemistry. It may explain why his work
revolves around it and him building the foundation of physics using
classical reality which made more sense to normal people.
QM and relativity are quite complicated for those who don't take time
studying it and understand the subtlely therefore it is normal to
laught it off especially the more bizarre side of it. Do you know 24
satellites use relativity in its calculation to compensate for the
movements. Without taking the extra calculations. A Tomahawk
meant for Saddam palace can end up in a residence a mile away.
Pls. find proof Yoon has degree in physics and Ph.D. What is
his thesis subject?
zhayne
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
21 May 2005 07:34:14 AM |
|
|
zhayne wrote:
Newedana. Congrats. CNN just reports about breakthrough in stem cell
cloning research done by South Korean scientists. At least it shows
that your country doesn't use stone age books and primitive ideas.
This gives more credibility to Dr. Yoon.
why Zany one? how does a success of one group of Korean scientist
imply that ALL Koreans scientists (nicluding Yoon) must be credible? if
this is the way you make inferences, boy have you got a long way to
go....... sheeeesh.
Anyway. Can you site a scientist in S. Korea taking serious
interests in Yoon work. Or are you just his secretary and spreading
his ideas without regards to whether it has any real scientific
sense?
Newedana is probably is Yoon wrote Newedana (he he). and no one is
taking interest in his work, except perhaps you Zany.
.
|
|
|
| User: "zhayne" |
|
| Title: Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
21 May 2005 08:07:18 AM |
|
|
wrote:
zhayne wrote:
Newedana. Congrats. CNN just reports about breakthrough in stem
cell
cloning research done by South Korean scientists. At least it shows
that your country doesn't use stone age books and primitive ideas.
This gives more credibility to Dr. Yoon.
why Zany one? how does a success of one group of Korean scientist
imply that ALL Koreans scientists (nicluding Yoon) must be credible?
if
this is the way you make inferences, boy have you got a long way to
go....... sheeeesh.
At least we are assured that South Korean schools don't use
old books around WW I. We don't hear of breakthrough occuring
in Zimbabwe. So a major one in Korea means there is more
credibility to its high techness. This is if Yoon is indeed
a physicist. But it is possible he is just a biochemist using
the title of physicist. The whole thing would make sense if he
is not a physicist. But if he is. And the concept of electron
spin is standard in QM. He couldn't have missed it and using
totally spinless electron model. That's why I couldn't just
ignore him if he is indeed a physicist. But if he is not. It's
good bye to Yoon atoms.
zhay
Anyway. Can you site a scientist in S. Korea taking serious
interests in Yoon work. Or are you just his secretary and spreading
his ideas without regards to whether it has any real scientific
sense?
Newedana is probably is Yoon wrote Newedana (he he). and no one is
taking interest in his work, except perhaps you Zany.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
25 May 2005 12:26:17 AM |
|
|
crank.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Yoonatom vs Standard Model |
01 May 2005 03:54:08 PM |
|
|
Syd wrote:
Standard model has long ago discarted the concept of
newtonianly orbiting electrons because the revolving
electron is said to radiate away its energy and collapse
into the nucleus. This led to the QM we have now where
the electrons movements are ruled by probability without
continuous designated movement or orbital. But Dr. Hansik
Yoon, a man with an IQ of 250 or so (note a genius has 200)
Actually, IQ scores above 200 are unmeasurable, as explained here:
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html
On the other hand, it is easy to see why a person who can not mentally
grapple with the concept of unmeasurable quantities or undefined values
on the IQ scale might also have trouble understanding those concepts as
they apply to the natural world.
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
