Posted: Mar 03, 2017 1:25 pm
by DavidMcC
transpower wrote:I realized that the nuclear atom was totally false in 1963, when I was 12 years old. I then discovered Larson two years later and read his book The Case Against the Nuclear Atom. I've been working with the Larsonian world view ever since. Larson's correct: the nuclear atom is a bizarre mythology, about as bad as the so-called "standard model" of particle physics. The electrons should, of course, spiral into the nucleus; Bohr merely hypothesized the problem away. The protons in the "nucleus" should repel themselves--the so-called "strong force" is purely ad hoc. And the lifetime of a neutron is only about 14 minutes. Therefore the nuclear atom is an impossible object.

The lifetime of a FREE neutron may be short (it decays into a proton and an electron), but not when it's bound in a nucleus.
EDIT: And, of course, the strong nuclear force counters electrostatic repulsion between protons in the neucleus, in spite of the strange claimns to the contrary above.
Having said that, beta radioactive decay is the result of the decay of a neutron into a proton and and an electron in spite of the stabilization afforded by nuclear binding.
As for the photoelectron effect, an atom may harbor a massless, uncharged electron. An incoming photon may give up its linear vibration to create a rotational vibration of the electron, which (with sufficient kinetic energy) will leave the atom, thus showing the photoelectric effect. See my Web site,, for many, many real scientific papers on the Reciprocal System of theory.

This is pseudoscience gobbldygook, transpower. Photoelectrons are from the electronic conduction band of the metal from which they come - it is not necessary for a neutron to first decay into a proton and an electron. The photoelectron is already free of any one atom. See this Wiki page for a detailed explanation.

EDIT: I suspect that this post was designed to achieve hits on that whacky website.