The Case Against the Nuclear Atom

by Dewey B. Larson

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

The Case Against the Nuclear Atom

#1  Postby Space Trucker » Apr 21, 2014 1:29 am

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/

Dewey B. Larson proposes that Rutherford's experiments in which he found the "nucleus" of the atom were false, in that he actually found the "atom" itself. He proposes that the atom IS the nucleus and that electrons are manifest as products of reactions and not a part of atoms themselves.

He proposes two arguments that I know of:

1. The "atomic nucleus" of Rutherford's scattering experiment was actually the atom itself and,

2. The electron is a particle, but is manifest from reactions between atoms and is not INSIDE of the atom itself. (It is an ephemeral product) Thus the "electron cloud" is caused by the nucleus, as I understand it. I could be wrong in his interpretation.

There is more, but I want to see if this topic gets approved before I continue typing. I have already searched for it on this site, but the man's writings simply do not exist in this forum. :naughty2:
User avatar
Space Trucker
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 224

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Case Against the Nuclear Atom

#2  Postby hackenslash » Apr 21, 2014 1:39 am

That's probably because he#s already been comprehensively debunked. Apart from anything else, if Larson were correct about the atom, there would be no photoelectric effect. That the photoelectric effect is demonstrably real, Larson is debunked in toto, and we need not go any further.

The Standard Model is a more complete refutation, but that's not actually required. Larson is a crank, who scores extremely heavily on the Crackpot Index.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21439
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: The Case Against the Nuclear Atom

#3  Postby kennyc » Apr 21, 2014 11:07 am

hackenslash wrote:That's probably because he#s already been comprehensively debunked. Apart from anything else, if Larson were correct about the atom, there would be no photoelectric effect. That the photoelectric effect is demonstrably real, Larson is debunked in toto, and we need not go any further.

The Standard Model is a more complete refutation, but that's not actually required. Larson is a crank, who scores extremely heavily on the Crackpot Index.


:this:

/thread
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Case Against the Nuclear Atom

#4  Postby transpower » Mar 02, 2017 3:22 pm

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.

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, www.reciprocalsystem.guru, for many, many real scientific papers on the Reciprocal System of theory.
transpower
 
Name: Ronald W. Satz
Posts: 2

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Case Against the Nuclear Atom

#5  Postby DavidMcC » Mar 03, 2017 1:25 pm

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, http://www.reciprocalsystem.guru, 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.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Case Against the Nuclear Atom

#6  Postby transpower » May 13, 2017 11:48 pm

The Reciprocal System is verified scientific knowledge. I have constructed a comprehensive database for the microcosmos and macrocosmos, calculating the properties of each existent. This is simply impossible to do with Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model of particle physics. Study the Reciprocal System and prove it for yourself. www.reciprocalsystem.guru.
transpower
 
Name: Ronald W. Satz
Posts: 2

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Case Against the Nuclear Atom

#7  Postby Thommo » May 14, 2017 3:48 am

transpower wrote:...massless, uncharged electron...

Massless, chargeless electrons.

How exactly is that an electron then? :ask:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Case Against the Nuclear Atom

#8  Postby newolder » May 14, 2017 9:28 am

The "Case" brings forth 0 charges and has the weight of 0 laws behind it? Consider it empty and dismissed. :coffee:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7308
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: The Case Against the Nuclear Atom

#9  Postby DavidMcC » May 14, 2017 7:58 pm

newolder wrote:The "Case" brings forth 0 charges and has the weight of 0 laws behind it? Consider it empty and dismissed. :coffee:

Quite so! :thumbup:
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post


Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest