[NUKELIES]

aisforatom.jpg (113.62 KiB) Viewed 403 times

From YouTube user 77GSlinger: "The Nuclear Atom Fraud as sold to us by Hollywood in the 1950's"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPi6FU-9O5I

[rerevisionist]

I've got a copy of that 1952 film, too! Note the tie-in with General Electric & supposed link with nuclear power.

I looked up the link and found DB Larson's comments, but they're long and rambling and imho not impressive.

Can I just make one point. When people talk about 'atomic physics' they may NOT mean 'nuclear physics'. The usual view of atoms and molecules is that there are shells of orbiting electrons - the sort of think in Linus Pauling's Chemistry text book of 1945-ish. When an ionised compound is formed, e.g. ordinary salt - sodium chloride, it's very clear the properties of this are very different from sodium and chlorine. These can be made by electrolysis from molten salt and the theory is that electrons cause the sodium and chloride ions to reform as sodium and chlorine atoms. All this is highly convincing, whether the electrons orbit, or form some sort of field, or indeed are fixed, as DB Larson may be claiming. And the theory deals with atoms - it's atomic physics. BUT it does not look at the nucleus - it's not nuclear physics. I think these things are conflated and can be used for deliberate confusion. For example Edward Teller worked on electron shells (or at least was jointly credited...) but such work is NOT nuclear physics.

[NUKELIES]

The Nuke Myth has been so easily propagated because of our extremely vague understanding of atomic structure. I do not doubt that material building blocks are or will be decipherable at some point, but it is still a speculative science.

I have my own speculation which is that atoms are solar systems and solar systems are atoms - infinity in both directions! The frequency of light produced by nuclei as stars is out of our visual spectrum, and the frequency of light produced by larger solar systems composed of atoms such as our solar system is far too great to be perceived.

[rerevisionist]

I looked at D B Larson's online book (1962) - and found a couple of Youtubes, apparently dated 1978, but of monochrome TV - maybe they were repeats from the late 1950s or early 1960s. He seems to have published his material with a plastic comb binding.

I doubt if it's of any value at all. In fact I wondered if it was a deliberate hoax, in the way people occasionally surface with spurious work to see how people react. My best guess is that this chap is a bit like religious people who produce variations on the stuff they're used to - his comments on reciprocals and space-time and photons and Newtonian motion suggest he has been exposed to science, and has been impressed with the fact that many bullshitters have been given money and credibility, and this is his attempt.