The Golden Boy & the Redheaded Stepchild
Ernest Rutherford (Father of unclear fizziks) and John Sealy Townsend were the first two non-Cambridge students to enter Cavendish Laboratory due to a change in the Trinity College, Cambridge examination statutes. They were the top two disciples of the great J.J. Thomson (The most influential pioneer of unclear fizziks). Both were elected fellows of the Royal Society and recipients of Royal Society medals. They both were also knighted (Rutherford in 1914 and Townsend in 1941). The similarities end there. Rutherford went on to achieve scientific sainthood while Townsend was ostracized as a heretic of the Church of Modern Science.
The Golden Boy – Ernest Rutherford
According to the American Institute of Physics,
“In 1911, by bombarding atoms with alpha particles (helium ions), he found that the atom has inside it a small and heavy nucleus. In 1919 Rutherford managed to bombard the nucleus itself. By absorbing an alpha particle, the nucleus of nitrogen transformed into a nucleus of oxygen and emitted a proton. The old dream of medieval alchemists, the transmutation of chemical elements, had been achieved.”
In Dewey B. Larson’s “The Case against the Nuclear Atom” he states,
“In the belief, therefore, that the existence of the nucleus was proved by Rutherford’s findings, two ad hoc assumptions have been made to reconcile the contradictory items: (1) that some kind of a ―nuclear force exists in opposition to the force of repulsion that would otherwise destroy the hypothetical structure, and (2) that the normally unstable neutron is stable in the nuclear environment.”
“But the employment of such assumptions is uncomfortably close to the ancient custom of attributing all unexplained events to the actions of spirits and demons, and all too often it simply diverts attention from the real problem and impedes the march of scientific progress, just as any other appeal to the supernatural is likely to do. Certainly the piling of one of these unsupported assumptions on top of another cannot be justified under any circumstances, and this is just exactly the situation that the proton-neutron theory is in, now that it has been shown that Rutherford’s experiments did not prove the existence of a nucleus.”
While we’re at it, if grandma had balls she’d be grandpa and if ands or buts were candy and nuts everyday would be Christmas!
The following Testimonials to Dewey B. Larson might pique your interest:
Testimonials to Dewey B. Larson
"To all of us, steeped in the unquestioning adoration of the contemporary scientific method, this is rude and outspoken book, which sometimes hurts. The frightening thing about it is that it rings true."
--Discovery Magazine, review of The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, July 1963
"As an iconoclastic work, Larson's book is refreshing. The scientific community requires stirring up now and then; cherished assumptions must be questioned and the foundations of science must be strenuously inspected for possible cracks. It is not a popular service and Mr. Larson will probably not be thanked for doing this for nuclear physics, though he does it in a reasonably quiet and tolerant manner and with a display of a good knowledge of the field."
--Isaac Asimov, review of The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, Chemical and Engineering News, July 29, 1963
"I have never before seen anybody with such an independent and absolute logic."
--Hans F. Wuenscher, former Assistant Director for Advanced Projects, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA, letter to the then-current Director, November 1, 1979, reprinted in Reciprocity, Spring 1981
"From what I have read thus far, thorough study of his work requires at least three attributes in one very intelligent person: a willingness to expend a great deal of intellectual energy with no guarantee of success, the humility to set aside what one 'knows' long enough to follow through on new ideas, and the emotional strength and self confidence needed to resist possible admonishments of colleagues who would dismiss the new ideas based on cursory analysis."
--J. Edward Anderson, Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Boston University, letters dated October 1, 1988 and October 29, 1988, in support of a proposed physics seminar by Larson or an associate, reprinted in ISUS News, Autumn 1988, pp. 8-9
https://transpower.files.wordpress.com/ ... arson1.pdf
A couple of rhetorical questions come to mind. Why and to who exactly is Larson’s Idea, that happens to ring true, so “frightening”? Further, if he presents it “in a reasonably quiet and tolerant manner and with a display of a good knowledge of the field” why wouldn’t he be thanked by the nuclear physics community? So much for the myth of an objective and impartial truth-seeking scientific process.
“Nucleus: A Trip into the Heart of Matter” states,
The end of chemistry's most cherished belief
"Elements are the foundation stones of chemistry. The vast variety of substances around us are made from combining elements – such as carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen – in different ways. At the turn of the twentieth century, a firmly held belief was that atoms never change. Carbon atoms remain carbon atoms; iron stays iron; gold cannot be made from lead; and once uranium, always uranium. Rutherford and his colleague Frederick Soddy, who was at that time working with him at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, overturned this idea. They found radioactivity was a process that could transform one element into another. Somehow, one type of atom emitted a particle and became another type of atom. No doubt mindful of the ill-repute arising from thousands of years of futile attempts to make gold from lead, Rutherford is reported to have said to his friend: “Don’t call it transmutation, Soddy, or they’ll have our heads as alchemists!”
"The idea of atoms transmuting from one type to another met with initial resistance, even from the Curies. Within a few years, however, such overwhelming evidence was presented by Rutherford, Soddy and many others, that transmutation became widely accepted. A great number of people were soon involved in unravelling [sic.]the complicated story of which element transmuted into what. This task was made much easier by knowing the nature of alpha and beta radiation, as well as by the discovery of a third type of radioactivity called gamma rays."
http://www.amazon.com/Nucleus-Trip-into ... 142140351X
Well there you have it. Transmutations “somehow” happened but, for the love of God, whatever you do don’t call it transmutation. The psy-ence is settled so keep it moving folks, nothing to see here (literally). Now beam me up Soddy! I suspect “widely accepted” is code for “Delphi Technique-d.” Anyhow for his ground-breaking ‘discovery’ our alchemist
nuclear physicist hero, Sir Ernest Rutherford, went on to become Director of Cavendish Laboratory (1919), President of the Royal Society (1925-1930) and have his ashes interred in Westminster Abbey (1937) not far from fellow scientific saints & Royal Society members Sir J.J. Thomson, Sir Isaac Newton and Sir Charles Darwin. A murderer’s row of master magicians if there ever was one.
For what it’s worth, “Ernest Rutherford's original atomic model is now understood to be inaccurate, but it retains its meaning as an icon today.”
According to the Royal Society of London,
The New Alchemy: Rutherford and the Atom
“The ground-breaking work of Rutherford and his collaborators launched the new field of nuclear physics. Following his lead, researchers such as James Chadwick FRS and Patrick Blackett FRS delved further into the structure of the atom. In 1932, Chadwick announced the existence of the neutron. Physicists and others became interested in the potential use of atomic energy. Worldwide curiosity about CERN's newly-constructed Large Hadron Collider demonstrates that our fascination with the tiniest particles of the natural world continues.”
Those fellow collaborators have been fascinating us in a fascist-nating manner for quite some time now. Let’s not forget the fact that so called nuclei, as well as atoms for that matter, are not only invisible to the naked eye they are also invisible under the most powerful microscopes. These high priests of physics are essentially blind men in a dark room looking for black cats (quarks, quasars, leptons, bosons, neutrinos, etc…) that aren’t there. The alleged discoveries that they’re making (fabricating) in their eternal quest for “God’s particle” are tantamount to pulling invisible rabbits out of non-existent hats. Why anyone takes such trite seriously is beyond me.
Side note 1 - Roald Amundsen purportedly led the first expedition to the geographical South Pole in that magical year that was 1911
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%2 ... r_1911.jpg
Side note 2 – Sir Arthur Eddington’s (yet another fellow of the Godforsaken Royal Society) sham of a ‘discovery’ which launched Albert Einstein into the scientific stratosphere took place in…you guessed it, 1919
. For more on that you can read:
“The Eclipse Data From 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science” By Richard Moody Jr.
http://blog.hasslberger.com/Moody%20-Ec ... m_1919.pdf
For the math-a-magically inclined I suggest:
“Unsolved Problems in Special and General Relativity - 21 collected papers”
http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/ ... tivity.pdf
E=MC^2 makes as much scientific sense as E=MC Hammer, but I digress.
The Redheaded Stepchild – John Sealy Townsend
According to Oxford University’s biography of John Sealy Townsend:
“As a believer in classical statistical mechanics, he rejected vehemently relativity and quantum theory. Though Townsend discovered a new phenomenon in the early 1920s—that monatomic gases offer no resistance to low-energy electrons—it became known as the Ramsauer effect because most physicists then accepted the quantum theory and agreed with Ramsauer that it was a quantum phenomenon. Feeling robbed of a discovery which was subsequently important in understanding the wave-like nature of the electron, Townsend never attended after 1924 any international meeting while a professor and he withdrew from commercial work.”
“However, by the 1930s Townsend was a sad figure. A dreary lecturer, a dogmatic supervisor of research, and so out of touch with physics as a whole as to be culpably negligent, he was upstaged in electronics by E. B. Moullin, the reader in electrical engineering in the engineering science department at Oxford. No German refugee sought accommodation in the electrical laboratory before the Second World War, while next door, Lindemann, Dr Lee's professor, provided sanctuary in the Clarendon Laboratory for eight refugee physicists, some of whom stayed and put it on the international map for its low temperature physics. Once the university had decided in the late 1930s to build a new Clarendon, it examined the relations between the two physics laboratories and their professors. It wished to convert Townsend's chair into one for theoretical physics but shelved the issue. In 1941 his career at Oxford ended. His intransigence about helping in the war effort by teaching servicemen provoked the university to take the drastic step of establishing a visitatorial board. It found him guilty of grave misconduct and advised that he resign or be sacked. Townsend, who had been knighted in January, perhaps as a hint to depart, retired in September on condition that the decision of the board would remain confidential.”
So the Golden Boy who supposedly achieved “The old dream of medieval alchemists” was deified and the Redheaded Stepchild who didn’t play along was relegated to the dustbin of history. For more than a century almost every scientist who’s had the audacity to question/reject the atomic/nuclear and general/special relativity theories has been ridiculed, vilified and or ostracized a la the Inquisition. IMHO unclear fizziks is clearly an organized religion masquerading as a science.
If you ask someone whether or not they believe in alchemy their response will most likely be something to the effect of, “Of course not, everyone knows that turning lead into gold is an ancient superstitious myth.” If you ask the same person whether or not they believe in the existence of nuclear energy/bombs they will most likely say, “Of course, what kind of silly question is that?” Therein lies the rub! The fact of the matter is that belief in the existence of nuclear energy/bombs goes hand-in-hand with belief in the substantiality of alchemy. There’s no two ways about it. You can’t have one without the other. If you choose to believe in such things that’s your prerogative. I will respect your beliefs just as I respect anyone else’s faith-based religious beliefs. But I won’t call it science…Soddy!