I first found this book at the library of my mothers school about 35 years ago - the title just grabbed me, as I was a nuclear engineering student at the time. My first reaction was of course, "no way......" Then I had remembered a fellow I had worked under in an internship mentioned Dewey Larson as an independent thinker.
It took me a while to learn that much of science commits the fallacy of "this model fits the data, so it must be the correct one..." What if two or three other theories also explain the data just as well?
Who says electrons and protons even exist, except some boffins, 99% of whom probably think or will tell you climate change is caused by rising CO2, that dinosaurs are real, that Covid was a very dangerous disease, that atomic bombs exist, and that some men played golf on the moon fifty years ago.
… And more, over the last 8 or Nine days. Truly phenomenal.
Fabulous when one doesn’t need much convincing: having read some of the books; saw the show; and bought the T-shirt for some of the other articles.
And yet for others… none of these missives will ever be taken on board. Strictly for the tin foil hatters. And people who won’t get their kids vaxxed. Hey ho. Life is indeed a cabaret, old chum.
I will, and have, read stuff, both here, and on other platforms of probably less agreeable stuff…
Pundits who’ll take you so far along the ‘dissenter’ ‘truther’ ‘alt media’ ‘nu-guru’ ‘wellness’ ‘vigilance’ path; and then encourage us to: protest, March, donate, buy Methylene Blue, complain to government departments. Vote. (God forbid). Never a mention of the nefarious forces behind the curtain. No hint of a Cryptocracy.
.. Or even take us back into the Medical/pharmaceutical cartels. Let’s take the MRNA(?) off the market and tweak it slightly, and carry on with all the other poisonous gunk out there for us to Swallow. Eat. Ingest. Inject.
Yeah, when I read "Solids compress continuously under pressure" my eyes glaze over. Take iron, you can compress it some, up to 75% of its original volume, but then it does not budge, even in the Earth core at 360 GPa. Take diamond, which is used in a pressure anvil by geochemist to compress matter and see what happens: even at 400 GPa the diamond only shrinks by ~14%.
I am not a scientist, a physicist, or an engineer, just a simple man who enjoys reading and learning. I have had to rethink a lot of my presupposed positions and abandon them when I determined them "unworkable". Anyone who values truth over all else would do the same.
I have a question which stems from pure ignorance. Dewey Larson's book was published in 1962. What impact has it had on science since then? How has it changed anything in the intervening 60+ years? Has there even been a broad acknowledgement that his theory might be correct and, if so, what has been the result of that fundamental shift in thinking? Has his theory been examined thoroughly and proven true or discredited?
It seems to me that Occam's Razor would dictate that Larson's position is more likely to be the correct one, but then again, I don't know and it is entirely possible that there may be other theories to explain the conundrum which have not even been mentioned.
One thing I have learned over the years is to not trust "experts" on the basis that they know what they talking about simply because they are "experts". If the Emperor truly has no clothes, then it is time to point out the fact, despite the reluctance of many who don't want to see.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Anyone can be a scientist, at least in a rough way.
A non-scientist, achiever or non-achiever, is someone who wants to know with such intensity and be given credit for knowing that they make stuff up. Plenty of non-scientists. A scientist is someone who keeps NOT knowing despite the strength of any need to know, who keeps doubting even when knowledge seems gained. Rare!
Yep. Anyone can be a scientist, at least in a rough way. Yet there are hardly any scientists, just Nobel winners and the like. Pity. It would be handy to have a few scientists.
I'm not saying that the electron valence shells are real as described "orbiting" the nucleus but they do explain chemistry and are testable.
I will say that quantum theory is total nonsense. The double slit experiment ignores the fact that the detector, like any detector, uses energy to detect and that's why it changes the result. The idea of the observer changing without interacting it is pure fantasy.
Here's a good playlist on how modern physics and qt are full of bs.
Sometimes we have people go off the deep end like the other post about how nuclear is fake. If it was fake and run on "alchemy" of sulfur, it would need to be refueled often.
Alchemy is chemistry before they knew more... The magic surrounding it has never worked. Even today they can't do it, but claim that it was done for a split second in the hadron collider. 😂
In esoteric studies, alchemy is a metaphor for the human psyche. Turning lead into gold via the heat of the retort is turning ourselves into having more consciousness/awareness using the heat of reality aka stress to melt away cognitive dissonance.
Energy levels can be detected that are presumed to correspond to the associated electron shells; energy levels can also be detected that are presumed to correspond to the associated nucleon (ie proton/neutron) shells.
Electron shells do explain many aspects of chemistry, so the obvious question is: how does this theory from the 1960s explain these points?
I'm not being facetious here: I'm open to being educated, if this model can explain these points.
I'm not sure because they like to shroud everything as quantum mechanics discovered it.
The formula is 2n² but from what I see it's in powers of 2 due to electron "spin" which I've yet to understand as it's some abstract mathematical concept of qt.
The periodic table was first developed in seeing that elements behaved similarly in reacting but that too had a lot of guess work. Perhaps the valences were calculated once they found a formula that "fit" the chemical observations...
Yes you are right about the guesswork in the first versions of the Periodic Table.
There are so many aspects of the accepted theory that seem to work that I would be hesitant to change the whole concept (like this article) without being able to explain everything plus more than the old theory explains.
But that's for those who propose the new theory to do: the onus is on them to prove their point.
I recently saw a YouTube video on a Nikola Tesla inspired design that gives 230V AC continuously with no energy input.
Actually, I think it might actually work for the following reasons: it has a heavy flywheel with strong magnets that pass near to coils to generate the AC power, and incorporates a small electric motor to maintain the flywheel's momentum against friction. The key feature is that you start it with muscle power with a lawn mower type cord, so it gets up to speed by external energy, the motor only needs to fight against friction, and is powered by what is generated. Sounds possible.
The sticking point apparently is that they claimed that it needed a silver-aluminium allow to reduce eddy current losses, not something I have in the shed.
This is Louie Pasteur 2,0. A math genius, I am not. What struck me one day was how fear is used to gain advantage. Repeat a story so many times that it becomes indisputable gospel according to the scientists. What's the greatest fear? Nuclear weapons, hands down. Then comes cancer. And so on and so on. Yet only 5% of earths countries have them, Isn't that strange? And they've only been used once. And we believe they're real.
I can just see it. The other countries said to themselves, "Yeah, OK, two can play that game. You claim you have them, well, we do too, so what ya gonna say to that?" And so it is. What hammers this home to me is all the hoopla on MSM about Russia's newest weapons, the Oreshnik and the Poisidon. If they are what they say they are, and we can counter that with nuclear weapons, why the hoopla? The possibility is there to believe the greatest military power in the world just produced a weapon that blows nuclear weapons theory to smithereens.
I have listened to a couple of podcasts claiming that it weren't nukes in Japan.
As someone not particularly knowledgable in that area, it does seem strange that people are living in these cities today, without apparent adverse effects, while Chernolbyl was evacuated (and now wildlife is thriving apparently).
Indeed. I saw the same. I believe the Russians are going along with this nuclear myth because they are an oil producing nation. Nuclear energy is cheap, efficient and a threat to oil. Oil is the 2nd largest substance on earth, next to water. It's everywhere, right under your feet, but the narrative is that oil is finite, and we only have X amount of years left before we run out. Total hogwash.
Our money used to be based on the price of gold. It's now based on the price of oil. The US goes after oil producing nations and destroys those nations. Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, now Russia, Gaza, Venezuela and Nigeria. To control and FREEZE the oil, to slow or stop production, to maintain a high price to compliment the running narrative of scarce oil. Nuclear energy will never be allowed. That's why we destroyed Fukushima in Japan, probably Chernobyl as well.
Im not so sure about Fukushima? I mean they spent billions adding all those tanks to hold the contaminated water just to fool us? Now they are dumping straight to the Pacific? Solution to pollution is dilution right? Im not so sure all the crap going on isn't a reaction to runaway nuclear reactions that will eventually kill us all anyway? What happened there was bad. Don't want to hear the ole
.No one died..Same shit as saying killing and starving kids is not a genocide because supposedly a population is gaining. If you can see with your own eyes....probably happening....
This was an excellent stack and made it easier for me as dumbass to understand some of it. But what appears to be facts is the spent fuel from these reactions is a problem that humans haven't figured out yet. Im not so sure that we can be so fn arrogant to think we can store shit that lasts for thousands of years 🤷♂️ Let us remember the fuel in those reactors was MOX fuel that was reprocessed from spent fuel that made it more radioactive than fresh fuel.
Who fn knows what is right anymore but love that Jeremy questions the orthodox which makes us think 🤔
A nuclear scientist noted that spent fuel from reactors can be recycled and reused over and over without diluting its potency. The idea that it is used once made no sense to him. Sorry, I don't know his name. I believed him, since the material used for nuclear power is imported from Africa where colonial powers, like France, maintains control. So, the reasons for using fuel just once makes sense to me and allows colonial powers permanence in those countries. Fukushima was sabotaged by the Stuxnet virus. A favorite tool of the Israelis. I also believe radiation levels drop significantly faster than we are told. As always, they manipulate data for the fear porn.
When scientists don't know something, they tend to just make something up. Sometimes it's called a theory, other times they just announce it as fact. They will not admit to being flummoxed or ignorant. Everything must have an explanation; mystery is not allowed. The nuclear atom theory ties in nicely with their fallacious heliocentric nonsense of the earth and other bogus planets orbiting around the sun. Another pretty flimsy hypothesis they have successfully jammed down our throats:).
Watch how many of them assume conciseness is an emergent property of matter without any evidence whatsoever. That's one are where their arrogance, despite knowing next to nothing about it, shines through
Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science
By Halton Arp
Halton argued that redshift doesn't equal distance. Halton made many observations to support his assertion. He cataloged many astronomical items while working at Palomar. If redshift doesn't equal distance, then the universe isn't expanding and there was no big bang. Dark matter and dark energy are just band-aids on a broken theory.
Interesting story, and has parallels to techniques used in the medical field with their choice of "cures". Funny how pharmaceutical "cures" always dominate natural ones as their solution to problems at hand, science be damned
Did a super deep Larson dive years ago. Happy to be reminded of it..and still vexed and sad, at the same time. If Larson had suggested an experiment that would distinguish his model from others (rather than just 'thumbs down' to other models) I would have been more compelled. But Lord! did i so want to be compelled.
A couple commenters nearest to my hipshot vibe reaction here indexed in on compression. I am interested in that, too. So I looked into it.
It occurs to me that, just as crumpling a piece of paper is easy (i.e. 'it's compressible') *down to a certain limit*, at some point it's not. My hipshot guess (got a lot of rounds in my hipshot revolver, folks!) is that the bonding structure is changing under pressure. As an example. steel's body-centered cubic interatomic structure might change to hexagonal close packed.
In other words, there are ways to keep nuclei and electron orbitals and account for compression, if one wants.
If one does NOT want, then one might well imagine the nucleus as a Larson nucleus, but as something quite complex -- please imagine for a moment a large helium balloon, wrapped in a single tarp, containing hundreds of smaller balloons within. This might be compressed in one direction while 'squeezing out' in another. No need for electrons, yada, if that's your vibe.
Me, i believe protons exist, so i believe a bunch of them can be put together, albeit with neutron 'glue', electron 'glue' (waving hands furiously in air, walking backwards slowly...)
Related Notes:
interested folks should really check out the Quicyle (Quantum Bicycle) team. They have an extremely compelling model of the atom and individual particles. Spoiler: "Matter is trapped light". Photons knotted onto themselves. This is, in a word, poetic as fuck. www.quicycle.com
I first found this book at the library of my mothers school about 35 years ago - the title just grabbed me, as I was a nuclear engineering student at the time. My first reaction was of course, "no way......" Then I had remembered a fellow I had worked under in an internship mentioned Dewey Larson as an independent thinker.
It took me a while to learn that much of science commits the fallacy of "this model fits the data, so it must be the correct one..." What if two or three other theories also explain the data just as well?
Who says electrons and protons even exist, except some boffins, 99% of whom probably think or will tell you climate change is caused by rising CO2, that dinosaurs are real, that Covid was a very dangerous disease, that atomic bombs exist, and that some men played golf on the moon fifty years ago.
The Fasting Cure.
The Black Death Myth.
The Sacred Violation.
Goodbye Germ Theory.
The Terrain Revolution.
Metabolic Drugs for Cancer.
Roytas: Catch a Cold.
… And more, over the last 8 or Nine days. Truly phenomenal.
Fabulous when one doesn’t need much convincing: having read some of the books; saw the show; and bought the T-shirt for some of the other articles.
And yet for others… none of these missives will ever be taken on board. Strictly for the tin foil hatters. And people who won’t get their kids vaxxed. Hey ho. Life is indeed a cabaret, old chum.
I will, and have, read stuff, both here, and on other platforms of probably less agreeable stuff…
Pundits who’ll take you so far along the ‘dissenter’ ‘truther’ ‘alt media’ ‘nu-guru’ ‘wellness’ ‘vigilance’ path; and then encourage us to: protest, March, donate, buy Methylene Blue, complain to government departments. Vote. (God forbid). Never a mention of the nefarious forces behind the curtain. No hint of a Cryptocracy.
.. Or even take us back into the Medical/pharmaceutical cartels. Let’s take the MRNA(?) off the market and tweak it slightly, and carry on with all the other poisonous gunk out there for us to Swallow. Eat. Ingest. Inject.
But hey, we’re on it.
Aren’t we.??
It's all out there for most people not to see or care about as it is easier to just go along and get along.
Only in the very short term.
Yeah, when I read "Solids compress continuously under pressure" my eyes glaze over. Take iron, you can compress it some, up to 75% of its original volume, but then it does not budge, even in the Earth core at 360 GPa. Take diamond, which is used in a pressure anvil by geochemist to compress matter and see what happens: even at 400 GPa the diamond only shrinks by ~14%.
I am not a scientist, a physicist, or an engineer, just a simple man who enjoys reading and learning. I have had to rethink a lot of my presupposed positions and abandon them when I determined them "unworkable". Anyone who values truth over all else would do the same.
I have a question which stems from pure ignorance. Dewey Larson's book was published in 1962. What impact has it had on science since then? How has it changed anything in the intervening 60+ years? Has there even been a broad acknowledgement that his theory might be correct and, if so, what has been the result of that fundamental shift in thinking? Has his theory been examined thoroughly and proven true or discredited?
It seems to me that Occam's Razor would dictate that Larson's position is more likely to be the correct one, but then again, I don't know and it is entirely possible that there may be other theories to explain the conundrum which have not even been mentioned.
One thing I have learned over the years is to not trust "experts" on the basis that they know what they talking about simply because they are "experts". If the Emperor truly has no clothes, then it is time to point out the fact, despite the reluctance of many who don't want to see.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Anyone can be a scientist, at least in a rough way.
A non-scientist, achiever or non-achiever, is someone who wants to know with such intensity and be given credit for knowing that they make stuff up. Plenty of non-scientists. A scientist is someone who keeps NOT knowing despite the strength of any need to know, who keeps doubting even when knowledge seems gained. Rare!
Yep. Anyone can be a scientist, at least in a rough way. Yet there are hardly any scientists, just Nobel winners and the like. Pity. It would be handy to have a few scientists.
I'm not saying that the electron valence shells are real as described "orbiting" the nucleus but they do explain chemistry and are testable.
I will say that quantum theory is total nonsense. The double slit experiment ignores the fact that the detector, like any detector, uses energy to detect and that's why it changes the result. The idea of the observer changing without interacting it is pure fantasy.
Here's a good playlist on how modern physics and qt are full of bs.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkdAkAC4ItcFyNFBywN0wiZ45pCnMr-Ay
Sometimes we have people go off the deep end like the other post about how nuclear is fake. If it was fake and run on "alchemy" of sulfur, it would need to be refueled often.
Alchemy is chemistry before they knew more... The magic surrounding it has never worked. Even today they can't do it, but claim that it was done for a split second in the hadron collider. 😂
In esoteric studies, alchemy is a metaphor for the human psyche. Turning lead into gold via the heat of the retort is turning ourselves into having more consciousness/awareness using the heat of reality aka stress to melt away cognitive dissonance.
Energy levels can be detected that are presumed to correspond to the associated electron shells; energy levels can also be detected that are presumed to correspond to the associated nucleon (ie proton/neutron) shells.
Electron shells do explain many aspects of chemistry, so the obvious question is: how does this theory from the 1960s explain these points?
I'm not being facetious here: I'm open to being educated, if this model can explain these points.
I'm not sure because they like to shroud everything as quantum mechanics discovered it.
The formula is 2n² but from what I see it's in powers of 2 due to electron "spin" which I've yet to understand as it's some abstract mathematical concept of qt.
The periodic table was first developed in seeing that elements behaved similarly in reacting but that too had a lot of guess work. Perhaps the valences were calculated once they found a formula that "fit" the chemical observations...
https://www.britannica.com/story/when-was-the-periodic-table-invented
Yes you are right about the guesswork in the first versions of the Periodic Table.
There are so many aspects of the accepted theory that seem to work that I would be hesitant to change the whole concept (like this article) without being able to explain everything plus more than the old theory explains.
But that's for those who propose the new theory to do: the onus is on them to prove their point.
Same muddy waters with free energy machines that i used to look into.
But I don't need to know how it works. I just want to see these devices do work, not just spin something.
I've not seen them properly measure energy in and energy out using 2 watt meters.
If out is more than in, something is happening.
After that, I can hear explanations of how it works.
Instead, I just hear fancy explanations without this simple test of energy in and energy out.
I recently saw a YouTube video on a Nikola Tesla inspired design that gives 230V AC continuously with no energy input.
Actually, I think it might actually work for the following reasons: it has a heavy flywheel with strong magnets that pass near to coils to generate the AC power, and incorporates a small electric motor to maintain the flywheel's momentum against friction. The key feature is that you start it with muscle power with a lawn mower type cord, so it gets up to speed by external energy, the motor only needs to fight against friction, and is powered by what is generated. Sounds possible.
The sticking point apparently is that they claimed that it needed a silver-aluminium allow to reduce eddy current losses, not something I have in the shed.
Pure aluminium might be more practical.
If someone made it with whatever method and measured energy in vs energy out, I would be interested to see that!
This reminds me of the germ theory fraud. Both perpetrated for fear and profit.
This is Louie Pasteur 2,0. A math genius, I am not. What struck me one day was how fear is used to gain advantage. Repeat a story so many times that it becomes indisputable gospel according to the scientists. What's the greatest fear? Nuclear weapons, hands down. Then comes cancer. And so on and so on. Yet only 5% of earths countries have them, Isn't that strange? And they've only been used once. And we believe they're real.
I can just see it. The other countries said to themselves, "Yeah, OK, two can play that game. You claim you have them, well, we do too, so what ya gonna say to that?" And so it is. What hammers this home to me is all the hoopla on MSM about Russia's newest weapons, the Oreshnik and the Poisidon. If they are what they say they are, and we can counter that with nuclear weapons, why the hoopla? The possibility is there to believe the greatest military power in the world just produced a weapon that blows nuclear weapons theory to smithereens.
I have listened to a couple of podcasts claiming that it weren't nukes in Japan.
As someone not particularly knowledgable in that area, it does seem strange that people are living in these cities today, without apparent adverse effects, while Chernolbyl was evacuated (and now wildlife is thriving apparently).
Indeed. I saw the same. I believe the Russians are going along with this nuclear myth because they are an oil producing nation. Nuclear energy is cheap, efficient and a threat to oil. Oil is the 2nd largest substance on earth, next to water. It's everywhere, right under your feet, but the narrative is that oil is finite, and we only have X amount of years left before we run out. Total hogwash.
Our money used to be based on the price of gold. It's now based on the price of oil. The US goes after oil producing nations and destroys those nations. Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, now Russia, Gaza, Venezuela and Nigeria. To control and FREEZE the oil, to slow or stop production, to maintain a high price to compliment the running narrative of scarce oil. Nuclear energy will never be allowed. That's why we destroyed Fukushima in Japan, probably Chernobyl as well.
Im not so sure about Fukushima? I mean they spent billions adding all those tanks to hold the contaminated water just to fool us? Now they are dumping straight to the Pacific? Solution to pollution is dilution right? Im not so sure all the crap going on isn't a reaction to runaway nuclear reactions that will eventually kill us all anyway? What happened there was bad. Don't want to hear the ole
.No one died..Same shit as saying killing and starving kids is not a genocide because supposedly a population is gaining. If you can see with your own eyes....probably happening....
This was an excellent stack and made it easier for me as dumbass to understand some of it. But what appears to be facts is the spent fuel from these reactions is a problem that humans haven't figured out yet. Im not so sure that we can be so fn arrogant to think we can store shit that lasts for thousands of years 🤷♂️ Let us remember the fuel in those reactors was MOX fuel that was reprocessed from spent fuel that made it more radioactive than fresh fuel.
Who fn knows what is right anymore but love that Jeremy questions the orthodox which makes us think 🤔
A nuclear scientist noted that spent fuel from reactors can be recycled and reused over and over without diluting its potency. The idea that it is used once made no sense to him. Sorry, I don't know his name. I believed him, since the material used for nuclear power is imported from Africa where colonial powers, like France, maintains control. So, the reasons for using fuel just once makes sense to me and allows colonial powers permanence in those countries. Fukushima was sabotaged by the Stuxnet virus. A favorite tool of the Israelis. I also believe radiation levels drop significantly faster than we are told. As always, they manipulate data for the fear porn.
All countries are run by the same cabal. Even China and Russia. This cabal has secret meetings where they set the agenda.
When scientists don't know something, they tend to just make something up. Sometimes it's called a theory, other times they just announce it as fact. They will not admit to being flummoxed or ignorant. Everything must have an explanation; mystery is not allowed. The nuclear atom theory ties in nicely with their fallacious heliocentric nonsense of the earth and other bogus planets orbiting around the sun. Another pretty flimsy hypothesis they have successfully jammed down our throats:).
Watch how many of them assume conciseness is an emergent property of matter without any evidence whatsoever. That's one are where their arrogance, despite knowing next to nothing about it, shines through
Fascinating! Check out:
Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science
By Halton Arp
Halton argued that redshift doesn't equal distance. Halton made many observations to support his assertion. He cataloged many astronomical items while working at Palomar. If redshift doesn't equal distance, then the universe isn't expanding and there was no big bang. Dark matter and dark energy are just band-aids on a broken theory.
Big bang theory is stupider than any religion.
The universe just exploded out of nothing, for no apparent reason, the laws of physics didn't apply initially, but trust me bro on everything else.
Interesting story, and has parallels to techniques used in the medical field with their choice of "cures". Funny how pharmaceutical "cures" always dominate natural ones as their solution to problems at hand, science be damned
Read the Vedas. 🙏
Excellent.
Did a super deep Larson dive years ago. Happy to be reminded of it..and still vexed and sad, at the same time. If Larson had suggested an experiment that would distinguish his model from others (rather than just 'thumbs down' to other models) I would have been more compelled. But Lord! did i so want to be compelled.
A couple commenters nearest to my hipshot vibe reaction here indexed in on compression. I am interested in that, too. So I looked into it.
It occurs to me that, just as crumpling a piece of paper is easy (i.e. 'it's compressible') *down to a certain limit*, at some point it's not. My hipshot guess (got a lot of rounds in my hipshot revolver, folks!) is that the bonding structure is changing under pressure. As an example. steel's body-centered cubic interatomic structure might change to hexagonal close packed.
In other words, there are ways to keep nuclei and electron orbitals and account for compression, if one wants.
If one does NOT want, then one might well imagine the nucleus as a Larson nucleus, but as something quite complex -- please imagine for a moment a large helium balloon, wrapped in a single tarp, containing hundreds of smaller balloons within. This might be compressed in one direction while 'squeezing out' in another. No need for electrons, yada, if that's your vibe.
Me, i believe protons exist, so i believe a bunch of them can be put together, albeit with neutron 'glue', electron 'glue' (waving hands furiously in air, walking backwards slowly...)
Related Notes:
interested folks should really check out the Quicyle (Quantum Bicycle) team. They have an extremely compelling model of the atom and individual particles. Spoiler: "Matter is trapped light". Photons knotted onto themselves. This is, in a word, poetic as fuck. www.quicycle.com
I appreciate your "1-minute elevator explanation" as well as all the supporting details.