'If statements of this kind are indicative of the general thinking of the profession, it is no wonder that the physicists have been unable to break away from the pattern of 1911 atomic theory. An enormous amount of experimental work in recent years has established just the opposite; it has been demonstrated beyond question that a specific kind of atom may have a wide range of ?atomic volumes,? if we use this term to designate the volume determined by the inter-atomic distance, as in the foregoing quotation. Furthermore, this recent work shows that instead of ?shrinking hardly at all? under pressure, all solid substances undergo very substantial decreases in volume under high pressures. Cesium, for example, loses nearly two thirds of its original volume under 100,000 atm., potassium more than half. Most substances are much less compressible than these alkali metals, but if sufficient pressure is applied they behave similarly. Metals such as iron, copper, zinc, silver, cadmium, and tin have been reduced to the neighborhood of half their original volumes by pressures around 3 to 4 million atmospheres, and there is no indication that we are approaching any kind of a limit even at the extreme upper end of the experimental pressure range.'
Thats the first piece of 'science' in his entire article (about 4000 words in) and it is complete crap. He's also an idiot because I really doubt Rutherford had access to anything that could generate 100000 atm, never mind 3 or 4 million.
There is also a pretty well established equation linking the mechanical work vs compression thing that works out the energy required to squash it in terms of the increased coulombic repulsion between the nuclei, I believe.
He is, ironically, doing the same thing he accuses other scientists of: using one piece of evidence as support of his theory and ignoring the counter argument.
