• Bertietaylor 's formula

    From Bertitaylor@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 30 00:11:55 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.math

    If A is atomic weight and N is atomic number then the number of
    electrons E holding the N protons in the nucleus is

    E = A - N

    Now E may not be an integer. That indicates the electrons for a
    particular atom nucleus do not have unit charge on the average.

    Woof woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof nice to have one's own formula!

    Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertitaylor@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Tue Jul 1 00:01:53 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, alt.usage.english

    On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 19:23:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 30.06.2025 11:57, skrev Bertitaylor:

    comprehend that we have posited that a neutron is a tight electron
    proton.

    β− decay is when a neutron in the core changes to a proton
    by emitting an electron.
    You claim that this proves that a neutron is a proton and
    an electron in tight bond.

    β+ decay is when a proton in the core changes to a neutron
    by emitting a positron.


    No such animal as a positron so it accepts an electron to become a
    neutron.

    Woof woof, simplicity eludes the stupid apes.

    Bertietaylor




    Does this prove that a proton is a neutron and a positron
    in tight bond?


    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Bertitaylor on Mon Jun 30 18:38:23 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
    On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 19:23:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 30.06.2025 11:57, skrev Bertitaylor:

    comprehend that we have posited that a neutron is a tight electron
    proton.

    β− decay is when a neutron in the core changes to a proton
    by emitting an electron.
    You claim that this proves that a neutron is a proton and
    an electron in tight bond.

    β+ decay is when a proton in the core changes to a neutron
    by emitting a positron.


    No such animal as a positron so it accepts an electron to become a
    neutron.

    Woof woof, simplicity eludes the stupid apes.

    Bertietaylor

    AI evaluation:

    This brief statement from Arindam (as Bertietaylor) contains a
    fundamental misunderstanding of well-established particle physics,
    followed by his usual rhetorical flourish ("Woof woof") and derision
    of others. Let’s break it down:
    Line-by-line Evaluation
    "No such animal as a positron..."

    Flatly incorrect. The positron (e⁺) is a well-documented
    particle: the antiparticle of the electron.

    It was predicted by Paul Dirac in 1928 and discovered
    experimentally in 1932 by Carl Anderson, for which he received
    the Nobel Prize.

    Positrons are observed routinely in beta-plus decay, PET scans,
    and pair production in particle accelerators.

    Denying the existence of positrons is akin to denying the existence
    of electrons or protons—it is not a fringe view, but a rejection
    of empirical evidence.

    "...so it accepts an electron to become a neutron."

    Incoherent process. This statement seems to imply that a proton
    becomes a neutron by "accepting" an electron. This refers,
    perhaps, to electron capture (or K-capture), which is a real process:
    p++e−→n+νe

    However, this does not require denying the existence of positrons.
    It's just one of several nuclear processes involving protons and
    electrons.

    Furthermore, this sentence is grammatically and logically
    ambiguous—what is accepting an electron? The earlier sentence
    denies the positron, but doesn’t clearly say what is doing the
    capturing.

    "Woof woof, simplicity eludes the stupid apes."

    Dismissive rhetoric with no intellectual merit.

    This insult-laden tone is Arindam's usual flourish—meant more to
    assert superiority than contribute to any real understanding.

    Scientific Facts:
    Claim Status
    Positrons exist Proven
    Electron capture is a real process Accurate
    Proton becomes neutron via positron emission In beta-plus decay
    Denying positrons is rational Pseudoscientific
    Conclusion:

    This Arindam/Bertietaylor statement is factually wrong, logically
    incomplete, and laced with dismissive arrogance. It disregards over
    90 years of verified particle physics, replacing it with hand-waving contrarianism dressed as bold simplicity.

    Verdict: Pseudoscientific and anti-empirical.
    Woof.

    --
    penninojim@yahoo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Jim Pennino on Tue Jul 1 10:57:50 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:

    In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
    On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 0:18:36 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

    On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 0:11:53 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

    If A is atomic weight and N is atomic number then the number of
    electrons E holding the N protons in the nucleus is

    E = A - N

    Now E may not be an integer. That indicates the electrons for a
    particular atom nucleus do not have unit charge on the average.

    Woof woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof nice to have one's own formula! >>>
    Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

    --

    With e=mcc trashed by Arindam and radioactivity from beta decay showing
    beta rays are electrons coming out of the nucleus, Bertietaylor's
    formula is verified.

    Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof

    --

    As electrons come out of the nucleus naturally or even unnaturally with
    the phenomenon of radioactivity, it is logical that the nucleus contains electrons. Which tie up the protons.

    WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof simplicity confounds learner apes!


    AI evaluation:

    Arindam's latest writing as "Bertietaylor" continues in the same pattern
    as previous entries—deliberately provocative, blending pseudoscientific claims with dismissive, sometimes mocking rhetoric. Let's break it down: Scientific Evaluation:

    "As electrons come out of the nucleus naturally or even
    unnaturally with the phenomenon of radioactivity, it is logical
    that the nucleus contains electrons. Which tie up the protons."

    Misunderstanding of Nuclear Physics:

    This statement reflects a misinterpretation of beta decay.
    In beta-minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, an
    electron (beta particle), and an antineutrino. The electron
    is not pre-existing in the nucleus but is created during the
    decay via the weak nuclear force.

    Therefore, the presence of electrons in the nucleus is not a
    logical conclusion from radioactive emissions.

    Historical Fallacy:

    This idea (that electrons exist within the nucleus) was
    considered in early nuclear models (e.g., the proton-electron
    model) but has since been abandoned due to inconsistencies
    with quantum mechanics and experimental evidence (e.g.,
    Heisenberg uncertainty principle violations if electrons
    were tightly bound in the nucleus).

    For the innocent kiddies: claiming that the Deutron is an e-p-p bound
    state is not only impossible by electron zero-point energy,
    it even gets the spin wrong.

    A bound state of three fermions must have spin 1/2 or spin 3/2.
    Actually the Deutron is observed to have spin 1

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 1 20:34:05 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, alt.usage.english

    Den 01.07.2025 02:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
    On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 19:23:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 30.06.2025 11:57, skrev Bertitaylor:

    comprehend that we have posited that a neutron is a tight electron
    proton.

    β− decay is when a neutron in the core changes to a proton
    by emitting an electron.
    You claim that this proves that a neutron is a proton and
    an electron in tight bond.

    β+ decay is when a proton in the core changes to a neutron
    by emitting a positron.


    No such animal as a positron so it accepts an electron to become a
    neutron.

    OK. That settles it.

    There is no way you can be unaware of the existence of the positron,
    so you know you are denying facts.

    That will make you a troll.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Tue Jul 1 13:35:06 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    In sci.physics Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
    Den 01.07.2025 02:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
    On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 19:23:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 30.06.2025 11:57, skrev Bertitaylor:

    comprehend that we have posited that a neutron is a tight electron
    proton.

    β− decay is when a neutron in the core changes to a proton
    by emitting an electron.
    You claim that this proves that a neutron is a proton and
    an electron in tight bond.

    β+ decay is when a proton in the core changes to a neutron
    by emitting a positron.


    No such animal as a positron so it accepts an electron to become a
    neutron.

    OK. That settles it.

    There is no way you can be unaware of the existence of the positron,
    so you know you are denying facts.

    That will make you a troll.


    Well, no.

    There is also the possibility that he has some mental issue that
    prevents him from accepting a reality that conflicts with his conceptions.


    --
    penninojim@yahoo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertitaylor@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Tue Jul 1 22:39:12 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, alt.usage.english

    On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:34:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 01.07.2025 02:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
    On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 19:23:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 30.06.2025 11:57, skrev Bertitaylor:

    comprehend that we have posited that a neutron is a tight electron
    proton.

    β− decay is when a neutron in the core changes to a proton
    by emitting an electron.
    You claim that this proves that a neutron is a proton and
    an electron in tight bond.

    β+ decay is when a proton in the core changes to a neutron
    by emitting a positron.


    No such animal as a positron so it accepts an electron to become a
    neutron.

    OK. That settles it.

    Yes. Positrons are Harry Potter stuff at the kindest. Basically, fraud
    stuff by the Einsteinian confidence tricksters.

    There is no way you can be unaware of the existence of the positron,


    Huh, we have heard of Harry Potter and seen his films but we are sure he
    does not exist in reality. Like positrons that have no real existence.




    so you know you are denying facts.


    We do not deny the fact that positrons are imaginary like big bang,
    black hole, fermions, quarks, pions, bosons and suchlike modern
    pseudophysics jabber based upon the false e=mcc formula.

    That will make you a troll.

    We are the spirits of dead dogs doing propaganda for Arindam from low
    Heaven and he has no friends on Earth to do that for him.

    WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

    Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Bertitaylor on Tue Jul 1 16:47:29 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:34:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 01.07.2025 02:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
    On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 19:23:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 30.06.2025 11:57, skrev Bertitaylor:

    comprehend that we have posited that a neutron is a tight electron
    proton.

    β− decay is when a neutron in the core changes to a proton
    by emitting an electron.
    You claim that this proves that a neutron is a proton and
    an electron in tight bond.

    β+ decay is when a proton in the core changes to a neutron
    by emitting a positron.


    No such animal as a positron so it accepts an electron to become a
    neutron.

    OK. That settles it.

    Yes. Positrons are Harry Potter stuff at the kindest. Basically, fraud
    stuff by the Einsteinian confidence tricksters.

    There is no way you can be unaware of the existence of the positron,


    Huh, we have heard of Harry Potter and seen his films but we are sure he
    does not exist in reality. Like positrons that have no real existence.

    Unlike Harry Potter, there are literally many thousands of people that
    have looked for and verified the existance of positrons crackpot.

    And that doesn't count the roughly 2 million positron emission
    tomography scans performed each year in just the US crackpot.



    so you know you are denying facts.


    We do not deny the fact that positrons are imaginary like big bang,
    black hole, fermions, quarks, pions, bosons and suchlike modern
    pseudophysics jabber based upon the false e=mcc formula.

    That will make you a troll.

    We are the spirits of dead dogs doing propaganda for Arindam from low
    Heaven and he has no friends on Earth to do that for him.

    WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

    Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

    --

    Like I said, mentals issues are a very real possibility.


    --
    penninojim@yahoo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Bertitaylor on Tue Jul 1 16:55:55 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:34:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 01.07.2025 02:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
    On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 19:23:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 30.06.2025 11:57, skrev Bertitaylor:

    comprehend that we have posited that a neutron is a tight electron
    proton.

    β− decay is when a neutron in the core changes to a proton
    by emitting an electron.
    You claim that this proves that a neutron is a proton and
    an electron in tight bond.

    β+ decay is when a proton in the core changes to a neutron
    by emitting a positron.


    No such animal as a positron so it accepts an electron to become a
    neutron.

    OK. That settles it.

    Yes. Positrons are Harry Potter stuff at the kindest. Basically, fraud
    stuff by the Einsteinian confidence tricksters.

    There is no way you can be unaware of the existence of the positron,


    Huh, we have heard of Harry Potter and seen his films but we are sure he
    does not exist in reality. Like positrons that have no real existence.




    so you know you are denying facts.


    We do not deny the fact that positrons are imaginary like big bang,
    black hole, fermions, quarks, pions, bosons and suchlike modern
    pseudophysics jabber based upon the false e=mcc formula.

    That will make you a troll.

    We are the spirits of dead dogs doing propaganda for Arindam from low
    Heaven and he has no friends on Earth to do that for him.

    WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

    Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)


    AI evaluation:

    This latest piece from Arindam writing as bertietaylor continues in his now-familiar blend of anti-mainstream invective, mockery, and
    pseudo-mystical surrealism. Let's break it down in parts:
    1. Claim: "Positrons are Harry Potter stuff… fraud… Einsteinian
    confidence tricksters"

    Evaluation:
    This statement dismisses the positron, a well-established and directly
    observed particle, as fiction akin to Harry Potter. The positron
    (antiparticle of the electron) was predicted by Paul Dirac in 1928 and experimentally discovered by Carl Anderson in 1932, a discovery that
    earned a Nobel Prize in 1936. It’s not speculative or theoretical at
    this point—it’s part of practical technologies such as PET scans
    (Positron Emission Tomography) used in medical diagnostics.

    Calling it "fraud" ignores nearly a century of experimental validation
    and utility in applied science. This is not a controversial or unsettled
    area of physics.
    2. Dismissal of fundamental concepts: “imaginary like big bang, black
    hole, fermions, quarks, pions, bosons…”

    Evaluation:
    This sweeping rejection includes nearly the entire Standard Model of
    particle physics, as well as general relativity and cosmology. The
    claim shows either:

    Profound ignorance of the overwhelming empirical support for
    these concepts, or

    A deliberate rhetorical posture of contrarianism, bordering on
    science denial.

    These are not fringe hypotheses—they are core frameworks validated
    by multiple independent lines of evidence:

    Black holes: observed via gravitational waves (LIGO), stellar
    orbits (Sagittarius A*), and imaging (Event Horizon Telescope).

    Quarks: inferred from deep inelastic scattering experiments.

    Bosons: the Higgs boson was discovered at CERN in 2012.

    Pions and fermions are foundational to understanding atomic and
    nuclear behavior, as well as chemistry.

    3. "False e = mcc formula"

    Evaluation:
    He appears to be referring to Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence,
    E=mc2. This formula is experimentally confirmed—such as in nuclear fission/fusion, particle accelerators, and the Sun’s energy production.
    To call this "false" suggests either a refusal to engage with physical
    evidence or a lack of understanding of how the formula operates.

    Also, “mcc” is likely a misspelling or misstatement for mc2, repeated
    in previous posts as a kind of deliberate anti-establishment motif.
    4. "We are the spirits of dead dogs…"

    Evaluation:
    This surrealist flourish—"cyberdogs from low Heaven"—continues a performative, ironic style that distances the author from his
    statements. It’s part satire, part anti-scientific performance art.
    It may reflect a psychological or rhetorical strategy: using
    absurdism to inoculate himself from critique (if it's satire,
    it can’t be wrong), while also mocking the entire scientific enterprise. Conclusion:

    This writing is:

    Factually incorrect across multiple domains of modern physics.

    Rhetorically dismissive of scientific consensus without offering
    counter-evidence.

    Suffused with irony and surrealism, which gives it an almost
    dadaist or postmodern quality, but makes it impossible to take
    as serious physics commentary.

    It functions less as a critique of science and more as a rejection
    of the epistemological foundations of science itself—empiricism,
    evidence, and reproducibility. In that sense, it may be of interest
    to scholars studying anti-science rhetoric or pseudoscientific
    performance writing, but it has no credibility as physics.


    --
    penninojim@yahoo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertitaylor@21:1/5 to Jim Pennino on Wed Jul 2 00:42:11 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 23:47:29 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

    In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:34:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 01.07.2025 02:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
    On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 19:23:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 30.06.2025 11:57, skrev Bertitaylor:

    comprehend that we have posited that a neutron is a tight electron >>>>>> proton.

    β− decay is when a neutron in the core changes to a proton
    by emitting an electron.
    You claim that this proves that a neutron is a proton and
    an electron in tight bond.

    β+ decay is when a proton in the core changes to a neutron
    by emitting a positron.


    No such animal as a positron so it accepts an electron to become a
    neutron.

    OK. That settles it.

    Yes. Positrons are Harry Potter stuff at the kindest. Basically, fraud
    stuff by the Einsteinian confidence tricksters.

    There is no way you can be unaware of the existence of the positron,


    Huh, we have heard of Harry Potter and seen his films but we are sure he
    does not exist in reality. Like positrons that have no real existence.

    Unlike Harry Potter, there are literally many thousands of people that
    have looked for and verified the existance of positrons crackpot.

    Just as billions of people may swear Harry Potter exists as they have
    seen him trillions of times on movies and TV and in sacred texts.

    And that doesn't count the roughly 2 million positron emission
    tomography scans performed each year in just the US crackpot.

    Computer art and lies can claim anything. The US of course is an
    Einsteinian land of liars and thieves in influential places. Cannot
    trust any US source on basic issues.

    WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

    Bertietaylor



    so you know you are denying facts.


    We do not deny the fact that positrons are imaginary like big bang,
    black hole, fermions, quarks, pions, bosons and suchlike modern
    pseudophysics jabber based upon the false e=mcc formula.

    That will make you a troll.

    We are the spirits of dead dogs doing propaganda for Arindam from low
    Heaven and he has no friends on Earth to do that for him.

    WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

    Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

    --

    Like I said, mentals issues are a very real possibility.


    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertitaylor@21:1/5 to Chris M. Thomasson on Wed Jul 2 01:30:13 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, alt.usage.english

    On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 21:35:32 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

    On 7/1/2025 12:28 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
    Den 30.06.2025 21:33, skrev guido wugi:
    Op 30/06/2025 om 21:23 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:

    β− decay is when a neutron in the core changes to a proton
    by emitting an electron.

    β+ decay is when a proton in the core changes to a neutron
    by emitting a positron.

    Or that particle transforms are time-reversible (within the limits of
    later and previous interactions) and that β- and β+ are time mirrors
    of each other?


    It is not time reversible in the sense that a β− decay can be
    'undone' by a β+ decay so we get the same isotope back.

    Example of β− decay:
    Carbon-14   with 6 protons and 8 neutrons decays into
    Nitrogen-14 with 7 protons and 7 neutrons + electron and antineutrino
    Nitrogen-14 is stable

    Example of β+ decay:
    Carbon-10 with 6 protons and 4 neutrons decays into
    Boron-10  with 5 protons and 5 neutrons + positron and neutrino
    Boron-10  is stable

    Note that the decay tend to make the number of protons and neurons
    (more) equal.
    Isotopes with equal (or more balanced) number of protons and neutrons
    tend to be stable.


    There are theoretical islands of stability for higher elements, right?

    All depends upon how tightly the electrons in the nucleus tie up the
    protons. Not just their number but the tie up method which can only be speculated upon. Now for example U238 is far more stable than U235.
    Okay? One reason is that the U238 has 3 more electrons to tighten up the
    same 92 protons in the nucleus so that makes radioactive decay less.
    This comes from the use of Bertietaylor's formula E=A-N.

    I suppose even the great-greats here (attention Paul, JimPee, Volney,
    Else, Moylan, Athel, Lodder, Occam, Alsing, whodat, Roachie etc.)may
    work out that from the above math formula.

    WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

    Bertietaylor

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Bertitaylor on Tue Jul 1 19:24:39 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 21:35:32 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

    On 7/1/2025 12:28 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
    Den 30.06.2025 21:33, skrev guido wugi:
    Op 30/06/2025 om 21:23 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:

    β− decay is when a neutron in the core changes to a proton
    by emitting an electron.

    β+ decay is when a proton in the core changes to a neutron
    by emitting a positron.

    Or that particle transforms are time-reversible (within the limits of
    later and previous interactions) and that β- and β+ are time mirrors >>>> of each other?


    It is not time reversible in the sense that a β− decay can be
    'undone' by a β+ decay so we get the same isotope back.

    Example of β− decay:
    Carbon-14   with 6 protons and 8 neutrons decays into
    Nitrogen-14 with 7 protons and 7 neutrons + electron and antineutrino
    Nitrogen-14 is stable

    Example of β+ decay:
    Carbon-10 with 6 protons and 4 neutrons decays into
    Boron-10  with 5 protons and 5 neutrons + positron and neutrino
    Boron-10  is stable

    Note that the decay tend to make the number of protons and neurons
    (more) equal.
    Isotopes with equal (or more balanced) number of protons and neutrons
    tend to be stable.


    There are theoretical islands of stability for higher elements, right?

    All depends upon how tightly the electrons in the nucleus tie up the
    protons. Not just their number but the tie up method which can only be speculated upon. Now for example U238 is far more stable than U235.
    Okay? One reason is that the U238 has 3 more electrons to tighten up the
    same 92 protons in the nucleus so that makes radioactive decay less.
    This comes from the use of Bertietaylor's formula E=A-N.

    I suppose even the great-greats here (attention Paul, JimPee, Volney,
    Else, Moylan, Athel, Lodder, Occam, Alsing, whodat, Roachie etc.)may
    work out that from the above math formula.

    WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

    Bertietaylor

    --

    AI evaluation:

    This post from Arindam (writing as Bertietaylor) continues his pattern of presenting pseudo-scientific claims wrapped in dismissive and mocking
    rhetoric. Let's unpack it in two parts: scientific content and rhetorical style.
    Scientific Content Evaluation
    1. "Electrons in the nucleus tie up the protons"

    Incorrect: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of nuclear
    physics. Electrons are not part of the nucleus (except in very
    rare, short-lived states like muonic atoms or bound beta-decay
    intermediates). The strong nuclear force binds protons and neutrons
    in the nucleus, not electrons.

    The electrostatic repulsion between protons is overcome by the strong
    nuclear force mediated by gluons and mesons, not by electrons "tying
    up" protons.

    2. U-238 vs. U-235 stability

    Arindam/Bertietaylor claims that U-238 is more stable because it has
    "3 more electrons in the nucleus."

    Fact: The difference in stability arises because U-238 has more
    neutrons than U-235 (146 vs. 143), not more electrons. These
    extra neutrons improve the neutron-to-proton ratio, increasing
    nuclear stability.

    Atomic electrons (in orbitals) do not significantly affect
    nuclear decay rates under normal conditions.

    3. "Bertietaylor’s formula: E = A - N"

    Where:

    Presumably, E is some undefined energy or “electronic count”

    A = atomic mass number (protons + neutrons)

    N = number of neutrons

    But then E = Z, the atomic number (number of protons) — which is
    already a known concept, not a new formula.

    Claiming this as a novel insight or equation is equivalent to
    stating that “protons = mass number minus neutrons” and then
    naming it after oneself.

    4. "Radioactive decay is less because of electron tie-up"

    Again, this is baseless and contradicts known physics. Nuclear
    decay (especially alpha and beta decay) depends on the nuclear
    binding energy, neutron-to-proton ratio, and quantum tunneling
    probabilities—not on any supposed intra-nuclear electrons.

    Rhetorical Style

    As usual, the post ends with a taunting list of perceived
    intellectual opponents and the habitual "WOOF woof-woof" refrain.

    The tone is sarcastic, antagonistic, and seeks to provoke rather
    than engage in any reasoned or constructive debate.

    The "great-greats" jab is part of his continued effort to frame
    himself as an unrecognized genius surrounded by fools — a hallmark
    of crank science rhetoric.

    Conclusion

    This post demonstrates:

    Profound misunderstanding of nuclear physics (confusing electrons
    with neutrons, misunderstanding forces in the nucleus).

    Misrepresentation of known quantities as original formulas (E = A - N).

    Mocking tone that avoids genuine discourse.

    Crank hallmarks: idiosyncratic notation, conspiracy-adjacent framing,
    and combative pseudoscience.

    In short, this post is scientifically inaccurate and rhetorically
    unserious — a continuation of Arindam/Bertietaylor’s broader pattern
    of pseudophysics masquerading as revelation.


    --
    penninojim@yahoo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Bertitaylor on Tue Jul 1 19:11:25 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 23:47:29 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

    In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
    On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:34:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 01.07.2025 02:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
    On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 19:23:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 30.06.2025 11:57, skrev Bertitaylor:

    comprehend that we have posited that a neutron is a tight electron >>>>>>> proton.

    β− decay is when a neutron in the core changes to a proton
    by emitting an electron.
    You claim that this proves that a neutron is a proton and
    an electron in tight bond.

    β+ decay is when a proton in the core changes to a neutron
    by emitting a positron.


    No such animal as a positron so it accepts an electron to become a
    neutron.

    OK. That settles it.

    Yes. Positrons are Harry Potter stuff at the kindest. Basically, fraud
    stuff by the Einsteinian confidence tricksters.

    There is no way you can be unaware of the existence of the positron,


    Huh, we have heard of Harry Potter and seen his films but we are sure he >>> does not exist in reality. Like positrons that have no real existence.

    Unlike Harry Potter, there are literally many thousands of people that
    have looked for and verified the existance of positrons crackpot.

    Just as billions of people may swear Harry Potter exists as they have
    seen him trillions of times on movies and TV and in sacred texts.

    No, billions of people will not swear Harry Potter exists as sane people
    can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, quite unlike you
    crackpot.

    The only people that will swear Harry Potter exists are small children
    and the delusionally insane, such as you crackpot.


    And that doesn't count the roughly 2 million positron emission
    tomography scans performed each year in just the US crackpot.

    Computer art and lies can claim anything.

    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with PET scans crackpot.

    <snip remaining crackpottery>


    --
    penninojim@yahoo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertitaylor@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 2 02:36:25 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    Natural Idiots really need Artificial Idiocy to maintain dogmas and
    doctrines.

    WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

    Bertietaylor

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Bertitaylor on Tue Jul 1 20:45:36 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
    Natural Idiots really need Artificial Idiocy to maintain dogmas and doctrines.

    WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

    Bertietaylor

    --

    Arindam's response—written in his typical "Bertietaylor" style—is not
    a substantive rebuttal but rather a dismissive and hostile retort
    framed as insult and mockery. Here's a breakdown:
    1. Ad hominem and deflection

    "Natural Idiots really need Artificial Idiocy to maintain dogmas
    and doctrines."

    This is classic ad hominem: rather than engaging with the specific
    scientific critique (i.e., that electrons are not present in the nucleus
    as a binding force), Arindam simply attacks those making the critique. Referring to others as "Natural Idiots" and AI tools as "Artificial Idiocy"
    is not a meaningful argument—it’s emotional venting dressed as rhetoric.
    2. Avoidance of substance

    Arindam offers no clarification or defense of his claim about electrons
    binding protons in the nucleus, nor does he reference any physics to
    support his original statement. This is consistent with a pattern in his posts—evading direct engagement when confronted with scientific inaccuracy. 3. Signature nonsense

    "WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof"

    This kind of stylized repetition has become a hallmark of his posts—mock-animalistic sounds, presumably intended to ridicule his
    audience. It signals disdain and a deliberate abandonment of discourse, reinforcing that he sees the conversation not as an exchange of ideas
    but as a platform for provocation.
    Conclusion:

    Arindam’s response does not attempt to refute the critique or defend his earlier pseudoscientific claim. Instead, it uses insult and theatricality
    to shut down discourse. If he truly believes in the claim that electrons
    "tie up" protons in the nucleus, he offers no rational defense here—only contempt for those who challenge him.


    --
    penninojim@yahoo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)