Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math
Subject: Re: Bertietaylor 's formula
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 09:05:48 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <c06ebfbbea7a1d754c6c70c53fbcfcbe@www.novabbs.org>
References: <f0e41f991bcc909969ffda4916c3325d@www.novabbs.org> <3766bad90f65b5b26835f374badba2fe@www.novabbs.org> <a500f41082be4650730c24fb2ef9473e@www.novabbs.org> <mfkbjl-po671.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> <1resd9f.4ktjmu1thsk43N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <4ee152bbc7efb2519d83f2e576c29302@www.novabbs.org> <1reu9lx.13i6xf51xvtpeaN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3008256"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="8Ljlg8xw5cAHatvjdHGGjEHKUx9ddlqxMwQzk4UFm4k";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: d6bc49351b0faa08a25d2b434d815198335a8b45
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$cmVhyiptu0JMQU3ZbGLLQ.3C6VBm5NJ7nT0cxPMf2AmAKFubgv81W

On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 8:26:59 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 8:57:50 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Energy is for bunnyahs (traders).
>> Confidence tricksters that is, all Einsteinians, use spin to confuse
>> matters.
>>>
>>> A bound state of three fermions
>>
>> A hoax, there are no fermions. Invention of the e=mcc jabbering frauds.
>
> Even if you refuse to call electrons and protons fermions
> they still have spin 1/2. (as measured)

All measurements by Einsteinians are suspect.

Anyway single orbiting electrons and protons can spin all they like if
indeed they do. No problem.
>
> By elementary arithmetic here is no way to make a spin 1 particle
> out of three spin 1/2 particles. [1]

Statement makes no sense. In the nucleus the electron holds the protons
together like so many strings. Around the proton they behave as rings.

Often wondered about the busy electron. Points at times, stretched
strings otherwise. Like piece of elastic to hold two protons together as
in deuterium nucleus. In bigger nuclei same idea only the structure gets
complex. Lots of modelling scope here to see what structure should be
most stable.

Once the whole mass energy equivalence nonsense is trashed physics
really takes off.
>
> This doesn't just hold for the Deutron: the 'electrons in nuclei' model
> is incompatible with most measured nuclear spins,

Irrelevant.
>
> Jan
>
> [1] It turns out that the spin 0 state of a proton and a
> neutron is not bound. It can be seen in scattering experiments though.

Irrelevant.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor
>
>
>> must have spin 1/2 or spin 3/2.
>>> Actually the Deutron is observed to have spin 1
>>
>> Blah, what else to expect from lying apes!
>>
>> Woof woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>> --

--