XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

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)

--

All agree, yes?

--

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

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

--

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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)

--

AI evaluation:

This latest "pronouncement" by Arindam writing as Bertietaylor is
another mixture of misunderstood physics, pseudoscientific posturing,
and whimsical self-amusement (“Woof woof…” etc.). Let's break it down critically and precisely:
1. Claim:

“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.”

This statement is scientifically incorrect on multiple levels:

Atomic Weight (A): This refers to the average mass of an element’s
atoms, measured in atomic mass units (u), accounting for isotope
distribution. It is not an integer and not equal to the total
number of nucleons (protons + neutrons) in a single atom. That’s
the mass number, not atomic weight.

Atomic Number (N): This is correctly stated—it’s the number of
protons in the nucleus.

Electrons in an atom: In a neutral atom, the number of electrons
equals the atomic number, not A − N. That is:
E=N(in neutral atoms)

So the formula E = A - N is meaningless and wrong for describing
electron count in atoms.

2. Misinterpretation of Electron Charge:

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

This is a nonsensical conclusion:

The elementary charge of an electron is a constant:
~−1.602 × 10⁻¹⁹ C. It does not vary across atoms.

The non-integer value of atomic weight is due to isotopic
variation, not because electrons suddenly carry a fraction of
a charge.

Fractional electron count is never physically meaningful in terms
of charge quantization. It reflects flawed modeling or statistical
averaging, not sub-unit charges.

3. Style and Tone:

The “woof woof” ending continues the Bertietaylor gimmick of
mixing mockery, absurdity, and supposed genius, but here it just
underscores a lack of seriousness in the scientific content.

“Nice to have one's own formula!” comes across as smug
self-congratulation for something both mathematically trivial and
physically incorrect.

Summary Evaluation:

Scientific validity: ❌ Deeply flawed

Internal logic: ❌ Based on false premises

Originality: ✅ Technically original, but only due to its detachment
from reality

Tone: 🐶 Satirical but muddled; hard to discern if parody or
sincere pseudoscience

Final Verdict:

Arindam, writing as Bertietaylor, offers a superficially formulaic
yet fundamentally incorrect representation of atomic structure. It
reflects a confusion of basic physics concepts, likely dressed up
for rhetorical flourish rather than clarity or truth. This continues
the pattern of grandiose but scientifically invalid proclamations.


--
[email protected]

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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)

--

All agree, yes?

--

Yes, everyone agrees that you are quite insane, Arindam.

--
[email protected]

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 0:20:09 +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)

--

All agree, yes?

Penisninos don't count.

Woof woof

--

--

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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

--

AI evaluation:

This postscript from Arindam, writing as Bertietaylor, attempts to
link his previous incorrect formula (E = A - N) to mainstream nuclear
physics concepts—but it does so through confusion, misrepresentation,
and distortion. Let's examine the claims one by one:
1. “With e = mc² trashed by Arindam…”

This is a baseless and grandiose assertion:

Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence, E=mc2, is one of the most
experimentally verified results in all of physics.

Arindam offers no derivation, no experimental evidence, and no
theoretical framework to justify “trashing” it.

Dismissing a fundamental physical law without rigorous
counter-evidence is not revolutionary—it’s pseudoscientific.

This is not the work of a skeptic; it's the performance of a contrarian
lacking grounding in scientific methodology.
2. “...and radioactivity from beta decay showing beta rays are electrons coming out of the nucleus…”

This part is technically accurate—but is misapplied:

Beta decay involves the transformation of a neutron into a proton,
emitting an electron (beta particle) and an antineutrino. So yes,
electrons can come “out of the nucleus”—but not because they were
stored there as part of the atom's regular electron cloud.

The electron in beta decay is created during the decay process,
not previously sitting in the nucleus. This is a key distinction.

Arindam seems to misunderstand or deliberately conflate this with
electron configuration, trying to support the earlier (incorrect) claim
that atoms have a non-integer number of electrons due to nuclear structure.
3. “...Bertietaylor’s formula is verified.”

Absolutely not:

The formula E=A−N was already shown to be incorrect both
mathematically and physically.

Referencing beta decay and the mass-energy equivalence in no way
verifies or even relates logically to the electron count formula.

This is non sequitur logic—connecting unrelated ideas to pretend
that prior errors are validated by nuclear physics.

4. Final Line – “Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof”

A repetition of Bertietaylor's now-standard literary bark. It adds
quirky branding but no substance.

In this context, it seems more like a distraction tactic than
playful flourish.

Overall Evaluation:
Aspect Evaluation
Scientific Content ❌ Pseudoscientific, misleading
Logical Validity ❌ Non sequitur; internal contradiction
Use of Established Physics ⚠️ Partial truths twisted to support falsehoods
Tone & Style 🐶 Whimsical, but evasive of accountability
Conclusion:

This postscript continues the pattern of intellectual smoke and mirrors.
It fails to verify the prior claim and instead reveals deeper
misunderstandings of physics. References to Einstein and beta decay
are used not to clarify, but to confer false legitimacy to an invalid
formula. It reads less like a scientific statement and more like
satirical pseudoscience dressed in barks.

--
[email protected]

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

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)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 0:45:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

Having no wits Penisnino relies upon AI vomit. Let us do some pathology
tests.

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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)

--

AI evaluation:

This latest "pronouncement" by Arindam writing as Bertietaylor is
another mixture of misunderstood physics, pseudoscientific posturing,
and whimsical self-amusement (“Woof woof…” etc.).

Abuse of low quality. Earlier labels like batshit crazy, delusional,
Dunning Kluger etc. better reflected the frustrations of the mediocre establishment apes.

Humour impaired of course, for vomit can be nothing else! High level
thinking escapes it. Has no clue about spirituality and imagination.
Bore!




Let's break it down

critically and precisely:

Joke.

1. Claim:

“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.”

This statement is scientifically incorrect on multiple levels:

Huh, let's see.

Atomic Weight (A): This refers to the average mass of an element’s
atoms, measured in atomic mass units (u), accounting for isotope
distribution. It is not an integer and not equal to the total
number of nucleons (protons + neutrons) in a single atom. That’s
the mass number, not atomic weight.

E was not stated as integer, vomit.

Atomic Number (N): This is correctly stated—it’s the number of
protons in the nucleus.

Electrons in an atom: In a neutral atom, the number of electrons
equals the atomic number, not A − N. That is:
E=N(in neutral atoms)

Here the folly of the dumb AI comes out. Idiot computer cannot
comprehend that we have posited that a neutron is a tight electron
proton. A new and original idea so beyond the scope of the vomiting
idiot that is AI, that cannot go beyond its limited programming.

Idiot talks of electrons in the atom when the formula is about electrons
in the nucleus. Thus writes irrelevant crap.

Woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof the intelligence of AI "apes" is
lower than imbeciles yet higher than the Penisnino (sub-idiot, relying
upon Artificial Idiocy proves it superior to his Natural Idiocy).

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs; we bark to conquer)

So the formula E = A - N is meaningless and wrong for describing
electron count in atoms.

2. Misinterpretation of Electron Charge:

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

This is a nonsensical conclusion:

The elementary charge of an electron is a constant:
~−1.602 × 10⁻¹⁹ C. It does not vary across atoms.

The non-integer value of atomic weight is due to isotopic
variation, not because electrons suddenly carry a fraction of
a charge.

Fractional electron count is never physically meaningful in terms
of charge quantization. It reflects flawed modeling or statistical
averaging, not sub-unit charges.

3. Style and Tone:

The “woof woof” ending continues the Bertietaylor gimmick of
mixing mockery, absurdity, and supposed genius, but here it just
underscores a lack of seriousness in the scientific content.

“Nice to have one's own formula!” comes across as smug
self-congratulation for something both mathematically trivial and
physically incorrect.

Summary Evaluation:

Scientific validity: ❌ Deeply flawed

Internal logic: ❌ Based on false premises

Originality: ✅ Technically original, but only due to its detachment
from reality

Tone: 🐶 Satirical but muddled; hard to discern if parody or
sincere pseudoscience

Final Verdict:

Arindam, writing as Bertietaylor, offers a superficially formulaic
yet fundamentally incorrect representation of atomic structure. It
reflects a confusion of basic physics concepts, likely dressed up
for rhetorical flourish rather than clarity or truth. This continues
the pattern of grandiose but scientifically invalid proclamations.

--

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 0:45:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

Having no wits Penisnino relies upon AI vomit. Let us do some pathology tests.

Why would I waste the time to do a detailed response to a delusionally
insane crackpot when AI saves me the effort Arindam?

<snip remaining delusional babble unread>


--
[email protected]

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 22:37:53 +0000, Bertitaylor 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!

Apologies, should be learned apes above, curse autocorrect!

--

--

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

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!

--

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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).

Oversimplification:

Saying electrons "tie up the protons" ignores the actual
mechanism: the strong nuclear force binds protons and neutrons
together, overcoming electromagnetic repulsion among protons.

Stylistic and Rhetorical Notes:

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

This continues Arindam’s signature “woof” motif, used to mock
perceived mainstream misunderstanding or to amplify self-asserted
superiority.

The phrase “simplicity confounds learner apes” implies that he
sees his ideas as self-evident truths rejected by the "less evolved."

It's rhetorically aggressive, possibly meant to provoke or troll,
and undermines the possibility of serious engagement with his claims.

Overall Assessment:

This passage demonstrates pseudoscientific reasoning, historical
regression, and mocking rhetoric. It lacks coherence with modern
nuclear physics and leans heavily on contrarian flair rather than
evidence or theoretical rigor. Its primary aim seems less about
discovery and more about defiance.

Verdict: Scientifically invalid, rhetorically combative, stylistically consistent with the Bertietaylor persona.

I'm waiting for Arindam to claim AI is racially biased...

--
[email protected]

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 22:39:26 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 22:37:53 +0000, Bertitaylor 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!

Apologies, should be learned apes above, curse autocorrect!

Well, Arindam has unified all forces, what with his divine insights!

--

--

--

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

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 8:57:50 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Jim Pennino <[email protected]> wrote:

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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.



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

--

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 22:39:26 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 22:37:53 +0000, Bertitaylor 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!

Apologies, should be learned apes above, curse autocorrect!

Well, Arindam has unified all forces, what with his divine insights!

Meaning everything you say you pulled out of your ass because you have
never performed a real experiment in your life Arindam.

Prey tell us about about all the reactors and particle accelerators you
have built...

--
[email protected]

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 0:55:03 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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)

--

All agree, yes?

--

Yes, everyone agrees that you are quite insane, Arindam.

Everyone with sense and honesty agreed that Einsteinians are liars and
frauds.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Le 02/07/2025 à 02:45, [email protected] (Bertitaylor) a écrit :

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 0:55:03 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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)

--

All agree, yes?

--

Yes, everyone agrees that you are quite insane, Arindam.

Everyone with sense and honesty agreed that Einsteinians are liars and frauds.

No. Everyone with a brain recognize Arindam (you, sock puppet) as a
demented crank.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Shitting and pissing on the floor won't help, Arindam.

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 1:39:01 +0000, Python wrote:

Le 02/07/2025 à 02:45, [email protected] (Bertitaylor) a écrit :

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 0:55:03 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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)

--

All agree, yes?

--

Yes, everyone agrees that you are quite insane, Arindam.

Everyone with sense and honesty agreed that Einsteinians are liars and
frauds.

No. Everyone with a brain recognize Arindam (you, sock puppet) as a
demented crank.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Shitting and pissing on the floor won't help, Arindam.

Yet another abusive ape. Never any shortage of these.

Woof

--

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

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

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

Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 8:57:50 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Jim Pennino <[email protected]> wrote:

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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

--

--

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

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 8:57:50 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Jim Pennino <[email protected]> wrote:

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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)

By elementary arithmetic here is no way to make a spin 1 particle
out of three spin 1/2 particles. [1]

This doesn't just hold for the Deutron: the 'electrons in nuclei' model
is incompatible with most measured nuclear spins,

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.

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

--

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Bertietaylor 's formula "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."

Atomic weight 238.05078 Atomic number 92 Number of electrons holding the
92 protons in the nucleus is E = 238.05078 - 92 = 146.05078

So there are 146.05078 electrons "to tighten up the 92 protons in the nucleus."

But according to Bertitaylor there are 146 other protons in the nucleus.
What are holding these protons together?

we really do like your tensors, how you put it and so on

A Huge VICTORY for PUTIN┃The True Reason for the US surrendering
UKRAINE to RUSSIA Has Been REVEALED https://www.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/8TEOAGpTZzEq

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

Bertitaylor wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:40:49 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

But according to Bertitaylor there are 146 other protons in the
nucleus.
What are holding these protons together?

The 146 electrons hold them all.
The electrons in the nucleus constitute the so called strong force.
Actually it is electrostatic force acting at very small intranuclear distances. All forces are electrical.

you are not sincere. You cant have electrostatic at that level, here the quantum domain. The electrostatic is of a macro scale domain. Different
world, different characteristics.

you are not sincere.

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 14:00:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 22:39:26 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 22:37:53 +0000, Bertitaylor 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!

Apologies, should be learned apes above, curse autocorrect!

Well, Arindam has unified all forces, what with his divine insights!

Meaning everything you say you pulled out of your ass because you have
never performed a real experiment in your life Arindam.

Arindam has done real experiments that busy inertia and lead to the
stars.
With his own money and own time, and despite all opposition from all institutions.

Not just genius he has; courage and determination, tenacity and faith, perseverance against extraordinary odds he has demonstrated in his
success.

Prey tell us about about all the reactors and particle accelerators you
have built...

Waste of public money to fool stupid apes, all that.

--

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