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.
Does this prove that a proton is a neutron and a positron
in tight bond?
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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)
--
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)
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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.
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?
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
--
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 23:47:29 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> 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.
Natural Idiots really need Artificial Idiocy to maintain dogmas and doctrines.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
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.
Den 02.07.2025 03:30, skrev Bertitaylor:
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.
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?
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.
Done.
Your explanation?
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 13:10:54 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 02.07.2025 03:30, skrev Bertitaylor:
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.
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 = c146.05078
So there are 146.05078 electrons "to tighten up the 92 protons
in the nucleus."
No, there are 146 electrons to tighten up the 238 protons in the
nucleus.
But according to Bertitaylor there are 146 other protons in the nucleus.
What are holding these protons together?
146 electrons are holding together 238 protons in the nucleus of U238.
Just as one electron holds two protons together in deuterium.
When a neutron is understood as an electron-proton pair, both charges retaining their individuality despite the closest intranuclear
distancing, then we grasp the basics of nuclear science on the basis of
the proton-electron-aether-electric field nature of the universe.
Den 05.07.2025 15:52, skrev bertitaylor:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 13:10:54 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 02.07.2025 03:30, skrev Bertitaylor:
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.
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 = c146.05078
So there are 146.05078 electrons "to tighten up the 92 protons
in the nucleus."
No, there are 146 electrons to tighten up the 238 protons in the
nucleus.
"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 "
Atomic number N = 92
Atomic weight A = 238.05078 u
"Now E may not be an integer" E = 146.05078
So according to Bertitaylor there are 146.05078 electrons
holding the N = 92 protons.
But according to Bertitaylor there are 146 other protons in the nucleus. >>> What are holding these protons together?
146 electrons are holding together 238 protons in the nucleus of U238.
Just as one electron holds two protons together in deuterium.
When a neutron is understood as an electron-proton pair, both charges
retaining their individuality despite the closest intranuclear
distancing, then we grasp the basics of nuclear science on the basis of
the proton-electron-aether-electric field nature of the universe.
In the nucleus there are 146 electron-proton pairs,
and 146.05078 electrons holding the N = 92 protons
So there are 292.05078 electrons and 238 protons in the core.
That will make the core have a net charge -54.05077 unit charges.
So why are there 92 electrons circling the core?
Shouldn't it have been 54.05077 positrons?
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:40:49 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 05.07.2025 15:52, skrev bertitaylor:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 13:10:54 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 02.07.2025 03:30, skrev Bertitaylor:
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.
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."
"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 "
Atomic number N = 92
Atomic weight A = 238.05078 u
"Now E may not be an integer" E = 146.05078
So according to Bertitaylor there are 146.05078 electrons
holding the N = 92 protons.
Yes.
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.
146 electrons are holding together 238 protons in the nucleus of U238.
Just as one electron holds two protons together in deuterium.
But it can't explain why the neutral 146 proton-electron pairs can
When a neutron is understood as an electron-proton pair, both charges
retaining their individuality despite the closest intranuclear
distancing, then we grasp the basics of nuclear science on the basis of
the proton-electron-aether-electric field nature of the universe.
In the nucleus there are 146 electron-proton pairs,
Yes.
and 146.05078 electrons holding the N = 92 protons
146 electrons tie up 238 protons.
146 electrons tie up 238 protons.
I think you have to explain this:
There are 146 electron-positron pairs. That means that
one electron is bound by electrostatic forces to one proton
to make a neutral unit which physicists call "neutron".
You say that this is the "strong force".
But the neutral positron-electron pairs can't hold the 92
protons which are not part of a proton-electron pair together
with electrostatic forces.
Or simpler put:
What will happen if you put 146 particles with charge -e
and 238 particles with charge +e close together?
Will the -146e charges hold the +238e charges together?
We would have an atomic bomb!
The strong force can't be an electrostatic force.
Paul.B.Andersen:> Den 11.07.2025 04:34, skrev Bertitaylor:
146 electrons tie up 238 protons.
I think you have to explain this:
There are 146 electron-positron pairs. That means that
one electron is bound by electrostatic forces to one proton
to make a neutral unit which physicists call "neutron".
You say that this is the "strong force".
But the neutral positron-electron pairs can't hold the 92
protons which are not part of a proton-electron pair together
with electrostatic forces.
Or simpler put:
What will happen if you put 146 particles with charge -e
and 238 particles with charge +e close together?
Will the -146e charges hold the +238e charges together?
We would have an atomic bomb!
The strong force can't be an electrostatic force.
I guess polyamory is Bertitaylor's model for subatomic particles:
https://img.freepik.com/premium-photo/polyamory-lots-sexual-partners-gender-symbol-woman-two-men-3d-render_188237-1782.jpg
Just chant e=mcc 666 times, robot worshipping Penisnino.
Woof
--
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Just chant e=mcc 666 times, robot worshipping Penisnino.
Yet more insane drivel Arindam.
Woof
--
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Just chant e=mcc 666 times, robot worshipping Penisnino.
Yet more insane drivel Arindam.
Woof
--
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 22:37:07 |
| Calls: | 12,105 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,133 |
