Re: Bertietaylor 's formula

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