Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 3:58:26 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
 

Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 14:44 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.06.2025 01:49, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:57:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>

Den 27.06.2025 05:47, skrev Bertitaylor:

>

It is deuterium fission which provides the energy for the hydrogen
bombs on Earth.

>
Any particular reason why you don't even try to defend your
claim that it is deuterium fission which provides the energy for
the hydrogen bombs on Earth?
>
Let's look at where the energy in a fission comes from.
>
When a radioactive element such as Uranium decays, the nucleus
splits in two. Each of the new nuclei will contain protons,
and there will be a very strong electrostatic repulsion between
the nuclei. That means that the nuclei will get tremendous
kinetic energy. As the nuclei collide, this energy will be
transformed to heat.

>
Certainly the nuclei will not collide, because nuclei are extremely
small and also have a charge, which will prevent collision with other
nuclei of the same charge.

 
The electrostatic repulsion causes great opposing forces within the
nucleus causing it to split into two high velocity atoms. The high
velocity atoms impart energy to surrounding atoms and when thus slowed
get accelerated by more high velocity atoms coming from the source. Like
in any explision, following Arindam's formula for energy creation from
kinetics.
 
Then gamma rays as well of very high frequencies related to intra
nuclear distances. These high high frequency rays at very short
distances cause very powerful aetheric disturbances that break up other
loose nuclei causing the well known chain reaction.
 
When surrounded by deuterium there is huge amplification of fission
energy.
 
Woof woof
 
Bertietaylor

 
AI evaluation:

This latest exposition by Arindam (writing as Bertietaylor) attempts
to offer a mechanistic explanation of nuclear fission and its
amplification, but it is riddled with conceptual misunderstandings,
pseudo-physics, and vague references to personal theories. Here's a
breakdown and critique of the main elements:

Evaluation of Claims:
1. "The electrostatic repulsion causes great opposing forces within
the nucleus..."

     Kernel of truth: Electrostatic repulsion (Coulomb force) between
     protons does create internal pressure.

    ❌ Oversimplification: A stable nucleus is held together by the
    strong nuclear force, which overcomes electrostatic repulsion at
    short ranges. Spontaneous fission or induced fission depends on
    quantum tunneling, neutron absorption, and nuclear binding
    energy—not simply "great opposing forces."

2. "Causing it to split into two high velocity atoms..."

    ❌ Misleading phrasing: Fission yields fragments (not fully intact
    atoms), which are typically ionized, highly energetic nuclei—not
    neutral atoms. The use of "atoms" glosses over key nuclear dynamics.

3. "Like in any explision [sic], following Arindam's formula for
energy creation from kinetics."

    ❌ Invalid framework: This refers back to Arindam's previously
    discussed nonstandard and unsupported "energy creation" formula.
    Mainstream physics follows energy conservation laws. Nuclear
    fission releases binding energy—it does not "create" energy from
    kinetic motion per se.

4. "Gamma rays... cause very powerful aetheric disturbances that break
up other loose nuclei..."

    ❌ Outdated concept: The reference to "aetheric disturbances" is
    a throwback to pre-relativistic physics and has no place in modern
    nuclear theory.

    ❌ Incorrect mechanism: Gamma rays emitted in fission do not
    typically trigger fission in other nuclei. The chain reaction is
    maintained by neutrons, not electromagnetic radiation.

5. "When surrounded by deuterium there is huge amplification of fission
energy."

    ❌ Confusion of mechanisms: Deuterium is used in fusion reactions
    and as a moderator in some reactors (e.g., heavy water reactors).
    It doesn’t "amplify" fission in the way described here. A hydrogen
    bomb uses a fission primary to trigger fusion in
    deuterium/tritium—different physics.

 Conceptual Issues:

    Vague terminology: Phrases like "high high frequency rays"
    and "loose nuclei" are imprecise and scientifically meaningless.

    Fabricated mechanisms: Invented or speculative ideas (e.g.,
    "aetheric disturbances" causing fission) are presented as fact.

    Lack of causality: The actual fission chain reaction is driven
    by neutrons, not gamma radiation or kinetic collisions.

 Scientific Status:

     Not aligned with accepted physics.

     Invented terminology and personal theories.

     Mimics language of science but fails at core principles.

 Final Verdict:

Once again, Bertietaylor's writing is a stew of real physics terms,
misapplied concepts, and invented mechanisms wrapped in dogmatic
self-reference. It's pseudoscientific, though delivered with typical
rhetorical bravado.

“Woof woof,” indeed—but not the sound of a well-trained theory.

--
penninojim@yahoo.com