Re: Bertietaylor 's formula

Liste des GroupesRevenir à physics 
Sujet : Re: Bertietaylor 's formula
De : jimp (at) *nospam* gonzo.specsol.net (Jim Pennino)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity sci.physics sci.math
Suivi-à : sci.physics
Date : 30. Jun 2025, 01:45:06
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <g939jl-u8h31.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
References : 1
User-Agent : tin/2.6.2-20220130 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.0-142-lowlatency (x86_64))
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> 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.


--
penninojim@yahoo.com

Date Sujet#  Auteur
30 Jun01:11 * Bertietaylor 's formula29Bertitaylor
30 Jun01:20 +* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula6Bertitaylor
30 Jun01:55 i+* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula4Jim Pennino
2 Jul01:45 ii`* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula3Bertitaylor
2 Jul02:39 ii `* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula2Python
2 Jul03:21 ii  `- Re: Bertietaylor 's formula1Bertitaylor
30 Jun02:04 i`- Re: Bertietaylor 's formula1Bertitaylor
30 Jun01:18 +* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula10Bertitaylor
30 Jun01:54 i+- Re: Bertietaylor 's formula1Jim Pennino
30 Jun23:37 i`* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula8Bertitaylor
30 Jun23:39 i +* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula4Bertitaylor
1 Jul04:29 i i`* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula3Bertitaylor
1 Jul15:00 i i `* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula2Jim Pennino
1 Jul20:07 i i  `- Re: Bertietaylor 's formula1Chris M. Thomasson
1 Jul00:50 i `* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula3Jim Pennino
1 Jul10:33 i  `* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula2Bertitaylor
2 Jul10:05 i   `- Re: Bertietaylor 's formula1Bertitaylor
30 Jun01:45 `* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula12Jim Pennino
30 Jun10:57  `* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula11Bertitaylor
30 Jun14:56   +- Re: Bertietaylor 's formula1Jim Pennino
1 Jul02:38   +- Re: Bertietaylor 's formula1Jim Pennino
1 Jul21:35   +- Re: Bertietaylor 's formula1Jim Pennino
2 Jul00:55   +- Re: Bertietaylor 's formula1Jim Pennino
2 Jul00:47   +* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula3Jim Pennino
2 Jul01:42   i`* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula2Bertitaylor
2 Jul03:11   i `- Re: Bertietaylor 's formula1Jim Pennino
2 Jul03:24   `* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula3Jim Pennino
2 Jul03:36    `* Re: Bertietaylor 's formula2Bertitaylor
2 Jul04:45     `- Re: Bertietaylor 's formula1Jim Pennino

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal