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 isanother 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