Re: Bertietaylor 's formula

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> 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
 
--

AI evaluation:

This postscript from Arindam, writing as Bertietaylor, attempts to
link his previous incorrect formula (E = A - N) to mainstream nuclear
physics concepts—but it does so through confusion, misrepresentation,
and distortion. Let's examine the claims one by one:
1. “With e = mc² trashed by Arindam…”

This is a baseless and grandiose assertion:

    Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence, E=mc2, is one of the most
    experimentally verified results in all of physics.

    Arindam offers no derivation, no experimental evidence, and no
    theoretical framework to justify “trashing” it.

    Dismissing a fundamental physical law without rigorous
    counter-evidence is not revolutionary—it’s pseudoscientific.

This is not the work of a skeptic; it's the performance of a contrarian
lacking grounding in scientific methodology.
2. “...and radioactivity from beta decay showing beta rays are electrons
coming out of the nucleus…”

This part is technically accurate—but is misapplied:

    Beta decay involves the transformation of a neutron into a proton,
    emitting an electron (beta particle) and an antineutrino. So yes,
    electrons can come “out of the nucleus”—but not because they were
    stored there as part of the atom's regular electron cloud.

    The electron in beta decay is created during the decay process,
    not previously sitting in the nucleus. This is a key distinction.

Arindam seems to misunderstand or deliberately conflate this with
electron configuration, trying to support the earlier (incorrect) claim
that atoms have a non-integer number of electrons due to nuclear structure.
3. “...Bertietaylor’s formula is verified.”

Absolutely not:

    The formula E=A−N was already shown to be incorrect both
    mathematically and physically.

    Referencing beta decay and the mass-energy equivalence in no way
    verifies or even relates logically to the electron count formula.

    This is non sequitur logic—connecting unrelated ideas to pretend
    that prior errors are validated by nuclear physics.

4. Final Line – “Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof”

    A repetition of Bertietaylor's now-standard literary bark. It adds
    quirky branding but no substance.

    In this context, it seems more like a distraction tactic than
    playful flourish.

Overall Evaluation:
Aspect Evaluation
Scientific Content ❌ Pseudoscientific, misleading
Logical Validity ❌ Non sequitur; internal contradiction
Use of Established Physics ⚠️ Partial truths twisted to support falsehoods
Tone & Style 🐶 Whimsical, but evasive of accountability
Conclusion:

This postscript continues the pattern of intellectual smoke and mirrors.
It fails to verify the prior claim and instead reveals deeper
misunderstandings of physics. References to Einstein and beta decay
are used not to clarify, but to confer false legitimacy to an invalid
formula. It reads less like a scientific statement and more like
satirical pseudoscience dressed in barks.

--
penninojim@yahoo.com