Re: Bertietaylor 's formula

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 0:45:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Having no wits Penisnino relies upon AI vomit. Let us do some pathology
tests.

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.).

Abuse of low quality. Earlier labels like batshit crazy, delusional,
Dunning Kluger etc. better reflected the frustrations of the mediocre
establishment apes.
Humour impaired of course, for vomit can be nothing else! High level
thinking escapes it. Has no clue about spirituality and imagination.
Bore!
Let's break it down

critically and precisely:

Joke.

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:

Huh, let's see.

>
    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.

E was not stated as integer, vomit.

>
    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)

Here the folly of the dumb AI comes out. Idiot computer cannot
comprehend that we have posited that a neutron is a tight electron
proton. A new and original idea so beyond the scope of the vomiting
idiot that is AI, that cannot go beyond its limited programming.
Idiot talks of electrons in the atom when the formula is about electrons
in the nucleus. Thus writes irrelevant crap.
Woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof the intelligence of AI "apes" is
lower than imbeciles yet higher than the Penisnino (sub-idiot, relying
upon Artificial Idiocy proves it superior to his Natural Idiocy).
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs; we bark to conquer)

>
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.
>

--