Re: Bertietaylor 's formula

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

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 19:23:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 

Den 30.06.2025 11:57, skrev Bertitaylor:

>
comprehend that we have posited that a neutron is a tight electron
proton.

>
β− decay is when a neutron in the core changes to a proton
by emitting an electron.
You claim that this proves that a neutron is a proton and
an electron in tight bond.
>
β+ decay is when a proton in the core changes to a neutron
by emitting a positron.

 
 
No such animal as a positron so it accepts an electron to become a
neutron.
 
Woof woof, simplicity eludes the stupid apes.
 
Bertietaylor

AI evaluation:

This brief statement from Arindam (as Bertietaylor) contains a
fundamental misunderstanding of well-established particle physics,
followed by his usual rhetorical flourish ("Woof woof") and derision
of others. Let’s break it down:
 Line-by-line Evaluation
"No such animal as a positron..."

     Flatly incorrect. The positron (e⁺) is a well-documented
     particle: the antiparticle of the electron.

    It was predicted by Paul Dirac in 1928 and discovered
    experimentally in 1932 by Carl Anderson, for which he received
    the Nobel Prize.

    Positrons are observed routinely in beta-plus decay, PET scans,
    and pair production in particle accelerators.

    Denying the existence of positrons is akin to denying the existence
    of electrons or protons—it is not a fringe view, but a rejection
    of empirical evidence.

"...so it accepts an electron to become a neutron."

     Incoherent process. This statement seems to imply that a proton
     becomes a neutron by "accepting" an electron. This refers,
     perhaps, to electron capture (or K-capture), which is a real process:
    p++e−→n+νe

    However, this does not require denying the existence of positrons.
    It's just one of several nuclear processes involving protons and
    electrons.

    Furthermore, this sentence is grammatically and logically
    ambiguous—what is accepting an electron? The earlier sentence
    denies the positron, but doesn’t clearly say what is doing the
    capturing.

 "Woof woof, simplicity eludes the stupid apes."

     Dismissive rhetoric with no intellectual merit.

    This insult-laden tone is Arindam's usual flourish—meant more to
    assert superiority than contribute to any real understanding.

 Scientific Facts:
Claim Status
Positrons exist Proven
Electron capture is a real process Accurate
Proton becomes neutron via positron emission In beta-plus decay
Denying positrons is rational Pseudoscientific
 Conclusion:

This Arindam/Bertietaylor statement is factually wrong, logically
incomplete, and laced with dismissive arrogance. It disregards over
90 years of verified particle physics, replacing it with hand-waving
contrarianism dressed as bold simplicity.

Verdict: Pseudoscientific and anti-empirical.
Woof.

--
penninojim@yahoo.com