Re: Bertietaylor 's formula

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

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:34:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 

Den 01.07.2025 02:01, skrev Bertitaylor:

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.

>
OK. That settles it.

 
Yes. Positrons are Harry Potter stuff at the kindest. Basically, fraud
stuff by the Einsteinian confidence tricksters.

>
There is no way you can be unaware of the existence of the positron,

 
 
Huh, we have heard of Harry Potter and seen his films but we are sure he
does not exist in reality. Like positrons that have no real existence.
 
 
 
 

so you know you are denying facts.

 
 
We do not deny the fact that positrons are imaginary like big bang,
black hole, fermions, quarks, pions, bosons and suchlike modern
pseudophysics jabber based upon the false e=mcc formula.

>
That will make you a troll.

 
We are the spirits of dead dogs doing propaganda for Arindam from low
Heaven and he has no friends on Earth to do that for him.
 
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
 
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
 

AI evaluation:

This latest piece from Arindam writing as bertietaylor continues in his
now-familiar blend of anti-mainstream invective, mockery, and
pseudo-mystical surrealism. Let's break it down in parts:
1. Claim: "Positrons are Harry Potter stuff… fraud… Einsteinian
confidence tricksters"

Evaluation:
This statement dismisses the positron, a well-established and directly
observed particle, as fiction akin to Harry Potter. The positron
(antiparticle of the electron) was predicted by Paul Dirac in 1928 and
experimentally discovered by Carl Anderson in 1932, a discovery that
earned a Nobel Prize in 1936. It’s not speculative or theoretical at
this point—it’s part of practical technologies such as PET scans
(Positron Emission Tomography) used in medical diagnostics.

Calling it "fraud" ignores nearly a century of experimental validation
and utility in applied science. This is not a controversial or unsettled
area of physics.
2. Dismissal of fundamental concepts: “imaginary like big bang, black
hole, fermions, quarks, pions, bosons…”

Evaluation:
This sweeping rejection includes nearly the entire Standard Model of
particle physics, as well as general relativity and cosmology. The
claim shows either:

    Profound ignorance of the overwhelming empirical support for
    these concepts, or

    A deliberate rhetorical posture of contrarianism, bordering on
    science denial.

These are not fringe hypotheses—they are core frameworks validated
by multiple independent lines of evidence:

    Black holes: observed via gravitational waves (LIGO), stellar
    orbits (Sagittarius A*), and imaging (Event Horizon Telescope).

    Quarks: inferred from deep inelastic scattering experiments.

    Bosons: the Higgs boson was discovered at CERN in 2012.

    Pions and fermions are foundational to understanding atomic and
    nuclear behavior, as well as chemistry.

3. "False e = mcc formula"

Evaluation:
He appears to be referring to Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence,
E=mc2. This formula is experimentally confirmed—such as in nuclear
fission/fusion, particle accelerators, and the Sun’s energy production.
To call this "false" suggests either a refusal to engage with physical
evidence or a lack of understanding of how the formula operates.

Also, “mcc” is likely a misspelling or misstatement for mc2, repeated
in previous posts as a kind of deliberate anti-establishment motif.
4. "We are the spirits of dead dogs…"

Evaluation:
This surrealist flourish—"cyberdogs from low Heaven"—continues a
performative, ironic style that distances the author from his
statements. It’s part satire, part anti-scientific performance art.
It may reflect a psychological or rhetorical strategy: using
absurdism to inoculate himself from critique (if it's satire,
it can’t be wrong), while also mocking the entire scientific enterprise.
Conclusion:

This writing is:

    Factually incorrect across multiple domains of modern physics.

    Rhetorically dismissive of scientific consensus without offering
    counter-evidence.

    Suffused with irony and surrealism, which gives it an almost
    dadaist or postmodern quality, but makes it impossible to take
    as serious physics commentary.

It functions less as a critique of science and more as a rejection
of the epistemological foundations of science itself—empiricism,
evidence, and reproducibility. In that sense, it may be of interest
to scholars studying anti-science rhetoric or pseudoscientific
performance writing, but it has no credibility as physics.


--
penninojim@yahoo.com