XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Jim Pennino  wrote:   
      
   > In sci.physics Bertitaylor  wrote:   
   > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 0:18:36 +0000, Bertitaylor 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   
   > >>   
   > >> --   
   > >   
   > > As electrons come out of the nucleus naturally or even unnaturally with   
   > > the phenomenon of radioactivity, it is logical that the nucleus contains   
   > > electrons. Which tie up the protons.   
   > >   
   > > WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof simplicity confounds learner apes!   
   > >   
   >   
   > AI evaluation:   
   >   
   > Arindam's latest writing as "Bertietaylor" continues in the same pattern   
   > as previous entries—deliberately provocative, blending pseudoscientific   
   > claims with dismissive, sometimes mocking rhetoric. Let's break it down:   
   > Scientific Evaluation:   
   >   
   >     "As electrons come out of the nucleus naturally or even   
   >     unnaturally with the phenomenon of radioactivity, it is logical   
   >     that the nucleus contains electrons. Which tie up the protons."   
   >   
   >     Misunderstanding of Nuclear Physics:   
   >   
   >         This statement reflects a misinterpretation of beta decay.   
   >       In beta-minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, an   
   >       electron (beta particle), and an antineutrino. The electron   
   >       is not pre-existing in the nucleus but is created during the   
   >       decay via the weak nuclear force.   
   >   
   >         Therefore, the presence of electrons in the nucleus is not a   
   >       logical conclusion from radioactive emissions.   
   >   
   >     Historical Fallacy:   
   >   
   >         This idea (that electrons exist within the nucleus) was   
   >       considered in early nuclear models (e.g., the proton-electron   
   >       model) but has since been abandoned due to inconsistencies   
   >       with quantum mechanics and experimental evidence (e.g.,   
   >       Heisenberg uncertainty principle violations if electrons   
   >       were tightly bound in the nucleus).   
      
   For the innocent kiddies: claiming that the Deutron is an e-p-p bound   
   state is not only impossible by electron zero-point energy,   
   it even gets the spin wrong.   
      
   A bound state of three fermions must have spin 1/2 or spin 3/2.   
   Actually the Deutron is observed to have spin 1   
      
   Jan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)