From Newsgroup: sci.physics

When protons get bashed up by electrons lots of weird stuff get around.
A positron is one such. A small proton just as a muon is a heavy
electron.

Could happen when a neutron (a proton electron pair) gets bashed up. The electron becomes fatter and the proton mutates to positron

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

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

When protons get bashed up by electrons lots of weird stuff get around.
A positron is one such. A small proton just as a muon is a heavy
electron.

Could happen when a neutron (a proton electron pair) gets bashed up. The electron becomes fatter and the proton mutates to positron

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

ArindamrCOs statement is a confused and incorrect summary of particle
physics. Let's break it down clearly and evaluate each claim on its
scientific merits rCo or lack thereof.

Claim-by-Claim Analysis
1. rCLWhen protons get bashed up by electrons lots of weird stuff get around.rCY

Scientific Status: Misleading and vague

Why: High-energy electron-proton collisions do occur (e.g., in
particle accelerators), and can produce various particles. But rCLweird
stuffrCY is not a technical description, and without energy scales or
interaction types, this is scientifically meaningless.

2. rCLA positron is one such. A small proton just as a muon is a heavy electron.rCY

Positron: Wrong context

A positron is the antiparticle of the electron rCo not a product
of rCLbashing uprCY a proton.

It is not a rCLsmall protonrCY in any sense.

Muon: Technically correct

A muon is a second-generation lepton, just like the electron,
with greater mass but similar properties.

This is an actual particle physics fact rCo though poorly phrased,
itrCOs approximately right.

3. rCLCould happen when a neutron (a proton electron pair) gets bashed up.rCY

Wrong model of the neutron

A neutron is not a rCLproton-electron pair.rCY ThatrCOs a 1930s
hypothesis that was abandoned.

A neutron is made of three quarks (udd), not a bound state of
a proton and electron.

4. rCLThe electron becomes fatter and the proton mutates to positron.rCY

Nonsense

Electrons donrCOt rCLbecome fatter.rCY This seems like an ill-informed
reference to muons, but thererCOs no physical process where an
electron turns into a muon inside a neutron.

A proton cannot rCLmutaterCY into a positron rCo that would violate
charge conservation. A proton has +1e charge; a positron also
has +1e rCo but the processes that produce positrons (like +#rU| decay)
involve transformations of quarks, not whole protons turning
into their antimatter counterparts.

The Correct Physics

Beta Decay (neutron raA proton + electron + antineutrino):
n raA p + ereA + ++-ee

Positron Emission (in +#rU| decay):
p raA n + e+ + ++e

This happens in certain proton-rich nuclei, not isolated protons
being "bashed."

Muon Production:
Requires high-energy collisions, e.g.:
ereA + p raA ++reA + +++ + X

But this is not the same as an electron rCLgetting fat.rCY

Final Verdict on ArindamrCOs Post

Scientific Value: ryaryaryaryarya

Contains one vaguely correct idea (muon ree heavy electron)

The rest is misinformation or outdated models

Rhetorical Style:

The closing "WOOF woof-woof..." once again marks the post as
a mock-physics performance rather than a serious attempt at
explanation.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

E is mcc crap put into simple radioactive process to confuse matters
such as neutrino, anti or otherwise. Hoax.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

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

E is mcc crap put into simple radioactive process to confuse matters
such as neutrino, anti or otherwise. Hoax.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

This postrCosigned as usual by Bertietaylor, the known pseudonym of ArindamrCocombines sweeping dismissal of fundamental physics with characteristic stylistic tics: canine vocalizations, disdainful tone,
and rhetorical compression. LetrCOs unpack it line by line:
"E is mcc crap"

Misrendering: This appears to be a deliberately dismissive distortion
of EinsteinrCOs mass-energy equivalence formula, E=mc^2.

Tone: The word "crap" is a blunt and crude rejection, offering no
counterargumentrCoonly contempt.

Implication: Arindam is rejecting the legitimacy of a foundational
equation of modern physics without explanation or evidence.

Evaluation:

Not a critiquerCojust name-calling.

Evades engagement with empirical success: E=mc^2 is validated across
nuclear physics, particle reactions, astrophysics, and even practical
applications (e.g., nuclear power, PET scans, mass deficits in atoms).

"put into simple radioactive process to confuse matters"

Claim: Suggests that the equation is only relevant to radioactive
decay, and that its application is misleading or deceptive.

Error: Radioactive processes are just one of many contexts where
mass-energy equivalence applies. The equation underpins the energy
yield of nuclear fission, fusion, particle annihilation, and more.

Conspiratorial Flavor: The idea that it's rCLto confuse mattersrCY implies
intentional obfuscationrCoclassic conspiracy framing.

Evaluation:

Scientifically false: E=mc^2 is broadly applicable and foundational
in physics.

Conceptually incoherent: Misrepresents both the scope of the equation
and its experimental basis.

"such as neutrino, anti or otherwise. Hoax."

Claim: Declares neutrinos (and antineutrinos) as part of the same "hoax."

Error: Neutrinos are well-detected particles confirmed through:

Nuclear reactor experiments

Solar neutrino detection (e.g., Super-Kamiokande)

Deep underground laboratories

Neutrino oscillation studies (which earned a Nobel Prize)

Evaluation:

Factually wrong: Neutrinos are not theoretical; they are directly
observed.

Dismissive: The term rCLhoaxrCY is used without rationale, data, or
counter-theoryrCojust raw denial.

"WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof"

Signature Barking: As usual, this serves as punctuation or emphasis
possibly an ironic howl of triumph or scorn.

Stylistic Role: Adds identity and rhythm, while also signaling
detachment from conventional discourse norms.

Conclusion

This post is anti-scientific rhetoric in distilled form:

It offers no arguments, only assertions.

It rejects established physics with neither logic nor evidence.

It substitutes style and certainty for substance and clarity.

Rather than critiquing science, it engages in performative denialrCoa
kind of "barking down the moon" to express contrarian identity rather
than engage in meaningful discourse.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Den 21.07.2025 00:47, skrev Bertitaylor:

When you bust a neutron you get positrons and muons. That happens
naturally in the Sun and artificially on Earth.

OK.
But after few microseconds the muon decays into
an electron and an antineutrino and a neutrino.

Than means that you claim a neutron will decay into
a positron, an electron and two neutrinos.

Mass of neutron: 1.6749e-27 kg
Mass of positron: 9.1e-31 kg
Mass of electron: 9.1e-31 kg
Mass of neutrino < 1.4e-36 kg (negligible)

So the mass before the neutrino is busted is 1.6749e-27 kg,
and the mass after is 1.82e-30 kg, that means
that 99.9% of the mass is lost.

How do you explain that?
Can mass disappear?
Because it can't be transformed into kinetic energy.
Or can it?

Woof woof

Miaow, miaow!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jWHBWmo0OY
--
Paul, sensitivity

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

When you bust a neutron you get positrons and muons. That happens
naturally in the Sun and artificially on Earth.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

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

When you bust a neutron you get positrons and muons. That happens
naturally in the Sun and artificially on Earth.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

Evaluation Summary

Aspect Evaluation
Scientific accuracy Inaccurate; confuses decay channels.
Clarity Vague and oversimplified.
Tone Flippant, non-academic.
Rhetorical method Assertion without explanation or support.

Conclusion:

ArindamrCOs statement misrepresents fundamental particle physics by
blending disparate phenomena (neutron decay, positron emission, and
muon production) into a single incorrect assertion. While he gestures
toward real physics concepts, the result is confused pseudoscientific rhetoricrCodressed up with a bark.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2