From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Am Samstag000005, 05.07.2025 um 11:32 schrieb Bertietaylor:

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 7:44:30 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Freitag000004, 04.07.2025 um 23:51 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 6:22:13 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Donnerstag000003, 03.07.2025 um 01:57 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 12:41:33 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 29.06.2025 06:18, skrev Bertitaylor:

Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 14:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>>>>>>>> Den 28.06.2025 01:49, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:57:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>

One question:
What created the elements you and I and everything around us >>>>>>>>>>> consist of?
The Devine Arindam?

Heard of eternity? It all was always there, is, and will be.

I am asking YOU, Bertitaylor:

How do YOU think U-238 and other heavy elements were created?

Supernovas where lots of electrons or protons fly and create heavy >>>>>>> nuclei.

Right.

So you have realised that you were wrong when you claimed that
all elements "was always there, is, and will be."

Yes. All matter changes as per chemical and nuclear reactions from
aetheric vibrations and electric forces.

So you have finally admitted to being wrong.

No. Matter change has nothing to do with big bangs and black holes and >>>>> e=mcc stuff.

Actually it has...

I have invented this concept, which I called 'structured spacetime':

What is that?

https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

I wanted to put GR and QM into a single framework and thought, that
matter should be 'relative'.

Matter is mass and mass is standardised by units that are absolute.

'mass' is an attribute of material objects and is measured in kilograms.

This measure measures the amount of resistance against acceleration.

It is about the force F required to give it an a acceleration. M=F/a

To call this measure 'matter' is insanely stupid.

True, mass is an attribute of matter -which could exist in many states -
and in the statics and dynamics of physics only that counts. So it is
not stupid.

Sure it is! It is REALY stupid!


See:


'Matter' is mant as 'stuff'.

Let's take a lump of that stuff and call that 'an object'.

This object has now an attribut 'mass', but other attributes, too, which
are not mass.

For instance that object could have a form or a chemical composition.

Now it would be a REALLY bad idea, if you would 'materialize' mass and
treat mass like a synonym for a material object, because such objects
have way more attributes than mass.

And you must not confuse attributes with the objects themselves.

TH

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

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Den 30.06.2025 00:20, skrev Bertitaylor:>

Helium has four protons joined by two electrons.

There are only electrons and protons in aether.

When will you stupid apes realise this is the question!

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Please answer my question:

Do you really think that Teller & al, would have succeeded
in making the H-bomb if they didn't know what I state below
(and _much_ more)?

Elements with 1 proton in the nucleus are Hydrogen
There are two stable isotopes:
-|H (Protium) 1 proton 0 neutrons
-#H (D Deuterium) 1 proton 1 neutron

-|H (T Tritium) 1 proton 2 neutrons
Tritium is unstable with half-life 12.33 years.
The decay mode is +#reA, which means that a neutron splits
into a proton and an electron. The electron is ejected as +#-rays.
So we get a nucleus with 2 protons and and 1 neutron, which is
-|He, the most abundant stable Helium isotope.

The short half-life should indicate that T should not
exist naturally, but it is created by interaction between
cosmic rays and air. The natural abundance is however very low.

But T can be artificially created in an atomic reactor.
T has several applications, among them are H-bombs.

D and T combine very easily in fusion to rU|He, a stable Helium isotope.
That's why the Hydrogen in a H-bomb is enriched with both D and T.
(Some, or all of the T can be created in the bombs itself from lithium.)

An atomic bomb exploded on Earth can't create the temperature and
pressure to make H explode in a chain reaction. The enrichment
of D an T are necessary to make the bomb explode.
--
Paul

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

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:18:47 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 30.06.2025 00:20, skrev Bertitaylor:>

Helium has four protons joined by two electrons.

There are only electrons and protons in aether.

When will you stupid apes realise this is the question!

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Please answer my question:

You are one rude ape and stupid too so why should we bother! Still out
of kindness we continue.

Do you really think that Teller & al, would have succeeded
in making the H-bomb if they didn't know what I state below
(and _much_ more)?

They simply put heavy water around a fission bomb to split deuterium and
thus made what is called a hydrogen bomb, with protons snapping off with incredible force and thus causing a chain reaction with objects hitting
each other and creating huge energies as per the creation of energy
formula by divine Arindam that he discovered in 1998.

That is what happens in the Sun and the stars - deuterium fission.

Arindam has explained all that.

As for us, we have no use for evil hellhounds like Einstein, Feynman,
Teller, etc.

We have no use for their lies and nonsenses to support their wrong
physics with abuse of maths.

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)



Wh

Elements with 1 proton in the nucleus are Hydrogen
There are two stable isotopes:
-|H (Protium) 1 proton 0 neutrons
-#H (D Deuterium) 1 proton 1 neutron

-|H (T Tritium) 1 proton 2 neutrons
Tritium is unstable with half-life 12.33 years.
The decay mode is +#reA, which means that a neutron splits
into a proton and an electron. The electron is ejected as +#-rays.
So we get a nucleus with 2 protons and and 1 neutron, which is
-|He, the most abundant stable Helium isotope.

The short half-life should indicate that T should not
exist naturally, but it is created by interaction between
cosmic rays and air. The natural abundance is however very low.

But T can be artificially created in an atomic reactor.
T has several applications, among them are H-bombs.

D and T combine very easily in fusion to rU|He, a stable Helium isotope. That's why the Hydrogen in a H-bomb is enriched with both D and T.
(Some, or all of the T can be created in the bombs itself from lithium.)

An atomic bomb exploded on Earth can't create the temperature and
pressure to make H explode in a chain reaction. The enrichment
of D an T are necessary to make the bomb explode.

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

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 3:58:26 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 14:44 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.06.2025 01:49, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:57:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 27.06.2025 05:47, skrev Bertitaylor:

It is deuterium fission which provides the energy for the hydrogen >>>>>>> bombs on Earth.

Any particular reason why you don't even try to defend your
claim that it is deuterium fission which provides the energy for
the hydrogen bombs on Earth?

Let's look at where the energy in a fission comes from.

When a radioactive element such as Uranium decays, the nucleus
splits in two. Each of the new nuclei will contain protons,
and there will be a very strong electrostatic repulsion between
the nuclei. That means that the nuclei will get tremendous
kinetic energy. As the nuclei collide, this energy will be
transformed to heat.

Certainly the nuclei will not collide, because nuclei are extremely
small and also have a charge, which will prevent collision with other
nuclei of the same charge.

The electrostatic repulsion causes great opposing forces within the
nucleus causing it to split into two high velocity atoms. The high
velocity atoms impart energy to surrounding atoms and when thus slowed
get accelerated by more high velocity atoms coming from the source. Like
in any explision, following Arindam's formula for energy creation from kinetics.

Then gamma rays as well of very high frequencies related to intra
nuclear distances. These high high frequency rays at very short
distances cause very powerful aetheric disturbances that break up other
loose nuclei causing the well known chain reaction.

When surrounded by deuterium there is huge amplification of fission
energy.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

This is very simple and obvious, so you can't fail to understand it.
Or can you?

A Deuterium nucleus consists of a proton and a neutron.
a proton and neutron don't repel each other, so no energy
is released if you somehow could split them.

That's why this type of reaction is called 'nuclear fusion'.

The nuclei build the heavier element helium.

....

TH

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

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

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

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:18:47 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 30.06.2025 00:20, skrev Bertitaylor:>

Helium has four protons joined by two electrons.

There are only electrons and protons in aether.

When will you stupid apes realise this is the question!

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Please answer my question:

You are one rude ape and stupid too so why should we bother! Still out
of kindness we continue.

Do you really think that Teller & al, would have succeeded
in making the H-bomb if they didn't know what I state below
(and _much_ more)?

They simply put heavy water around a fission bomb to split deuterium and
thus made what is called a hydrogen bomb, with protons snapping off with incredible force and thus causing a chain reaction with objects hitting
each other and creating huge energies as per the creation of energy
formula by divine Arindam that he discovered in 1998.

That is what happens in the Sun and the stars - deuterium fission.

Arindam has explained all that.

As for us, we have no use for evil hellhounds like Einstein, Feynman,
Teller, etc.

We have no use for their lies and nonsenses to support their wrong
physics with abuse of maths.

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

AI evaluation:

This latest posting from Arindam as Bertietaylor continues his
characteristic blend of pseudoscience, anti-establishment rhetoric,
and a mythologized self-image. LetrCOs break it down in terms of
scientific content, rhetorical style, and internal logic:
Scientific Content:

Hydrogen bomb mechanism: The description is incorrect. A hydrogen
bomb does not work via deuterium fission, but rather fusion rCo the
merging of light nuclei (typically deuterium and tritium) into
heavier ones, releasing energy. The term "deuterium fission" is
a misuse; deuterium isn't split in fusion bombs, it's fused.

"Protons snapping off": This phrase suggests a crude or misunderstood
view of nuclear interactions. Fusion reactions involve the nuclei
of hydrogen isotopes, and while high-energy collisions occur,
describing it as "objects hitting each other and creating huge
energies" glosses over the underlying quantum tunneling and plasma
conditions required.

Claiming "creation of energy": This violates the law of
conservation of energy unless drastically redefined. The 1998
"creation of energy formula" Arindam refers to remains undefined
and unaccepted in the scientific community.

Rhetorical Style:

Apocalyptic tone: The denunciation of Einstein, Feynman, and Teller
as rCLevil hellhoundsrCY is not only ad hominem but borders on
conspiratorial zealotry. It's emotionally charged, lacking any
substantive refutation of their contributions.

Divine self-reference: Phrases like "divine Arindam" reveal a
messianic tone, positioning the writer as a cosmic authority.
This damages any scientific credibility and places the text in
the realm of cultic self-mythology.

Use of "woof woof": This signature ending attempts satire or
absurdism, but its repetition risks becoming a stylistic crutch
rather than a meaningful rhetorical device.

Internal Logic:

The fusion bomb is misdescribed as operating through fission.

The Sun is said to operate through deuterium fission, which
contradicts standard stellar physics (which involves fusion,
primarily of hydrogen into helium).

There is no engagement with evidence or counterargumentsrCojust
pronouncement.

Verdict:

This posting is scientifically inaccurate, rhetorically inflammatory,
and steeped in self-aggrandizing pseudoscience. It does not offer an alternative physics that can be evaluated or tested; instead, it
functions more as a rejectionist manifesto dressed in mock-cosmic language.

The combination of technical error, personal deification, and disdain
for established physicists situates it more in the domain of outsider
polemic than science communication.

Rating: 1.5/10 rCo Barking up the wrong tree, again.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 0:55:19 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 3:58:26 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 14:44 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.06.2025 01:49, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:57:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 27.06.2025 05:47, skrev Bertitaylor:

It is deuterium fission which provides the energy for the hydrogen >>>>>>>> bombs on Earth.

Any particular reason why you don't even try to defend your
claim that it is deuterium fission which provides the energy for
the hydrogen bombs on Earth?

Let's look at where the energy in a fission comes from.

When a radioactive element such as Uranium decays, the nucleus
splits in two. Each of the new nuclei will contain protons,
and there will be a very strong electrostatic repulsion between
the nuclei. That means that the nuclei will get tremendous
kinetic energy. As the nuclei collide, this energy will be
transformed to heat.

Certainly the nuclei will not collide, because nuclei are extremely
small and also have a charge, which will prevent collision with other
nuclei of the same charge.

The electrostatic repulsion causes great opposing forces within the
nucleus causing it to split into two high velocity atoms. The high
velocity atoms impart energy to surrounding atoms and when thus slowed
get accelerated by more high velocity atoms coming from the source. Like
in any explision, following Arindam's formula for energy creation from kinetics.

Then gamma rays as well of very high frequencies related to intra
nuclear distances. These high high frequency rays at very short
distances cause very powerful aetheric disturbances that break up other
loose nuclei causing the well known chain reaction.

When surrounded by deuterium there is huge amplification of fission
energy.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

This is very simple and obvious, so you can't fail to understand it.
Or can you?

Point is reversed. As natural radioactivity is caused when electrons
escape the nucleus the nucleus has to have electrons in it.

Why cannot apes grasp this simple matter?

When stuff A is in something then stuff A may come out. Like water in
water jugs or cash from teller machines.

Obviously the electrons are there to bind the protons together tightly
to form the nucleus.

When electrons leave the nucleus the nuclear structure changes so it
becomes some other element.

A Deuterium nucleus consists of a proton and a neutron.

No. It consists of two protons and one electron.

a proton and neutron don't repel each other, so no energy

A neutron is the tightest close association between a proton and an
electron. The electron can attract another proton to form a deuterium
nucleus. When gamma rays or strongest aetheric vibrations or collusion
cause this bond to split the protons repel with greatest force.

is released if you somehow could split them.

That's why this type of reaction is called 'nuclear fusion'.

Fusion is fiction. It was invented to support e=mcc which is rubbish .

The nuclei build the heavier element helium.

Wrong.

Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

....

TH

--

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

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

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

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 3:58:26 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 14:44 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.06.2025 01:49, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:57:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 27.06.2025 05:47, skrev Bertitaylor:

It is deuterium fission which provides the energy for the hydrogen >>>>>>>> bombs on Earth.

Any particular reason why you don't even try to defend your
claim that it is deuterium fission which provides the energy for
the hydrogen bombs on Earth?

Let's look at where the energy in a fission comes from.

When a radioactive element such as Uranium decays, the nucleus
splits in two. Each of the new nuclei will contain protons,
and there will be a very strong electrostatic repulsion between
the nuclei. That means that the nuclei will get tremendous
kinetic energy. As the nuclei collide, this energy will be
transformed to heat.

Certainly the nuclei will not collide, because nuclei are extremely
small and also have a charge, which will prevent collision with other
nuclei of the same charge.

The electrostatic repulsion causes great opposing forces within the
nucleus causing it to split into two high velocity atoms. The high
velocity atoms impart energy to surrounding atoms and when thus slowed
get accelerated by more high velocity atoms coming from the source. Like
in any explision, following Arindam's formula for energy creation from kinetics.

Then gamma rays as well of very high frequencies related to intra
nuclear distances. These high high frequency rays at very short
distances cause very powerful aetheric disturbances that break up other
loose nuclei causing the well known chain reaction.

When surrounded by deuterium there is huge amplification of fission
energy.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

AI evaluation:

This latest exposition by Arindam (writing as Bertietaylor) attempts
to offer a mechanistic explanation of nuclear fission and its
amplification, but it is riddled with conceptual misunderstandings, pseudo-physics, and vague references to personal theories. Here's a
breakdown and critique of the main elements:

Evaluation of Claims:
1. "The electrostatic repulsion causes great opposing forces within
the nucleus..."

Kernel of truth: Electrostatic repulsion (Coulomb force) between
protons does create internal pressure.

rYi Oversimplification: A stable nucleus is held together by the
strong nuclear force, which overcomes electrostatic repulsion at
short ranges. Spontaneous fission or induced fission depends on
quantum tunneling, neutron absorption, and nuclear binding
energyrConot simply "great opposing forces."

2. "Causing it to split into two high velocity atoms..."

rYi Misleading phrasing: Fission yields fragments (not fully intact
atoms), which are typically ionized, highly energetic nucleirConot
neutral atoms. The use of "atoms" glosses over key nuclear dynamics.

3. "Like in any explision [sic], following Arindam's formula for
energy creation from kinetics."

rYi Invalid framework: This refers back to Arindam's previously
discussed nonstandard and unsupported "energy creation" formula.
Mainstream physics follows energy conservation laws. Nuclear
fission releases binding energyrCoit does not "create" energy from
kinetic motion per se.

4. "Gamma rays... cause very powerful aetheric disturbances that break
up other loose nuclei..."

rYi Outdated concept: The reference to "aetheric disturbances" is
a throwback to pre-relativistic physics and has no place in modern
nuclear theory.

rYi Incorrect mechanism: Gamma rays emitted in fission do not
typically trigger fission in other nuclei. The chain reaction is
maintained by neutrons, not electromagnetic radiation.

5. "When surrounded by deuterium there is huge amplification of fission energy."

rYi Confusion of mechanisms: Deuterium is used in fusion reactions
and as a moderator in some reactors (e.g., heavy water reactors).
It doesnrCOt "amplify" fission in the way described here. A hydrogen
bomb uses a fission primary to trigger fusion in
deuterium/tritiumrCodifferent physics.

Conceptual Issues:

Vague terminology: Phrases like "high high frequency rays"
and "loose nuclei" are imprecise and scientifically meaningless.

Fabricated mechanisms: Invented or speculative ideas (e.g.,
"aetheric disturbances" causing fission) are presented as fact.

Lack of causality: The actual fission chain reaction is driven
by neutrons, not gamma radiation or kinetic collisions.

Scientific Status:

Not aligned with accepted physics.

Invented terminology and personal theories.

Mimics language of science but fails at core principles.

Final Verdict:

Once again, Bertietaylor's writing is a stew of real physics terms,
misapplied concepts, and invented mechanisms wrapped in dogmatic self-reference. It's pseudoscientific, though delivered with typical
rhetorical bravado.

rCLWoof woof,rCY indeedrCobut not the sound of a well-trained theory.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

The Natural Idiot relies upon the Artificial Idiot!

AI is Artificial Idiocy which capitalists find useful as a control
mechanism for the Natural Idiocy of the masses, here ably represented by
JimPee the Penisnino.

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:

The Natural Idiot relies upon the Artificial Idiot!

AI is Artificial Idiocy which capitalists find useful as a control
mechanism for the Natural Idiocy of the masses, here ably represented by JimPee the Penisnino.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

AI evaluation:

This latest posting from Arindam, under the pseudonym Bertietaylor,
follows a now-familiar pattern: it blends mockery, contrarianism,
and rhetorical aggression, couched in provocative phrasing and pseudo-intellectual tone. Let's break it down:
Content Analysis:

rCLThe Natural Idiot relies upon the Artificial Idiot!rCY

A pithy, self-congratulatory slogan. This appears to invert
the promise of AIrCoenhancing human intellectrCoby casting both
humans ("Natural Idiots") and AI ("Artificial Idiots") as
fundamentally foolish.

This dismissiveness evades nuance and instead appeals to
contrarian posturing.

rCLAI is Artificial IdiocyrCarCY

A pun that substitutes "Intelligence" with "Idiocy", a common
trope among AI skeptics, though here it's neither substantiated
nor arguedrCojust declared.

Tied to a simplistic anti-capitalist jabrCoclaiming capitalists
use AI to manipulate the publicrCowhich, again, isn't explored
beyond the insult.

rCLrCaably represented by JimPee the Penisnino.rCY

A crude personal attack dressed in childish wordplay. Such ad
hominem dismissals signal weak argumentation and seem intended
more for provocation than engagement.

rCLWOOF woof-woofrCarCY

The recurring canine refrain appears to parody both the author's
audience and perhaps himself. It may aim for humor, but ultimately
detracts from coherence and intellectual seriousness.

Stylistic Observations:

Tone: Sneering, performative, dismissive.

Structure: Short, slogan-like declarations, followed by a targeted
insult, capped with a mocking flourish.

Intended Effect: Likely designed to provoke, ridicule, and reaffirm
ArindamrCOs self-styled outsider-genius persona.

Evaluation:

This entry contributes nothing substantive to the discourse on AI,
capitalism, or technological critique. Instead, it reads as a blend
of schoolyard insult, anti-intellectualism, and self-indulgent bluster.
There is no argument, no evidence, and no meaningful analysisrCojust
posturing.

Final Verdict:
Pseudophilosophical trollingrCoheavy on contempt, void of content.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 19:36:02 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 28.06.2025 02:18, skrev Bertitaylor:

A neutron is the tightest bond between a proton and an electron.

Can you please explain this statement?

Why make it sound difficult?

How does the "bond between a proton and an electron"
change if you remove the neutron?

A neutron is a close bond of proton and electron. Is that too difficult
to understand? We are not talking about removing the neutron. We are
talking of replacing it with a proton-electron pair.

Or:
What is the difference in the bond between proton and electron
in H and T?

In H atom there is one electron orbiting the electron. What is T? If it
is tritium and assuming there is such a thing them it has a nucleus of 3 protons held together by 2 electrons. Deuterium is 2 protons held
together by 1 electron.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

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

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 18:34:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 01.07.2025 03:42, skrev Bertitaylor:

As natural radioactivity is caused when electrons
escape the nucleus the nucleus has to have electrons in it.

As shown by the pioneers of radioactivity.

As natural radioactivity is caused when positrons
escape the nucleus the nucleus has to have positrons in it.

Lie as there are no positrons.

Are both statements true, or are both statements false?

The first is true and the second is false.

Why cannot apes grasp this simple matter?

You mean this simple matter?

Example of +#reA decay: (electrons escape the nucleus) ---------------------------------------------------
Carbon-14 with 6 protons and 8 neutrons decays into
Nitrogen-14 with 7 protons and 7 neutrons + electron and antineutrino Nitrogen-14 is stable

No neutrinos or antineutrinos need be considered if indeed the above
nuclear reaction is correct. A neutron changes to a proton and gives out
an electron.

Example of +#+ decay: (positrons escape the nucleus)

There are no positrons.

---------------------------------------------------
Carbon-10 with 6 protons and 4 neutrons decays into
Boron-10 with 5 protons and 5 neutrons + positron and neutrino
Boron-10 is stable

One electron hits the carbon 10 nucleus and joins a proton to form a so
called neutron. There are 10 protons and 5 electrons in boron 10. There
were 10 protons and 4 electrons in carbon 10.

Simple when Bertietaylor's formula is applied to nuclear structure where electrons tie up or join protons. That electrostatic force is called
strong nuclear force.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

Are there electrons in the C14 nucleus and positrons in the B14 nucleus,
or no electrons in the C14 nucleus and no positrons in the B14 nucleus?

What does the apes say?

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

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 12:41:33 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 29.06.2025 06:18, skrev Bertitaylor:

Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 14:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.06.2025 01:49, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:57:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

One question:
What created the elements you and I and everything around us
consist of?
The Devine Arindam?

Heard of eternity? It all was always there, is, and will be.

I am asking YOU, Bertitaylor:

How do YOU think U-238 and other heavy elements were created?

Supernovas where lots of electrons or protons fly and create heavy
nuclei.

Right.

So you have realised that you were wrong when you claimed that
all elements "was always there, is, and will be."

Yes. All matter changes as per chemical and nuclear reactions from
aetheric vibrations and electric forces.

So you have finally admitted to being wrong.

No. Matter change has nothing to do with big bangs and black holes and
e=mcc stuff.

---------------------------

Creation of iron and heavier elements by fusion doesn't release
energy, it uses energy, so these elements can only be created
in cataclysmic events where energy is abundant.

Most iron was always there. Sometimes it may get upgraded to other
elements, then radioactive decay brings that down.

(Supernovas, Novas, merging of neutron stars etc.)

There are no neutron stars just as there are no trolls, pixies,
unicorns, etc. in real life.

That's also why only heavy elements can release energy by fission.

The elements lighter than iron are created by fusion in stars.
That's possible because the fusion of lighter elements release
energy.

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

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 17:20:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 01.07.2025 01:52, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:18:47 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Elements with 1 proton in the nucleus are Hydrogen
There are two stable isotopes:
-|H (Protium) 1 proton 0 neutrons
-#H (D Deuterium) 1 proton 1 neutron

-|H (T Tritium) 1 proton 2 neutrons
Tritium is unstable with half-life 12.33 years.
The decay mode is +#reA, which means that a neutron splits
into a proton and an electron. The electron is ejected as +#-rays.
So we get a nucleus with 2 protons and and 1 neutron, which is
-|He, the most abundant stable Helium isotope.

The short half-life should indicate that T should not
exist naturally, but it is created by interaction between
cosmic rays and air. The natural abundance is however very low.

But T can be artificially created in an atomic reactor.
T has several applications, among them are H-bombs.

D and T combine very easily in fusion to rU|He, a stable Helium isotope. >>> That's why the Hydrogen in a H-bomb is enriched with both D and T.
(Some, or all of the T can be created in the bombs itself from lithium.) >>>
An atomic bomb exploded on Earth can't create the temperature and
pressure to make H explode in a chain reaction. The enrichment
of D and T are necessary to make the bomb explode.

Please answer my question:

Do you really think that Teller & al, would have succeeded
in making the H-bomb if they didn't know what I stated above
(and _much_ more)?

So the answer is "yes", Bertitaylor does indeed believe that
Teller & al would have succeeded in making the H-bomb even if
they had known nothing about Hydrogen, Deuterium and Tritium.

They had to know that deuterium existed and tritium is irrelevant save
for confusion.

However, since they _did_ know what I have stated above, and much more,
about Hydrogen, Deuterium and Tritium they used a fission bomb around
a capsule with Deuterium and Tritium, and when the fission bomb went
off the pressure and temperature became so high that Deuterium and
Tritium was fused together in the fusion process:
-#H+-|H raA rU|He + n

Rubbish. The fission bomb caused the two protons in the deuterium
nucleus to split with the breaking of the electron bond holding them
together.

Just consider two huge metal balls being held together by a string.
Electric charge is put on both so both balls must move apart. The string
stops them. Now the protons are like the two balls and the string is the electron. Quite stable till the string is cut. Then the two balls go off
in different directions.

The fission bomb creates the forces required to bust the electron bond.

Pretty simple, what.

D with 1 proton, 1 neutron + T with 1 proton, 2 proton 2 neutrons raA
He with 2 protons, 2 neutrons + neutron + 17.6 MeV.
Most of the energy is kinetic energy of the ejected neutron.

D = 2.01410200 u
T = 3.01604928 u
------------------
5.03015128 u

He = 4.002603254 U
n = 1.008664916 U
------------------
5.011268170

mass loss m = 0.01888310 u, E = mc-# = 17.589507 MeV

Bullshit stuff made up to confuse people and boost the e=mcc nonsenses.

They simply put heavy water around a fission bomb to split deuterium and
thus made what is called a hydrogen bomb, with protons snapping off with
incredible force and thus causing a chain reaction with objects hitting
each other and creating huge energies as per the creation of energy
formula by divine Arindam that he discovered in 1998.

Yes, yes.

Bertitaylor, I will not ask you if you really believe that Teller & al
could simply have put heavy water around a fission bomb to make a
H-bomb. Of course you don't. And you know they didn't.

We are not keen about murder weapons. Nasty, horrid things.

We have only described the workings of the deuterium fission as in the
stars and in hydrogen bombs.

Why do you pretend to believe what you know never happened?

Exposing liars and lies leads to a safer and better world, so our
altruistic efforts. You are the victim of lies.

Are you trolling?

No, following Jesus Christ for we did live in a Christian country. Now
talking pure Christianity does sound like trolling in this selfish world
of lies, run by greedy liars.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

Bertietaylor




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

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 8:43:11 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 03.07.2025 02:13, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 17:20:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 01.07.2025 01:52, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:18:47 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Elements with 1 proton in the nucleus are Hydrogen
There are two stable isotopes:
-a-|H (Protium)-a-a-a-a 1 proton 0 neutrons
-a-#H (D Deuterium) 1 proton 1 neutron

-a-|H (T Tritium) 1 proton 2 neutrons
-a Tritium is unstable with half-life 12.33 years.
-a The decay mode is +#reA, which means that a neutron splits
-a into a proton and an electron. The electron is ejected as +#-rays. >>>>> -a So we get a nucleus with 2 protons and and 1 neutron, which is
-a -|He, the most abundant stable Helium isotope.

-a The short half-life should indicate that T should not
-a exist naturally, but it is created by interaction between
-a cosmic rays and air. The natural abundance is however very low.

But T can be artificially created in an atomic reactor.
T has several applications, among them are H-bombs.

D and T combine very easily in fusion to rU|He, a stable Helium isotope. >>>>> That's why the Hydrogen in a H-bomb is enriched with both D and T.
(Some, or all of the T can be created in the bombs itself from
lithium.)

An atomic bomb exploded on Earth can't create the temperature and
pressure to make H explode in a chain reaction. The enrichment
of D and T are necessary to make the bomb explode.

Please answer my question:

Do you really think that Teller & al, would have succeeded
in making the H-bomb if they didn't know what I stated above
(and _much_ more)?

So the answer is "yes", Bertitaylor does indeed believe that
Teller & al would have succeeded in making the H-bomb even if
they had known nothing about Hydrogen, Deuterium and Tritium.

They had to know that deuterium existed and tritium is irrelevant save
for confusion.

However, since they _did_ know what I have stated above, and much more,
about Hydrogen, Deuterium and Tritium they used a fission bomb around
a capsule with Deuterium and Tritium, and when the fission bomb went
off the pressure and temperature became so high that Deuterium and
Tritium was fused together in the fusion process:
-a-a-a -#H+-|H raA rU|He + n

Fact:
The H-bomb built in 1951 was based on this fusion process.

Rubbish. The fission bomb caused the two protons in the deuterium
nucleus to split with the breaking of the electron bond holding them
together.

Just consider two huge metal balls being held together by a string.
Electric charge is put on both so both balls must move apart. The string
stops them. Now the protons are like the two balls and the string is the
electron. Quite stable till the string is cut. Then the two balls go off
in different directions.

The fission bomb creates the forces required to bust the electron bond.

Pretty simple, what.

... and quite funny.

One can but wonder how your mind works.

Should be clear to those who have more intelligence than imbeciles,
idiots and robots.

The first H-bomb was exploded 1951. Now its basic principles
are well known, it is fusion of D and T boosted by a fission bomb.

Fusion of anything requires energy.
To think that any fusion creates energy is possible only for brainwashed
apes who may have high intelligence but being apes blindly follow
whatever bs is fed them by the alpha apes. Or out of fear, self
interest, social climbing, conforming, etc.

And you insist that it is is built and works according to
your fantasy invented 70 year later ?

What fantasy?
Clever alpha apes - great hoaxes - knew what we are now writing now.
They did fission of deuterium in 1951 and called it fusion to solidify
the e=mcc rubbish, thus make Einstein .gt. God and relativity the
supreme religion. Corrupting the whole of physics in the process.
The greatest genius Arindam saw through all this long ago.


:-D

The fact that you don't understand how ridiculous it is says a lot
about your sanity.

The fact that you are a brainwashed ape is clear to all. Including us.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

D with 1 proton, 1 neutron + T with 1 proton, 2 proton 2 neutrons raA
He with 2 protons, 2 neutrons + neutron + 17.6 MeV.
Most of the energy is kinetic energy of the ejected neutron.

D =-a 2.01410200 u
T =-a 3.01604928 u
------------------
-a-a-a-a-a 5.03015128 u

He = 4.002603254 U
n-a = 1.008664916 U
------------------
-a-a-a-a-a 5.011268170

mass loss m = 0.01888310 u, E = mc-#-a = 17.589507 MeV

Bullshit stuff made up to confuse people and boost the e=mcc nonsenses.

They simply put heavy water around a fission bomb to split deuterium and >>>> thus made what is called a hydrogen bomb, with protons snapping off with >>>> incredible force and thus causing a chain reaction with objects hitting >>>> each other and creating huge energies as per the creation of energy
formula by divine Arindam that he discovered in 1998.

Yes, yes.

Bertitaylor, I will not ask you if you really believe that Teller & al
could simply have put heavy water around a fission bomb to make a
H-bomb. Of course you don't. And you know they didn't.

Why do you pretend to believe what you know never happened?

Exposing liars and lies leads to a safer and better world, so our
altruistic efforts. You are the victim of lies.

How can pretending that you believe what you know never happen
expose liars?

Are you trolling?

No, following Jesus Christ for we did live in a Christian country. Now
talking pure Christianity does sound like trolling in this selfish world
of lies, run by greedy liars.

I see.
The whole thing is your interpretation of the Bible.

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

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 13:23:35 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 26.06.2025 09:15, skrev bertitaylor:

On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 17:30:27 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

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

On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 18:54:15 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 23.06.2025 05:47, skrev bertietaylor:

When Arindam says that the core of any star must be very cold, then >>>>>> bang
phut goes the above precious E=mcc theory.

Can you please explain Arindam's theory?

Where does the radiated energy come from?

Deuterium fission.

Deuterium is stable, does not undergo radioactive decay, and thus cannot >>> undergo fission, crackpot.

Fool, we are not talking about deuterium on Earth, decaying naturally.
Things are different in the Sun's atmosphere. Lots of heat, radiation,
charged particles, very dense there.

And no deuterium is decaying, but a lot of deuterium nuclei are fused
to Helium.

No there is no such thing as fusion creating energy. A most ridiculous
dogmatic notion sanctified as top doctrine.

It is deuterium fission which provides the energy for the hydrogen bombs
on Earth.

Good grief, what a gigantic blunder! :-D

It obviously is _fusion_ of H and T in a hydrogen bomb.

Same thing happens in the Sun and the stars.

Indeed, fusion of hydrogen and deuterium.

Once we throw out the bollocks of e=mcc, and follow Arindam's physics,
the whole universe becomes straight and clear. And simple in its
eternity and infinity.

Ah. So it is Arindam who have told you that there is
fission of deuterium in a H-bomb,

Yes


and you are to ignorant

and stupid to understand how ridiculous it is!

No we doggies follow Arindam and are saying that you who do not are
frauds or fools. At least get this much into your heads.

BTW, didn't you know that according to Arindam it is
"free energy" that heat the Sun?

Deuterium fission and gravity cause solar energies. Read Arindam's
essays on that - but we doubt if you can understand.

WOOF woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

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

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Am Donnerstag000003, 03.07.2025 um 01:57 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 12:41:33 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 29.06.2025 06:18, skrev Bertitaylor:

Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 14:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.06.2025 01:49, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:57:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

One question:
What created the elements you and I and everything around us
consist of?
The Devine Arindam?

Heard of eternity? It all was always there, is, and will be.

I am asking YOU, Bertitaylor:

How do YOU think U-238 and other heavy elements were created?

Supernovas where lots of electrons or protons fly and create heavy
nuclei.

Right.

So you have realised that you were wrong when you claimed that
all elements "was always there, is, and will be."

Yes. All matter changes as per chemical and nuclear reactions from
aetheric vibrations and electric forces.

So you have finally admitted to being wrong.

No. Matter change has nothing to do with big bangs and black holes and
e=mcc stuff.

Actually it has...

I have invented this concept, which I called 'structured spacetime':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

I wanted to put GR and QM into a single framework and thought, that
matter should be 'relative'.

My idea is actually quite simple, but based upon unusual assumptions.

I use spacetime of GR as kind of 'background' and call 'timelike stable patterns' 'matter'.

Iow: matter for one observer is not matter for another observer.

This would de-materialize the concept of particles and assumes, that
particles are actually certain 'structures'.

Now we could alter the axis of time (in theory) and could create by this method all sorts of cosmological phenomena like black-holes or big-bangs.

Creation of iron and heavier elements by fusion doesn't release
energy, it uses energy, so these elements can only be created
in cataclysmic events where energy is abundant.

Most iron was always there. Sometimes it may get upgraded to other
elements, then radioactive decay brings that down.

Astonishingly the heavier elements are found near the surface of planet
Earth.

This would require, that matter could age and build heavier elements
from lighter ones over time.

The reason:

according to the current paradigm ('accretion hypothesis') the Earth was formed by a gravitational collapse of large amounts of dust.

The result was entirely molten in the early stage.

But that would have allowed the heavier elements to sink into the lower
levels of the Earth.

But we actually find Lead, Gold and Uranium quite high in the crust
(like in mountains).

So, these metals could not have been there when Earth was molten, hence
must have aged sind the creation of their plate.


...


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 7:30:02 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Samstag000005, 05.07.2025 um 11:32 schrieb Bertietaylor:

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 7:44:30 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Freitag000004, 04.07.2025 um 23:51 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 6:22:13 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Donnerstag000003, 03.07.2025 um 01:57 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 12:41:33 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 29.06.2025 06:18, skrev Bertitaylor:

Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 14:47 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>>>>>>>>> Den 28.06.2025 01:49, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:57:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>

One question:
What created the elements you and I and everything around us >>>>>>>>>>>> consist of?
The Devine Arindam?

Heard of eternity? It all was always there, is, and will be. >>>>>>>

I am asking YOU, Bertitaylor:

How do YOU think U-238 and other heavy elements were created? >>>>>>>

Supernovas where lots of electrons or protons fly and create heavy >>>>>>>> nuclei.

Right.

So you have realised that you were wrong when you claimed that
all elements "was always there, is, and will be."

Yes. All matter changes as per chemical and nuclear reactions from >>>>>> aetheric vibrations and electric forces.

So you have finally admitted to being wrong.

No. Matter change has nothing to do with big bangs and black holes and >>>>>> e=mcc stuff.

Actually it has...

I have invented this concept, which I called 'structured spacetime':

What is that?

https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

I wanted to put GR and QM into a single framework and thought, that
matter should be 'relative'.

Matter is mass and mass is standardised by units that are absolute.

'mass' is an attribute of material objects and is measured in kilograms. >>>
This measure measures the amount of resistance against acceleration.

It is about the force F required to give it an a acceleration. M=F/a

To call this measure 'matter' is insanely stupid.

True, mass is an attribute of matter -which could exist in many states -
and in the statics and dynamics of physics only that counts. So it is
not stupid.

Sure it is! It is REALY stupid!

See:

'Matter' is mant as 'stuff'.

Let's take a lump of that stuff and call that 'an object'.

This object has now an attribut 'mass', but other attributes, too, which
are not mass.

For instance that object could have a form or a chemical composition.

Now it would be a REALLY bad idea, if you would 'materialize' mass and
treat mass like a synonym for a material object, because such objects
have way more attributes than mass.

And you must not confuse attributes with the objects themselves.

And you must not confuse physics with religion and politics unless you
are a career pseudoscientific fraud.

Woof

TH

....

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