Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #664365 > unrolled thread

Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Dark  matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2025-06-19 12:15 +0000
    Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-19 21:01 +0200
      Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-20 08:01 +0200
        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Patric Wojewódzki <jiid@oei.pl> - 2025-06-20 17:24 +0000
        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> - 2025-06-21 18:36 -0600
          Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-22 12:12 +0200
        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2025-06-23 03:47 +0000
          Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-23 20:54 +0200
            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-23 23:37 +0000
              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-25 19:14 +0200
              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-25 10:30 -0700
                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-06-26 07:15 +0000
                  Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-26 06:06 -0700
                  Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-26 15:23 +0200
                    Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Lon Mahankov <mklanh@amolmank.ru> - 2025-06-26 20:47 +0000
                    Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-27 03:47 +0000
                      Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 22:37 -0700
                        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 22:44 -0700
                        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 22:47 -0700
                          Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-27 06:40 +0000
                            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 23:54 -0700
                              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-27 12:27 +0000
                                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-27 06:32 -0700
                            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 23:56 -0700
                              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-28 00:13 +0000
                                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-28 19:04 -0700
                                  Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 02:49 +0000
                                    Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-28 21:21 -0700
                                      Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 10:16 +0000
                                        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-04 15:19 -0700
                            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-27 06:25 -0700
                              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-28 00:18 +0000
                                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-27 18:45 -0700
                                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-28 21:36 +0200
                                  Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-01 10:44 +0000
                      Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-27 06:19 -0700
                      Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-27 21:57 +0200
                        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Dekota Hamaev <te@etat.ru> - 2025-06-27 22:31 +0000
                        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-27 23:49 +0000
                          Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-28 03:28 +0000
                            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-28 06:29 +0000
                            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-28 13:19 +0200
                          Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-28 14:44 +0200
                            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-29 05:58 +0200
                              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 13:37 +0000
                                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-29 07:31 -0700
                                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-29 18:30 +0200
                                  Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Martino Krakowski <wwkoo@iiir.pl> - 2025-06-29 17:27 +0000
                                  Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 23:10 +0000
                                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-29 22:22 +0200
                                  Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 22:20 +0000
                                    Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-29 15:58 -0700
                                    Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-30 20:18 +0200
                                      Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-30 23:52 +0000
                                        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-30 18:23 -0700
                                        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-02 19:20 +0200
                                          Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-02 19:46 +0200
                                          Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-03 00:13 +0000
                                            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-03 10:43 +0200
                                              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-03 12:30 +0000
                                                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-05 11:16 +0200
                                  Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Kerwin Baklanov <oanwan@waoanro.ru> - 2025-06-30 13:49 +0000
                              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-01 00:55 +0000
                                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-01 01:42 +0000
                                  Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-02 20:34 +0200
                                    Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-02 22:20 +0000
                                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-30 18:31 -0700
                                  Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-01 02:27 +0000
                                    Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-30 20:39 -0700
                          Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-28 14:47 +0200
                            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-29 06:01 +0200
                              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 04:20 +0000
                              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 04:18 +0000
                                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-29 14:41 +0200
                                  Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-02 23:57 +0000
                                    Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-04 08:22 +0200
                                      Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-04 21:51 +0000
                                        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Truman Agamov <rruaau@ar.ru> - 2025-07-04 22:00 +0000
                                        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-05 09:44 +0200
                                          Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-07-05 09:32 +0000
                                            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-08 09:30 +0200
                                              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-07-10 23:32 +0000
                    Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-03 14:06 +0000
            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-06-24 10:48 +1000
              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2025-06-24 01:41 +0000
            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2025-06-24 06:20 +0000
              Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2025-06-24 08:51 +0100
                Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-24 08:41 +0000
                  Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2025-06-24 11:26 +0100
                    Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-24 10:43 +0000
                      Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Krishna Abdulaev <la@vadalibh.ru> - 2025-06-24 17:55 +0000
                        Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-25 00:22 +0000
                          Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Reed Kawashima <ahhsa@kasir.jp> - 2025-06-25 13:28 +0000
                            Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-27 23:46 +0000
    Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2025-06-29 12:26 +0800
      Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 04:42 +0000

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#664841 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

Den 03.07.2025 14:30, skrev Bertitaylor:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 8:43:11 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
>> One can but wonder how your mind works.

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

Right. It is!

>>
>> 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


'nuff said!

We leave at that.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664709 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> D and T combine very easily in fusion to ⁴He, 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.

good to know, so it's still fission, not fusion. Chain reaction in fusion 
is ludicrous.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664727 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664729 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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
>
> --

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664784 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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

Are both statements true, or are both statements false?

> 
> Why cannot apes grasp this simple matter?

You mean this simple matter?

Example of β− 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

Example of β+ decay: (positrons escape the nucleus)
---------------------------------------------------
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

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?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664796 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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 β− 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 β+ 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?

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664730 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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.

    ❌ 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
    energy—not simply "great opposing forces."

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

    ❌ Misleading phrasing: Fission yields fragments (not fully intact
    atoms), which are typically ionized, highly energetic nuclei—not
    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."

    ❌ 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 energy—it does not "create" energy from
    kinetic motion per se.

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

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

    ❌ 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."

    ❌ Confusion of mechanisms: Deuterium is used in fusion reactions
    and as a moderator in some reactors (e.g., heavy water reactors).
    It doesn’t "amplify" fission in the way described here. A hydrogen
    bomb uses a fission primary to trigger fusion in
    deuterium/tritium—different 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.

“Woof woof,” indeed—but not the sound of a well-trained theory.

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664732 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664734 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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:

    “The Natural Idiot relies upon the Artificial Idiot!”

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

        This dismissiveness evades nuance and instead appeals to
	contrarian posturing.

    “AI is Artificial Idiocy…”

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

        Tied to a simplistic anti-capitalist jab—claiming capitalists
	use AI to manipulate the public—which, again, isn't explored
	beyond the insult.

    “…ably represented by JimPee the Penisnino.”

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

    “WOOF woof-woof…”

        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
    Arindam’s 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 analysis—just
posturing.

Final Verdict:
 Pseudophilosophical trolling—heavy on contempt, void of content.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664634 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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.

Uranium-238 is the heaviest radioactive element.
That means that it can't be created by decay of heavier elements.
The half-life of U-238 is 4.47 billion years.
That means that U-238 can't exist forever.

So at some time in the past it must have been created.

> 
> Get rid of all creation myths and big bang nonsense.
> 

I am asking YOU, Bertitaylor:

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

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664664 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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.
> 
> Uranium-238 is the heaviest radioactive element.
> That means that it can't be created by decay of heavier elements.
> The half-life of U-238 is 4.47 billion years.
> That means that U-238 can't exist forever.
> 
> So at some time in the past it must have been created.
> 
>>
>> Get rid of all creation myths and big bang nonsense.
>>
> 
> I am asking YOU, Bertitaylor:
> 
> How do YOU think U-238 and other heavy elements were created?
> 

I personally think, that matter can 'age', where heavier elements are 
built from lighter elements.

That's why heavier elements are found in higher places, like within 
mountains.

Those place are the oldest parts of planet Earth (because of 'Growing 
Earth').


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664667 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 4:01:45 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> 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.
>>
>> Uranium-238 is the heaviest radioactive element.
>> That means that it can't be created by decay of heavier elements.
>> The half-life of U-238 is 4.47 billion years.
>> That means that U-238 can't exist forever.
>>
>> So at some time in the past it must have been created.
>>
>>>
>>> Get rid of all creation myths and big bang nonsense.
>>>
>>
>> I am asking YOU, Bertitaylor:
>>
>> How do YOU think U-238 and other heavy elements were created?
>>
>
> I personally think, that matter can 'age', where heavier elements are
> built from lighter elements.
>
> That's why heavier elements are found in higher places, like within
> mountains.
>
> Those place are the oldest partOOF f planet Earth (because of 'Growing
> Earth').

You have got something there. Bursts of protons and electrons may cause
growth of nuclei over trillions of years.

Woof
>
>
> TH

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664668 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 4:01:45 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> 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.
>>
>> Uranium-238 is the heaviest radioactive element.
>> That means that it can't be created by decay of heavier elements.
>> The half-life of U-238 is 4.47 billion years.
>> That means that U-238 can't exist forever.
>>
>> So at some time in the past it must have been created.
>>
>>>
>>> Get rid of all creation myths and big bang nonsense.
>>>
>>
>> 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.

Check out Arindam's brilliant essays on the causes and natures of
gravity, novae and supernovae.

Woof woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor


>>
>
> I personally think, that matter can 'age', where heavier elements are
> built from lighter eeaylements.
>
> That's why heavier elements are found in higher places, like within
> mountains.
>
> Those place are the oldest parts of planet Earth (because of 'Growing
> Earth').
>
>
> TH

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664682 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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."

So you have finally admitted to being wrong.

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

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

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664798 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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.

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664825 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664833 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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

Sounds like Einstein. He claimed his work was simple and also based on
assumptions
>
> I use spacetime of GR as kind of 'background' and call 'timelike stable
> patterns' 'matter'.

Patterns are not impacted by force so they are not mass or matter.
>
> Iow: matter for one observer is not matter for another observer.

That may be on aesthetic, gastronomic, emotional basis, yes. Not
physics.
>
> This would de-materialize the concept of particles and assumes, that
> particles are actually certain 'structures'.

Again structures are abstract in essence geometrically whereas particles
are material.
>
> 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.

Harry Potter stuff.

WOOF woof-woof woof
>
>
>
>>>
>>> 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

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664835 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

Bertitaylor wrote:

>> 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.

idiot, matter is much more than mass. The mass is a property. A 
characteristic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664840 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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.

To call this measure 'matter' is insanely stupid.

>>
>> My idea is actually quite simple, but based upon unusual assumptions.
> 
> Sounds like Einstein. He claimed his work was simple and also based on
> assumptions

Usually you try to explain some observations and try to figuere out, how 
that came into existence.

To achieve this goal, you need to check all sorts of possibilities and 
choose the best finding.

This is then your assumption (for the first 'round').

Think about Sherlock Holmes and how he looks at a crime scene.

His first guess would be (say): it was the gardener!

Now he would check this assumption against the facts found at the crime 
scene.

If the test remains positive, he could take this as his assumption and 
procede from there.

Or he could find, it wasn't the gardner and he had to think about 
something else.

But always we start with some sort of guesswork and call that 'assumption'.

>> I use spacetime of GR as kind of 'background' and call 'timelike stable
>> patterns' 'matter'.
> 
> Patterns are not impacted by force so they are not mass or matter.

for a start:

It is my concept and I explain how it works!

If you don't like, then feel free to reject it.

>> Iow: matter for one observer is not matter for another observer.
> 
> That may be on aesthetic, gastronomic, emotional basis, yes. Not
> physics.

Well, possibly.

But I define what is physics in my idea, not you.

...

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664842 — Re: Dark matter is the core of stars (minus hydrogen cover)

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.
>
>>>
>>> My idea is actually quite simple, but based upon unusual assumptions.
>>
>> Sounds like Einstein. He claimed his work was simple and also based on
>> assumptions
>
> Usually you try to explain some observations and try to figuere out, how
> that came into existence.

Where one can bungle deliberately or out of incompetence.
>
> To achieve this goal, you need to check all sorts of possibilities and
> choose the best finding.

Which may be based upon career or political considerations.
>
> This is then your assumption (for the first 'round').
>
> Think about Sherlock Holmes and how he looks at a crime scene.
>
> His first guess would be (say): it was the gardener!

Wrong. He would check the facts first. Theory comes later. Facts first,
theory later.
>
> Now he would check this assumption against the facts found at the crime
> scene.

Wrong. If he has made up his mind making theory first he will ignore
those facts that do not suit his theory.

Woof woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor
>
> If the test remains positive, he could take this as his assumption and
> procede from there.
>
> Or he could find, it wasn't the gardner and he had to think about
> something else.
>
> But always we start with some sort of guesswork and call that
> 'assumption'.
>
>>> I use spacetime of GR as kind of 'background' and call 'timelike stable
>>> patterns' 'matter'.
>>
>> Patterns are not impacted by force so they are not mass or matter.
>
> for a start:
>
> It is my concept and I explain how it works!
>
> If you don't like, then feel free to reject it.
>
>>> Iow: matter for one observer is not matter for another observer.
>>
>> That may be on aesthetic, gastronomic, emotional basis, yes. Not
>> physics.
>
> Well, possibly.
>
> But I define what is physics in my idea, not you.
>
> ....
>
> TH

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web