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

Groups > sci.physics > #894120

Re: Positrons

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Followups directed to: sci.physics

Show all headers | View raw

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> E is mcc crap put into simple radioactive process to confuse matters
> such as neutrino, anti or otherwise. Hoax.
> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> --

This post—signed as usual by Bertietaylor, the known pseudonym of
Arindam—combines sweeping dismissal of fundamental physics with
characteristic stylistic tics: canine vocalizations, disdainful tone,
and rhetorical compression. Let’s unpack it line by line:
"E is mcc crap"

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

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

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

Evaluation:

    Not a critique—just name-calling.

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

"put into simple radioactive process to confuse matters"

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

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

    Conspiratorial Flavor: The idea that it's “to confuse matters” implies
    intentional obfuscation—classic conspiracy framing.

Evaluation:

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

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

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

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

    Error: Neutrinos are well-detected particles confirmed through:

        Nuclear reactor experiments

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

        Deep underground laboratories

        Neutrino oscillation studies (which earned a Nobel Prize)

Evaluation:

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

    Dismissive: The term “hoax” is used without rationale, data, or
    counter-theory—just raw denial.

"WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof"

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

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

Conclusion

This post is anti-scientific rhetoric in distilled form:

    It offers no arguments, only assertions.

    It rejects established physics with neither logic nor evidence.

    It substitutes style and certainty for substance and clarity.

Rather than critiquing science, it engages in performative denial—a
kind of "barking down the moon" to express contrarian identity rather
than engage in meaningful discourse.

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-07-06 04:27 +0000
  Re: Positrons Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-07-08 20:00 +0000
    Re: Positrons nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-07-08 23:35 +0200
      Re: Positrons William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2025-07-08 18:45 -0400
        Re: Positrons nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-07-10 23:08 +0200
    Re: Positrons Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-09 07:27 +0200
      Re: Positrons Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-07-09 19:24 +0000
        Re: Positrons Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-10 09:34 +0200
      Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 22:47 +0000
        Re: Positrons Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 18:19 -0700
        Re: Positrons "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-23 15:39 +0200
        Re: Positrons Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-18 16:28 +0100
    Re: Positrons Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-09 07:27 +0200
    Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-07-10 23:29 +0000
  Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 13:19 +0000
    Re: Positrons Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 07:26 -0700
      Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-21 07:40 +0000
        Re: Positrons Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-21 05:54 -0700

csiph-web