Avogadro’s Number = the Plank sized Nemesis steps?
hanson
Nemesis writes in Subject: Re: Is this Universe Digital ?
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy, sci.physics, on 2001-12-24 11:05:19 PST
"Truth is, space is merely an abstract (non-existent) mathematical
representation of a system of positions. Positions are definitely discrete.
Motion is therefore discrete and consists of discrete jumps. Time is just
as abstract and discrete as space."
Nemesis,(Louis Savian’s handle), has an intriguing concept, still ripening,
where he tries to describe nature thru' particles only, incorporating time
and space into their intrinsic particle properties. Our perceptions of
space and time then emerge as a consequence of a multitude of interactions
of these particles.
Einstein blamed the curve in the street for the forces we feel when driving
around the bend. So, Savian simply takes the next logically reasonable step
and blames everything onto particles properties themselves. Savian’s view
with particles from “wall to wall” performing discrete jumps may
necessitate a discrete set of different scales in Nature, a situation which
is quite obvious in Nature’s self-similar displays: Planck domain –N->
Atoms –N-> Mole –N-> Solar systems –N-> Galaxies –N-> observable Universe.
Each set is a self similar and roughly N times larger collection of the
subsets it is constructed from.
This fact of a discrete discontinuity as observable in nature has
unfortunately not yet been appreciated in the modeling of a TOE at the
macro/astro/cosmo level. There are reasons to believe that N is served by
Avogadros number, N_A.
Hence, N_A, Avogadros number, is perhaps the desired number of the little
“non zero” steps it takes for Nemesis’s particles to get out of Planck’s
domain into the observable measurable world producing the illusion of time
and space we see and feel. The following equations do relate Plank units
with corresponding units in the atomic domain, and link Gravitation with
the electric charge or Planck’s action quantum: All involve N_A, [= N (for
ease of reading)], Avogadro’s number, in 6.02e+23 “jumps”. The basic
relation which connect length, time and matter from Planck’s domain into
the “visible” atomic realm are, where: *_pl = Planck units, e = electr.
charge, m_e = electron mass, a = Finestructure constant, G = Newton, f_L =
H-Lyman series limit, h = Planck’s constant, r_H = H-Bohr radius, r_e
classica e-radius, tau = atomic unit of time, c= lightspeed,
with the simplest connection for Nemesis’ model which shows that 3.27E+24
(N*pi*sqrt3) discrete jumps of Planck length size are required to manifest
in a measurable length of the Hydrogen atom’s radius.
r_H / l_pl = (N*pi*sqrt3)
The jump numbers from Planck’s domain to even more fundamental level
constants in the atomic world do involve additionally the Finestructure
constant:
r_e / l_pl = a ^2 * (N*pi*sqrt3)
m_pl / m_e = a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
tau / t_pl = 1/a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
I don’t know yet why the l-m-t sequence requires a Alpha at different power
levels of a^2-a^1-a^-1.
Here, for further orientation and elucidation are the necessary reference
connections:
r_H = r_e /a^2
tau =1/(4*pi*?f_L)
a*c* tau = r_H
1 / (f_L * t_pl ) = (4*pi/a) * (N*pi*sqrt3)
e^2 = G*a*m_pl^2
G = h*c / 2pi m_pl^2
G = c^2 * l_pl / m_pl
e / m_e = a^(3/2) * G^(1/2) * (N*pi*sqrt3)
ref: (e^2 = h*a*c/2*pi …. to substitute charge for action quanta)
The simple relation, e^2 = G*a*m_pl^2, is striking in that the charge and
gravitation are related to each other without invoking distance.
Avogadro's number, N_A (=N in here) is a fundamental constant and is far
more important than just being a scaling number from atomic units into
kilograms via the Mole of the chemists. It is of the same importance as
Sommerfeld’s Finestructure constant which connects different force scales.
N_A serves a corresponding function for connecting basic length mass and
time scales in the real universe. Just like the distinct 1/137 coupling
number links dynamics, so is 6e+23 required for linking basic M,T & L
units.
It is futile to argue why N_A has its particular numerical size, for the
same reason which leaves us in the dark about Alpha’s 1/137.
One can even make a relation between Alpha and Avogadro and obtain another,
perhaps more fundamental dimensionless constant. However, where particles
do come from and why particles must exist in the first place is still an
unresolved enigma. It is the ultimate irony that we continue to have such
profound difficulties in trying to describe something we see, feel, touch,
taste, hear, can think about and are indeed a part of: Nature
hanson
hanso...@hotmail.com
PS: AFAIK, the Planck units were published ca 1899 and the Bohr Hartree
system was mature by 1920. So, in all likelihood I have told you here
something, which was known, if not published, almost a century ago,
somewhere by someone….even without a computer.
Russell Blackadar
>
> Avogadro’s Number = the Plank sized Nemesis steps?
[snip long, pathetic exercise in numerology]
> Avogadro's number, N_A (=N in here) is a fundamental constant and is far
> more important than just being a scaling number from atomic units into
> kilograms via the Mole of the chemists.
Grams, not kg, but that's the least of your mistakes.
If you want to call N_A fundamental, you have to explain why the
(mismeasured) distance from the North Pole to the Equator, and the
density of water at 277K, happen to be fundamental.
I might even read your attempt to do this, but probably won't.
[snip]
> It is futile to argue why N_A has its particular numerical size, for the
> same reason which leaves us in the dark about Alpha’s 1/137.
Rather a nonsequitur, since alpha *isn't* 1/137.
Y.Porat
Folks
i have some surprise for you, so listn carefully remeber it
and write it into your diary:
*Avogadro's number is valid not only in the gas state but.....
in solid and crystaline state as well*
and ones you understand it properly,it has a revolutuinary meaning
see table 2 and 3 in my site (befor its lost)
http://sites.netscape.net/poraty/site4.html
and if you do not undestand what does it means
and why it is revolutionay important, dont be a shamed
to ask questions
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------
Y.Porat
Folks
i have some news for you
so listen carefully and write it down to your diary.
*Avogadro's number is valid not only in the gass state
but in the SOLID AND CRYSTALINE state as well!*
and it has a revolutionary meaning.
see my site tables 2 and 3
http://sites.netscape.net/poraty/site4.html
(before it gets lost)
and if you do not understand its revolutionary importance
dont be ashame and come back with questions.
all the best
T.Porat
----------------
hanson
degenerate Blackadarsehole in message
news:3C365E51...@REMOVEmdli.com...
> If you want to call N_A fundamental, you have to explain why the
> (mismeasured) distance from the North Pole to the Equator, and the
> density of water at 277K, happen to be fundamental.
Russel, sorry about your obvious mental pains and your excruciating gasping
for comprehension, but N_A does not stand for North pole, we are talking
about something else.
In Codata, under "Fundamental physical constants -- Frequently used
constants", even you may find the only 2 numbers I cited, Avogardo's N_A
and the Finestructure constant Alpha. Apparently, unfortunately, you do not
know this.
> [snip long, pathetic exercise in numerology]
If you are not in a condition where your mental state is perennially unduly
incensed or you are exhibiting symptoms of degenerate Blackadarseholism,
then explain to yourself in your own way, numerologically or otherwise how
and why my quoted set of equations emerges in the form it does:
r_e / l_pl = a ^2 * (N*pi*sqrt3)
m_pl / m_e = a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
tau / t_pl = 1/a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
You don't have to do this for me. I have demonstrated, you have only
whined. So, keep up the wincing about your empty, selfproclaimed
superiority, but from you I obviously can not learn anything at all. Too, I
would fully understand if you are really not capable of doing so, because
you admitted in
> Message-ID: <3C1FE98B...@REMOVEmdli.com>
> as am I [Russel].. not, [a] practicing physicist.
Well, thank you, Russ. That explains the comment about your pathetic North
pole-N_A perception and the rest of your feeble message, and as far as your
tone, I find your comment in ....
> Message-ID: <3BB939AA...@REMOVEmdli.com>
> Regarding abuse mode, I will try to rein myself in.
..... to be a lie, or your trying to be as unsuccessful as is your general
posting.
However, if you cure yourself from your Blackadarseholism, you may actually
one day fulfill your dream and become "[a] practicing physicist".
That's when we should talk.
Good luck.
hanson
Gordon D. Pusch
> "Russell Blackadar" <rus...@REMOVEmdli.com> popped a hemorrhoid in his
> degenerate Blackadarsehole in message
> news:3C365E51...@REMOVEmdli.com...
>
> > If you want to call N_A fundamental, you have to explain why the
> > (mismeasured) distance from the North Pole to the Equator, and the
> > density of water at 277K, happen to be fundamental.
>
> Russel, sorry about your obvious mental pains and your excruciating gasping
> for comprehension, but N_A does not stand for North pole, we are talking
> about something else.
Hanson, sorry about your obvious mental pains and your excruciating gasping
for comprehension, but Russell's point that Avagadro's number depends on a
totally arbitrary and Earth-centric non-universal ``standard'' (the gram)
is entirely correct.
Avagadro's number is defined as the number of atoms in 12 grams of carbon.
The gram was originally defined as the mass of one cubic centimeter of
water at a specified temperature. The centimeter is an arbitrary unit
of distance approximating one ten-billionth of an old and innacurate
measurement of the distance from the Earth's north pole to its equator.
The notion that the distance between the Earth's pole and equator should
be a fundamental constant of the universe is quite, quite ludicrous.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
hanson
news:giwuywh...@pusch.xnet.com...
> The notion that the distance between the Earth's pole and equator should
> be a fundamental constant of the universe is quite, quite ludicrous.
> -- Gordon D. Pusch
Yo, Gordy,
Yes, correct, but Russ brought this North pole thing up. Not me.
Gordy, sorry about your obvious mental pains and your excruciating gasping
for comprehension which will not let you of all people, see that ALL
fundamental constants, including N_A, referenced in Codata or CRC must be
interrelated.
If they weren't then your entire physical picture would fall apart like a
house of cards.
It is obvious that the folks who put Codata or CRC together are vastly more
authoritative then any of you NG cyber physicists, practicing or not.
I get the feeling that you guys have at me, because I side with Nemesis,
who unlike you NG posters shows something new, instead of regurgitating
century old SR/GR tripe.
I don't care, nor does it aggravate me. To boot, the subject is not any
more important to me than making a sketch of how I see "it". I give a fuck
how others do see the universe. If my views produce flames, great. The more
the better. Flames are fun.
Now, instead of you just pontificating and taking up sides, without
“explaining”, please show to me then in your own way (of course, in your
own mind the only and correct way) why my quoted set of equations emerges
in the form it does:
r_e / l_pl = a ^2 * (N*pi*sqrt3)
m_pl / m_e = a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
tau / t_pl = 1/a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
hanson
Gordon D. Pusch
> "Russell Blackadar" <rus...@REMOVEmdli.com> popped a hemorrhoid in his
> degenerate Blackadarsehole in message
> news:3C365E51...@REMOVEmdli.com...
>
> > If you want to call N_A fundamental, you have to explain why the
> > (mismeasured) distance from the North Pole to the Equator, and the
> > density of water at 277K, happen to be fundamental.
>
> Russel, sorry about your obvious mental pains and your excruciating gasping
> for comprehension, but N_A does not stand for North pole, we are talking
> about something else.
Hanson, sorry about your obvious mental pains and your excruciating gasping
for comprehension, but Russell's point that Avagadro's number depends on a
totally arbitrary and Earth-centric non-universal ``standard'' (the gram)
is entirely correct.
Avagadro's number is defined as the number of atoms in 12 grams of carbon.
The gram was originally defined as the mass of one cubic centimeter of
water at a specified temperature. The centimeter is an arbitrary unit
of distance approximating one one-billionth of an old and innacurate
measurement of the distance from the Earth's north pole to its equator.
The notion that the distance between the Earth's pole and equator should
be a fundamental constant of the universe is quite, quite ludicrous.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Gordon D. Pusch
> "Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:giwuywh...@pusch.xnet.com...
>
> > The notion that the distance between the Earth's pole and equator should
> > be a fundamental constant of the universe is quite, quite ludicrous.
> > -- Gordon D. Pusch
>
> Yo, Gordy,
> Yes, correct, but Russ brought this North pole thing up. Not me.
Yo, Hansy, you don't know much about history. The meter was originally
defined by the French Revolutionaries to be one ten-millionth of the
distance between the Earth's north pole and the equator, as measured through
the meridian of Paris: <http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html>.
It's a fact. Look it up.
The modern redefinition as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458'th
of a second is merely the result of a historical series of compromises made
by various standards committees that at each step were intended to reproduce
the previous compromise definition to then-existing experimental accuracy.
So ultimately the definition of the meter is nothing but a series of political
compromises tracing back the French Revolutionary definition as one ten-
millionth of the distance between the Earth's north pole and the equator,
as measured through the meridian of Paris. The fact that measuring standards
(with the exception of mass) are nowadays tied to atomic constants by the
political rulings of CODATA (The Committee on Data for Science and Technology)
<http://www.codata.org/> does not change the fact that the meter is ultimately
a _POLITICALLY DEFINED_ unit --- NOT a fundamental atomic unit.
hanson
this is in ref to your other post
news:gilmfcg...@pusch.xnet.com...
PS: the way you answer, Gordy, makes me suspect that you never got or never
read my initial post. Actually, checking the google archive right now shows
that my original post didn't get picked up. So, here's the url: Message-ID:
<yqsZ7.3962$zw3.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 01:13:02 GMT
Avogadro’s Number = the Plank sized Nemesis steps?
Nemesis writes in Subject: Re: Is this Universe Digital ?
r_e / l_pl = a ^2 * (N*pi*sqrt3)
m_pl / m_e = a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
tau / t_pl = 1/a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
I don’t know yet why the l-m-t sequence requires a Alpha at different power
levels of a^2-a^1-a^-1.
Here, for further orientation and elucidation are the necessary reference
connections:
r_H = r_e /a^2
tau =1/(4*pi*?f_L)
a*c* tau = r_H
1 / (f_L * t_pl ) = (4*pi/a) * (N*pi*sqrt3)
e^2 = G*a*m_pl^2
G = h*c / 2pi m_pl^2
G = c^2 * l_pl / m_pl
e / m_e = a^(3/2) * G^(1/2) * (N*pi*sqrt3)
ref: (e^2 = h*a*c/2*pi …. to substitute charge for action quanta)
The simple relation, e^2 = G*a*m_pl^2, is striking in that the charge and
gravitation are related to each other without invoking distance.
Avogadro's number, N_A (=N in here) is a fundamental constant and is far
more important than just being a scaling number from atomic units into
kilograms via the Mole of the chemists. It is of the same importance as
Sommerfeld’s Finestructure constant which connects different force scales.
N_A serves a corresponding function for connecting basic length mass and
time scales in the real universe. Just like the distinct 1/137 coupling
number links dynamics, so is 6e+23 required for linking basic M,T & L
units.
It is futile to argue why N_A has its particular numerical size, for the
same reason which leaves us in the dark about Alpha’s 1/137.
One can even make a relation between Alpha and Avogadro and obtain another,
hanson
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> writes:
>
> > "Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
> > news:giwuywh...@pusch.xnet.com...
> >
> > > The notion that the distance between the Earth's pole and equator
should
> > > be a fundamental constant of the universe is quite, quite ludicrous.
> > > -- Gordon D. Pusch
> >
> > Yo, Gordy,
> > Yes, correct, but Russ brought this North pole thing up. Not me.
>
> Yo, Hansy, you don't know much about history. The meter was originally
> defined by the French Revolutionaries
Gordy, Gordy, Gordy. Thanks for the great history lecture, but that is NOT
at issue here at all. Adress this to Russ. I have NOT brought this up,
neither the Northpole gig, nor the defition of of the meter. It is not
require in my original post, nor does it interest me to discuss it. Tell it
to Russ.
At issue here is my request, repeated to you......:
Please show to me in your own way why my quoted set of equations emerges
in the form it does:
r_e / l_pl = a ^2 * (N*pi*sqrt3)
m_pl / m_e = a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
tau / t_pl = 1/a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
If you won't, Gordy, then that's cool too and I thank you for you
responses.
One day I will let you in on how easy the derivation of these equations
are.
Best regards and again my thanks, Gordy
hanson
PS: the way you answer, Gordy, makes me suspect that you never got or never
read my initial post. Actually, checking the google archive right now shows
that my original post didn't get picked up. So, here's the url: Message-ID:
<yqsZ7.3962$zw3.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 01:13:02 GMT
This note ought to appear then also under your post
news:giofk8g...@pusch.xnet.com...
Avogadro’s Number = the Plank sized Nemesis steps?
Nemesis writes in Subject: Re: Is this Universe Digital ?
r_e / l_pl = a ^2 * (N*pi*sqrt3)
m_pl / m_e = a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
tau / t_pl = 1/a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
I don’t know yet why the l-m-t sequence requires a Alpha at different power
levels of a^2-a^1-a^-1.
Here, for further orientation and elucidation are the necessary reference
connections:
r_H = r_e /a^2
tau =1/(4*pi*?f_L)
a*c* tau = r_H
1 / (f_L * t_pl ) = (4*pi/a) * (N*pi*sqrt3)
e^2 = G*a*m_pl^2
G = h*c / 2pi m_pl^2
G = c^2 * l_pl / m_pl
e / m_e = a^(3/2) * G^(1/2) * (N*pi*sqrt3)
ref: (e^2 = h*a*c/2*pi …. to substitute charge for action quanta)
The simple relation, e^2 = G*a*m_pl^2, is striking in that the charge and
gravitation are related to each other without invoking distance.
Avogadro's number, N_A (=N in here) is a fundamental constant and is far
more important than just being a scaling number from atomic units into
kilograms via the Mole of the chemists. It is of the same importance as
Sommerfeld’s Finestructure constant which connects different force scales.
N_A serves a corresponding function for connecting basic length mass and
time scales in the real universe. Just like the distinct 1/137 coupling
number links dynamics, so is 6e+23 required for linking basic M,T & L
units.
It is futile to argue why N_A has its particular numerical size, for the
same reason which leaves us in the dark about Alpha’s 1/137.
One can even make a relation between Alpha and Avogadro and obtain another,
Y.Porat
> "Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:gilmfcg...@pusch.xnet.com...
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> writes:
> >
> > > "Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
> > > news:giwuywh...@pusch.xnet.com..
there are things that even Great Pusch
Mr know everthing)are mistaken:
Avogadros number is not our global dependant
*it is a universal law* not only on our globe.:
once you compair (by dividing the figures)
the specific eeight of a sunatance by the say Carbon unit
than the result is not anymore dimention dependant
it becomes a pure figure,
now there is alot to lern and inovate by such a process.
i did it and got revolutionar surprising trsults
those who have my table 2 and 3 of my late site
can understand it.
---
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------
Dieter Grosch
hanson <han...@quick.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
yqsZ7.3962$zw3.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Avogadro's Number = the Plank sized Nemesis steps?
>
> Nemesis writes in Subject: Re: Is this Universe Digital ?
> Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy, sci.physics, on 2001-12-24 11:05:19 PST
> "Truth is, space is merely an abstract (non-existent) mathematical
> representation of a system of positions. Positions are definitely
discrete.
> Motion is therefore discrete and consists of discrete jumps. Time is just
> as abstract and discrete as space."
>
> Nemesis,(Louis Savian's handle), has an intriguing concept, still
ripening,
> where he tries to describe nature thru' particles only, incorporating time
> and space into their intrinsic particle properties. Our perceptions of
> space and time then emerge as a consequence of a multitude of interactions
> of these particles.
> Einstein blamed the curve in the street for the forces we feel when
driving
> around the bend. So, Savian simply takes the next logically reasonable
step
> and blames everything onto particles properties themselves. Savian's view
> with particles from "wall to wall" performing discrete jumps may
> necessitate a discrete set of different scales in Nature, a situation
which
> Atoms -N-> Mole -N-> Solar systems -N-> Galaxies -N-> observable Universe.
>
> The simple relation, e^2 = G*a*m_pl^2, is striking in that the charge and
> gravitation are related to each other without invoking distance.
>
> Avogadro's number, N_A (=N in here) is a fundamental constant and is far
> more important than just being a scaling number from atomic units into
> kilograms via the Mole of the chemists. It is of the same importance as
> Sommerfeld's Finestructure constant which connects different force scales.
> N_A serves a corresponding function for connecting basic length mass and
> time scales in the real universe. Just like the distinct 1/137 coupling
> number links dynamics, so is 6e+23 required for linking basic M,T & L
> units.
> It is futile to argue why N_A has its particular numerical size, for the
> same reason which leaves us in the dark about Alpha's 1/137.
>
> One can even make a relation between Alpha and Avogadro and obtain
another,
> perhaps more fundamental dimensionless constant. However, where particles
> do come from and why particles must exist in the first place is still an
> unresolved enigma. It is the ultimate irony that we continue to have such
> profound difficulties in trying to describe something we see, feel, touch,
> taste, hear, can think about and are indeed a part of: Nature
Leider spreche ich nicht englisch, weshalb ich meine Hinweise in deutsch
geben möchte.
Ich hatte schon vor einiger Zeit einige Beitraege zu den Planck - Goessen
und Zusammenhaenge zwischen der Gravitationkonstanten und der
Elementarladung der Massen von Elektron und Proton usw dargestellt.
In diese Gedanken scheint sich Ihre Vorstellung von der Bedeutung der
Avogadro-Zahl sinvoll einzufuegen, da fuer meine Vorstellungen eigendlich
die Masse ein reine Zahl, maemlich die Anzahl von Elementarteilchen sein
soll, wobei die bekannten *Elementarteilchen* auch aus mehreren bestehen
können.
Dabei ging ich auch von einer Gravitationskonstante der ruhenden Materie
aus, die ich durch gleichsetzen der Coulombkraft der Ladung als
Gegengravitation definierte, und mit 1.51*10^29 [m^3 kg^-1 s^-2] berechnet
habe. Dabei ergeben sich auch Beziehungen zu kosmischen Groessen, wie zum
Beispiel der Erdmasse und dem Erdbahnradius.
Einzelheiten sind unter Dieter Grosch bei
http://groups.google.com/
und auf meiner Homepage unter
http://home.t-online.de/home/DGrosch/
zu finden.
Ich waere daran interessiert, wie sich in meine Vorstellungen Ihre Gedanken
zur Avogadro-Zahl und ihrer Beudeutung einfügen. Bitte antworten Sie, denn
die Frage ist scheinbar sehr wichtig.
Mit besten Gruessen
Dieter Grosch
hanson
Danke fuer Deine Antwort, Dieter
Meine Jahre im Aussendienst in Europa sind laengst vorbei und somit auch
meine Fluessigkeit im Deutsch. Wenn Zeit und Interesse vorhanden sind werde
ich gewiss Deine Webseite studieren fuer meine Ansicht was Du von wegen
Avogadros Zahl gefunden hast. So, gib mir bitte Zeit fuer meine Antwort.
Juess,
hanson
...and for the local yokels, I said here:
Dear Dieter,
Thanks for your response, Dieter.
My years in the Foreign Service in Europe have gone long since, and with it
my fluency in German. When time and interest is available I will certainly
study your website to comment on your findings re Avogadro's number. So,
please give me time for my retort.
Regards,
hanson
"Dieter Grosch" <DGr...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:a19841$79a$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
hanson
Thanks for your response.
I am glad to see that you too are seeing that Avogadro's # reaches far
beyond the bench scales of the chemists. The unfamiliarity with N_A outside
chem community does much for it's shunning by the physicos. This is to be
expected because the Mol concept, and with it N_A, is not something
everybody needs in their profession or daily endeavors.
The situation was different at the turn of the last century, when even
Einstein investigated N_A actively. But then with the advent of relativity
this avenue of inquiry was forgotten and ever since with ever louder noise
the physics community jumped on Al's bandwagon and rode down that
particular cul de sac.
Times may be changing and relativity may be regarded for what it is: Just
one of many views about nature, quite successful and accurate where
applicable.
So, please have a heart and give Gordy some slack. Some catch on sooner
than others. No harm done. After all, we ALL try to describe the same thing
and some paint their impressions of nature different than others.
This creates flames and is great fun.
But it will not change the world.
Best regards to you, Porat, and thanks again
hanson
"Y.Porat" <por...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
news:c91f39eb.02010...@posting.google.com...
Gordon D. Pusch
> "Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:gilmfcg...@pusch.xnet.com...
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> writes:
> >
> > > "Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
> > > news:giwuywh...@pusch.xnet.com...
> > >
> > > > The notion that the distance between the Earth's pole and equator
> > > > should
> > > > be a fundamental constant of the universe is quite, quite ludicrous.
> > > > -- Gordon D. Pusch
> > >
> > > Yo, Gordy,
> > > Yes, correct, but Russ brought this North pole thing up. Not me.
> >
> > Yo, Hansy, you don't know much about history. The meter was originally
> > defined by the French Revolutionaries
>
> Gordy, Gordy, Gordy. Thanks for the great history lecture, but that is NOT
> at issue here at all.
Hansy, hansy, hansy, it is _EACTLY_ the issue. Avagadro's number depends on
the definition of the gram, which is an arbitrary unit defined by POLITICS,
not physics. Avagadro's number is =NOT= a universal physical constant.
And since you are obviously a numerological crank, and a remarkably ignorant
and sphexish one to boot, you are now also in my KILLfile. Goodbye, net.kook.
<*PLONK*>
Nemesis
(Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
>Avagadro's number depends on
>the definition of the gram, which is an arbitrary unit defined by POLITICS,
>not physics.
The number of the Planck constant (or any other constant for that
matter) also depends on various arbitrary unit definitions. What's
your point?
>Avagadro's number is =NOT= a universal physical constant.
>And since you are obviously a numerological crank, and a remarkably ignorant
>and sphexish one to boot, you are now also in my KILLfile. Goodbye, net.kook.
Who is this insufferable pompous ass?
Nemesis
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://home1.gte.net/res02khr/crackpots/notorious.htm
Maury Markowitz
> Russel, sorry about your obvious mental pains and your excruciating
gasping
> for comprehension, but N_A does not stand for North pole, we are talking
> about something else.
Oh geez, if you can't even parse Russel's comment about the north pole,
perhaps you should hesitate before replying.
Seeing as you apparently can't understand english beyond a 4th grade
level, I'll help you here:
Avogadro's Number is based on a set of arbitrary geo-centric numbers that
were picked because they seemed cool, and not for any scientific reason. The
gram is as dumb as the meter. Now quick, braniac, what was the original
definition of a meter?
Maury
Nemesis
Markowitz" <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote:
As I wrote in my reply to that pontificating Pusch, the number of the
Planck constant and various other constants (c, elementary charge,
etc...) also depend on various arbitrary unit definitions. What is
your point, Mr. know-it-all?
Polar
I cheated and looked it up.
Does anybody know what the original definition of a *yard* was?
IIRC, it was the distance from King John's nose to the tip of his
middle finger. I couldn't find anything on Google in a hurry.
Maybe somebody has more info?
--
Polar
hanson
Neee, ne, nehhhhhhhhh Gordy Pooh !
What is this "eactly" shit of yours anyway?
Is your "eactly" an acronym for "Every Asshole Comes To Love You"
Well, Gordy pooh, my friend, I am so glad that you have joined my fan club
and become a groupie of mine.
In your own mind only, of course, Gordy, you are of course right with what
you say. Absolutely. Now, don't pop a hemmi over it like the other guy
did. Getting so aggravated over something which doesn't change the world
nor the meager contents of your wallet is hardly worth making such a
huffing over in your geriatric condition.
Take it fucking easy, Gordy Pooh dude, that is, if you still can.
On the other hand, maybe we can make a deal:
As the reformation of my views into your fold seems to be of such consuming
importance to you, how much will you pay me if I agree with you?
Make an fat offer, don't be a cheap shit, Gordy.
I am a expensive lady of the night, Gordy pooh.
Come on Gordy Pooh, try to get it up.
> you are now also in my KILLfile. Goodbye, net.kook.
> <*PLONK*>
Gordy Pooh ! Gordy Pooh ! Gordy Pooh ! WAIT ! WAIT! before you pull the
chain ......
because I know that you will sit now all day long at the computer at check
your killfile every 2 minutes to see whether I responded.
'
********* Peek-a-booh Gordy pooh ------- gotcha ***************
hahahahahahahanson
"Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:giu1tzf...@pusch.xnet.com...
dieter.grosch
> Lieber Dieter,
> Danke fuer Deine Antwort, Dieter
> Meine Jahre im Aussendienst in Europa sind laengst vorbei und somit auch
> meine Fluessigkeit im Deutsch. Wenn Zeit und Interesse vorhanden sind
werde
> ich gewiss Deine Webseite studieren fuer meine Ansicht was Du von wegen
> Avogadros Zahl gefunden hast. So, gib mir bitte Zeit fuer meine Antwort.
> Juess,
> hanson
>
> ...and for the local yokels, I said here:
>
> Dear Dieter,
> Thanks for your response, Dieter.
> My years in the Foreign Service in Europe have gone long since, and with
it
> my fluency in German. When time and interest is available I will certainly
> study your website to comment on your findings re Avogadro's number. So,
> please give me time for my retort.
> Regards,
> hanson
Hallo hanson,
besten Dank fuer deine Antwort, ich gebe Dir die Zeit, denn ich bin an
Deiner Meinung interessiert.
Bitte stelle Deine Antworten auch in dieser Newsgroups vor.
Mit besten Gruessen
Dieter Grosch
>
> "Dieter Grosch" <DGr...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:a19841$79a$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
Dan Rumney
Or at least how you started, and what you were aiming to show?
Thanks
Dan
hanson
news:a1bvdl$f7i$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> Could you show me how you got these?
> Or at least how you started,
FOR INSTANCE, begin with one of the very many possibilities :
t_au = 1/(4 pi * f_L), f_L the Lyman-series limit frequency, and N_A =
f_L*F*(1/ a pi) ^2, (F the Faraday constant), or with R(gas) = N_A*k
(Boltzman) or , N_A* e/F = m_e* a* c^3/4pi^3, or in experiment when
measuring current in n Amps = n N*e/F (see below). --- This is all century
old Bohr/Hartree stuff, myriads of such “connections” are available. – Some
poor bastards believe, still as of today, that all these measured things
are decoupled and not inter-related.
> and what you were aiming to show?
The self-similarity of nature in stages of N_A, on sets from the (yet)
immeasurable Planck domain dimensions all the way to the light wall of the
observable universe at the upper limits of measurability. The latter one I
have not specifically, explicitly shown (but it can be easily, trivially
done in the same fashion, when reexamining the classic text book exercise,
where they showed you the strength ratios of em to grav forces).
>
> Thanks
> Dan
[hanson]
> > r_e / l_pl = a ^2 * (N*pi*sqrt3)
> > m_pl / m_e = a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
> > tau / t_pl = 1/a * (N*pi*sqrt3)
> > hanson
………………
More lamentations:
Thank you Dan, for your response.
Yes, I will perhaps put something together in the future. But mind you,
posting is a diversion, a recreation for me. I do not make any money of it,
nor do I seek professional recognition with it. So bear with me.
But let me ask you first, did you get my initial post on this?
It looks to me that much of the flurry and then ensuing, most enjoyable
flaming was caused because google didn't pick up my initial post.
In my initial memo I posted underneath the above 3 equations 9 other
supporting equations, which lead to these 3 basic ones. Please post if you
have not seen the original and I will repost it or e-mail it to you.
Naturally, none of the whining web lice and nay saying net flees which
responded bothered to look at the 9 other equations. Their unimaginative
responses, actually nothing more but physico-politically correct coughings
and hick-ups may be indicative and symptomatic of the assessment given by
Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech, who said "It is my firm belief that
the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in
history as the dark ages of physics." Message-ID:
<249a1d3c.02010...@posting.google.com> by Kevin in sci.physics.
thread: Cosmology audit 2002 : Mission Statement, -- Jan-6-2002.
The very same theme is highlighted in the Feb. 2002, cover story of
Discover magazine. The issue reminds me also of the many comments Nemesis
made in these NGs, that the “times and attitudes in physics are going to
change”
Then look at Uncle Al’s diligent, careful and conservatively laid out
proposal for experiment, to test whether mb = or <> GmM/r^2. He gets mostly
static and resentment about it.
But, back to your concerns.
Phenomenologically, and quite generally one can observe that nature is
manifesting itself in discrete in “jumps” of very large differences. There
are the atoms, Angstrom sized, where it abruptly stops only to reappear
again in self similar form some twenty ought magnitudes larger in the form
of planetary systems, which again terminate in size only to reappear again
in a larger self-similar form as galaxies many, many magnitudes larger. The
reason for this to appear like that, is unknown, but at least I have
pointed it out again as did none other than Dirac himself long time ago,
with his large number hypothesis in a slightly different context.
To obtain the equations you may start of with any of the commonly accepted
equations portraying Avogadro’s Number N_A, be it R(gas) = N_A*k (Boltzman)
or Einstein’s N_A determination from Brownian movements or use the old
Hartree/cgs definitions for electrical units:
Take A = e*N_A /F, e^2 = hac/2pi, A*V = Watt, Faraday's and Ohm's Law with
Hartree, combine, substitute and rewrite and you get right off the cuff:
1 A = N_A*e/F = e * (1/[2pi^2] * m[c^2]/h)
1 V = 1/e * (3/[2a])^1/2 * 1/(2[pi^4]) * m/2 * (ac)^2
1 Ohm = (3/[2a])^1/2 * a/(pi*c)
and from here you weave in the classical Plank units for m_pl, l_pl or t_pl
, which unite c, h and G, and you are at the equations which I have posted.
There’s no magic, no complications, no tricks to it. All is straight
forward linear, common algebra for KNOWN, classical physics. That the
dimensions and the numbers fit, is not my fault. Blame the system, nature
for it, that it arranged itself this way, to be presentable in an orderly
numerologically appearing fashion.
Some pathetic turds do still believe and advocate that these empirically
measured constants, fundamental or not, are not directly interrelated.
Good for them.
As I have stated at the end of my initial post, there’s nothing new or
revolutionary in what I have said. I did not invent any new theory, any new
concept nor any new particle or forces. I was simply shining the light onto
something which was THE topic of interest in physics before every body ran
down the relativity cul de sac. Obviously, the avenue I revisited was
abandoned and forgotten 3 generations ago. I does sadden me in a way that
the many Sexagenarians and Septuagenarians who responded, seem to have
forgotten the physics teachings of their youth.
Well, I guess they just wanted to have some company, talk to somebody,
anybody, and have a conversation for conversation’s sake. That’s cool too.
So, let them sing! All of them! It’s a beautiful choir!
Thanks again, Dan and be proud of your inquiring mind.
hanson
hanson
news:Hc0uIf0...@fnews1.vi-internet.de...
> Hallo hanson,
> Bitte stelle Deine Antworten auch in dieser Newsgroups vor.
> > > http://home.t-online.de/home/DGrosch/
Alles was ich in Deiner Homepage gefunden habe waren ein Schwarm Briefe an
verschiedene Leute.
Mach anstelle dessen einen post in der Deinen Formeln die Avogardo
enthalten. -- Dann werde ich kommentieren.
Bevor Du aber darueber posted schau in den annalen der 20-ger Jahre nach.
Ich bin sicher, dass all meine Formeln nur altes aufgewaermtes Zeugs ist
aus jener Zeit, das heutzutage mehr oder weniger vergessen ist. Denn nach
dieser Bohr periode sind alle dem Einstein nachgerannt und nun sind sie in
einem cul de sac, am ende der Strasse und schreien. Relativitaet hat gut
gedient aber hat keine grundlegend neue Erkentisse gebracht, die Zeit der
Juden Physik ist nun offenbar vorbei. Zu jener gleichen Zeit, wo
Heisenbergs Unschaerfe prinzip aktuell war sind auch viele interessante
varianten publiziert, vom klassichen bis zur Applicationen in der
evolutionaren Biologie and Metaphysikalischen Geschwader. Hoechst
interessant.
Wenn Du Dich entscheidest einen Post ueber N_A zu schreiben, dann poste ihn
in de.sci.physik , Du wirst dort mehr anhoerer finden. Schreib mir eine
email copie wenn Du dort postest. Hier werden sie sauer weil sie nicht
deutsch koennen und es daher nicht verstehen.
Gruss
hanson
Russell Blackadar
>
> In article <giu1tzf...@pusch.xnet.com>, gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com
> (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
>
> >Avagadro's number depends on
> >the definition of the gram, which is an arbitrary unit defined by POLITICS,
> >not physics.
Right.
>
> The number of the Planck constant (or any other constant for that
> matter) also depends on various arbitrary unit definitions. What's
> your point?
That's right too. The problem is not so much that the numerical
value of N_A is arbitrary; it's that hanson is using N_A as if
it were unitless, which it is *not*. It has SI units of mole^-1.
And that makes every one of hanson's equations wrong, because
his units don't balance.
hanson
> The problem is not so much that the numerical
> value of N_A is arbitrary; it's that hanson is using N_A as if
> it were unitless, which it is *not*. It has SI units of mole^-1.
Now, that's much better and much nicer, Russel. Thank you.
And from a certain point of view you are right, N_A does have the
dimensions of "per mole."
But a mole is just a COUNT.....
a *collection* of atoms or molecules,
a number of subsets in a set,
molecules per molecules
atoms per atoms,
same kind per same kind
...... a simple ratio of the same things.......
a ratio, a count that is not the affecting the dimensions of space, mass
nor time
...which makes it for my purposes ......dimensionless.
> And that makes every one of hanson's equations wrong, because
> his units don't balance.
Not so fast, Russel. Let me show you how to achieve unit balance, for one
can say, more punctiliously,
r_H / l_pl = N_A*pi*sqrt(3)
r_H = l_pl * N_A * pi*sqrt(3) which means
that
One H-Bohr radius is equivalent to 1 mole of Planck-length units, etc..
which ought to fulfill your wish for your unit balance.
This is what this entire idea is all about, that there exists this N_A set
sized order in nature, reaching far beyond the chemist's bench.
I will plead guilty to and apologize for probably not expressing my notion
in sufficient detail or clarity, but Russ, do believe what you want, which
is cool and hopefully makes you stay happy.
Thank you for your input.
Best regards,
hanson
Daryl McCullough
>
>"Russell Blackadar" <rus...@REMOVEmdli.com> wrote in message
>news:3C3A49DA...@REMOVEmdli.com...
>
>> The problem is not so much that the numerical
>> value of N_A is arbitrary; it's that hanson is using N_A as if
>> it were unitless, which it is *not*. It has SI units of mole^-1.
>
>Now, that's much better and much nicer, Russel. Thank you.
>And from a certain point of view you are right, N_A does have the
>dimensions of "per mole."
>
>But a mole is just a COUNT.....
>a *collection* of atoms or molecules,
>a number of subsets in a set,
>molecules per molecules
>atoms per atoms,
>same kind per same kind
> ...... a simple ratio of the same things.......
>a ratio, a count that is not the affecting the dimensions of space, mass
>nor time
>...which makes it for my purposes ......dimensionless.
Avagadro's number is computed in terms of the mass M_C12 of the
carbon 12 atom:
N_A = 12/M_C12
That puts the units for N_A as "per gram". N_A is 12 times
the number of carbon atoms per gram of carbon.
If you are trying to work out a theory explaining why the
fundamental constants have the values they do, a more
meaningful constant than Avagadro's number would be
the mass M_C12 itself. You can make it dimensionless
by taking the ratio
M_C12/M_P
where M_P is the Planck mass square-roor(h-bar c/G).
--
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Russell Blackadar
>
> "Russell Blackadar" <rus...@REMOVEmdli.com> wrote in message
> news:3C3A49DA...@REMOVEmdli.com...
>
> > The problem is not so much that the numerical
> > value of N_A is arbitrary; it's that hanson is using N_A as if
> > it were unitless, which it is *not*. It has SI units of mole^-1.
I shouldn't have presented that as a "better" argument, but
rather, better suited to the point of view that Nemesis took
in the post I was responding to. It's really the *same*
argument couched in different terms.
>
> Now, that's much better and much nicer, Russel. Thank you.
No better for you, sorry. Also I might thank you to check
the spelling of my name again.
> And from a certain point of view you are right, N_A does have the
> dimensions of "per mole."
I suppose from a certain point of view 2+2=4, and the Pope
is Catholic.
The point is, N_A depends arbitrarily on decisions made by
some committee back in the 18th Century in a similar way
that the numerical value of Planck's constant (Nemesis's
example) depends on them, in the same system of units. This
makes it equally silly to base a physical theory on that
numerical value. IOW there are units in N_A whether you
choose to recognize them formally, or you chose to ignore
them.
I don't know how you can be so blind to the consequences this
has for your idea. Suppose on Mars they decided to use 12 kg
in the definition of the mole, instead of 0.012 kg as we do on
Earth. Then the Amedeo Avogadro of Mars would have found his
number to be 10^3 larger than did his counterpart on Earth.
>
> But a mole is just a COUNT.....
Not just. Yes you must count things up to see how many moles
you have, but that's not all you have to do. You have to
compare your count to a specified count of carbon 12 atoms,
and the specification is not trivial:
http://www.cofc.edu/~chem/deavor/221/si_units.html
> a *collection* of atoms or molecules,
> a number of subsets in a set,
> molecules per molecules
> atoms per atoms,
> same kind per same kind
A mole isn't "per" anything, nor is it a ratio. You are
confused -- and I'll grant you it can be confusing -- because
the mole has a unique property among standard units in that
it is deliberately unspecified *what* you are counting. And
that adds certain problems when you try to deal with it
rigorously. In a formal sense the mole is not just one unit,
rather it defines a whole family of units, one for each kind
of thing you apply it to.
> ...... a simple ratio of the same things.......
> a ratio, a count that is not the affecting the dimensions of space, mass
> nor time
> ...which makes it for my purposes ......dimensionless.
Yet it's different on Mars (under my hypothetical scenario)
than on Earth?
>
> > And that makes every one of hanson's equations wrong, because
> > his units don't balance.
>
> Not so fast, Russel. Let me show you how to achieve unit balance, for one
> can say, more punctiliously,
>
> r_H / l_pl = N_A*pi*sqrt(3)
> r_H = l_pl * N_A * pi*sqrt(3) which means
> that
>
> One H-Bohr radius is equivalent to 1 mole of Planck-length units, etc..
> which ought to fulfill your wish for your unit balance.
Balance is not just my wish, it's a sanity check on one's
work to help prevent wrongheaded conclusions of exactly the
kind you made. I guess you can conclude from that, I'm still
wishing.
>
> This is what this entire idea is all about, that there exists this N_A set
> sized order in nature, reaching far beyond the chemist's bench.
If you asserted that there is something important about the scale
ratio 10^23 (or so), I probably wouldn't object. It's your
assertion that this ratio is in fact N_A that's wrongheaded.
[snip]
Larry Shultis
Just what are those universal physical constants which ultimately do
not depend on agreed upon (politically-scientifically set) units of
measurement. Will not even the dimensionless constants such as the
fine
structure constant have different numerical values depending upon the
definitions of the dimensions of the constants used in their
definitions or by the definitions of the units of measurement when the
value of the constant is experimentally determined. Even pi would
depend upon the curvature of space
if it were defined geometrically as the ratio circumference/diamenter
of a circle.
Larry
>
> <*PLONK*>
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Just what are those universal physical constants which ultimately do
>not depend on agreed upon (politically-scientifically set) units of
>measurement. Will not even the dimensionless constants such as the
>fine
>structure constant have different numerical values depending upon the
>definitions of the dimensions of the constants used in their
>definitions or by the definitions of the units of measurement when the
>value of the constant is experimentally determined.
No, actually no.
> Even pi would depend upon the curvature of space
>if it were defined geometrically as the ratio circumference/diamenter
>of a circle.
But it is not defined this way. And would it have been defined this
way, in universe with varying curvature, then it wouldn't have been a
constant and you could not talk about "the value of pi".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
hanson
[hanson]
Russell, to refresh your memory of what I have said:
> > This ... idea , that....
> > there exists this N_A set sized order in nature,
> > reaching far beyond the chemist's bench.
[Russell]
> If you asserted that there is something important about the scale
> ratio 10^23 (or so), I probably wouldn't object. It's your
> assertion that this ratio is in fact N_A that's wrongheaded.
[hanson]
Russell, if you had said that you were not certain that the ratio should be
N_A. That would be one thing. But the way you put it sounds arrogantly
flaky, because , first you insisted, that all of what I said was all wrong
and now you are down to some doubts that the number could be N_A.
Good, Russel, Good.
You are learning that if it looks like a duck, walks like duck and quacks
like a duck……..
Eventually, Russel, even your light will come on.
Consider, N_A does not only appear from the atomic realm down
into Planck’s domain, it reaches outward to the limit size of the
observable universe’s M, L, & T, including the Hubble constant.
It is not my fault that this scaling number pops up repeatedly and
matches in size Avogadro's number.
What's so unusual and surprising anyway for nature to operate
in terms of moles? Chemistry couldn't do without it.
When your candle has lit up then do yourself a favor. So, in your next
post, YOU show me some equations which demand N_A in equations for
cosmolology, like the Hubble constant or the Background temp. Remember,
every pitiful moron and loser can cry: “It won’t work, it's wrong”. But it
takes ingenuity and imagination to see something novel. Should you
come back with posting more whining instead again, then you will have
demonstrated that I have wasted my time by talking to an intellect
of the size of a mole.
I am looking forward to your results.
Best regards,
PS:
[Russel]
> N_A depends arbitrarily on decisions made by
> some committee back in the 18th Century
[hanson]
Yes, as long as you mean the Nobel prize committee: .
”Jean Baptiste Perrin is known for his the study of colloids and, in
particular, the so-called Brownian movement. His results in this field were
able to confirm Einstein's theoretical studies and hence to calculate
Avogadro's number N_A. In this way the discontinuity of matter was proved
by him beyond doubt: an achievement rewarded with the 1926 Nobel Prize.”
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1926/perrin-bio.html
As you can see, even Einstein fiddled with N_A. This avenue of inquiry was
unfortunately abandoned in favor of the then new and much sexier
relativity. Ever since then the bulk of the physicos ran down this SR/GR
cul de sac. But now, Russell, just think of the possibilities by a view
which shows a repeat, with a self-similarity by N_A, up and down the
expanses of the cosmic ladder.
Get with the program, Russell.
Here’s your chance to become a practicing physicist.
EL
> "Russell Blackadar" <rus...@REMOVEmdli.com> wrote in message
> news:3C3A49DA...@REMOVEmdli.com...
>
> > The problem is not so much that the numerical
> > value of N_A is arbitrary; it's that hanson is using N_A as if
> > it were unitless, which it is *not*. It has SI units of mole^-1.
>
> Now, that's much better and much nicer, Russel. Thank you.
> And from a certain point of view you are right, N_A does have the
> dimensions of "per mole."
>
> But a mole is just a COUNT.....
No my friend, a mole is not just a count it is an equivalent unit of
mass.
We use the mole to calculate the equivalent mass of a molecule as the
sum of all the atomic numbers of the atoms participating in that
molecule.
The atomic number of carbon 12 isotope is obviously 12, and is taken
as the standard reference, hence any 12 units of mass from C_12 should
combine with 16 units of mass of O_16 to form one mole of CO or with
32 units of mass of O_16 to form one mole of CO2.
Therefore the gram-weight of moles of different substances is
different, but it just happens that the arbitrary standard unit of
mass is the gram in the cgs system.
By knowing the true mass of any atom, we can calculate the number of
atoms in the molar mass (M) of such an element.
This number is what we call the Avogadro number and it is 6.0221367 x
10^23 mol^-1, which was the count of molecular entities in one
standard molar mass, which is the same number of grams of the
substance under normal temperature and pressure at see level.
Therefore Avogadro' s number is dependant on the system of arbitration
of mass and if the unit of mass was the pebble which turns out to be
0.8 grams the Avogadro number shall be affected accordingly.
Therefore the definition of the Avogadro number is dependant on the
definition of the gram, which is dependant on the definition of the
meter from which the volume of the mass of the standard can be
calculated through an arbitrated unity density. The meter was bound
astronomically to the second through properties of earth and the solar
system, but Maxwell changed that by unifying the electric and the
magnetic fields into an equation that reserved constancy for the speed
of light in vacuum. Being aware of all such arbitrary derivations, I
have proposed a system which is dependant on dynamic length rather
than the arbitration of static length.
Now I am waiting for humans to evolve to the level of intelligence at
which they can understand what I teach. :-)
<Smile my friend>
EL
******************************************************
EL
> But a mole is just a COUNT.....
[EL]
No my friend, a mole is not just a count it is an equivalent unit of
mass.
We use the mole to calculate the equivalent mass of a molecule as the
sum of all the atomic weights of the atoms participating in that
molecule.
The atomic weight of carbon 12 isotope is obviously 12, and is taken
hanson
news:7563cb80.02010...@posting.google.com...
> Sorry for the error.
Don't be sorry. No need to be.
> humans ...evolve
You just did.
> <Smile my friend>
Do more than smiling. Celebrate it, my friend.
> EL
YBBBBBOB
hanson
hanson
news:5c32181d.02010...@posting.google.com...
> Will not even the dimensionless constants
> such as the fine structure constant have different
> numerical values depending upon the definitions
Yo, Lar, hi,
Mati gave you a very fine answer to this yesterday.
Thank you, Mati.
Let me add my take.
These dimensionless constants DLC, and I strongly suspect
N_A with it , will have the same naked number no matter
what definition the system has, which they emerge from or are used in.
If this were not so and the DLC would vary, our world would
be far, far more chaotic then it already is. Luckily, there are
some such pillars in nature, the DLC, which give it the
observed stability and apparent rate of evolution (change)
hanson
Russell Blackadar
>
> "Russell Blackadar" <rus...@REMOVEmdli.com> wrote in message
> news:3C3B2C08...@REMOVEmdli.com...
>
> [hanson]
> Russell, to refresh your memory of what I have said:
> > > This ... idea , that....
> > > there exists this N_A set sized order in nature,
> > > reaching far beyond the chemist's bench.
>
> [Russell]
> > If you asserted that there is something important about the scale
> > ratio 10^23 (or so), I probably wouldn't object.
For the record, let me clarify that. I meant that
I would not bother to object, since it is obviously a
speculation and not obviously wrong.
It's your
> > assertion that this ratio is in fact N_A that's wrongheaded.
By that I meant it is certainly wrong.
>
> [hanson]
> Russell,
Thank you for getting one thing right.
[snip]
> Good, Russel, Good.
Oops, some backsliding thereabouts.
> You are learning that if it looks like a duck, walks like duck and quacks
> like a duck……..
> Eventually, Russel, even your light will come on.
Yes, it always does eventually, when I'm foolish enough to jump
into a thread that looks etc. etc. like a crackpot thread.
Eureka!
[over and out]
hanson
>
> Yes, when I'm foolish enough to jump
> into a thread that looks etc. etc. like a crackpot thread.
> Eureka!
You not only had to come back and continue to whine,
instead of producing some novel equations of you own,
but use your lunch time to tell the whole world in your own
words that you are fool?
hahahah...hahah.....hohhhhhhohho..hahahah....
uuhhhhhaaahhahahah....wohahhh..hahaha.....
wohahhh..hahaha.....hahaha.......hahah.....
hohhhhhhohho..hahahah....wohahhh..hahaha.....
hahaha....hahahah...hahah.....hohhhhhhohho..
hahahaaaa........whoahhhhhhhh........hohohoh.......
uuhhhhhaaahhahahah....wohahhh..hahaha.....
You are all right, buddy!
Cia
hanson
Y.Porat
> Russell Blackadar <rus...@REMOVEmdli.com> wrote in message news:<3C365E51...@REMOVEmdli.com>...
> > hanson wrote:
> > >
> > > Avogadro's Number = the Plank sized Nemesis steps?
> >
> >
> > > Avogadro's number, N_A (=N in here) is a fundamental constant and is far
> > > more important than just being a scaling number from atomic units into
> > > kilograms via the Mole of the chemists.
> >
> >
> > If you want to call N_A fundamental, you have to explain why the
> > (mismeasured) distance from the North Pole to the Equator, and the
> > density of water at 277K, happen to be fundamental.
> >
> > I might even read your attempt to do this, but probably won't.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > It is futile to argue why N_A has its particular numerical size, for the
> > > same reason which leaves us in the dark about Alpha's 1/137.
> >
> -------------------
> Folks
> i have some news for you
> so listen carefully and write it down to your diary.
>
> *Avogadro's number is valid not only in the gass state
> but in the SOLID AND CRYSTALINE state as well!*
> and it has a revolutionary meaning.
>
> see my site tables 2 and 3
>
> http://sites.netscape.net/poraty/site4.html
>
> (before it gets lost)
> and if you do not understand its revolutionary importance
> dont be ashame and come back with questions.
>
> all the best
> T.Porat
> ----------------
if you could not do it yourself
i will give you a hint;
Avogadros number is a good indication for the
*Electrons orbital size*
necause as i said it is valid in the solid state as well.
the data that i bring in table 2 is data that i only collected
i didnt invent that data,its being very simple does not make
it less meaningful
all the best
Y.Porat
Larry Shultis
> "Larry Shultis" <gold...@lgwis.com> wrote in message
> news:5c32181d.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > Will not even the dimensionless constants
> > such as the fine structure constant have different
> > numerical values depending upon the definitions
> > Even pi would depend upon the curvature of space
> > Larry
>
> Yo, Lar, hi,
>
> Mati gave you a very fine answer to this yesterday.
> Thank you, Mati.
>
> Let me add my take.
> These dimensionless constants DLC, and I strongly suspect
> N_A with it , will have the same naked number no matter
> what definition the system has, which they emerge from or are used in.
I was having some difficulty convincing myself, since the
permeability constant's value is arbitrarily chosen in EM theory for
convenience in calculations, whether a different value would perk
through the other constants in the definition of the fine structure
constant alpha and give the same numerical value for alpha. It seems
to do so as far as I can see.
It is nice to have some stability in the universe. Though I recall
reading
that the constant may not have always been what it is now due to a
change in
the speed of light in the vacuum.
Larry
EL
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7563cb80.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > Sorry for the error.
> Don't be sorry. No need to be.
[EL]
I meant my error where I said atomic number in place of atomic weight
as I was really in a hurry.
> > humans ...evolve
> You just did.
[EL]
Absolutely. :-)
> > <Smile my friend>
> Do more than smiling. Celebrate it, my friend.
> > EL
> YBBBBBOB
> hanson
[EL]
Making a mistake was not a devastating thing, especially when it is
followed by "Oops". :-)
It is a virtue to realize one's mistakes and correct them sooner than
later. ;-)
Pride only raises the cost of one's dignity. "EL Hemetis 2002"
:-)
EL