Avogrado constants and others

Science > Physics > Avogrado constants and others

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 5

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Dieter Britz"
Date:	15 Dec 2003 06:26:30 AM
Object:	Avogrado constants and others

There used to be, at least, an October issue of some physics
journal (Physics Today?) in which there was an update on the
values of some physical constants. Which journal was that
please, and is it still doing that October issue? I am trying
to find out how the Avogrado constant can be measured to about
8-9 decimal plces, when it surely must involve weighing some
sample of matter.
--
Dieter Britz, Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, Danmark.
.

User: "Michael Varney"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	15 Dec 2003 07:10:22 AM

"Dieter Britz" <britz@chem.au.dk> wrote in message
news:brk8ur$b1m$2@news.net.uni-c.dk...

www.google.com "how to use google"
www.nist.gov
Do a search on fundamental constants.
.

User: "Uncle Al"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	15 Dec 2003 02:13:34 PM

Dieter Britz wrote:

Current accepted value 6.0221415(10) x 10^23/mol,
<http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Category?view=html&All+values.x=78&All+values.y=18>
1998 CODATA, 6.02214199(47) x 10^23/mol
However, folks doing exceptionally accurate x-ray diffraction on
silicon (to replace the Pt-Ir kilogram artifact) get a different
value,
Becker, P. et al. "Determination of the Avogadro constant via the
silicon route," Metrologia 40 271-287 (2003)
6.0221353 x 10^23/mol
PTB Standards Laboratory in Braunschweig, Germany thus gives number
which is way the Hell different.
http://www.ptb.de/en/index.html
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.

User: "hanson"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	17 Dec 2003 02:52:48 PM

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3FDE15EE.8CF3D490@hate.spam.net...

Dieter Britz <britz@chem.au.dk >,in news:brk8ur$b1m$2@news.net.uni-c.dk...

There used to be, at least, an October issue of some physics
journal (Physics Today?) in which there was an update on the
values of some physical constants. Which journal was that
please, and is it still doing that October issue? I am trying
to find out how the Avogrado constant can be measured to about
8-9 decimal plces, when it surely must involve weighing some
sample of matter.
Dieter Britz, Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, Danmark.

[Al]

Current accepted value 6.0221415(10) x 10^23/mol,

<http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Category?view=html&All+values.x=78&All+val
ues.y=18>

1998 CODATA, 6.02214199(47) x 10^23/mol
However, folks doing exceptionally accurate x-ray diffraction on
silicon (to replace the Pt-Ir kilogram artifact) get a different
value, ...............
Becker, P. et al. "Determination of the Avogadro constant via the
silicon route," Metrologia 40 271-287 (2003)
6.0221353 x 10^23/mol
PTB Standards Laboratory in Braunschweig, Germany thus gives number
which is way the Hell different.
http://www.ptb.de/en/index.html
Uncle Al

[hanson]
There seem to be more to Avogadro's constant, N_A, then is
normally portrayed about it in literature. These, N_A's unspoken
traits, may be one of the causes giving the problems that make it
difficult to nail down a very accurate numerical result for N_A.
It may have to do with the fact that all fundamental, physical
constants are ultimately compared to and expressed in/by the
(completely arbitrated/chosen/selected) metric system units,
AND... complicating that fact is that N_A is tied to other fundamental
physical constants such as h, c, and G, & so it is difficult to say which
is the most fundamental one. h & c have been measured to great
accuracy, but Newton's G is still problematic when it comes to the
accuracy of its numerical value. There are a few old (1930?)
relations/equations that may illuminate this accuracy-dependcency
problem, such as:
One mole of Planck time equals the atomic time unit:
tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
or one mole of Planck length equals the H-Bohr radius or the
classical electron radius:
r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
or that one mole of electron masses equals the Planck mass
m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
So, since all Planck units are combos of hbar, c & G, one can see
that there are, for instance, the following relationsships between
N_A and Newton's G, when re-expressing the above equations by
straight forward means and substituting the Planck units, *_pl,
with hbar, c, & G, as:
G * N_A^2 = [1/3] * [ hbar * c] / [pi* a* m_e]^2 = const
or equivalently:
G * N_A^2 = [2/(3pi)] * [c^3] * [r_H^2 / h] = const
or there are
others like, G * N_A^2 = f(tau, etc) = f(Lyman freq, etc) = const
These 2 lines loosely state or can be interpreted as to say that
the product of the gravitational mass attraction at the gigantic
mole-squared size level has something to do with or is equivalent
to expressing some gravitational event/state or phenomena seen
quantized (hbar) at the atomic level caused by EM effects.
It may be akin to something like k*N_A = R(gas) or e*N_A = F
where N_A couples the atomic domain of heat or electricity to/with
the everyday cgs/MKS mole sized experience in the respective fields.
Similarly, this G* N_A^2 product may be applicable/useful to estimate
gravitational effects on other then the levels/magnitudes/domains
where G is currently measured or tested at.
From/with these two equations we can concoct a further story, a
theory, for the accuracy issue at hand.
1) I leave it to the aficionado to make the numerical error analysis
with the right side (atomic realm) of these 2 equations.
2) the result of (1) gives the projected possible min. uncertainty
or max. accuracy spread of the product of G * N_A^2.
3) Being deep in the atomic domain here, where uncertainty
is the order of the day (according to heuristic paradigm)
we may have a demonstration and example of the HUP,
manifesting itself here in the uncertainty of either G or N_A
values.
If so, then only the unwieldy product of G * N_A^2 may be of
or may have a "fixed +/-" determinable numerical size/value,
but either one of each one, the N_A or G values alone, may only
be knowable in its accuracy at the expense of the accuracy of
the other one. ... Classic HUP gig??.....
However, since this product of G * N_A^2 is having the size
of ~ 10^40 cm^3/(gr*s^2*mol^2), I won't loose too much
sleep over it....unless some clever *****, or a dumb one by luck,
discovers a new amplification mechanism thru which this product
affects visibly/phenomenologically our macroworld and shows
up measurably in the games that are playing out in astronomy,
astrophysics or cosmology............will see! it would be rad!.......
ahahahaha...... ahahahahanson
ref: 11-avogadro-3
.

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	17 Dec 2003 08:24:18 PM

In article <Am3Eb.8127$Pg1.6914@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,

says...

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3FDE15EE.8CF3D490@hate.spam.net...

Dieter Britz <britz@chem.au.dk >,in news:brk8ur$b1m$2@news.net.uni-c.dk...

There used to be, at least, an October issue of some physics
journal (Physics Today?) in which there was an update on the
values of some physical constants. Which journal was that
please, and is it still doing that October issue? I am trying
to find out how the Avogrado constant can be measured to about
8-9 decimal plces, when it surely must involve weighing some
sample of matter.
Dieter Britz, Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, Danmark.

[Al]

Current accepted value 6.0221415(10) x 10^23/mol,

<http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Category?view=html&All+values.x=78&All+val
ues.y=18>

[hanson]
There seem to be more to Avogadro's constant, N_A, then is
normally portrayed about it in literature. These, N_A's unspoken
traits, may be one of the causes giving the problems that make it
difficult to nail down a very accurate numerical result for N_A.

It may have to do with the fact that all fundamental, physical
constants are ultimately compared to and expressed in/by the
(completely arbitrated/chosen/selected) metric system units,
AND... complicating that fact is that N_A is tied to other fundamental
physical constants such as h, c, and G, & so it is difficult to say which
is the most fundamental one. h & c have been measured to great
accuracy, but Newton's G is still problematic when it comes to the
accuracy of its numerical value. There are a few old (1930?)
relations/equations that may illuminate this accuracy-dependcency
problem, such as:

One mole of Planck time equals the atomic time unit:
tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)

or one mole of Planck length equals the H-Bohr radius or the
classical electron radius:
r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)

or that one mole of electron masses equals the Planck mass
m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)

So, since all Planck units are combos of hbar, c & G, one can see
that there are, for instance, the following relationsships between
N_A and Newton's G, when re-expressing the above equations by
straight forward means and substituting the Planck units, *_pl,
with hbar, c, & G, as:

G * N_A^2 = [1/3] * [ hbar * c] / [pi* a* m_e]^2 = const
or equivalently:
G * N_A^2 = [2/(3pi)] * [c^3] * [r_H^2 / h] = const
or there are
others like, G * N_A^2 = f(tau, etc) = f(Lyman freq, etc) = const

These 2 lines loosely state or can be interpreted as to say that
the product of the gravitational mass attraction at the gigantic
mole-squared size level has something to do with or is equivalent
to expressing some gravitational event/state or phenomena seen
quantized (hbar) at the atomic level caused by EM effects.

It may be akin to something like k*N_A = R(gas) or e*N_A = F
where N_A couples the atomic domain of heat or electricity to/with
the everyday cgs/MKS mole sized experience in the respective fields.
Similarly, this G* N_A^2 product may be applicable/useful to estimate
gravitational effects on other then the levels/magnitudes/domains
where G is currently measured or tested at.

From/with these two equations we can concoct a further story, a
theory, for the accuracy issue at hand.
1) I leave it to the aficionado to make the numerical error analysis
with the right side (atomic realm) of these 2 equations.
2) the result of (1) gives the projected possible min. uncertainty
or max. accuracy spread of the product of G * N_A^2.
3) Being deep in the atomic domain here, where uncertainty
is the order of the day (according to heuristic paradigm)
we may have a demonstration and example of the HUP,
manifesting itself here in the uncertainty of either G or N_A
values.

If so, then only the unwieldy product of G * N_A^2 may be of
or may have a "fixed +/-" determinable numerical size/value,
but either one of each one, the N_A or G values alone, may only
be knowable in its accuracy at the expense of the accuracy of
the other one. ... Classic HUP gig??.....

However, since this product of G * N_A^2 is having the size
of ~ 10^40 cm^3/(gr*s^2*mol^2), I won't loose too much
sleep over it....unless some clever *****, or a dumb one by luck,
discovers a new amplification mechanism thru which this product
affects visibly/phenomenologically our macroworld and shows
up measurably in the games that are playing out in astronomy,
astrophysics or cosmology............will see! it would be rad!.......
ahahahaha...... ahahahahanson

ref: 11-avogadro-3

The point that even some Mensa people just seem to have a mental
block about, with regards to physics is this.
Forget the values for one minute.
Let x represent Avagrados number.
Let m represent a unit of length.
No, I do not mean a meter. Why should I choose a meter as my unit
of length?
Because in France, is this bar that says meter on it?
Well what fundamental property of nature, that is
exactly relative to this bar of yours, caused you to choose
such length?
Would it not be better then, to choose a unit of length,
which is in accordane with some fundamental measurement,
that is unchanging and more accurate?
Say the radius of the Hydrogen Atom at a certain temperature
- in its rest state for instance.
Would that not be a more accurate measuring stick, than
such an awkward inaccurate item, such as a bar kept in
a glass case in some building in France?
And if we were to say that the diameter or radius of the
Hydrogen atom, was equal to one Motam. (For instance)
Then could we not merely say that for each atom in the
periodic table, there would exist a predictable value
that has a direct relation to this Motam?
And further if we went ahead and accurately measured all
known qualities of the Hydrogen atom, and created a new
set of meauring units, such as frequency etc,
then would those values not also directly apply to all
other atoms?
Yes they would.
Newton, needed a meter stick.
IBM needs a motam.
The CO24 for time travel, based on dual singularities,
and gravity distortion, needs a motam.
For accuracy. Otherwise you could end up anywhere.
In the multiverse, 8 decimal places is like horseshoes,
and handgrenades. Close just don't make it.
So once you create a new measuring stick, you use the
same formulas to transpose those measurements to other
things in physics, and voila, if it don't all work out
to be exact. Because the relationships between forces,
and between things, are exact. As exact as copper
is copper, and lead is exactly lead.
And a big pile of pure lead, is still exactly lead, just
as one atom of lead, is still exactly lead.
The smallest units of measurement is Plank length.
Using plank length and c, you can meausre the force of
gravity. A gazillion times more accurately than with
a set of balances.
If you read this message enough times, you will understand
if you do not understand already.
.

User: "martin"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	18 Dec 2003 06:01:08 AM

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:md8Eb.745272$9l5.166726@pd7tw2no...

The point that even some Mensa people just seem to have a mental
block about, with regards to physics is this.

Forget the values for one minute.

ok, we'll use seconds instead then....carry on...

Let x represent Avagrados number.

You've been corrected at least twice and still get it wrong, it is
AVOGADRO - unless you have just made up a new constant of course.

Let m represent a unit of length.

No, I do not mean a meter. Why should I choose a meter as my unit
of length?

errr, maybe because it's the unit of length used by engineers and physicists

Because in France, is this bar that says meter on it?

wrong

Well what fundamental property of nature, that is
exactly relative to this bar of yours, caused you to choose
such length?

speed of light and time 1m = length of the path traveled by light in a
vacuum in the time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

Would it not be better then, to choose a unit of length,
which is in accordane with some fundamental measurement,
that is unchanging and more accurate?

the m is a fundamental unit of measurement

Say the radius of the Hydrogen Atom at a certain temperature
- in its rest state for instance.

let me see YOU measure it. Doesn't sound too accurate to me, but go on,
convince me.

Would that not be a more accurate measuring stick, than
such an awkward inaccurate item, such as a bar kept in
a glass case in some building in France?

no, because you're wrong

And if we were to say that the diameter or radius of the
Hydrogen atom, was equal to one Motam. (For instance)

Then could we not merely say that for each atom in the
periodic table, there would exist a predictable value
that has a direct relation to this Motam?

and this achieves what exactly?
Can you imagine how much hastle changing a fundamental unit would cause?
Every book of tables would need to be amended, every physical contant would
need to be amended, every physics book and paper would need to be amended,
every engineering book would need to be amended. And for what? Even with TWO
systems of measurement NASA still can't tell the difference between feet and
metres. Now you want a third set of untis.

And further if we went ahead and accurately measured all
known qualities of the Hydrogen atom, and created a new
set of meauring units, such as frequency etc,
then would those values not also directly apply to all
other atoms?

Yes they would.

prove it

Newton, needed a meter stick.

why?

IBM needs a motam.

why?
What is wrong with using nm like the rest of the world? Or pm come to that?

The CO24 for time travel, based on dual singularities,
and gravity distortion, needs a motam.

oh *****! Shiny side out boy, shiny side out!
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

For accuracy. Otherwise you could end up anywhere.

If you're basing a fundamental unit on something that can't be measured you
could end up anywhere.

In the multiverse, 8 decimal places is like horseshoes,
and handgrenades. Close just don't make it.

????what??? 8 decimal places of WHAT exactly? Go to 8 decimal places of a
pico metre and you're measuring what?

So once you create a new measuring stick, you use the
same formulas to transpose those measurements to other
things in physics, and voila, if it don't all work out
to be exact.

Where did you say you went to school? Sue the teachers! That sentance just
didn't parse

Because the relationships between forces,
and between things, are exact.

tell that to the QM types.

As exact as copper
is copper, and lead is exactly lead.

And a big pile of pure lead, is still exactly lead, just
as one atom of lead, is still exactly lead.

The smallest units of measurement is Plank length.

Can you explain in your own words what Plank Length is please.

Using plank length and c, you can meausre the force of
gravity. A gazillion times more accurately than with
a set of balances.

Go for it then
I'm not sure how, so please go through the experiment as to how this will be
carried out.

If you read this message enough times, you will understand
if you do not understand already.

No, it still makes no sense at all.
Grade
F-
.

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	18 Dec 2003 05:22:55 PM

Then could we not merely say that for each atom in the
periodic table, there would exist a predictable value
that has a direct relation to this Motam?

and this achieves what exactly?

Can you imagine how much hastle changing a fundamental unit would cause?
Every book of tables would need to be amended, every physical contant would
need to be amended, every physics book and paper would need to be amended,
every engineering book would need to be amended. And for what? Even with TWO
systems of measurement NASA still can't tell the difference between feet and
metres. Now you want a third set of untis.

It is pointless discussing this with someone who is not up
to speed or who is incapable of comprehending what I am talking
about.
NASA can't even get a shuttle back to earth, so blow it out yer
ol wazoo cave man.
.

User: "Mark Palenik"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	18 Dec 2003 07:40:01 PM

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jFqEb.752259$9l5.476797@pd7tw2no...

It is pointless discussing this with someone who is not up
to speed or who is incapable of comprehending what I am talking
about.

I think you've pretty much summed up everyone's feelings about this thread.
.

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	18 Dec 2003 09:48:26 PM

In article <ZeCdnej_-dNvy3-iRVn-vw@wideopenwest.com>,

says...

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jFqEb.752259$9l5.476797@pd7tw2no...

It is pointless discussing this with someone who is not up
to speed or who is incapable of comprehending what I am talking
about.

I think you've pretty much summed up everyone's feelings about this thread.

Yes I mean if people don't know, then they just don't know.
But do have a look at John's time machine that he came
back from 2036 with.
http://www.anomalies.net/time_travel/john.html
I have a feeling there will be another wave of time travellers
visiting soon.
.

User: "Carl R. Osterwald"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 09:29:51 AM

In article <eyuEb.745935$pl3.334444@pd7tw3no>, Rick Sobie
<rsobie@nospam.net> wrote:

In article <ZeCdnej_-dNvy3-iRVn-vw@wideopenwest.com>,
markpalenik@wideopenwest.com says...

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jFqEb.752259$9l5.476797@pd7tw2no...

It is pointless discussing this with someone who is not up
to speed or who is incapable of comprehending what I am talking
about.

I think you've pretty much summed up everyone's feelings about this thread.

Yes I mean if people don't know, then they just don't know.

But do have a look at John's time machine that he came
back from 2036 with.

http://www.anomalies.net/time_travel/john.html

I have a feeling there will be another wave of time travellers
visiting soon.

Perhaps you could time travel to 2036 right now and spare usenet the
load of drivel.
-=-=-=-=-
.

User: "Mark Palenik"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 10:40:10 AM

"Carl R. Osterwald" <i@mac.com> wrote in message
news:191220030829510753%i@mac.com...

In article <eyuEb.745935$pl3.334444@pd7tw3no>, Rick Sobie
<rsobie@nospam.net> wrote:

In article <ZeCdnej_-dNvy3-iRVn-vw@wideopenwest.com>,
markpalenik@wideopenwest.com says...

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jFqEb.752259$9l5.476797@pd7tw2no...

It is pointless discussing this with someone who is not up
to speed or who is incapable of comprehending what I am talking
about.

I think you've pretty much summed up everyone's feelings about this

thread.

Yes I mean if people don't know, then they just don't know.

But do have a look at John's time machine that he came
back from 2036 with.

http://www.anomalies.net/time_travel/john.html

I have a feeling there will be another wave of time travellers
visiting soon.

Perhaps you could time travel to 2036 right now and spare usenet the
load of drivel.

Yeah, but then in 33 years head just be right back here spreading it around
again.
.

User: "Carl R. Osterwald"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 12:01:44 PM

In article <bdGdnUDM3fpxtH6iRVn-jA@wideopenwest.com>, Mark Palenik
<markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote:

"Carl R. Osterwald" <i@mac.com> wrote in message
news:191220030829510753%i@mac.com...

In article <eyuEb.745935$pl3.334444@pd7tw3no>, Rick Sobie
<rsobie@nospam.net> wrote:

In article <ZeCdnej_-dNvy3-iRVn-vw@wideopenwest.com>,
markpalenik@wideopenwest.com says...

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jFqEb.752259$9l5.476797@pd7tw2no...

It is pointless discussing this with someone who is not up
to speed or who is incapable of comprehending what I am talking
about.

I think you've pretty much summed up everyone's feelings about this

thread.

Yes I mean if people don't know, then they just don't know.

But do have a look at John's time machine that he came
back from 2036 with.

http://www.anomalies.net/time_travel/john.html

I have a feeling there will be another wave of time travellers
visiting soon.

Perhaps you could time travel to 2036 right now and spare usenet the
load of drivel.

Yeah, but then in 33 years head just be right back here spreading it around
again.

Now you went and made my head hurt.
-=-=-=-=-
.

User: "Franz Heymann"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	18 Dec 2003 09:45:01 AM

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:md8Eb.745272$9l5.166726@pd7tw2no...
[snip]

Would it not be better then, to choose a unit of length,
which is in accordane with some fundamental measurement,
that is unchanging and more accurate?

Say the radius of the Hydrogen Atom at a certain temperature
- in its rest state for instance.

The Hydrogen atom does not have a sharply defined radius.
And even if it did, how would you propose to make use of it?
[snip]
Franz
.

User: "EL"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	18 Dec 2003 12:42:11 PM

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<brsi1s$4av$4@titan.btinternet.com>...

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:md8Eb.745272$9l5.166726@pd7tw2no...

[snip]

The Hydrogen atom does not have a sharply defined radius.
And even if it did, how would you propose to make use of it?

[snip]

Franz

[EL]
Most probably he would end up with a table of conversion from
Hatometers to meters. :)
Just saying the "diameter" of the hydrogen atom implies a spherical
shape, which is not so in any static reality but a dynamic one
perhaps. The variance of such would cause agony.
I prefer a standard measure of the most invariant material length wise
when temperature, pressure, humidity and gravitational field vary and
to take it as a "long form" such that atomic vibrations become
completely insignificant. Thus, rather than finding the shortest
length to take as a reference, I would prefer the shank which is about
180 cm long to be a standard measure and extract all other units
accordingly.
But they are all arbitrations so replacing one by another makes no big
difference really.
EL
.

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	18 Dec 2003 11:01:09 PM

In article <brsi1s$4av$4@titan.btinternet.com>,

says...

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:md8Eb.745272$9l5.166726@pd7tw2no...

[snip]

The Hydrogen atom does not have a sharply defined radius.
And even if it did, how would you propose to make use of it?

[snip]

Franz

By defining a set of standards, for the Hydrogen atom,
and basing a new set of universal units, on all known
properties of the Hydrogen atom, you will find, that
all elements, are exactly divisible by Hydrogen in terms
of mass and energy.
You can further work backwards through trial and error
or a computer algorythm, and find the correct Avogrado's number.

You will know, you have the correct numbers, when you weigh
a sample of any element, and by using that number, you can
determine how many atoms of that pure substance are in that
sample, and there is no remainder. That is no decimal places.
No half atoms. It will work out every single time in all elements.
So then at that point, you are able to determine the exact reaction
between molecules, and energy interactions in a substance
for instance. And that will help with all the sciences, including
molecular biology and chemistry and rocket fuel, and space
travel and etc.
That is once you have the correct values for G, and e, and g,
you have c and you have h already.
Most people do not seem to understand that an electron is not
a little piece of dust with magic on it that makes it attract
like another magic thing which has no meaning - a magnet.
EM waves are waves, and charge is merely high and low pressure
areas in the absolute sea of these high powered waves.
Gravity itself is an illusion. Which GR made perfectly clear.
What gravity is, is the force you feel, when you are standing
on a balloon, holding a ruler, and you have a ruler painted
onto the balloon, and both you, and the balloon are expanding,
and so are your rulers. Compare them, and they are the same.
If one was expanding and the other not, the rulers would differ.
Since that which resides outside of the universe, is nothing,
it is a low pressure area. That which is inside the universe,
naturally wants to expand to fill that void.
It was not a big bang, it is the big suck.
The nothingness was separated, into somethingness, and as soon
as that happened, bubbles formed, and the universe is accellerating
as it expands, into this nothingness, which we call hyperspace.
When the nulceus expands along with the universe, it meets resistance,
form the existing EM waves which permeate the universe,
and meeting this resistance, it sends out a spherical wave, and at the
first crest, we call this an electron.
Black energy, or black body radiation, consists of these waves
being caused by the nulceus trying to expand due to the force of G.
So when someone like Dr. David A, Anderson, releases a gas into
a magnetic field and then uses lasers, he is dampeneing these
waves, or exciting these waves, which either allow the electrons
to propogate faster, or slower, which results in his time warp
field, which he spoke of on Art Bell several times.
And is available on the net at coasttocoastam.com or Kazaa Lite
So called modern physics, is not so modern is it.
Einstein came up with relativity based on Maxwell's work
at the turn of the last century.
The new physics however, people like to talk about, but they
don't seem to recognize it, when it is explained to them some times.
.

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	18 Dec 2003 11:13:36 PM

When the nulceus expands along with the universe, it meets resistance,
form the existing EM waves which permeate the universe,
and meeting this resistance, it sends out a spherical wave, and at the
first crest, we call this an electron.

You see people think of the edge of the universe being some 22.5
billion light years away from here. You know, way of there
at the edge of the universe, but the edge of the universe
and where the nucleus expands into is also the space between
things. That is how the pressure is uniform, and why time
is uniform. In the way that the frequency of the cesium
atom, will be relational to the other forces and recognizable
through a radio telescope no matter how far away. The frequency
will red shift but cesium is still cesium, and if time was
not consistent and uniform it would not be.
Cesium is exactly cesium, and copper is exactly copper.
It is not copper to 8 decimals.
Nor is it statistically copper.
.

User: "\formerly"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	18 Dec 2003 11:09:30 PM

Dear Rick Sobie:
"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pCvEb.746300$pl3.278274@pd7tw3no...

In article <brsi1s$4av$4@titan.btinternet.com>,

notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com says...
....

It was not a big bang, it is the big suck.

I love it when you talk dirty...
URL:http://www.jedi.se/roligt/images/kahvi.jpg
David A. Smith
.

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 12:11:54 AM

In article <dKvEb.21658$gN.13889@fed1read05>, dlzc1.cox@net says...

Dear Rick Sobie:

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pCvEb.746300$pl3.278274@pd7tw3no...

In article <brsi1s$4av$4@titan.btinternet.com>,

notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com says...
...

It was not a big bang, it is the big suck.

I love it when you talk dirty...
URL:http://www.jedi.se/roligt/images/kahvi.jpg

David A. Smith

Here is one for you...
http://www.members.shaw.ca/ricksobie/Space.html
.

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 12:21:04 AM

In article <KEwEb.747758$6C4.16681@pd7tw1no>,

says...

In article <dKvEb.21658$gN.13889@fed1read05>, dlzc1.cox@net says...

Dear Rick Sobie:

"Rick Sobie" <

> wrote in message
news:pCvEb.746300$pl3.278274@pd7tw3no...

In article <brsi1s$4av$4@titan.btinternet.com>,

notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com says...
...

It was not a big bang, it is the big suck.

I love it when you talk dirty...
URL:http://www.jedi.se/roligt/images/kahvi.jpg

David A. Smith

Here is one for you...

http://www.members.shaw.ca/ricksobie/Space.html

And don't tell me to shut up. That might make me angry.
You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
The Sobie hyperspace temperature conjecture. 2003
Inside a wormhole, or hyperspace, the temperature
is absolute 0
.

User: "Mark Palenik"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 10:42:28 AM

"Rick Sobie" <

> wrote in message
news:kNwEb.753986$9l5.332765@pd7tw2no...

In article <KEwEb.747758$6C4.16681@pd7tw1no>,

says...

In article <dKvEb.21658$gN.13889@fed1read05>, dlzc1.cox@net says...

Dear Rick Sobie:

"Rick Sobie" <

> wrote in message
news:pCvEb.746300$pl3.278274@pd7tw3no...

In article <brsi1s$4av$4@titan.btinternet.com>,

notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com says...
...

It was not a big bang, it is the big suck.

I love it when you talk dirty...
URL:http://www.jedi.se/roligt/images/kahvi.jpg

David A. Smith

Here is one for you...

http://www.members.shaw.ca/ricksobie/Space.html

And don't tell me to shut up. That might make me angry.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

Oh, shut up.
.

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 10:27:04 PM

In article <dfednRnZUebrt36iRVn-vg@wideopenwest.com>,

says...

"Rick Sobie" <

> wrote in message
news:kNwEb.753986$9l5.332765@pd7tw2no...

In article <KEwEb.747758$6C4.16681@pd7tw1no>,

says...

In article <dKvEb.21658$gN.13889@fed1read05>, dlzc1.cox@net says...

Dear Rick Sobie:

"Rick Sobie" <

> wrote in message
news:pCvEb.746300$pl3.278274@pd7tw3no...

In article <brsi1s$4av$4@titan.btinternet.com>,

notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com says...
...

It was not a big bang, it is the big suck.

I love it when you talk dirty...
URL:http://www.jedi.se/roligt/images/kahvi.jpg

David A. Smith

Here is one for you...

http://www.members.shaw.ca/ricksobie/Space.html

And don't tell me to shut up. That might make me angry.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

Oh, shut up.

Arrrrrghhh.... rage taking over......
(riiiiiipppp....tear....bulge....)
.

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	22 Dec 2003 01:47:50 PM

In article <scQEb.755062$6C4.319596@pd7tw1no>,

says...

In article <dfednRnZUebrt36iRVn-vg@wideopenwest.com>,

says...

"Rick Sobie" <

> wrote in message
news:kNwEb.753986$9l5.332765@pd7tw2no...

In article <KEwEb.747758$6C4.16681@pd7tw1no>,

says...

In article <dKvEb.21658$gN.13889@fed1read05>, dlzc1.cox@net says...

Dear Rick Sobie:

"Rick Sobie" <

> wrote in message
news:pCvEb.746300$pl3.278274@pd7tw3no...

In article <brsi1s$4av$4@titan.btinternet.com>,

notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com says...
...

It was not a big bang, it is the big suck.

I love it when you talk dirty...
URL:http://www.jedi.se/roligt/images/kahvi.jpg

David A. Smith

Here is one for you...

http://www.members.shaw.ca/ricksobie/Space.html

And don't tell me to shut up. That might make me angry.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

Oh, shut up.

Arrrrrghhh.... rage taking over......

(riiiiiipppp....tear....bulge....)

Don't worry, they know I was only kidding. They only went
to orange alert.
.

User: "Chosp"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 06:05:30 AM

"Rick Sobie" <

> wrote in message
news:kNwEb.753986$9l5.332765@pd7tw2no...

In article <KEwEb.747758$6C4.16681@pd7tw1no>,

says...
And don't tell me to shut up. That might make me angry.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

LOL.
Nobody, but nobody here cares whether
you impotently get angry or not.
.

User: "\formerly"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 08:01:13 AM

Dear Rick Sobie:
"Rick Sobie" <

> wrote in message
news:kNwEb.753986$9l5.332765@pd7tw2no...

In article <KEwEb.747758$6C4.16681@pd7tw1no>,

says...

In article <dKvEb.21658$gN.13889@fed1read05>, dlzc1.cox@net says...

....

...

It was not a big bang, it is the big suck.

I love it when you talk dirty...
URL:http://www.jedi.se/roligt/images/kahvi.jpg

Here is one for you...

http://www.members.shaw.ca/ricksobie/Space.html

And don't tell me to shut up. That might make me angry.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

And the difference when you are happy and posting crap, and when you are
angry and talking more like a human, would be... what exactly?
David A. Smith

The Sobie hyperspace temperature conjecture. 2003

Inside a wormhole, or hyperspace, the temperature
is absolute 0

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 09:03:35 PM

Here is one for you...

http://www.members.shaw.ca/ricksobie/Space.html

And don't tell me to shut up. That might make me angry.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

And the difference when you are happy and posting crap, and when you are
angry and talking more like a human, would be... what exactly?

Well I start turning green, and my clothes rip as my muscles
begin to bulge, and well, then I black out.
When I wake up, my apartment is trashed and stuff and there
is usually all sorts of wrecked military equipment all over
the neighborhood.

The Sobie hyperspace temperature conjecture. 2003

Inside a wormhole, or hyperspace, the temperature
is absolute 0

User: "Mu-Pi"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 11:42:54 PM

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:b_OEb.754692$6C4.605616@pd7tw1no...
<SNIP>

Well I start turning green, and my clothes rip as my muscles
begin to bulge, and well, then I black out.

When I wake up, my apartment is trashed

More fiber in your diet would probably help you with that problem.
.

User: "DrPostman"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	18 Dec 2003 11:22:25 AM

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:45:01 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
<notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:md8Eb.745272$9l5.166726@pd7tw2no...

[snip]

The Hydrogen atom does not have a sharply defined radius.
And even if it did, how would you propose to make use of it?

[snip]

Franz

Rick is here to have conversations with himself and no one else.
Don't waste your time.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT� member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com
"Shake it like a polaroid picture."
- Andre 3000 of Outkast
.

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 01:10:17 AM

In article <kho3uv0ito52j40j6jsp2gdijdbj3v0ia9@4ax.com>, Look@mysig.foremail says...

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:45:01 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
<notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:md8Eb.745272$9l5.166726@pd7tw2no...

[snip]

The Hydrogen atom does not have a sharply defined radius.
And even if it did, how would you propose to make use of it?

[snip]

Franz

Rick is here to have conversations with himself and no one else.
Don't waste your time.

You must live in a cave beside Osama or something. I have been
having delightful conversations with others all week. I replied
to his post and many many others.
And I have invented stuff, like:
The Sobie Hyperspace Temperature Conjecture of 2003
- The temperature inside of hyperspace or a wormhole
is absolute 0
And I have even coined a unique saying...
"If justice did not exist, we would be inclined to invent it"
- Rick Sobie
Lets see someone go back two years and post on these two,
and then call Art Bell and taunt me.
I would welcome a good timetraveller taunt or two from the past,
it would be a welcome change from the sad news and doom and gloom
that I have been hearing from my time traveller friends of late.
Have you got your years worth of food supplies and your wind
up radio yet? Plenty of duct tape and plastic?
If not then maybe you should listen to Coast to Coast, your source
for the best Armegeddon supplies. Always plenty of condroiten sulfate
on hand. (whatever that might be)
-*-
.

User: "hanson"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	18 Dec 2003 07:26:25 PM

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:md8Eb.745272$9l5.166726@pd7tw2no...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3FDE15EE.8CF3D490@hate.spam.net...

Current accepted value for N_A: 6.0221415(10) x 10^23/mol,
1998 CODATA value for N_A: 6.02214199(47) x 10^23/mol
Silicon route value for N_A: 6.0221353 x 10^23/mol

hanson@quick.net says in....

<Am3Eb.8127$Pg1.6914@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > >

[hanson]
There seem to be more to Avogadro's constant, N_A, then is
normally portrayed about it in literature. These, N_A's unspoken
traits, may be one of the causes of the problems that make it
difficult to nail down a very accurate numerical result for N_A....

........[snip]..... a few old (1930?) relations/equations that

may illuminate this accuracy-dependcency problem, such as:
One mole of Planck time equals the atomic time unit:
tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
or one mole of Planck length equals the H-Bohr radius or
the classical electron radius:
r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
or that one mole of electron masses equals the Planck mass
m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
So, since all Planck units are combos of hbar, c & G, one can see
that there are, for instance, the following relationsships between
N_A and Newton's G, when re-expressing the above equations by
straight forward means and substituting the Planck units, *_pl,
with hbar, c, & G, as:
G * N_A^2 = [1/3] * [ hbar * c] / [pi* a* m_e]^2 = const
or equivalently:
G * N_A^2 = [2/(3pi)] * [c^3] * [r_H^2 / h] = const
or there are
others like, G * N_A^2 = f(tau, etc) = f(Lyman freq, etc) = const
........[snip]........
It may be akin to something like k*N_A = R(gas) or e*N_A = F
where N_A couples the atomic domain of heat or electricity to/with
the everyday cgs/MKS mole sized experience in the respective fields.
Similarly, this G* N_A^2 product may be applicable/useful to estimate
gravitational effects on other then the levels/magnitudes/domains
where G is currently measured or tested at. ..........[snip]........
we may have a demonstration and example of the HUP,
manifesting itself here in the uncertainty of either G or N_A values.
........If so, then only the unwieldy product of G * N_A^2 may be of
or may have a "fixed +/-" determinable numerical size/value,
but either one of each one, the N_A or G values alone, may only
be knowable in its accuracy at the expense of the accuracy of
the other one. ... Classic HUP gig??..........However, since this
G * N_A^2 is having the size of ~ 10^40 cm^3/(gr*s^2*mol^2),
I won't loose too much sleep over it......unless someone discovers
a new amplification mechanism thru which this product shows
.....up measurably in astronomy astrophysics or cosmology
............will see! it would be rad!.......ahaha.... ahahahahanson

[Rick]

The point that even some Mensa people just seem to have a
mental block about, with regards to physics is this.

[hanson]
The only thing your 2 liner tells me, Rick, is that you don't like Mensa.
Cool, me neither, because a cute, loudmouthed secretary dragged to
a few meetings. I got the impression that they all were loud mouthed
people united by 3 constantly displayed/uttered fetishes: -- to have the
last word -- to snicker behind each others backs -- to declare everybody
as being stupid. Actually, the word "stupid" dominated all their discussions.
Hence AFAIWC, it also specified the atmosphere of their gatherings.
[Rick]

Forget the values for one minute.

[hanson]
But Rick, if you forget values, even for a minute, then all you
can do is to philosophize, not for a minute, but for as long as you
live. The work in, & the purpose of physics is to physically
*measure* values of real things. You can't forget that.

[Rick]

Well what fundamental property of nature, that is exactly
relative to this bar of yours, caused you to choose such length?

[hanson]
...."this bar of yours"........ahahahaha.......that bar ain't mine, Rick.
hbar = h/2pi, is the standard symbol for the Planck constant and
it's value. hbar is not a length, Rick. h & hbar are "actions", i.e /\E*/\t.
Now, Rick, let's look for more such gems of value you have generated
in your post, for they are of great pedagogic value.
[Rick]

...if we accurately measured all known qualities of the
Hydrogen atom, and created a new set of measuring units

[hanson]
"we"?....well, THEY did that already. Look up Bohr, Fock, Hartree etc ,
They did what you suggest about 80+/- years ago.
It was a big deal then & it still is. -- Unfortunately, when you want to be
more accurate then they were, then mother nature herself comes and
fucks with you. To measure the radius of the Hydrogen, "accurately"
is no mean feat. That gossamer thing is so fidgety that the moment you
try to measure it, it fucks you and shows you a slightly different value.
And there goes your "accurate". That is because of the inherent HUP,
Doppler-, Magnetic- and lots of other effects.
Besides, what is *your* measuring stick for "accuracy" made of?
[Rick]

then would those values not also directly apply to all
other atoms?
Yes they would.

[hanson]
Ok, ok, Rick, but you answered your own question. Cool.
It is important to believe in one's own weltbild. Selling it,
is of course another matter, but you should not worry too
much about it as long as your own view makes you happy.
[Rick]

Newton, needed a meter stick.

[hanson]
But, Rick, so did Albert, and to boot, Einstein's ***** grows shorter
when called into action. His ***** had a little tag, labeled "gamma"
attached to it. Fancy, fancy!
[Rick]

IBM needs a motam.

[hanson]
Right, Rick, but IBM is more interested in the revenues from
their investments in motown. I am absolutely sure about that.
Here you can see how the money bastards do it:
http://www.foulds2000.freeserve.co.uk/economists.htm
[Rick]

The CO24 for time travel, based on dual singularities,
and gravity distortion, needs a motam.
For accuracy. Otherwise you could end up anywhere.
In the multiverse, 8 decimal places is like horseshoes,
and handgrenades. Close just don't make it.

[hanson]
Sure, Rick, if you say so. I have unfortunately little experience
with your CO24 Carbondodecatetroxide, but if you have some, you
should peddle it to Baikonur, ESA or NASA. You could make a
fortune, dude. However, I would not tell them about this CO24
relationship to horseshoes and handgrenades you have mentionned.
Homeland Security might come looking for you on that.
So, Rick, sshshshhhhhhh......
[Rick]

So once you create a new measuring stick, you use the
same formulas to transpose those measurements to other
things in physics, and voila, if it don't all work out
to be exact. Because the relationships between forces,
and between things, are exact.

[hanson]
Yeah, yeah, Rick tell'em... all of them! But, you must be very
convincing Rick, because they will sing and swing back at you
with their HUP, not a hiccUP, but that Heisenberg gag....and
then they come after you with them fucking "re-iterations" which
let you dance all over the place, after starting out from the same
spot in the very same direction......It's a horrible mess, trying
to be accruate, Rick.
[Rick]

As exact as copper is copper, and lead is exactly lead.
And a big pile of pure lead, is still exactly lead, just
as one atom of lead, is still exactly lead.

[hanson]
But, Rick, here they will beat you to a pulp with their fucking
**isotopes**, man. There are so many of them, ....terrible!
Most of them shine and sparkle, man, and the next thing you
know, when you thought you just looked at a copper atom
the fucking thing has turned into nickel or zinc. All by itself!!
Worst of all, there's nothing I know of, with which we could
stop that unruly behavior. It's horrible, Rick. If that weren't bad
enough, they'll drag to you an accelerator were they shoot them
nickel, zinc, copper or what ever atoms around, and if their
speeds, their energies are high enough then they look all alike,
like a bunch of fucking protons and neutrons coming down the
pike. Well, I am not quite sure though about whether they are
fucking. But, never the less, it is a fucked situation.
[Rick]

The smallest units of measurement is Plank length.

[hanson]
Well, again, if you say so, Rick. But, listen man, if you don't tell anybody
I'll let you in on a secret and I'll show you a much, much smaller
length unit. But, you must swear silence or hope to die. Right? -- right!
So, let's cook one up, right here, really quick.
Consider the Kerr event horizon for the mass of the electron, which
gives you a length that you can use as another "smallest" unit with
*** l_e = m_e*G/c^2 = 6.76E-56 cm ***, then for good
measure throw in the finestructure constant (a), to give it some
flavor and flair and you get:
*** l_a = m_e*G*a^4/c^2 = 1.94E-64 cm ***
which gives you a new unit length l_a that beats the ***** of your Plank length
*** l_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^3) = 1.62E-33 cm ***
by more than 31 magnitudes. Now, the news is that l_a is by far not the
smallest unit length that you can construct. Try it yourself. It is great fun.
Report back with what you have cooked up. PS, the same way you can
make pitifully small units for mass and time...all going down, down...
to anywhere you wish.
[Rick]

Using plank length and c, you can meausre the force of
gravity. A gazillion times more accurately than with
a set of balances.

[hanson]
Sure, that's no big deal, formally and theoretically.
l_pl = sqrt(hbar*G/c^3) --> G = l_pl^2 *c^3/hbar -->
F_G = G * m*M/r^2 ---> but how does your gazillionically
improved experimental setup look like? I mean the hardware!
To make things worse, F _G = G * m*M/r^2 may actually be
F _G ~ G * m*M/r^2..........so much for the gazillion accuracy.
It's a hard live, Rick, and so inaccurate!
[Rick]

If you read this message enough times, you will understand
if you do not understand already.

[hanson]
Of course, Rick, I did and do understand you...... I did, at once.
And you know what, Rick? ---- You are absolutely right with your
point of view, from your point of view and FOR your point of view.
....which is really all that should matter to you anyway!!!.
And if that doesn't do it for you the you should check into the easy
life of these fat fucks again :
http://www.foulds2000.freeserve.co.uk/economists.htm
You are a good man, dude, have fun and
take care,
hanson
.

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 10:54:19 PM

In article <5tsEb.9899$Pg1.5533@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,

says...

"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:md8Eb.745272$9l5.166726@pd7tw2no...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3FDE15EE.8CF3D490@hate.spam.net...

Current accepted value for N_A: 6.0221415(10) x 10^23/mol,
1998 CODATA value for N_A: 6.02214199(47) x 10^23/mol
Silicon route value for N_A: 6.0221353 x 10^23/mol

says in....

<Am3Eb.8127$Pg1.6914@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > >

........[snip]..... a few old (1930?) relations/equations that

[Rick]

The point that even some Mensa people just seem to have a
mental block about, with regards to physics is this.

Forget the values for one minute.

[Rick]

Well what fundamental property of nature, that is exactly
relative to this bar of yours, caused you to choose such length?

[hanson]
..."this bar of yours"........ahahahaha.......that bar ain't mine, Rick.
hbar = h/2pi, is the standard symbol for the Planck constant and
it's value. hbar is not a length, Rick. h & hbar are "actions", i.e /\E*/\t.
Now, Rick, let's look for more such gems of value you have generated
in your post, for they are of great pedagogic value.

[Rick]

...if we accurately measured all known qualities of the
Hydrogen atom, and created a new set of measuring units

Mind and formulae
Once you know what an electron is. That it is not a little speck of
dust with magic on it, orbitting a nucleus.
Neither is it a statistaical wave funtion.
Have you seen the photographs from IBM of atoms in a crystal latice?
They are more of an accuracte description. Like waves on an ocean.
If you realize, that the formulas we use like E=mc2 or mc2=hf
apply, then realize that the nulceus is a bubble, and an electron
is a spherical wave. At the first wave crest, where it leaves
the nucleus radius, that is where we consider it an electron.
It is in fact, black body radiation. You can look it up, the
standard graph of physics, it is in accordance with the inverse
square law.
So to calculate the radius is no mean feat, once you realize that
the universe is expanding - a given - and the force at which it is
expanding. Which is the universal force of gravity.
So you see how close people like Einstein were, so close in fact,
it leads one to believe that either they had a meental block
or it was merely kept secret.
Or maybe they just refused to believe it. It is difficult to
believe that no one considered it in the past, but maybe,
I don't know.
The fact is that once you realize how an atom works, and where
the energy comes from it is fairly easy to understand.
Honestly, the same people who were continually harping about
the conservation of energy, where trying to sell people on
the idea that the atom was a little perpetual motion machine
with smaller balls rotating around the nulceus like planets.
Still today, teachers will teach this model, and even
some physicists, even younger ones, find themselves stuck
trying to understand the results of their experiments,
because they are using equipment developed by people who
know this model, and they are still wondering where the
muons and gluons are etc.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/education/edu.html
It is not that the old model doesn't work, or that quantum physics
is not accurate, it is just not the best model for grasping
the entire picture.
There is no quantum gravity in the old model, and quantum physics
does not align with chemistry.
For instance, with the physics of the standard model, if you
attempt to determine how many atoms are in a pure substance, you
will get remainders and half atoms. That shows it is incorrect.
Again, an element like copper, is not statistically copper.
It is exactly copper.

[Rick]

then would those values not also directly apply to all
other atoms?
Yes they would.

Oh I am not selling anything to anyone. This model has been in
use for at least 15 years.
.

User: "Rick Sobie"
Title: Re: Avogrado constants and others	19 Dec 2003 11:13:06 PM

[Rick]

...if we accurately measured all known qualities of the
Hydrogen atom, and created a new set of measuring units

Mind and formulae

Once you know what an electron is. That it is not a little speck of
dust with magic on it, orbitting a nucleus.

Neither is it a statistaical wave funtion.

Have you seen the photographs from IBM of atoms in a crystal latice?

They are more of an accuracte description. Like waves on an ocean.

If you realize, that the formulas we use like E=mc2 or mc2=hf
apply, then realize that the nulceus is a bubble, and an electron
is a spherical wave. At the first wave crest, where it leaves
the nucleus radius, that is where we consider it an electron.

It is in fact, black body radiation. You can look it up, the
standard graph of physics, it is in accordance with the inverse
square law.

So to calculate the radius is no mean feat, once you realize that
the universe is expanding - a given - and the force at which it is
expanding. Which is the universal force of gravity.

So you see how close people like Einstein were, so close in fact,
it leads one to believe that either they had a meental block
or it was merely kept secret.

Or maybe they just refused to believe it. It is difficult to
believe that no one considered it in the past, but maybe,
I don't know.

The fact is that once you realize how an atom works, and where
the energy comes from it is fairly easy to understand.

Honestly, the same people who were continually harping about
the conservation of energy, where trying to sell people on
the idea that the atom was a little perpetual motion machine
with smaller balls rotating around the nulceus like planets.

Still today, teachers will teach this model, and even
some physicists, even younger ones, find themselves stuck
trying to understand the results of their experiments,
because they are using equipment developed by people who
know this model, and they are still wondering where the
muons and gluons are etc.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/education/edu.html

It is not that the old model doesn't work, or that quantum physics
is not accurate, it is just not the best model for grasping
the entire picture.

There is no quantum gravity in the old model, and quantum physics
does not align with chemistry.

For instance, with the physics of the standard model, if you
attempt to determine how many atoms are in a pure substance, you
will get remainders and half atoms. That shows it is incorrect.

Again, an element like copper, is not statistically copper.

It is exactly copper.

[Rick]

then would those values not also directly apply to all
other atoms?
Yes they would.

Oh I am not selling anything to anyone. This model has been in
use for at least 15 years.

It's called the expanding man model by the way. Because by
imagining yourself expanding standing on an expanding balloon,
you can conceptualize gravity and hyperspace.
Steely Dan apparently knew about it before I did. (I think)
Sometimes I think that Steely Dan either had a timetraveller in
the band or someone in there was a psychic.
DEACON BLUES
Steely Dan
This is the day of the expanding man
That shape is my shade
There where I used to stand
It seems like only yesterday
I gazed through the glass
At ramblers, wild gamblers
That's all in the past
You call me a fool
You say it's a crazy scheme
This one's for real
I already bought the dream
So useless to ask me why
Throw a kiss and say goodbye
I'll make it this time
I'm ready to cross that fine line
I'll learn to work the saxaphone
I play just what I feel
Drink Scotch whiskey all night long
And die behind the wheel
They got a name for the winners in the world
And I want a name when I lose
They call Alabama the Crimson Tide
Call me Deacon Blues
My back to the wall
A victim of laughing chance
This is for me
The essence of true romance
Sharing the things we know and love
With those of my kind
Libations
Sensations
That stagger the mind
I crawl like a viper
Through these suburban streets
Make love to these women
Languid and bittersweet
I'll rise when the sun goes down
Cover every game in town
A world of my own
I'll make it my home sweet home
(refrain)
This is the night of the expanding man
I take one last drag
As I approach the stand
I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long
This brother is free
I'll be what I want to be
And then of course there is "Ricky Don't lose that Avagrado's Number"
and you know, I wish I had been paying closer attention
to that song.
;0
-*-
.

Page 1 of 5