On 2005-06-08, newedana wrote:
atomic volume=atomic weight/mass density. newedana


At least that has the correct dimensions of volume if the atomic weight
is given mass units, unlike the previous definition you gave us.

However, this does not do what you want, because it is not really the
volume of the atom. As Lloyd pointed out you need the atomic radii. If
you covert those radii to volumes you will get a better picture of the
atomic volume. It is not a particularly usefull measure and it is very
rarely discussed in chemical texts and the chemical literature. Chemists
prefer to talk about atomic radii.

The relative radii of Uranium and Hydrogen are well understood in terms
of quantum theory although relativistic quantum theory has to be used
for Uranium. The relativistic contraction of the uranium core electrons
is well known and understood.

If you want to debunk the current theories you need to understand them
first. You clearly do not.

--
Brian Salter-Duke Spotswood, Melbourne, Australia