Uncle Al, mensa. Has a badge and everything. Prodes himself on
his math. (Has no personal skills but then Einstein had trouble
tieing his shoes, and I am too lazy to use a spell checker.


Uncle Al's position.

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.





hanson's position. (sorry hanson, unless you are a member
of a boy band, I do not know who you are, so I cannot comment
on your person. We will assume you are a normal genius.)


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


(Well almost normal genius)


My position.

If you take a big pile of pure gold. One atom of pure gold,
will be exactly divisible to this larger pile of gold.
There are no half atoms.

How would one weigh an atom of gold?

First, one would look at the most accurate measurement
to date, of the expansion of the universe to arrive at G.

Based on the fact, that the universe is expanding,
causing gravity.

You can then say, that with a force of G, the nucleus of
the gold atom, is generating an electron with the
energy of e*79
http://education.jlab.org/qa/pen_number.html

That is to say that it is causing a wave of energy
equal to e*79


What this does, is to bridge the gap between the quantum
world, (you would use your little measuring units
based on accurate information of the Hydrogen atom,
and we called it the motam.) ;the macro, you have purified
a block of gold and placed it in a tall vacuum bell jar
and you dropped it at sea level and timed it's decent with
a laser and a cesium clock.)
and the astronomical with the Hubble telescope and Hubbles
constant to obtain G the universal gravitational constant.

Now you can hypothetically weigh one atom of gold,
and arrive at the proper Avagrado's number.

What you will find, is that if you use these new measuring
units which you name, based on fundamental values,
instead of such things as a meter, you will be able
to obtain the exact values. Or the best possible values
given the most advanced abilities of your present
technology.

You are trying to make time machines, and do molecular
biology, using stone axes and chipped pieces of flint.

Once you know the relationships. That gravity is causing
electrons. Then all you have to do is measure one
accurately. Macro gravity, using the smallest
most accuract tools at your disposal, Plank's constant
and the value of c, and then you will arrive
at a precise value of an electron, which will be
a standard value, that is far more accurate,
than any Miliken oil drop experiment.

Half of the problem with quantum physics is that whenever
any value was slightly incorrect, even though the
experimenter knew what the result should be, due to
the use of know relational formulae, it was deemed necessary,
to add a flavor or a spin, or a twist, or some sort
of compensating value, when the proper thing to do,
is to merely start out with the most accurate tools
available for measurement in the first place.

I know this is difficult to comprehend for some people.

But those who get it, are able to do amazing things
with it. Because you find, that in fact, the values
and relationships between things on the atomic
scale are in fact exact. (Again copper lead zinc etc)

And their frequencies also exact.

Which can allow you to calibrate equipment exactly,
and remove most experimental error.

With that, you can begin to see things like other
dimensions and other timelines, because you can
detect them. The data is not lost in the noise
of statistics.

So how do you make a C024 dual songularity gravity
distortion time machine such as the one John Titor
from 2036 had in 2000?

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

I imagine that a singularity, is an atom, which has no
electron waves being emitted. It is stabilized and
kept as a nucleus bubble, in exact tune with expansion
of the universe, in a vacuum and a magnetic
containment field of some sort.

Then by applying exact values from a laser, you entice,
the nucleus to create the exact electron waves you want,
to create the gravitational field you want, keeping in
mind, that the closer to the nucleus, the wave crest is,
the different your time frame will be from that outside
the gravitational field. By spinning the singularity,
I assume that it spins it may not, you can form a spiral
eddie, and begin to descend back through time,
at about 10 years per hour.

To get a grav lock, you need to be able to exactly calculate
the values that would exist, if you imagined the universe
moving in the opposite direction, (opposite to expansion)
as per some universal time frame, based on your best
cesium clocks.

That's my best educated guess.

Apparently CERN makes the first singularity in 2004.

It probably takes a number of years before the machine
is created.

It sounds doable to me.