Dear Rick Sobie:

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:md8Eb.745272$9l5.166726@pd7tw2no...
In article . net,
says...
....
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?

No. Because that standard is no longer used. The meter is now defined as
the speed of light times time.

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

Light and time.

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?

Like light and time?

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

A very accurate measurement.... not!

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?

Old news since the 60's.

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?

No. It is just another number.

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.

Because thery are all just numbers. Look up the units "barn" and "shed" as
relates to nuclear physics.

Newton, needed a meter stick.

IBM needs a motam.

It is just a number.

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

Yes. It went downhill right after you noted that they are just numbers.

David A. Smith