Avogrado constants and others

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Dieter Britz ,in ...
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...s.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

In article . net, says...

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Dieter Britz ,in ...
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...s.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



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.

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.

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

In article xN9Eb.18958$gN.3524@fed1read05, dlzc1.cox@net says...

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




Well at least someone almost gets it.

Just enough to not understand the important bits though I am sure.

Which will keep him in his prejudiced closed mindset, and
prevent him from understanding why, some people able to
create time machines, and some are not. And why some know
how to travel with electro gravitics and some do not,
and why some can traverse the multiverse through dimensions
and why some are not.

And why you can learn more from listening to people who have
called into old Art Bell shows, than you will ever learn
from some of the people here.

Why did John Titor he call himself timetraveller_0?

Well, you might want to listen to Timetraveller 1 2 and 3
on Kazaa Lite, other possible time travellers who have visited
our timeline/worldline. I won't tell you who I believe to be
legitamite in the totality of callers to the time traveller
call in line, or the paranormal line, or the area 51 line,
but for sure, someone in 1997, knew about 9/11

And if this is not a time travel machine, then someone went to
a rediculous amount of effort for absolutely no reason.

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

And David, the next time you go to 2036, tell them I said,
that they should take out London England, New York, L.A. Detroit
Pittsburg, and Houston. That should be sufficient to teach
those evil doers a lesson they will never forget. And that should
save the planet.

We could go further, and say, if they did, then that would
mean that the world would exist past 2050, and then we should
see a time traveller from some time past 2050.

At this point, there is no civilization past 2050 except for
underground. And it stays like that for some 2 million years.
The people started dying off in 2015. It took 35 years for them
to die off.

Now there is one more solution. The arrest of the Bush gang
for crimes against humanity, and the complete release
of all classified documents in the US and GB with further
prosecutions based on those docs.

It is not likley they will comply. These are not good people,
they could care less if they take their countries with them
when they go.

"Rick Sobie" 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?

no

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-

In article 5uaEb.745688$9l5.453170@pd7tw2no, Rick Sobie
wrote:

And David, the next time you go to 2036, tell them I said,
that they should take out London England, New York, L.A. Detroit
Pittsburg, and Houston. That should be sufficient to teach
those evil doers a lesson they will never forget. And that should
save the planet.

And thus Sobie takes just a small step from a discussion of physical
constants to end up advocating the killing of millions.

Here is a free clue -- look up the meaning of the middle word in
Science Fiction/Fantasy. Any English dictionary should help.



-=-=-=-=-

"Rick Sobie" 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

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:45:01 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Rick Sobie" 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



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

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"Rick Sobie" 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
[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