Avogrado constants and others

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:5uaEb.745688$9l5.453170@pd7tw2no...
In article xN9Eb.18958$gN.3524@fed1read05, dlzc1.cox@net says...

Dear Rick Sobie:
snip
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.

ROFLMAO

In article , says...

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.



If you had a decision to make, whether to nuke a few cities,
and kill 130 million people, or to do nothing, and watch 6
billion people die, which would you choose?

When amongst the 130 million that would die, these were some
of the worst humans to ever walk the earth, and the remainder
of the 6 billion were very good people.

If you knew, that the very race of man, would die out,
and be forced to move underground, and would evolve into
spindly weak sickly creatures, who would eventually
be forced to leave the earth, for another star system,
and the earth itself, would become a dead planet,
would you not think, that this act of justice was
necessary?

Although what you think, has nothing to do, with my decision.

Because of course you do not know these things, any more
than you know what monsters these are, that will be
destroyed.

So go watch TV, and don't worry about what the planet savers
have to do in order to do their job.

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.

Dear Rick Sobie:

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:5uaEb.745688$9l5.453170@pd7tw2no...
In article xN9Eb.18958$gN.3524@fed1read05, dlzc1.cox@net says...
....
And David, the next time you go to 2036,...

Be sure and protect your source for these drugs. Surely this "induced
reality" cares not one whit for conservation of energy, nor for violations
of Pauli exclusion.

David A. Smith

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:md8Eb.745272$9l5.166726@pd7tw2no...
"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
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....
. 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
****s 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 ****s 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 dick grows shorter
when called into action. His dick 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 *******s 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 ****ing "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 ****ing
**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 ****ing 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 ****ing protons and neutrons coming down the
pike. Well, I am not quite sure though about whether they are
****ing. But, never the less, it is a ****ed 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 ass 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 ****s again :
http://www.foulds2000.freeserve.co.uk/economists.htm
You are a good man, dude, have fun and
take care,
hanson

"Rick Sobie" 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.

In article , says...


"Rick Sobie" 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.

In article cMqEb.21605$gN.15644@fed1read05, dlzc1.cox@net says...

Dear Rick Sobie:

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:5uaEb.745688$9l5.453170@pd7tw2no...
In article xN9Eb.18958$gN.3524@fed1read05, dlzc1.cox@net says...
...
And David, the next time you go to 2036,...

Be sure and protect your source for these drugs. Surely this "induced
reality" cares not one whit for conservation of energy, nor for violations
of Pauli exclusion.


Oh yes, your reality. Of course the reality must conform
to your notions of the conservation of energy and the Pauli
exclusion pronciple.

At any rate, have a look at a time machine and maybe you
can glimpse just tad about what you really don't know
anything about.
http://www.anomalies.net/time_travel/john.html

In article , says...


"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




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.

Dear Rick Sobie:

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
newsCvEb.746300$pl3.278274@pd7tw3no...
In article ,
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