Avogrado constants and others

There is no such thing as a neutron.

http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...xt/Cu/key.html

Yes there is. There are two neutrons difference between 29Cu63 and 29Cu65.
URL:http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Comp...l&isotype=some
... which is where your goofy link comes up with its molar mass value.


is not.

CU 63

63 electrons.

What is a neutron? Something someone made up to fit the math to experiment.

With equipment from the early 1900's

There are rest states of atoms, and there are excited states
of atoms.

But it is pointless trying to discuss the subject, when we
are talking about two different models of the atom.

One which requires neutrons and a zoo of other particles
and one which does not.

It is not a matter of what it actually is, it is a matter of
what you can do with it.

If you need to believe there are neutrons in order to accomplish
a goal with an atom in oreder for your calculations to make sense,
then by all means use them.

Some people simply need to believe in quarks as little pieces of
dust. They need to believe that there is something, some elementary
something, that is hard like rock.

They need to believe also that these things have a charge that
is positive or negative or neutral. What is a neutral charge?
A non charge?

Better still, what is a negative charge? A piece of dust with
magic on it?

You mean it is magnetic? Do you know what magnetism is?
Do you know what heat is?
Do you know what fire is?
Do you know what mass is.

Not Newtonian mass because we know that is inertia. What
he believed would occur he stated. That unless acted upon
by force, a moving thing will keep moving in a straight line.

Well we know that is bunkum too.

So what is mass in an atom?

Things have mass, and things are made of atoms, so what is mass
in an atom?

You would say a magical Higgs Bosun, which has never been detected.

Then you might also say, well if we could harness the power of
the sun, we could find the Higgs Bosun. That is always the
excuse, when standard theory, falls flat on its face.

So answer the questions if you can.

-*-

Be careful what you search for Dr. Sobie. There will be no 2nd act.
The Mexicans call me El Diamante when I dole out bonuses, but
when I am not, they call me El Diablo.........ahahahahaha......
ahahahaha.....ahahahanson



Spare me.

Listen to a wise old indian, you might learn something.

Red Elk - Art Bell (4-22-02) - Lizard People and the Underworld - 1 of 3.mp3

Not that I am saying there are lizard people under the earth,
but hey who knows. He knows something that's for sure.
How much of it is truth and how much of it is fiction,
I do not know, but one thing is for sure, he's no dummy.
He talks to angels. I think he is a wise old fox.

Dear Rick Sobie:

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:%1bFb.766102$6C4.508464@pd7tw1no...

There is no such thing as a neutron.

http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...xt/Cu/key.html

Yes there is. There are two neutrons difference between 29Cu63 and
29Cu65.

URL:http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Comp....pl?ele=29&asc
ii=html&isotype=some
... which is where your goofy link comes up with its molar mass value.


is not.

CU 63

63 electrons.

Wrong element. Element 63 (with 63 electrons) is Europium. And it has 36
identified isotopes, each differing by 1 neutron.

What is a neutron? Something someone made up to fit the math to
experiment.

Ah! agreement with experiment. Marvelous idea.

With equipment from the early 1900's

There are rest states of atoms, and there are excited states
of atoms.

But it is pointless trying to discuss the subject, when we
are talking about two different models of the atom.

One which requires neutrons and a zoo of other particles
and one which does not.

And neutron decay, diffraction, etc. which is experiment, and agrees with
the "zoo" model? How does your imagination wash these away?

It is not a matter of what it actually is, it is a matter of
what you can do with it.

Oh. So reality has nothing to do with your theory. I guess that is right.

If you need to believe there are neutrons in order to accomplish
a goal with an atom in oreder for your calculations to make sense,
then by all means use them.

Some people simply need to believe in quarks as little pieces of
dust. They need to believe that there is something, some elementary
something, that is hard like rock.

No one says this.

They need to believe also that these things have a charge that
is positive or negative or neutral. What is a neutral charge?
A non charge?

Positive and negative of equal magnitude, in the case of the neutron.

Better still, what is a negative charge? A piece of dust with
magic on it?

No.

You mean it is magnetic?

It has a magnetic moment.

Do you know what magnetism is?

Charge and length contraction.

Do you know what heat is?

A measure of the entropy of a body.

Do you know what fire is?

What is up about as high as your ass right now.

Do you know what mass is.

What isn't conserved when you try to time travel.

Do you know how to get to your point?

Not Newtonian mass because we know that is inertia. What
he believed would occur he stated. That unless acted upon
by force, a moving thing will keep moving in a straight line.

Well we know that is bunkum too.

Not in its area of applicability. But then you did not require reality,
did you?

So what is mass in an atom?

A quantum number and magnetic moment.

Things have mass, and things are made of atoms, so what is mass
in an atom?

A quantum number and magnetic moment. A placeholder for energy that can
only propagate at less than c.

You would say a magical Higgs Bosun, which has never been detected.

No, personally I believe the Higgs Boson is like the magnetic monopole. A
nice idea that reality will likely not support.

Then you might also say, well if we could harness the power of
the sun, we could find the Higgs Bosun. That is always the
excuse, when standard theory, falls flat on its face.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? We already harness the
power of the Sun.

So answer the questions if you can.

Done. Your turn.

David A. Smith

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:%1bFb.766102$6C4.508464@pd7tw1no...

There is no such thing as a neutron.

http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...xt/Cu/key.html

Yes there is. There are two neutrons difference between 29Cu63 and
29Cu65.

URL:http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Comp...pl?ele=29&asci
i=html&isotype=some
... which is where your goofy link comes up with its molar mass value.


is not.

CU 63

63 electrons.

you really are a kook!
I honestly hope you don't believe the **** you post. No one could be that
stupid.

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:RB3Fb.9848$7D3.9836@fed1read02...

Hmmm...

I sense a marketing opportunity. Which isotope conducts electricity
better?
Couldn't we get megabucks for isotopically-pure, oxygen-free, 000-gauge,
gold-terminated speaker cables?

lololol

Dang! You mean it's not already being done?

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:%1bFb.766102$6C4.508464@pd7tw1no...


[snip]
{the first statement here was by David. It is much too correct to have been
mouthed by Rick)
There are two neutrons difference between 29Cu63 and 29Cu65.

URL:http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Comp...pl?ele=29&asci
i=html&isotype=some
... which is where your goofy link comes up with its molar mass value.


is not.

CU 63

63 electrons.

29 electrons, actually.

Franz

"martin" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:RB3Fb.9848$7D3.9836@fed1read02...

Hmmm...

I sense a marketing opportunity. Which isotope conducts electricity
better?
Couldn't we get megabucks for isotopically-pure, oxygen-free, 000-gauge,
gold-terminated speaker cables?

lololol

Dang! You mean it's not already being done?

Just winging it here -

It seems to me that the larger nucleus would have a weaker grip on the
conduction electrons. Therefore the Cu65 wires would be preferred.

Now I can imagine a competing company with a good theoretical reason why the
Cu63 wires would conduct better. We of course would have to conduct some
blind ABX listening tests to determine the real winner...

In sci.physics, Franz Heymann

wrote
on Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:01:22 +0000 (UTC)
:

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:%1bFb.766102$6C4.508464@pd7tw1no...


[snip]
{the first statement here was by David. It is much too correct to have been
mouthed by Rick)
There are two neutrons difference between 29Cu63 and 29Cu65.

URL:http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Comp...pl?ele=29&asci
i=html&isotype=some
... which is where your goofy link comes up with its molar mass value.


is not.

CU 63

63 electrons.

29 electrons, actually.

Franz


Confirmed; 29Cu63.546 .
29Cu63: 69.17%
29Cu65: 30.83%

http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...xt/Cu/key.html
http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...t/Cu/isot.html

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In article , says...


"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:%1bFb.766102$6C4.508464@pd7tw1no...


[snip]
{the first statement here was by David. It is much too correct to have been
mouthed by Rick)
There are two neutrons difference between 29Cu63 and 29Cu65.

URL:http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Comp...pl?ele=29&asci
i=html&isotype=some
... which is where your goofy link comes up with its molar mass value.


is not.

CU 63

63 electrons.

29 electrons, actually.

Franz



Yes I know Franz, its just that I beat the crap out of them so bad
and knew there was no way that they could answer those few
simple questions so I thought I might as well allow them
to save face.

In article lRbFb.23700$gN.13693@fed1read05, says...

Dear Rick Sobie:

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:%1bFb.766102$6C4.508464@pd7tw1no...

There is no such thing as a neutron.

http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...xt/Cu/key.html

Yes there is. There are two neutrons difference between 29Cu63 and
29Cu65.

URL:http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Comp....pl?ele=29&asc
ii=html&isotype=some
... which is where your goofy link comes up with its molar mass value.


is not.

CU 63

63 electrons.

Wrong element. Element 63 (with 63 electrons) is Europium. And it has 36
identified isotopes, each differing by 1 neutron.

What is a neutron? Something someone made up to fit the math to
experiment.

Ah! agreement with experiment. Marvelous idea.

With equipment from the early 1900's

There are rest states of atoms, and there are excited states
of atoms.

But it is pointless trying to discuss the subject, when we
are talking about two different models of the atom.

One which requires neutrons and a zoo of other particles
and one which does not.

And neutron decay, diffraction, etc. which is experiment, and agrees with
the "zoo" model? How does your imagination wash these away?

It is not a matter of what it actually is, it is a matter of
what you can do with it.

Oh. So reality has nothing to do with your theory. I guess that is right.

If you need to believe there are neutrons in order to accomplish
a goal with an atom in oreder for your calculations to make sense,
then by all means use them.

Some people simply need to believe in quarks as little pieces of
dust. They need to believe that there is something, some elementary
something, that is hard like rock.

No one says this.

They need to believe also that these things have a charge that
is positive or negative or neutral. What is a neutral charge?
A non charge?

Positive and negative of equal magnitude, in the case of the neutron.

Better still, what is a negative charge? A piece of dust with
magic on it?

No.

You mean it is magnetic?

It has a magnetic moment.

Do you know what magnetism is?

Charge and length contraction.

Do you know what heat is?

A measure of the entropy of a body.

Do you know what fire is?

What is up about as high as your ass right now.


All your words, your so called explanations, explain nothing at at.

eg: what is magnetism, charge and length contraction.
What is charge? magic. It does not exist. What is it?
spooky action at adistance? Some instantaneous magic?

You are not even able to see, that the words you are parotting
have no underlying meaning whatsover.

They are just meaningless words, regarding things
you have been told to believe exist, and they might as well have
told you that fairies are doing it.



Do you know what mass is.

What isn't conserved when you try to time travel.

Do you know how to get to your point?

My point is, you have not, and can not, answer any of these questions.

And your silly rhetoric, does not change that one iota.

As in this case above.


Done. Your turn.


You answered nothing.