Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #434172 > unrolled thread

Avacado can't count atoms in the 1800's

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Avacado can't count atoms in the 1800's mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2017-09-27 15:25 -0700
    Avacado can't count atoms in the 1800's "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 15:27 -0700
      Re: Avacado can't count atoms in the 1800's mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2017-09-27 15:35 -0700
        Re: Avacado can't count atoms in the 1800's "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 17:27 -0700
          Re: Avacado can't count atoms in the 1800's mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2017-09-27 18:30 -0700
    Re: Avacado can't count atoms in the 1800's Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-09-28 12:58 +1000
      Re: Avacado can't count atoms in the 1800's "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-27 20:14 -0700
      Re: Avacado can't count atoms in the 1800's mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2017-09-27 20:27 -0700

#434172 — Avacado can't count atoms in the 1800's

We need the fundamental mathematical mass quantity of Neutrons, Protons, Electrons. And the fundamental sizes of all atoms.
Without these fundamentals man can't count atoms.
It is questionable as to how close we can get to accuracy even
with the fundamentals being measured.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#434174

You're just jealous because you're INFERIOR 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434177

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 3:27:46 PM UTC-7, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> You're just jealous because you're INFERIOR

You are just my judge.
Do you count atoms?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434193

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 5:35:42 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 3:27:46 PM UTC-7, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > You're just jealous because you're INFERIOR
> 
> You are just my judge.
> Do you count atoms?

What did you say?
You wanted to know Avogadro's Constant Exactly ??

(1 / ((c^3) * ((1.616229e-35 meters) / (pi / (((1 / (2 * pi)) + 1)^0.5))) * ((5.39116e-44 seconds) / (pi / (((1 / (2 * pi)) + 1)^0.5)))))^0.5 = 6.02220471e+26


Gas_constant 
((1 / ((c^3) * ((1.616229e-35 meters) / (pi / (((1 / (2 * pi)) + 1)^0.5))) * ((5.39116e-44 seconds) / (pi / (((1 / (2 * pi)) + 1)^0.5)))))^0.5) * 1.38064852e-23 = 8314.54802


Boltzmann_constant
2.176470e-8 kg *(1.616229e-35 m)^2/1.416808e+32 K /(5.39116e-44 s)^2 =  (1.38064852e-23 m^2 kg s^-2 K^-1) 


G
1/(((((2.176470e-8 kg) / (1 atomic mass unit)) / c) ) / (pi / (((1 / (2 * pi)) + 1)^0.5))) = 6.67415418e-11


1 Atomic Mass unit = 1/(Avogadro's per kg)
(((2.176470e-8 kg) * G) / c) / (pi / (((1 / (2 * pi)) + 1)^0.5)) = 1.66052058e-27


6.02220779e+26 * 1.6605e-27 = 0.999988

Avodadro's * 1 AMU = 0.999988

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnh2AplyKi4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434207

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 5:27:57 PM UTC-7, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 5:35:42 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 3:27:46 PM UTC-7, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > > You're just jealous because you're INFERIOR
> > 
> > You are just my judge.
> > Do you count atoms?
> 
> What did you say?
> You wanted to know Avogadro's Constant Exactly ??
> 
> (1 / ((c^3) * ((1.616229e-35 meters) / (pi / (((1 / (2 * pi)) + 1)^0.5))) * ((5.39116e-44 seconds) / (pi / (((1 / (2 * pi)) + 1)^0.5)))))^0.5 = 6.02220471e+26
> 
> 
> Gas_constant 
> ((1 / ((c^3) * ((1.616229e-35 meters) / (pi / (((1 / (2 * pi)) + 1)^0.5))) * ((5.39116e-44 seconds) / (pi / (((1 / (2 * pi)) + 1)^0.5)))))^0.5) * 1.38064852e-23 = 8314.54802
> 
> 
> Boltzmann_constant
> 2.176470e-8 kg *(1.616229e-35 m)^2/1.416808e+32 K /(5.39116e-44 s)^2 =  (1.38064852e-23 m^2 kg s^-2 K^-1) 
> 
> 
> G
> 1/(((((2.176470e-8 kg) / (1 atomic mass unit)) / c) ) / (pi / (((1 / (2 * pi)) + 1)^0.5))) = 6.67415418e-11
> 
> 
> 1 Atomic Mass unit = 1/(Avogadro's per kg)
> (((2.176470e-8 kg) * G) / c) / (pi / (((1 / (2 * pi)) + 1)^0.5)) = 1.66052058e-27
> 
> 
> 6.02220779e+26 * 1.6605e-27 = 0.999988
> 
> Avodadro's * 1 AMU = 0.999988
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnh2AplyKi4

How would you know your accuracy and why do you expect it?
We need to better know fundamental masses of the particles in the atom.
We also need measure the different sizes of the atom.
There appear to be 4 fundamental sizes. Hydrogen would
have 3 excited states.

These two mass inside and size fundamentals are absolutely necessary.
It is a way to go on...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434218

On 28/09/2017 8:25 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> We need the fundamental mathematical mass quantity of Neutrons, Protons, Electrons. And the fundamental sizes of all atoms.
> Without these fundamentals man can't count atoms.
> It is questionable as to how close we can get to accuracy even
> with the fundamentals being measured.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

Oh, another of those people who starts a new thread on the same subject 
when they cannot refute the arguments of other people in the old thread.

Intellectual dishonesty at its highest.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434221

Sylvia Else

On 28/09/2017 8:25 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> We need the fundamental mathematical mass quantity of Neutrons, Protons, Electrons. And the fundamental sizes of all atoms. 
> Without these fundamentals man can't count atoms. 
> It is questionable as to how close we can get to accuracy even 
> with the fundamentals being measured. 
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch 
> 

Oh, another of those people who starts a new thread on the same subject 
when they cannot refute the arguments of other people in the old thread. 

Intellectual dishonesty at its highest. 

Sylvia. 

I think Mitch may literally an electronic parrot that repeats physics sound bite he hears without cognition or mostly without consciousness 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434223

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 7:58:57 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28/09/2017 8:25 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > We need the fundamental mathematical mass quantity of Neutrons, Protons, Electrons. And the fundamental sizes of all atoms.
> > Without these fundamentals man can't count atoms.
> > It is questionable as to how close we can get to accuracy even
> > with the fundamentals being measured.
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> 
> Oh, another of those people who starts a new thread on the same subject 
> when they cannot refute the arguments of other people in the old thread.
> 
> Intellectual dishonesty at its highest.
> 
> Sylvia.

I have my own point.. and the title I had to have a joke with...
I never read the other thread so I wouldn't know... sorry
to insult you but I didn't really intend it...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web