The Size of Avogadro's number
in [Physics]
|
From: Androcles on 17 May 2010 03:24 "Angelo" <patrik56(a)libero.it> wrote in message news:8c2be7d5-ca61-4376-a4dc-ff4828613e2f(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > On 17 Mag, 03:21, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> "Angelo" <patri...(a)libero.it> wrote in message >> >> news:30514610-9062-465b-a4a9-14caf0227187(a)l18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... >> On 15 Mag, 02:30, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > [snip] > >> Dear Hanson, (dear all), >> >> I share and sincerely appreciate all you said above >> and think to recognize the original (new for most) >> significance you pointed out (thanks, sincerely). >> >> Anyway, I'm personally convinced that N_A should >> be more appropriately named 'amount of substance' >> and should have physical dimensions of "particle/mole" >> where 'particle' may be atoms or molecules, in the >> simplest cases. >> >> Sorry for this adding that isn't in line with your main >> theme (I thought to take just an advantage to express >> that opinion of mine here). >> >> Could I have your valuable opinion(s)? >> >> Best regards, >> Angelo >> ==================================== >> Anyway, I'm impersonally convinced that 'substance' should >> be more appropriately named 'flubber' since nobody can tell > > Sorry, I have some difficulties as to regards at a > disambiguation of the term 'flubber' (please consider > that I'm not a native English speaker). > >> me what matter or mass is. Valuable opinion given. > > Thank you for your valuable opinion, but you yourself > (I think) can realise that this is of no use for me as it > stands. > > Best regards, > Angelo Sorry, I have some difficulties as to regards at a disambiguation of the term 'substance' (please consider that I'm a native English speaker). Substance = water, air, earth... earth = sand, soil, rock, chalk... chalk = calcium carbonate with flint nodules... calcium = 20 protons, 20 neutrons, 20 electrons. proton = flubber flubber = ? electron = ? 6 protons + 6 neutrons + 6 electrons = carbon carbon + calcium = chalk chalk = earth earth = substance substance = flubber flubber = ? Thank you for your personal conviction, but you yourself can realise that this is of no use for me as it stands.
From: hanson on 17 May 2010 04:55 "Angelo" <patrik56(a)libero.it> wrote: On 15 Mag, 02:30, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > hanson wrote: ---- . about the Size of Avogadro's number, N_A... ---- THE MOST POWERFUL & FAR-REACHING # IN PHYSICS :> In other posts the general questions about the history, the definition & use of Avogadro's number, N_A, are discussed and stop at the SI mode that says: N_A, =~ 6.022x10^23 atoms or molecules per mol(e), referring to the number (N_A) of C12 atoms that are contained in 12 gr of C12, (1 mole) > But rarely is the size of N_A, [6E23] given any attention & discussed in relation to our normal day to day experience. > So, let's have some fun with that mol or N_A, in which 6E23 atoms happen to be in ~2.5 table-spoons full of soot. Right... yeah, so what, BFD.... until you contemplate & realize that the size of > == 6E23 miles happens to be ~ 3 times the diameter of the accessible universe. == 6E23 football fields will stretch from here out to some farthest galaxies we have observed. == 6E23 people would need ~ 85 Million Million or 85'000 Billion Earths to house them. == 6E23 Years is 4'000 Billion times longer then the age of the universe since the Big Bang. == 6E23 kilograms is one tenth of the mass of Earth > So, if what I penciled/estimated above, about the immensity of the size of N_A, has not yet grabbed your attention yet then, all you beat-off artists & fornicators, estimate how many times you, or to make you feel less guilty, how many eons it will take, if all the "active" males of the entire earth get at it, to ejaculate == 6E23 individual sperms.- Give yourself some self-satisfaction for a scientific reason for a change.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... > This truly gigantic, cosmic sized number N_A, or 1 mole, works the other way and shows how incredibly SMALL items can be, i.e. : == 6E23 atoms are present in 1 iron marble, only 2 oz heavy. == 6E23 molecules of C2H5OH are in ~ 1 single shot of Booze. == 6E23 molecules of Helium are in one ~5 gallon Balloon. == 6E23 molecules of sugar are situated in 1 cup of it and == 6E23 molecules of H2O go down your gullet with very gulp of water that you swallow. > Rem: 6E23 is the same # that reaches yondern cosmic limits. In the above iron marble example you'll have to chop it into 6E23 = 602 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 individual pieces to pick up 1 of it up as a single iron atom. Very small boogers. > This diminutive extent of the particles in the atomic world was suspected since antiquity but it was only some 80 years ago with the Nobel prize to Perrin in 1926, for his work on N_A, that the existence of atoms was *officially* accepted and adopted. > There are 2 widely used equations which connect our day to day experience with the micro/atomic world, namely: > N_A = F/e ---> 6E23 elem.el charges per Faraday unit, and N_A = R/k ---> 6E23 Boltzmann units for the univ. Gas constant. > And there are still more such N_A connections on the other side of the scale of human experience, in the cosmic realm, where the Hubble constant and the Cosmic background temp, Tb, can be expressed by using or needing N_A, when looked at it thru the prism of the Finestructure const, [a], Boltzmann's constant [k], and the Lyman series limit freq. fL, as in > H = (1/2) * [(a^2)/2]^2 * fL / N_A ����Hubble, H = (3/2)* k * Tb * ((a^2)/4) / (N_A * h). �Tb ~ 2.7..K. > So, there is an interesting concept emerging here: |||| It appears that there are N_A sized steps that nature takes |||| in its manifestations... from the cosmic realm, which when |||| sliced into N_A segments does arrive at the day to day |||| human domain experience, which wherein when events |||| are subdivided again into still N_A smaller fragments we ||||| experience them as the particles in the atomic world.... ||||| Surprisingly if we chop these atomic events/particles yet ||||| one more time by another N_A sized step further down, ||||| we arrive at the **** Domain of the NATURAL UNITS****. > These profound notions go back to Max Planck's time ca. 1899 when he first proposed NATURAL units for L, M & T (instead of our arbitrary cultural ones like gr, cm & sec) as follows: > m_pl = sqrt (hbar*c/G) -- l_pl = sqrt (hbar&G/c^3) & t_pl = l_pl/c > The inter-relationship of/between these units simply states that 1 Planck mass, m_pl, unit has the size of 1 Planck length , l_pl, and it exists for the duration of only 1 Planck time unit , t_pl. See more in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units > These Planck units are so small that they seems to have only academic interest. But when they are seen as an entire mole size set, (N_A times larger), then they represent familiar values of physically existing M,T, & L values in the atomic world: > |||| m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) |||| 1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass or conversly |||| r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) |||| 1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius or |||| r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) |||| 1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical el-radius or |||| tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) **** |||| 1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit > So, it appears, or at least one can make a case that |||| Nature is Self-Similar over all scale domains & in all |||| events & processes to which we humans have access to > N_A, the mole, that humble and indispensable number for the dudes at the chem lab bench, is much more far reaching then physicists have given it credit for. Unfortunately N_A's use for the development of **fundamental experimental physics*** was stopped, a few years after Max Planck introduced his natural units, by the stream rollers of Einstein's relativity which looked for illusions and lunatic apparition that are never there when you probe'm close-up in the real world. > So, Einstein, his Zios and his Goyim Dingleberries have effectively derailed fundamental physics for over a century. It basically shows that even physics is, like all other science endeavors, also just another social enterprise...ahahaha.... > Now sports fans, carry on with your self-manipulation to prove to yourself that N_A is indeed useful for all natural events. Till then, thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahanson > > --------------------------- > "Angelo" <patrik56(a)libero.it> wrote: Dear Hanson, (dear all), > I share and sincerely appreciate all you said above and think to recognize the original (new for most) significance you pointed out (thanks, sincerely). > Anyway, I'm personally convinced that N_A should be more appropriately named 'amount of substance' and should have physical dimensions of "particle/mole" where 'particle' may be atoms or molecules, in the simplest cases. > Sorry for this adding that isn't in line with your main theme (I thought to take just an advantage to express that opinion of mine here). > Could I have your valuable opinion(s)? > Best regards, Angelo > ------------------- hanson wrote: ahahahaha... Thanks for the accolades, Angelo. I am particularly impressed with your last word: "Opinion" ... Opinions, that is all that is exchanged here on the Usenet , but almost everybody tends to think that their opinions are true fact & a command... That is why it is a rare pleasure and delight to hear you, Angelo, to talk about Opinion. Congratulations! > Your notion that N_A "should have physical dimensions of "particles/mole" was used till 1971 when SI elected to elevate the MOLE to define the amount of substance, and replaced N_A with 1 mole = the # of C12 atoms in 12 gr C12 stuff, which of course are the same N_A = 6E23 of C12 atoms. .... ahahaha.... SI did so in its quest to have a system with as few basic units as possible. > In my opinion, N_A is far more profound and far- reaching then just being useful as a measure for substance-amount as can be seen by the time & length examples I gave above in the paragraph skirted with |||| > ::: |||| In the most general way N_A can be used to ::: |||| describe or to define the SIZE of any bag, or ::: |||| enclosure or domain that contains, or into which ::: |||| do fit N_A = 6E23 items, which then expands ::: |||| the meaning of mole into all other domains of ::: |||| physics, in particular in terms of use for Self- ::: |||| Similarity. > In still other words we could generalize and say that 1 mole is a any set that contains N_A # of sub-sets, or ingredients, even nested, like in these examples, wherein N_A is accompanied with local systems type (scaling law or Finestructure [a]) dependant constants like ** > |||| N_A = #s of Planck length units within 1 H-Bohr radius. |||| N_A = #s of H2 in a few dm of whirling, contained gas. |||| N_A = #s of such gas vortexes in a planetary systems. |||| N_A = #s of planetary systems within galaxies. |||| N_A = #s of galaxies that are contained within the universe, (well, the portion that we have access to via EM) > You may see here that there is a nested N_A situation present due to self similarity as we step up or down the N_A ladder. Dirac and others have speculated, in their "Large number Hypothesis" in the 1950s, along these lines. I don't know whether they considered to incorporate N_A. > THAT then is my opinion. BTW, Angelo, congratulations for your English. I wish my Italian was as good as is your English. Thanks, take care, laugh and... ciao, mi amigo, ahahahaha... ahahahanson > PS: ** about N_A and the fine-structure constant [a]. N_A is just the big brother of [a]. They are related in rather simple ways. But that is an issue for an other day's laments... ahahahaha....
From: Patrizio on 17 May 2010 08:12 On 17 Mag, 09:24, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Angelo" <patri...(a)libero.it> wrote in message > > news:8c2be7d5-ca61-4376-a4dc-ff4828613e2f(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 17 Mag, 03:21, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >> "Angelo" <patri...(a)libero.it> wrote in message > > >>news:30514610-9062-465b-a4a9-14caf0227187(a)l18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... > >> On 15 Mag, 02:30, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > [snip] > > >> Dear Hanson, (dear all), > > >> I share and sincerely appreciate all you said above > >> and think to recognize the original (new for most) > >> significance you pointed out (thanks, sincerely). > > >> Anyway, I'm personally convinced that N_A should > >> be more appropriately named 'amount of substance' > >> and should have physical dimensions of "particle/mole" > >> where 'particle' may be atoms or molecules, in the > >> simplest cases. > > >> Sorry for this adding that isn't in line with your main > >> theme (I thought to take just an advantage to express > >> that opinion of mine here). > > >> Could I have your valuable opinion(s)? > > >> Best regards, > >> Angelo > >> ==================================== > >> Anyway, I'm impersonally convinced that 'substance' should > >> be more appropriately named 'flubber' since nobody can tell > > > Sorry, I have some difficulties as to regards at a > > disambiguation of the term 'flubber' (please consider > > that I'm not a native English speaker). > > >> me what matter or mass is. Valuable opinion given. > > > Thank you for your valuable opinion, but you yourself > > (I think) can realise that this is of no use for me as it > > stands. > > > Best regards, > > Angelo > > Sorry, I have some difficulties as to regards at a > disambiguation of the term 'substance' (please consider > that I'm a native English speaker). > > Substance = water, air, earth... > earth = sand, soil, rock, chalk... > chalk = calcium carbonate with flint nodules... > calcium = 20 protons, 20 neutrons, 20 electrons. > proton = flubber > flubber = ? > electron = ? > 6 protons + 6 neutrons + 6 electrons = carbon > carbon + calcium = chalk > chalk = earth > earth = substance > substance = flubber > flubber = ? Thank you for this effort of yours. > Thank you for your personal conviction, but you yourself > can realise that this is of no use for me as it stands. OK. I was referring to what you can read in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance Best regards, Angelo
From: Patrizio on 17 May 2010 08:33 On 17 Mag, 10:55, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > "Angelo" <patri...(a)libero.it> wrote: > > On 15 Mag, 02:30, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > hanson wrote: > > ---- . about the Size of Avogadro's number, N_A... ---- > THE MOST POWERFUL & FAR-REACHING # IN PHYSICS > :> > In other posts the general questions about the history, the > definition & use of Avogadro's number, N_A, are discussed > and stop at the SI mode that says: N_A, =~ 6.022x10^23 > atoms or molecules per mol(e), referring to the number (N_A) > of C12 atoms that are contained in 12 gr of C12, (1 mole) > > But rarely is the size of N_A, [6E23] given any attention & > discussed in relation to our normal day to day experience. > > So, let's have some fun with that mol or N_A, in which 6E23 > atoms happen to be in ~2.5 table-spoons full of soot. Right... > yeah, so what, BFD.... until you contemplate & realize that > the size of > > == 6E23 miles happens to be ~ 3 times the diameter of the > accessible universe. > == 6E23 football fields will stretch from here out to some > farthest galaxies we have observed. > == 6E23 people would need ~ 85 Million Million or > 85'000 Billion Earths to house them. > == 6E23 Years is 4'000 Billion times longer then the age of > the universe since the Big Bang. > == 6E23 kilograms is one tenth of the mass of Earth > > So, if what I penciled/estimated above, about the immensity > of the size of N_A, has not yet grabbed your attention yet then, > all you beat-off artists & fornicators, estimate how many times > you, or to make you feel less guilty, how many eons it will take, > if all the "active" males of the entire earth get at it, to ejaculate > == 6E23 individual sperms.- Give yourself some self-satisfaction > for a scientific reason for a change.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... > > This truly gigantic, cosmic sized number N_A, or 1 mole, works > the other way and shows how incredibly SMALL items can be, > i.e. : > == 6E23 atoms are present in 1 iron marble, only 2 oz heavy. > == 6E23 molecules of C2H5OH are in ~ 1 single shot of Booze. > == 6E23 molecules of Helium are in one ~5 gallon Balloon. > == 6E23 molecules of sugar are situated in 1 cup of it and > == 6E23 molecules of H2O go down your gullet with very > gulp of water that you swallow. > > Rem: 6E23 is the same # that reaches yondern cosmic limits. > In the above iron marble example you'll have to chop it into > 6E23 = 602 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 individual pieces > to pick up 1 of it up as a single iron atom. Very small boogers. > > This diminutive extent of the particles in the atomic world was > suspected since antiquity but it was only some 80 years ago > with the Nobel prize to Perrin in 1926, for his work on N_A, that > the existence of atoms was *officially* accepted and adopted. > > There are 2 widely used equations which connect our day to > day experience with the micro/atomic world, namely: > > N_A = F/e ---> 6E23 elem.el charges per Faraday unit, and > N_A = R/k ---> 6E23 Boltzmann units for the univ. Gas constant. > > And there are still more such N_A connections on the other > side of the scale of human experience, in the cosmic realm, > where the Hubble constant and the Cosmic background temp, > Tb, can be expressed by using or needing N_A, when looked > at it thru the prism of the Finestructure const, [a], Boltzmann's > constant [k], and the Lyman series limit freq. fL, as in > > H = (1/2) * [(a^2)/2]^2 * fL / N_A Hubble, > H = (3/2)* k * Tb * ((a^2)/4) / (N_A * h). Tb ~ 2.7..K. > > So, there is an interesting concept emerging here: > |||| It appears that there are N_A sized steps that nature takes > |||| in its manifestations... from the cosmic realm, which when > |||| sliced into N_A segments does arrive at the day to day > |||| human domain experience, which wherein when events > |||| are subdivided again into still N_A smaller fragments we > ||||| experience them as the particles in the atomic world.... > ||||| Surprisingly if we chop these atomic events/particles yet > ||||| one more time by another N_A sized step further down, > ||||| we arrive at the **** Domain of the NATURAL UNITS****. > > These profound notions go back to Max Planck's time ca. > 1899 when he first proposed NATURAL units for L, M & T > (instead of our arbitrary cultural ones like gr, cm & sec) as > follows: > > m_pl = sqrt (hbar*c/G) -- l_pl = sqrt (hbar&G/c^3) & t_pl = l_pl/c > > The inter-relationship of/between these units simply states that > 1 Planck mass, m_pl, unit has the size of 1 Planck length , l_pl, > and it exists for the duration of only 1 Planck time unit , t_pl. > See more in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units > > These Planck units are so small that they seems to have only > academic interest. But when they are seen as an entire mole > size set, (N_A times larger), then they represent familiar values > of physically existing M,T, & L values in the atomic world: > > |||| m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) > |||| 1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass > or conversly > |||| r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) > |||| 1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius > or > |||| r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) > |||| 1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical el-radius > or > |||| tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) **** > |||| 1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit > > So, it appears, or at least one can make a case that > |||| Nature is Self-Similar over all scale domains & in all > |||| events & processes to which we humans have access to > > N_A, the mole, that humble and indispensable number > for the dudes at the chem lab bench, is much more far > reaching then physicists have given it credit for. Unfortunately > N_A's use for the development of **fundamental experimental > physics*** was stopped, a few years after Max Planck > introduced his natural units, by the stream rollers of Einstein's > relativity which looked for illusions and lunatic apparition that > are never there when you probe'm close-up in the real world. > > So, Einstein, his Zios and his Goyim Dingleberries have > effectively derailed fundamental physics for over a century. > It basically shows that even physics is, like all other science > endeavors, also just another social enterprise...ahahaha.... > > Now sports fans, carry on with your self-manipulation to prove > to yourself that N_A is indeed useful for all natural events. > Till then, thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahanson > > > --------------------------- > > "Angelo" <patri...(a)libero.it> wrote: > > Dear Hanson, (dear all), > > I share and sincerely appreciate all you said above > and think to recognize the original (new for most) > significance you pointed out (thanks, sincerely). > > Anyway, I'm personally convinced that N_A should > be more appropriately named 'amount of substance' > and should have physical dimensions of "particle/mole" > where 'particle' may be atoms or molecules, in the > simplest cases. > > Sorry for this adding that isn't in line with your main > theme (I thought to take just an advantage to express > that opinion of mine here). > > Could I have your valuable opinion(s)? > > Best regards, > Angelo > > -------------------hanson wrote: > > ahahahaha... Thanks for the accolades, Angelo. > I am particularly impressed with your last word: > "Opinion" ... Opinions, that is all that is exchanged > here on the Usenet , but almost everybody tends to > think that their opinions are true fact & a command... > That is why it is a rare pleasure and delight to hear > you, Angelo, to talk about Opinion. Congratulations! > > > Your notion that N_A "should have physical > dimensions of "particles/mole" was used till 1971 > when SI elected to elevate the MOLE to define > the amount of substance, and replaced N_A with > 1 mole = the # of C12 atoms in 12 gr C12 stuff, > which of course are the same N_A = 6E23 of C12 > atoms. .... ahahaha.... SI did so in its quest to have > a system with as few basic units as possible. > > In my opinion, N_A is far more profound and far- > reaching then just being useful as a measure for > substance-amount as can be seen by the time & > length examples I gave above in the paragraph > skirted with |||| > > ::: |||| In the most general way N_A can be used to > ::: |||| describe or to define the SIZE of any bag, or > ::: |||| enclosure or domain that contains, or into which > ::: |||| do fit N_A = 6E23 items, which then expands > ::: |||| the meaning of mole into all other domains of > ::: |||| physics, in particular in terms of use for Self- > ::: |||| Similarity. > > In still other words we could generalize and say that > 1 mole is a any set that contains N_A # of sub-sets, or > ingredients, even nested, like in these examples, wherein > N_A is accompanied with local systems type (scaling > law or Finestructure [a]) dependant constants like ** > > |||| N_A = #s of Planck length units within 1 H-Bohr radius. > |||| N_A = #s of H2 in a few dm of whirling, contained gas. > |||| N_A = #s of such gas vortexes in a planetary systems. > |||| N_A = #s of planetary systems within galaxies. > |||| N_A = #s of galaxies that are contained within the universe, > (well, the portion that we have access to via EM) > > You may see here that there is a nested N_A situation present > due to self similarity as we step up or down the N_A ladder. > Dirac and others have speculated, in their "Large number > Hypothesis" in the 1950s, along these lines. I don't know > whether they considered to incorporate N_A. > > THAT then is my opinion. BTW, Angelo, congratulations > for your English. I wish my Italian was as good as is your > English. Thanks, take care, laugh and... ciao, mi amigo, > ahahahaha... ahahahanson > > PS: > ** about N_A and the fine-structure constant [a]. > N_A is just the big brother of [a]. They are related > in rather simple ways. But that is an issue for an > other day's laments... ahahahaha.... This your entire post is to be studied more in depth, and carefully, for me to give you a decent reply. In particular for the concepts of 'nesting' and the implied (so it seems to me) evoking of recursion: very interesting indeed. Please, give me some time. And thanks, Angelo PS Angelo = Patrizio
From: Androcles on 17 May 2010 08:49
"Patrizio" <patrizio.pan-2002(a)libero.it> wrote in message news:c3ae731f-8e05-437d-88f9-3b48ec08dc5c(a)y21g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > On 17 Mag, 09:24, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> "Angelo" <patri...(a)libero.it> wrote in message >> >> news:8c2be7d5-ca61-4376-a4dc-ff4828613e2f(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 17 Mag, 03:21, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> >> "Angelo" <patri...(a)libero.it> wrote in message >> >> >>news:30514610-9062-465b-a4a9-14caf0227187(a)l18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... >> >> On 15 Mag, 02:30, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: >> >> > [snip] >> >> >> Dear Hanson, (dear all), >> >> >> I share and sincerely appreciate all you said above >> >> and think to recognize the original (new for most) >> >> significance you pointed out (thanks, sincerely). >> >> >> Anyway, I'm personally convinced that N_A should >> >> be more appropriately named 'amount of substance' >> >> and should have physical dimensions of "particle/mole" >> >> where 'particle' may be atoms or molecules, in the >> >> simplest cases. >> >> >> Sorry for this adding that isn't in line with your main >> >> theme (I thought to take just an advantage to express >> >> that opinion of mine here). >> >> >> Could I have your valuable opinion(s)? >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Angelo >> >> ==================================== >> >> Anyway, I'm impersonally convinced that 'substance' should >> >> be more appropriately named 'flubber' since nobody can tell >> >> > Sorry, I have some difficulties as to regards at a >> > disambiguation of the term 'flubber' (please consider >> > that I'm not a native English speaker). >> >> >> me what matter or mass is. Valuable opinion given. >> >> > Thank you for your valuable opinion, but you yourself >> > (I think) can realise that this is of no use for me as it >> > stands. >> >> > Best regards, >> > Angelo >> >> Sorry, I have some difficulties as to regards at a >> disambiguation of the term 'substance' (please consider >> that I'm a native English speaker). >> >> Substance = water, air, earth... >> earth = sand, soil, rock, chalk... >> chalk = calcium carbonate with flint nodules... >> calcium = 20 protons, 20 neutrons, 20 electrons. >> proton = flubber >> flubber = ? >> electron = ? >> 6 protons + 6 neutrons + 6 electrons = carbon >> carbon + calcium = chalk >> chalk = earth >> earth = substance >> substance = flubber >> flubber = ? > > Thank you for this effort of yours. > >> Thank you for your personal conviction, but you yourself >> can realise that this is of no use for me as it stands. > > OK. I was referring to what you can read in Wikipedia: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance > > Best regards, > Angelo Ah, but you sent your query to a physics newsgroup. We get a little deeper than chemistry-by-numbers. Wackypedia says: "a substance's atomic or molecular mass in atomic mass units is the same as its molar mass in grams. Because of this, one can measure the number of moles in a pure substance by weighing it". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit) "weighing it" means measuring its force against gravity, but what is "it"? |