reply to post by CLPrime
It would seem your math is limited to quoting Wikipedia, if you understood the 'math' as you claim you would know that such a method is necessarily
limited due to thermal heat, energy of motion etc [hence why I specified v=0.
To parrot your signature bar :The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance it is the illusion of knowledge", in this case you seem to just rehash
existing wiki entries and claim 'Math' says your right but fail to give the math.
Avogadro's number for the number of atoms in 1 gram of substance must by definition equal the atomic rest mass of a single Hydrogen atom [so
following the math t must give the answer of 1.660538841 e23 [yet you original reply does not support that] - again, by your math you are
wrong....simply saying Tetryonics is wrong is not a valid statement [as you know, hence your limited and indirect responses to date].
Both of the constants you quoted from Wikipedia are measurements of superconductive E&M fields which by nature will be imprecise [as noted in the
preamble of Wiki itself a number of times] and can only be used to narrow the estimate of exact value of the inverse of Avogadro's number.
Again you provide no answer to substantiate your claim that the math has no relationship to the geometry.
again I say it must - the math is simple a formal description of the relationships resulting from the geometry.
0.00055 of a percent is hardly the massive error you claim given the heat and kinetic energies involved
[so I counter you by saying given that my figure not only agrees with the inverse of Avogadro's number giving a molar mass of 1 gram for rest mass
Hydrogen, it also applies to the geometry concerned and it is correct while yours is full of errors - to the deviation you stated]
The math is simply 1 gram of rest mass Hydrogen must contain 6.0221414579 e23 atoms
[giving a rest mass of 1.660538841 e-24 g] your value of Planck's Constant does not give this value
my value does - YOU kind sir are the one in error and no amount of wiki quoting will correct it
If you believed in the math as you claim you would simply do the above math and give the honest answers but you choose to select a mean physical
measurement for its value from CODATA [simply flawed]
Wikipedia states quite clearly that the values you gave do not agree with each other in practical terms and are subject to errors in their
calculations [yet you persist in your claim of its accuracy]