Negative Impacts on Society

quote:

---

I think you are just mistaken what your teacher might have told you so you would learn things without much fuss (you are forced to accept this on account of the evidence), with how science actually works.

---

I know how science works because I work in science. I have had to drop quite a few personal hypotheses due to the data. This happens to every scientist. There have been many times where I wished the data would have gone one way or another, but alas it hardly ever does. Science follows the data, not the wishes of the populace or the scientist. I am sorry, but your words ring very hollow given my experience in practicing science. Perhaps you should go into philosophy or politics, but leave science to those who actually understand it and will pass along the honesty and integrity that come with well executed methodology and theory formation.

Oh. OK rocket, then you really are trained in science. So, you caught that intentional mistatement of the number.BUT... no, ou are wrong. It required only reasoning from the work of others alraedy done to figure out that number.Since you are the scientist, tell us, how do we KNOW that this is the correct number of atoms in one mole of says Hydrogen?You are a smarty pants... a super guy in ROCKETS... a ROCKET SCIENCE GUY... pray and then tell us all.

Well, that was interesting. I'm surprised your mystic clairvoyant alarm didn't alert you that you have posters mixed up...try shakin' your magic 8 ball again....it should read "Definitely not" this time.

Sorry about that number. An old impediment.The article does not indicate that Avo actually performed any experimentation.That was my point.Avo's contribution was intraneural contemplation. He puzzled the answer out of hard to understand experimental results.

Bullshit.
From a professional chemist.

you're going to end up saying that to him a lot.

Agreed.I don't think people will ever learn that there are professional chemists, physicists, professors, college students studying these subjects, etc... on these boards, all of whom actually know what we're talking about.[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-23-2004]

---

The Laminator

​

I didn't spend 6 years in high school and 8 years getting my B.S. degree to argue with a bunch of honorary G.E.D. applicants.

So is black skincolor or ugly or beautiful mr scientist? You have abdicated your honesty and integrity because you denounced your personal responsibility in accepting or rejecting beliefs.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No I'm just saying it is a personal choice what beliefs you accept. You can't claim innocense because science "forced" you to believe this or that.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Now we are getting somewhere.The text books derive Avogadro's number 6.220,.... er, 6.0220x10^23 by asserting that 1amu = 1.6605655x10^-24 grams,then, simply dividing this into the ave atomic mass, bingo.... 6.02x10^23 molecules.Look what they do:Carbon : 12g x amu/1.6605655x 10^-24g x 1Atom/12u = 6.0220 x10^23That' bull sh-t...In Avo's day, we didn't know the value of one atomic mass unit.As a chemist, tell us... how did Avo reason out his number?

Now we are getting somewhere.The text books derive Avogadro's number 6.220,.... er, 6.0220x10^23 by asserting that 1amu = 1.6605655x10^-24 grams,then, simply dividing this into the ave atomic mass, bingo.... 6.02x10^23 molecules.Look what they do:Carbon : 12g x amu/1.6605655x 10^-24g x 1Atom/12u = 6.0220 x10^23That' bull sh-t...In Avo's day, we didn't know the value of one atomic mass unit.As a chemist, tell us... how did Avo reason out his number?

Boy, where is a jerk like me going to find such smarties as rochetscience guys to ask whether science people just have come to BELEVE in 6.0220 as the right number of particles in any one mole sample of any substance, or is their FAITH based on KNOWING?I mean, true one mole/1.660 x 10^-24 grams = 6.0220 x 10^23 particles....But, that number, 1.660 x 10^-24 is from where?A proton (Hydrogen nucleon) wieghs 1.673 x 10^-24 grams...
.. but, if we use that Avogadro's # is 5.9772 x 10^23,...
....and, that's the same magnitude of error as my dumb mistake, 6.22!Shocking idea!Let me ask, is Avogadro's number JUST an accepted guess? A "round off approx?"[This message has been edited by kofh2u, 04-24-2004]

Excuse me for jumping in here, but this is a good question. I didn't think Avogadro determined his number- I think it was more the concept that different species of gas held at the same temperature and pressure will contain the exact same number of particles in a given volume (Avogadro's Law). The determining of the number didn't come till later, after Avogadro's death:http://www.carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca/...lemass/avogadno.htmGod help me, I keep wanting to call Avogadro Avocado. It's Avocado's number!

He didn't, as I pointed out, and as you would know if you had looked at his original paper which I linked to, what avogadro did was hypothesise that the number of atoms in a specific volume of gas under the same pressure would be the same for all gases. He derived no number whatsoever for this.The number we now use was derived experimentally using x-ray diffraction analysis of metal and salt crystals.For some more detail on this and related aspects here is another link.TTFN,WK