Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: What composes the mass of an =?UTF-8?B?ZWxlY3Ryb24/?=
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 00:32:27 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <b84f0f33a35cbc59101ca6dd30059be3@www.novabbs.com>
References: <a3b70d34ff5188e99c00b2cf098e783a@www.novabbs.com> <VtGcncnTF4lU6bj6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> <looivaFp4pU2@mid.individual.net> <QL6cnduwKJ9OL7r6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <lorcreFdkemU3@mid.individual.net> <nw-dnWCH258Fx7f6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <EpmcnU0xmsge_Lf6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <7racndQspek6H7f6nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <865ba2aae42a679f54e315c8c562f5b3@www.novabbs.com> <672b8116$1$413$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <283dbf78229accbc8fb9ac001ebd5c34@www.novabbs.com> <672bde43$2$408$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1292146"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$DcHp42ExSgMYrLCZXTmj7ObJja1wKs2C3SQoeiCAeYTdAZyck.7AS
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
Bytes: 6939
Lines: 144

On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 21:23:15 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In 1908, Svante Arrhenius proposed Planck and Rutherford for the Nobel
>> Prize in Physics (Planck) and Chemistry (Rutherford) for:
>>
>> Planck: Calculation of the charge of the electron from his radiation
>> law.
>>
>> Rutherford: Calculation of the charge of the alpha particle from
>> experiments.
>>
>>
>> Because the works of Planck and Rutherford were still in debate by that
>> year, the proposal was dismissed.
>>
>> Planck's work precedes Millikan and others, and was entirely
>> theoretical.
>>
>> Yet, his calculations were close to actual values:
>>
>>
>> Charge 1e (Planck 1900) = 4.69E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
>>
>> Charge 1e (Millikan 1913) = 4.774E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
>>
>> Today: Charge 1e (StatC) = 4.80325451E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
>>
>>
>> Jan, read this and don't be so ignorant. Many scientists were trying to
>> find the charge of electrons since 1897, but historians CANCELED THEM
>> (also due to political struggles, which are getting worse 120 years
>> after).
>>
>>
>> Arrhenius, the atomic hypothesis and the 1908 Nobel Prizes in Physics
>> and Chemistry
>>
>>  https://www.jstor.org/stable/232940
>>
>>
>> Don't be so ignorant, charlatan Jan.
>
> Sigh, so you succeeded in misunderstanding that too.
> Planck didn't do any calculations with electrons,
> or with the classical electon radius.
>
> What Planck did do was to obtain a value for Avogadro's number
> by obtaining values for h (Plancks constant)
> and k (Boltzmann's constant) from the radiation law.
>
> All this was highly speculative theory at the time,
> with both the radiation law and statistical mechanics
> being poorly understood and highly contested.
> (let alone the statistical mechanics of the radiation field)
> Einstein had not put that in order yet.
>
> Moreover, there were many other ways of estimating Avogadros number,
> which were gradually converging at the time.
> There was little reason for singling out Planck.
>
> However, Arrhenius had met Planck, they had become great friends,
> and Arrhenius had decided that he wanted to get Planck a Nobel prize.
> Arrhenius failed to convince his collegues of course.
> Rutherford did get the 1908 chemistry prize (for identifying the alpha)
> and Planck had to wait till 1919 for getting his,
>
> Jan



Jan (man or woman): I'm tired of you behaving as A FULL RETARDED, an
imbecile, a liar, A DECEIVER (as any relativist) and (mainly) A
CHARLATAN!.

You don't know even how to do a little research on Google. Instead, you
write PURE CRAP to justify your idiotic posture, imbecile know-it-all!

I'll try to help you TO OVERCOME your cretinism, just with one paper:

Max Planck’s Determination of the Avogadro Constant

https://www.scielo.br/j/rbef/a/XMkjKHvTWdsTF9k5HF6Vzwv/



EXCERPT (READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY, IDIOT Jan):
---------------------------------------------------------

8. The Electronic Charge

Planck does not mention a reference for the Faraday constant used in his
work. He wrote e = εw, or in modern language, Nᴬe = F, uses
ε = 3.2223E-05 esu mol^-1 = 96603 C mol^-1 with no reference, to
calculate the electronic charge,

                e = εw = 4.69E-10 esu

This is also an excellent result since 4.69E-10 esu = 1.5644E-19 C, with
an error of 3%, if compared with the tabulated value, 1.602E-19 C. The
result was compared to the previous result, 2.186E-19 C, as obtained by
J.J. Thomson. The Faraday constant used by Planck was also very precise
for the year 1900, with an error of 0.1%. The accepted value today is
F= 96485 C mol^-1.

Faraday’s constant was well established by the end of XIX century. The
precise measurement of the Faraday’s constant was made by Lord Rayleigh
and Mrs. H. Sidgwick, in the paper On the electro-chemical equivalent of
silver, at Phil. Trans., page 411, in 1884, [25]. On page 439 it is
mentioned that they obtained m = 11.794E-03 g as the amount of silver
deposited at the electrodes. Therefore,

                 F = 96.544 Cmol^-1

with an impressive error of 0.07 %. Planck chose to use F=96603 C mol-1,
but this will affect his value of electronic charge at the third
significant place. He would have obtained e = 1.5635E-19 C instead.

The first measurement of the electronic charge goes back to 1874 and was
made by George Johnstone Stony, on the paper, On the Physical Units of
Nature. Phil. Mag. 11,384(1881). The value appears on page 388 of the
paper. Several measurements were performed after this. Planck used the
most precise value at his time, as made by J.J. Thomson.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Do you understand now WHY I call you A FUCKING RETARDED, CHARLATAN AND
IGNORANT, Jan?


You are much worse than the above simplistic labels. You have NO CURE
for your stupidity, your FRAUDULENT WAY to write posts, and your TOTAL
LACK OF ABILITIES TO HIDE THAT YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARDED (VERY).

I hope you may have learned a lesson, nanosecJan.

As for me, you HAVE NO CURE. You're a complete idiot, as it correspond
to a relativist.

Did you see what means to LEARN ABOUT HISTORY OF PHYSICS? No Avogrado
involved in his calculations. Read the entire paper, and you'll be
SURPRISED about how much was known about physics constants by 1900.


Ciao, asshole.