Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Andrew Usher · Guest

On Jul 25, 10:22 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]In article
dcb31336-6dbf-4250-862f-d213060da...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Wrong, 'temperature' is not a physical quantity. The Boltzmann
constant is dimensionless.

As they say: Do not try to make a silk purse out of a sow>s ear. I am
done trying.
[/quote]
In other words, you>re wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant#Value_in_different_units

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher · Guest

On Jul 25, 10:37 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]In article <g6e2tc$ci...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au>,

"Landy" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Since energy and temperature have the same units, that is
dimensionless.

No they don>t. Energy is Joules and temperature is degrees (or Kelvins).

This is for Landy. Usher is hopeless.

When heat was first being investigated, it was not well understood.
Certainly, the concept of temperature being related to the average
energy per degree of freedom of a molecule was to come much later. With
the invention of thermometers, temperature could be be measure and
became another fundamental entity such as length or time.
[/quote]
How temperature is _measured_ is entirely irrelevant to what
temperature _is_.

Andrew Usher

Fred Kasner · Guest

Andrew Usher wrote:
[quote]On Jul 25, 1:49 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:

Avogadro>s number is similar, and I believe things should never be
measured on a molar basis when they can reasonably be done on a
molecular basis.
Yeah, because if I have 100 mL of water and I want to know how much
heat it absorbs, or how much Na it will react with, figuring it out
per individual atom is so much more convenient! Not!

For the first, it actually would be no harder to convert from
molecular
than molar quantities, though I wouldn>t insist on it. Your second
example is irrelevant, as is requires only ratios.

I maintain that an equation written like

2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O + 584 kJ/mol

is actually incorrect, while

2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O + 6.05 ev

is perfectly clear.

Andrew Usher
[/quote]
You apparently never bothered to stay awake during the single college
chemistry course you took. The equation 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O + delta H is
well understood to be a NOT a molecular equation but a molar equation
wherein the statements are: 2 moles of H2 react with one mole of O2 to
produce 2 moles of water plus some specific amount of heate stated in
kilojoules (or as it used to be in kilocalories). As you wrote it it is
ambiguous as you can>t tell whether the number of moles refers to the H2
or the H2O or refers to the O2. You are either stupid, or careless, or
ill educated.
FK

Sam Wormley · Guest

Andrew Usher wrote:
[quote]On Jul 25, 9:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

Andrews, you are a bit short on education. Boltzmann>s constant has
physical units... And there are more base units than LMT, including
thermodynamic temperature.

I know all this. The physical dimension of Boltzmann>s constant is 1,
since both energy and temperature are ML^2/T^2.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

Base quantity Name Symbol
------------------------------------------------
length meter m
mass kilogram kg
time second s
electric current ampere A
thermodynamic temperature kelvin K
amount of substance mole mol
luminous intensity candela cd

While the first four are derived from the physical quantities
M, L, T, and Q, the last three do not correspond to anything
physically real.
[/quote]
<laughing>

[quote]
The candela, especially, is defined using the CIE
luminosity function for the eye. Even if it were a perfect
description of the human eye>s sensitivity, it obviously would
not be a fundamental quantity.

Andrew Usher[/quote]

hanson · Guest

"Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1a79aa42-fbcc-4e54-b0b6-402704611cb9@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[quote]
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:[/quote]
Andrews, you are a bit short on education. Boltzmann>s constant has
physical units... And there are more base units than LMT, including
thermodynamic temperature.
[quote]
"Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote[/quote]
I know all this. The physical dimension of Boltzmann>s constant is 1,
since both energy and temperature are ML^2/T^2.
[quote]
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:[/quote]
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
[quote]
Base quantity Name Symbol[/quote]
------------------------------------------------
length meter m
mass kilogram kg
time second s
electric current ampere A
thermodynamic temp. kelvin K
amount of substance mole mol
luminous intensity candela cd
[quote]
"Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote[/quote]
While the first four are derived from the physical quantities
M, L, T, and Q, the last three do not correspond to anything
physically real.
[quote]
The candela, especially, is defined using the CIE[/quote]
luminosity function for the eye. Even if it were a perfect
description of the human eye>s sensitivity, it obviously would
not be a fundamental quantity.
[quote]
hanson wrote:[/quote]
Guys, ALL physical constants can be expressed in
terms of M, L, T... even Q, A, K & cd... which must be
convertible into each other. ---- It has to be that way
else your entire house of physics will collapse like
a house of cards. -- Even the mole is not exempt. The
mole is simply a scale factor that tells you how many
units of something is in the same bag (Avogadros #).
The particular units in SI, MKS or cgs were chosen
by arbitrary choice, heuristic custom and convention.
Think about it: All we can do in physics is to COMPARE
things/processes/events to arbitrarily chosen standards.
There is nothing absolutely "fundamental"... ahahaha...
[quote]
We went over that many times in the past few years...[/quote]
.....ahahahanson

Salmon Egg · Guest

In article <g6e2tc$cis$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au>,
"Landy" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote:

[quote]Since energy and temperature have the same units, that is
dimensionless.

No they don>t. Energy is Joules and temperature is degrees (or Kelvins).

[/quote]
This is for Landy. Usher is hopeless.

When heat was first being investigated, it was not well understood.
Certainly, the concept of temperature being related to the average
energy per degree of freedom of a molecule was to come much later. With
the invention of thermometers, temperature could be be measure and
became another fundamental entity such as length or time.

Bill

Salmon Egg · Guest

In article
<dcb31336-6dbf-4250-862f-d213060da74d@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote:

[quote]Wrong, 'temperature' is not a physical quantity. The Boltzmann
constant
is dimensionless.
[/quote]
As they say: Do not try to make a silk purse out of a sow>s ear. I am
done trying.

Bill

Sam Wormley · Guest

Andrew Usher wrote:
[quote]On Jul 25, 2:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Andrew Usher wrote:
In science, I have always thought, equations benefit by being as
simple as possible, without extraneous 'magic numbers'.
See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BoltzmannEquation.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Stefan-BoltzmannLaw.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Maxwell-BoltzmannDistribution...

What the hell kind of reply is that? All those equations are indeed
simpler without using Boltzmann>s constant, and theoretically more elegant.

Andrew Usher
[/quote]
Andrews, you are a bit short on education. Boltzmann>s constant has
physical units... And there are more base units than LMT, including
thermodynamic temperature.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

Base quantity Name Symbol
------------------------------------------------
length meter m
mass kilogram kg
time second s
electric current ampere A
thermodynamic temperature kelvin K
amount of substance mole mol
luminous intensity candela cd

Sam Wormley · Guest

Andrew Usher wrote:
[quote]On Jul 25, 8:41 pm, "Landy" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
"Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:e91c4504-a1cc-44e8-89e2-8f1dbf40f704@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 25, 2:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Andrew Usher wrote:
The Boltzmann constant is dimensionless.
Andrew Usher
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BoltzmannsConstant.html
Since energy and temperature have the same units, that is
dimensionless.
No they don>t. Energy is Joules and temperature is degrees (or Kelvins).

You snipped the important part of the post.

Here it is: If you don>t believe me, try to calculate temperature in
terms
of M, L, and T.

Andrew Usher
[/quote]
Bzzzzt.... Try Again
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

Base quantity Name Symbol
------------------------------------------------
length meter m
mass kilogram kg
time second s
electric current ampere A
thermodynamic temperature kelvin K
amount of substance mole mol
luminous intensity candela cd

Landy · Guest

"Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e91c4504-a1cc-44e8-89e2-8f1dbf40f704@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 25, 2:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Andrew Usher wrote:
The Boltzmann constant is dimensionless.

Andrew Usher

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BoltzmannsConstant.html

Since energy and temperature have the same units, that is
dimensionless.
[/quote]
No they don>t. Energy is Joules and temperature is degrees (or Kelvins).

zzbunker@netscape.net · Guest

On Jul 24, 8:11 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]In science, I have always thought, equations benefit by being as
simple
as possible, without extraneous 'magic numbers'.
[/quote]
Yes. Scientists ae that dumb.
Since many believe the generalization: "Given, some engineers built
Great Pyramids,
it natually follows that all engineers build great Pyramids".
That>s the logical
fallacy of Faulty Towers.

Since the idiots have told since at least 1940 now, that the
difficulty with Boltzmann>s
isn>t units of anything. Since Boltzmann>s constant is an IDEAL GAS
constant.
So use digital, A.I. and lasers, and the entire idiot "problem"
vaporizes.
Since it>s not an problem. It>s an idiot Avorado>s number of
imaginary molecules
doing absolutely NOTHING.

This is a
[quote]justification
given for choosing the maetic system over English units (when a
rational
justification is used at all for that). And yet, Boltzmann>s constant
is
clearly such a 'magic number'.

For example, I write the Boltzmann function

f(E) = exp(-E/T)

where the standard way would be

f(E) = exp(-E/kT)

and the k serving as a meaningless constant or conversion factor.

More than that, it affects the notion of entropy, which is really
fundamental. More than physics, actually - entropy is a mathematical
concept at root, and therefore is always dimensionless. And yet,
idiot
thermodynamics force us to write 'J/mol-K'; as if those units matter
one
bit. Presenting a dimensionless number as otherwise is positively
misleading.
[/quote]
Well, since the Joule>s don>t matter to anything. That>s why people
write it with DVD>s and fiber optics anymore rather than pencils
for the idiots in science.

[quote]
Heat capacity is also unitless, at least if measured on a molecular
basis, which is preferable at least for gases. I have given the
criterion
for convective stability

d log T / d log P = - 1/Cp

and this works only if Cp is dimensionless. Not only is this the
simplest
possible form but it expresses without words why it is correct, if
one
only looks at it.

Avogadro>s number is similar, and I believe things should never be
measured on a molar basis when they can reasonably be done on a
molecular
basis. The heats on chemical reactions, for example, can be given in
molecular units just as sensibly as in molar units. Indeed, electron
volts are already used for related purposes often by astrophysicists,
and
the band gap of solids is normally given in ev, and that is a
sort of chemical reaction. That unit also has a particular advantage
that
it is also used for the energy of photons, and therefore one can
correlate the two without the need of any conversion factor.

Andrew Usher[/quote]

Androcles · Guest

"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:O8yik.69$JH5.26@trnddc06...
|
| "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:1a79aa42-fbcc-4e54-b0b6-402704611cb9@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| >
| Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
| Andrews, you are a bit short on education. Boltzmann>s constant has
| physical units... And there are more base units than LMT, including
| thermodynamic temperature.
| >
| "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote
| I know all this. The physical dimension of Boltzmann>s constant is 1,
| since both energy and temperature are ML^2/T^2.
| >
| Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
| http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
| >>
| Base quantity Name Symbol
| ------------------------------------------------
| length meter m
| mass kilogram kg
| time second s
| electric current ampere A
| thermodynamic temp. kelvin K
| amount of substance mole mol
| luminous intensity candela cd
| >
| "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote
| While the first four are derived from the physical quantities
| M, L, T, and Q, the last three do not correspond to anything
| physically real.
| >
| The candela, especially, is defined using the CIE
| luminosity function for the eye. Even if it were a perfect
| description of the human eye>s sensitivity, it obviously would
| not be a fundamental quantity.
| >
| hanson wrote:
| Guys, ALL physical constants can be expressed in
| terms of M, L, T... even Q, A, K & cd... which must be
| convertible into each other. ---- It has to be that way
| else your entire house of physics will collapse like
| a house of cards. -- Even the mole is not exempt. The
| mole is simply a scale factor that tells you how many
| units of something is in the same bag (Avogadros #).
| The particular units in SI, MKS or cgs were chosen
| by arbitrary choice, heuristic custom and convention.
| Think about it: All we can do in physics is to COMPARE
| things/processes/events to arbitrarily chosen standards.
| There is nothing absolutely "fundamental"... ahahaha...
| >
| We went over that many times in the past few years...
| ....ahahahanson
|
|
As I browsed this I was wondering who could be so stupid
as to think otherwise and so I scrolled up... and there was Wormey...

Mass/matter, the stuff protons and neutrons are made of... whatever it
is it needs a name. Mass, length and time are measurement... yet at the
fundamental level the neutron is eternal in time and finite in length.

Consider force as fundamental. Mass = F/a

Science is dragging its arse for want of language. The human psyche
is such that if you don>t give names to things they do not get thought
about. A simple example of this is the ghost frame Einstein got confused
over.

A mathematical function is a mapping from domain to image (or codomain)
with some rule applied, so if we take the domain as all x in R with the
mapping rule x' = x-vt we have a function with codomain R.
We write
f: x |->x-vt and f(x) = x-vt

If we then have a second function g such that
g: x |-> x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and g(x) = x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

The composition of functions is this:

DOMAIN->function->CODOMAIN->function->IMAGE
x x-vt
(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Now we give names to the generic term "domain" and look at what Einstein
says:
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."

DOMAIN CODOMAIN IMAGE
"stationary" frame ghost frame "moving" frame
system K "system of values" system k

The unnamed "system of values" is the ghost frame.

To get from the ghost frame to the moving frame we need a velocity
but we>ve already used it. How fast does the "moving" frame move
RELATIVELY to the ghost frame?

Einstein was never a mathematician and the reason his blunders
we not easily spotted is the failure to name the ghost frame.

Are scientists really this DUMB?

Two squaddies are eating a meal.
One says "This shit is awful, who called the cook a cunt and upset him? "
The other replies "Who called the cunt a cook?"

Lloyd · Guest

On Jul 26, 12:29 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 25, 9:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

Andrews, you are a bit short on education. Boltzmann>s constant has
physical units... And there are more base units than LMT, including
thermodynamic temperature.

I know all this. The physical dimension of Boltzmann>s constant is 1,
since both energy and temperature are ML^2/T^2.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

Base quantity Name Symbol
------------------------------------------------
length meter m
mass kilogram kg
time second s
electric current ampere A
thermodynamic temperature kelvin K
amount of substance mole mol
luminous intensity candela cd

While the first four are derived from the physical quantities
M, L, T, and Q, the last three do not correspond to anything
physically real.

The candela, especially, is defined using the CIE
luminosity function for the eye. Even if it were a perfect
description of the human eye>s sensitivity, it obviously would
not be a fundamental quantity.

Andrew Usher
[/quote]
If Boltzmann>s constant has no units, then entropy has no units:

S = k ln(omega)

Lloyd · Guest

On Jul 25, 4:26 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 25, 1:49 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:

Avogadro>s number is similar, and I believe things should never be
measured on a molar basis when they can reasonably be done on a
molecular basis.

Yeah, because if I have 100 mL of water and I want to know how much
heat it absorbs, or how much Na it will react with, figuring it out
per individual atom is so much more convenient! Not!

For the first, it actually would be no harder to convert from
molecular
than molar quantities, though I wouldn>t insist on it. Your second
example is irrelevant, as is requires only ratios.

I maintain that an equation written like

2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O + 584 kJ/mol

is actually incorrect, while

2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O + 6.05 ev

is perfectly clear.

Andrew Usher
[/quote]
Oh yeah, because we measure ev in the lab doing calorimetry so easily!

Lloyd · Guest

On Jul 25, 8:55 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]Andrew Usher wrote:
On Jul 25, 1:49 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:

Avogadro>s number is similar, and I believe things should never be
measured on a molar basis when they can reasonably be done on a
molecular basis.
Yeah, because if I have 100 mL of water and I want to know how much
heat it absorbs, or how much Na it will react with, figuring it out
per individual atom is so much more convenient! Not!

For the first, it actually would be no harder to convert from
molecular
than molar quantities, though I wouldn>t insist on it. Your second
example is irrelevant, as is requires only ratios.

I maintain that an equation written like

2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O + 584 kJ/mol

is actually incorrect, while

2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O + 6.05 ev

is perfectly clear.

Andrew Usher

You apparently never bothered to stay awake during the single college
chemistry course you took. The equation 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O + delta H is
well understood to be a NOT a molecular equation but a molar equation
wherein the statements are: 2 moles of H2 react with one mole of O2 to
produce 2 moles of water plus some specific amount of heate stated in
kilojoules (or as it used to be in kilocalories). As you wrote it it is
ambiguous as you can>t tell whether the number of moles refers to the H2
or the H2O or refers to the O2. You are either stupid, or careless, or
ill educated.
FK
[/quote]
Especially if we write H2 + 1/2 O2 --> H2O (not good form, but
perfectly reasonable on a molar level; not so on a molecular level).


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Chemistry Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 2 of 5