Avogadro's number vs. the Kofh Number

I was waiting for this to go topic. You caught on quicker than we did on another forum. It took us a week to figure out it was just a shell game (not this particular subject, but the same mechanics).The material is offered up in the guise of "fact", but more detailed exploration reveals a simple "slight of hand" manipulation of speculation. When the given "facts" are challenged, he switches to a whole new line of speculation in the guise of "facts". It's a vicious cycle nearly impossible to arrest.
Kudos to you!
Allen

Stoichiometrically speaking of coarse, since the spin of an atom can be calculated nowadays, there is no excuse not to hold molecular weight out to 4 or 5 decimal places.

Agreed, but for the sake of the argument here (which is delta of Avogadro's number verses true molecular weight)...decimal places are significant.

Ooooh! Got me! Good catch.

Everybodies been waiting for over a year for to post something that even remotely looks like science.

I'm not gonna' say anything.

We should ahve put him in charge of fusion reaction, then we wouldn't have the whole H-bomb thing hangin' over us.

Which number for what application? Thats what we've been trying to tell you, there is no generic number to plug into a specific application. You mis-took the generosity of your science book to mean that there was a "magic" number that God used in creation...well there just isn't one, every element is different. It also doesn't account for elements of the atom at the sub-atomic level such as gluons and quarks, which makes 4 decimal places huge.

The number for that particular atom of that particular element...you're a little on the slow side aren't you?

OOOPS, I was thinking weight for some reason there.

As usual, you are absolutely 100% right.