thanxz for the site ref
Yes, of course my nep and I had funa nd reflected on matters in just the way that research people like.
But, on these boards, when you have people acting so smug and looking to impress others, ready to criticize and demean...
.. well, you got present to a different audience.
I loved rocketman's "oooops" when he demonstrated that he had little idea what I was talking about but ready disparagement right from the the first post.
Then, coegyp was acting in agreement with this rocketscienceguy, and referring to all the brains on line, how people ought know that they can't post erroreous stuff and all,...
... so, I post directly to him, full of errors, and he never caught why 6.0222 is really mathematically correct.
I think the math scared him off his pedestal.
Only you realize that the best mathematically derived number is 6.0223.
And, only you realize that that number is experimentally derived solely from mass spectro reading of the weight of Protium. The mass spectro is the tool measuring all atomic masses on the Preiodic chart and is the most simple and one step experiment to calculate Avogadro's Number.
Thanxz again, watch out on these boards, some ppeople are only here because their wife yelled at them.
PS. This exercise was a demonstration of secular faith in the "accepted" ideas of the scientific priesthood reigning today. They are not unlike the Fundies, in that they indoctrinated.
™ Version 4.2
