Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- From: Pulse <feralpulse@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:21:01 -0500
Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:22:57 -0500, Pulse <feralpulse@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Pulse wrote:Hatunen wrote:For clarity, based on numbers cited on Wikipedia, the following atomic masses are are measured.On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:27:40 -0700 (PDT), spintronicI hate to contradict you, but what you have cited as the atomic mass of hydrogen is actually the atomic weight. There's a subtle difference. The atomic weight is a weighted average of the masses of all isotopes of an element given their natural rate of appearance. For hydrogen, this includes isotopes with one or two neutrons. Thus, the atomic weight of the element hydrogen is necessarily larger than the atomic mass of a single hydrogen-1 atom.
<spintronic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let me ask you another question.I'm not sure where you got your math, but the mass of a proton is
A proton has 1.6726231*10^-27Kg.
A electron has 9.1093897*10^-31Kg.
After they bind and lose
(2 * (pi^2) * ((1 / (4 * pi * (8.854187817 * (10^(-12)))))^2) *
((1.60217733 * (10^(-19)))^4) * (9.1093897 * (10^(-31)))) /
((6.6260755 * (10^(-34)))^2) = 2.17987406 × 10-18j
What is their mass?
Oh that's right.
It's less.
1.0061 amu and the atomic mass of an electron is 5.489 E-4 amu.
The atomic mass of a hydrogen atom is 1.00794 amu. Obviously, the
mass of a hydrogen atom is greater than the sum of the masses of
its component proton and electron. The increase in mass is
largely due to the binding energy.
Proton = 1.007276 u
Electron = 0.000549 u
p + e = 1.007825 u
Hydrogen-1 = 1.007825 u
Which Wikipedia article? I can't seem to find 1.007276 for the
proton.
Try looking up 'proton'. The mass is listed in the quick facts on the right. Again, I make no claims that this value is indisputable.
There doesn't appear to be any significant mass loss or gain from the combination of a proton and an electron into hydrogen-1.
A lot is wrapped up in that word "significant". Please define.
Well, since the values are identical to five or six digits to the right of the decimal, I would suspect that "significant" would entail a difference of greater than 0.0001%, but even that isn't seen from the numbers I gave.
In any case, notice that I was addressign a claim that the
hydrogne atom had MORE mass than the sum of its parts.
And I was addressing that your numbers appear to be in error. I really have no stake at the moment as to whether a hydrogen atom has more or less mass that the sum of its parts. I just want to make sure that we are all citing accurate measurements.
If this conclusion is false, then it is due to incorrect data on Wikipedia. I'd like to know where you got your smaller value for the atomic mass of a proton.
I've lost track of it; I'm trying to find it again. I do see that
my old CRC Handbook of Chmistry and Physics agrees with your
number, so I'll withdraw mine, also a result of a Wikipedia
search.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- From: Hatunen
- Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- References:
- Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- From: spintronic
- Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- From: Pulse
- Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- From: spintronic
- Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- From: Hatunen
- Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- From: Pulse
- Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- From: Pulse
- Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- From: Hatunen
- Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- Prev by Date: WingNutDaily: 'Dr. Dino' allowed to buy back seized property
- Next by Date: Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- Previous by thread: Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- Next by thread: Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading