Make sure you are comfortable, amico! It could be a long wait...Gaga said:Yep that makes sense...
It's just the growing frustration of being at page 21 and still not being able to understand what's the logic underneath his claims. (because there's a logic, right? right??)
I'll get back lurking... and waiting.. ..and waiting....
What is paranormal in Homeopathy
- Thread starter Dr. MAS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homeopathy
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No, Dr. MAS, the calculations applying Avogadro's number are still perfectly relevant, even if a chemical reaction has taken place. You will still have the same number of atoms present, unless you're somehow creating new matter (and I don't think even Kumar has suggested that this is happening).Dr. MAS said:I will also provide the answer of this question but first confirm that IF new compound has been formed then your derived equation (on mathematical base) of AVOGADRO'S/Law is wrong.REMEMBER, WE STARTED OUR DISCUSSION ON THAT POINT.
Incidentally, have you carried out any tests to detect the products of possible chemical reactions in 30X remedies? If so, please give details.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Zep, I know that Mas and the other homoeopaths consistently get this wrong, but I think we ought to try not to follow them in their error.Zep said:
"Avogadro's Law" is a proposition to do with the pressure and temperature and volume of gases. It has nothing to do with the absence of any molecules after a certain dilution limit. We have to find a way of referring to this latter proposition without misappropriating the name of a law which is actually something quite distinct.
Rolfe.
Hmmm... Yes, I suppose so. Not being a chemistry major myself, it's sometimes hard to remember the exact right terms!Rolfe said:
To that end, and while we wait for Dr MAS, would it be possible for a chemist someone to provide a simple explanation of how we obtain the number of molecules in a given mass/volume of substance? For example, earlier in this thread we were given an approximation for the count of molecules in 1ml of water (33,460,000,000,000,000,000,000, or say 3.35x10E22). To (re)learn how this is obtained would be something I, at least, would appreciate (and should have remembered from my school days!).
And this from you is plain and simple GOBBLEDEGOOK!Kumar said:Yes, I have indicated it many times recently. This is a Creative Type Talk CTT.
It really doesn't matter if you understand what we are saying or not, Kumar - it doesn't make homeopathy any more legitimate as a result.
And I shall be attempting to correct my knowledge of this. What will YOU be doing instead???
Molecular mass of water: 18.0153 g/mol
Density of water at 25C: 997.07 g/L
Avogadro's constant: 6.022 1415 x 10^23 mol^-1
Molarity of water:
(997.07 g/L)(mol/18.0153 g) = 55.346 mol/L
Molecules of water in 1mL:
(6.022 1415 x 10^23 mol^-1*55.346 mol/L)/1000=
3.33301443 × 10^22
Density of water at 25C: 997.07 g/L
Avogadro's constant: 6.022 1415 x 10^23 mol^-1
Molarity of water:
(997.07 g/L)(mol/18.0153 g) = 55.346 mol/L
Molecules of water in 1mL:
(6.022 1415 x 10^23 mol^-1*55.346 mol/L)/1000=
3.33301443 × 10^22
They can be done just as easily. Why do you think we keep telling you there is almost no chance of anything being there in higher potencies?Kumar said:
ETA: Oh, and I'm not going to do it because DrMAS is supposed to show us how. Or something. Maybe when this thread gets to 6.022x10^23 replies.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Donks did the sum for water.Zep said:
In principle, start by remembering that a mole is a gramme molecular weight. So, for a substance with a molecular weight of 1 dalton [edited to add, that's hydrogen, obviously], 1g will contain a mole (Avogadro's constant) of molecules. For something larger, say cortisol, with a molecular weight of 362.5 daltons, then 362.5g contains a mole of molecules.
Knowing that, if you know the molecular weight of the compund you're dealing with, you can work out how many molecules are in any given weight of the substance. For water, we assume that 1ml = 1 g.
Actually, this is at the heart of the disagreement you may have seen me have with the Merikan medics. In virtually all countries of the world except the USA, it has been standard practice for about 30 years to report clinical biochemistry results in molar units (e.g.mmol/l) rather than gravimetric (e.g. mg/100ml). This makes it so much easier to understand what is going on, as you are comparing molecule to molecule, rather than being distracted by weights. However, for reasons best known to themselves, the Merikans have refused to make the change. Which is why we count our cholesterols in numbers that look like 5 (mmol/l) while the Merikans do it in numbers that look like 200 (mg/100ml).
Because of this, when referring to Merikan publications, I often have to do this calculation to figure out what the bloody blue blazes they're actually talking about. They're reporting in weight, and I want to know number of molecules.
Rolfe.
@Rolfe, just regarding the American units, I was surprised to learn that here in Germany the diabetes specialists also use mg/dL rather than the familiar mmol/L for reporting blood sugar concentrations. I have always to divide by 18.6 or multiply by 18.6 to see whether I am high or low.
As regards Avogadro's number it is the link between the microscopic world and the macroscopic world; the mass of one proton is 1/(Avogadro's number) grams. By definition I think Avogadro's number equals the number of carbon atoms in 12 g of isotopomeric carbon (i.e 12C only - how do I do supercripts?).
As regards Avogadro's number it is the link between the microscopic world and the macroscopic world; the mass of one proton is 1/(Avogadro's number) grams. By definition I think Avogadro's number equals the number of carbon atoms in 12 g of isotopomeric carbon (i.e 12C only - how do I do supercripts?).
Rolfe
Adult human female
Use html, at least for as long as Darat will let us keep using it!anor277 said:
I'll put in extra spaces so that the tags show up rather than being rendered....
< SUP>12< /SUP>C (<SUP>12</SUP>C)
6.0221415 x 10< SUP>23< /SUP> (6.0221415 x 10<SUP>23</SUP>)
H< SUB>2< /SUB>0 (H<SUB>2</SUB>0)
and so on, except that Darat, damn his eyes, intends to disable this facility when we move to the new software.
Rolfe.
(That's what I love about this place - ask and ye shall receive...) Thanks, folks - I followed that, and I'm enlightened and educated much more betterer as a result!
Incidentally, Dr MAS when you get back to us, the above is an example of the accuracy and quality of your argument that you will need to present to us. No doubt these chemistry folks find this sort of thing quite baby-level compared to what they study or do for a living, so have no fear of confusing any of them with your high-end arguments.
Hello??
Incidentally, Dr MAS when you get back to us, the above is an example of the accuracy and quality of your argument that you will need to present to us. No doubt these chemistry folks find this sort of thing quite baby-level compared to what they study or do for a living, so have no fear of confusing any of them with your high-end arguments.
Hello??
Or you could just use the “sup†and “sub†tags which work like the “bold†tag, which will still be available in the promised land.
H [sub ]2[/sub ]O - without the space in the [ ]
H2O
2[sup ]10[/sup ] - without the space in the [ ]
210
H [sub ]2[/sub ]O - without the space in the [ ]
H2O
2[sup ]10[/sup ] - without the space in the [ ]
210
Rolfe
Adult human female
OK, OK, OK. Except that I KNOW the html codes, and I don't know which of these will translate to vB codes as is without actually doing some actual work.Darat said:Or you could just use the “sup†and “sub†tags which work like the “bold†tag, which will still be available in the promised land.
H [sub ]2[/sub ]O - without the space in the [ ]
H2O
2[sup ]10[/sup ] - without the space in the [ ]
210
Rolfe.
Ladies, gentlemen, Dr MAS.
We are posting far too much. If we're gonna get any kind of answer out of this woo, we have to not make 50 posts every time he gets asked a question.
I suggest starting a new thread where one person talks to him. Or perhaps his question/answer session is done in private messages with someone, then posted to a forum.
We are posting far too much. If we're gonna get any kind of answer out of this woo, we have to not make 50 posts every time he gets asked a question.
I suggest starting a new thread where one person talks to him. Or perhaps his question/answer session is done in private messages with someone, then posted to a forum.
You assume he actually plans on giving us any answers.DavoMan said:Ladies, gentlemen, Dr MAS.
We are posting far too much. If we're gonna get any kind of answer out of this woo, we have to not make 50 posts every time he gets asked a question.
I suggest starting a new thread where one person talks to him. Or perhaps his question/answer session is done in private messages with someone, then posted to a forum.