It depended on the scientist, but to be honest it didn't really matter. Some based their systems on oxygen, for example. Others used different elements. It doesn't matter because the list will result in the same order regardless of which element is chosen as a reference. Hydrogen is still lighter than Helium, even if you use iron as a base for your measurements rather than oxygen. In this case, it doesn't even matter what system of weights and measures they used--because it's straight up relative weights.
The comparative lightness of an element is not the point in issue. The point in issue, which you are evading, is where did the numbers come from? How has it been PROVEN that a hydrogen atom has only one electron and one proton?
The periodic table was organized according to shared properties and the mass of the specific elements. The mass of an element is directly related to the number of protons it possesses, so it make sense the numbers would match up. I don't know a lot about the history of the periodic table, but if its true the atomic numbers were there before the discovery of the proton, I would imagine thats why.
OK.. How many protons will be found in 1 micro gram of pb? Please show the physical count of those protons,,,, NOT the mathematical manipulations based on the numbers of the periodic table of elements. Number systems can be manipulated, while a physical count is much harder to manipulate. As an example, ask any Numerologist and you will find out quickly that number systems are plastic.
Approximately 2.363 x 10^17 protons. Obviously I calculated that, because what your requiring as necessary proof is impossible with current technologies. What you can do, is relate the mass of hydrogen (who's nuclei we refer to as a proton) to the mass of lead, and thats how the numbers of protons for the specific elements was determined. And that works, because we can observe that the mass of specific elements is incremental to the mass of hydrogen (there are minor fluctuations that result from number of nuetrons, I believe, which can be variable within specific elements). I'm not sure how protons were proven initially, but since then we have observed the effects of single protons (H+ ions if you'd rather call them that) in biological systems where neutral H atoms lost their electron, so they do exist. Side note, there's a decent chance that I screwed up that calculation, as stoichiometry has never been my strong point. Feel free to correct me if you want.
Then all you have are mathematical models. NOT PROOF of the actual count. In essence, you don't know anything more than your theories based on mathematical models. What you can do, is relate the mass of hydrogen (who's nuclei we refer to as a proton) to the mass of lead, and thats how the numbers of protons for the specific elements was determined. And that works, because we can observe that the mass of specific elements is incremental to the mass of hydrogen (there are minor fluctuations that result from number of nuetrons, I believe, which can be variable within specific elements). Then you admit, due to your uncertainty, that you don't really KNOW. As for the H+ ions.... have you ever seen an H+ ion? No? Guess that would fall into the same category as an electron or proton, then. Hmmm. Enough said.
It isn't mathematical models. It's relating hydrogen to heavier elements. We know how heavier elemnts are created (we can do it ourselves), and its through nuclear fussion. Hydrogen nuclei, which we call protons, fused together to form helium.l, and so on and so forth. How protons were originally proven is unclear to me, but I think it had to do with detecting hydrogen signatures in the nuclear fission of a heavier element. Have I seen them with my own eyes? No. Is it possible to witness their effects? absolutely. What we can observe, are the chemical reactions in photosynthesis, where neutral hydrogen atoms are split into single electrons (e-) and single protons (H+ ions) go on to do different jobs. An H+ ion IS a proton. Can we see single electrons? No. We have seen the electron clouds of atoms. We have also witnessed the effects of electrons in electrical conduction, their role in covalent bonding, and their effects on molecular charge. I can't see gravity. That doesn't mean I can't feel its effects.
None of what you have stated has anything to do with the formulation of the periodic table of elements and how the numbers were assigned to that table. You have successfully shown that you are not aware of those parts of the history of the periodic table, so there is really no need for any further INPUT from one who has already admitted that he does not know.
My first post explained that. You essentially responded to that post by leading me in one direction, and when I followed, accused me of not staying on topic. The periodic table was organized according to mass and shared properties. Even without the knowledge of protons, 1 thru whatever would have been logical way to organize it. Hydrogen is essentially the base element (its the lightest). We call a hydrogen nuclei a proton. We now know that nuclear fussion is what creates heavier elements. The numbers were assigned by mass ( "shape" by shared properties), and since mass is directly proportional to number of protons, the 1 thru whatever deignation of the elemnts would have remained logical. Think of it this way. A helium atom is twice as massive as a hydrogen atom. So 1 for H makes sense, 2 for He makes sense. Lithium is 3 times as massive as hydrogen, so a 3 for Li makes sense. So on and so forth. I'm not really sure what your issue with the number designations of the elements is. 1, 2, 3, etc was probably just a convenient way to organize them according to mass. I would imagine it was a coincidence that those numbers would eventually describe the number of protons they possess (although not really since the number of protons is directly proportional to mass).
My issue with the numbers assigned to the hydrogen atom is the arbitrary nature of saying at that time that hydrogen had one electron and one proton, when there was at that time no proof to substantiate the claim. Until today, there still remains no PROOF of that claim. Where did the number 1 come from when there was no PROOF that 1 was the actual count of the number of protons and electrons? Your so-called explanation relating to mass means nothing because mass is a relative term that must be based upon some KNOWN (proven) factors. The number of electrons and protons has not been proven by anything more than mathematical models.... which are purely imaginative.
That's why it was called atomic theory I already said that the number 1 was probably a designation of mass at first. Hydrogen is the lightest element, and every other element is incrementally more massive than hydrogen. You can perform experiments on your own to prove that wih at least gases. The existence of electrons and protons has been substantiated indirectly through their effects. The flow of electrons has led the ability to harness electricity, and Yuo can measure that flow. You can predict how multiple elements will bond according to the number of electrons they have. You can observe shared properties of elements that have the same number of electrons in their outer orbitals. There are actual photographs of electron clouds. Nuclear fusion shows the existence of protons. We know how heavier elements are made, weve done it in the lab. A typical hydrogen nuclei is WHAT WE CALL a proton, and nuclear fusion started with hydrogen. Two hydrogen nuclei (aka 2 protons) fused to form helium. If a proton is our designation of the hydrogen nuclei, then helium would contain 2 protons. And so on and so forth all the way through the heavier elements. The word proton is just the name we gave to the normal hydrogen nuclei, and it was given a 1 designation, because its the lightest element. In reality, protons themselves are made of smaller particles that we've observed by smashing them together at high speeds.
BRAVO! Finally someone who defends science has stepped up and admitted the truth. ATOMIC THEORY! Something that has not been proven. "the·o·ry (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." You better study your electronics a little more. What is measured is a potential difference in the dipole, and then the mathematics kicks in to play the game of Numerology. Substantiated only in the sense of mathematical models. When electrons and protons are spoken of, the terms are used as an acceptance of the action(s) of some force , which force itself has yet to be observed (such as magnetism or gravity -- we can see the effect of, but we cannot see the force itself)
Well, the atomic weights were determined by ratios. Those weights are not absolute measurements, but rather are in comparison to other elements. Also, this topic should not be in religion but should be in science.
It was not. It was determined empirically. Now the fact that the AMU of hydrogen was originally 1 is arbitrary. It is just in comparison to the AMU of other elements. That is why Avogadro's number is so abstract (6.02 x 10(23rd)).
The atomic mass was a ratio, with hydrogen arbitrarily placed at one (Mendeleev's original in 1870s). The original atomic numbers were just a sequential number. Atomic number (as number of protons or electrons) wasn't part of the periodic table until much later (1914 by Moseley). Please be specific. There is a big difference between atomic number and atomic mass (although in hydrogen the numbers are roughly the same). Mendeleev's early table below. Note there is no atomic number in it.
Well, first, you need to review basic chemistry. Hydrogen (most common isotope) has an atomic number of 1 and an atomic mass of 1. The atomic mass was a ratio, and 1 was used for ease of calculation. It is not an absolute number or measurement. Atomic mass is a relative number. The atomic number 1 is based on the number of protons. It has been experimentally shown to exist.
The various weight factors? There is really only one weight factor for atomic weight, and it was simply the result of empirical observation that elemental weight was quantized and not continuous. The weight of the quantum was identified by objective comparison, and then declared the unit of measurement. Nothing arbitrary about it. There was nothing arbitrary about it. Hydrogen actually does have one proton and one electron, something we only found out long after the fact. And it got the atomic number (not the atomic weight) 1 because that's where you always start when numbering a set of similar things. Again, the "weight factor" is not arbitrary. It was empirically derived. As to hydrogen's status as the lightest element known, that has not changed. That is why it's atomic number has not changed either. On the other hand, the first few efforts at assembling a periodic table did number many of the heavier elements differently, because we had not figured out that there were missing elements and where they were likely to fall. Once we had identified the pattern, we were able to come up with a more comprehensive schema and the modern periodic table. It even allowed us to predict that we would eventually find then unknown elements of specific weights and chemical properties. This could not be possible if it were arbitrary. The fact that later independent elemental discoveries that we had know way of knowing would occur have continued to buttress the accuracy of the periodic table is another indication that it is a reflection of objective reality and not some arbitrary hand waving. Again, with feeling. We sorted them by weight and then numbered them consecutively. Simple as that.
For starters, we already know how it got the atomic number it got. The elements are sorted in order of weight and then numbered sequentially. The fact that hydrogen has only one proton and one neutron would not be discovered until a long while afterwards. The number came from the simple fact that that is how humans count, starting at one. The fact that the lightest element would later prove to also have the smallest possible number of "weight bearing" components is hardly a shocking discovery. It actually kinda makes sense in a non-interesting, completely ordinary and non-mystical way. Weight can be directly measured. The observation that elemental weight is quantized is an empirical one. That quantum is a known factor, directly measured, even when not completely understood.
That is true. As long as we desire to view it as a Fairy Tale, a Myth, and it cannot be proven otherwise to be a FACT, then yes you don't need to do anything other than recognizing it as a 'theory'. Unproven. Thank you wka for your acquiescence.
Well, that is like answering the question "what weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?". My question to you WKA is "where did the numbers for the system of weights and measures come from?" Then you are admitting that the number 1 was a product of the mind of man as opposed to any actual observation of the number of electrons and protons. It is indeed a shocking 'theory' considering that what you claim to be a 'fact' and further claim to be 'proven' has in FACT not been proven. If in FACT it had been 'proven' the notion would no longer be called a 'theory' ... as in "atomic theory". To you perhaps it would have that appearance, which just goes to show that almost anyone will choose something to believe in regardless of the FACT that the thing believed in has not been 'proven'. Where did the numbers for the weights and measures come from?
