Will NIST ever fix their tables?

THE FORMULAE IN CGS

k = hbar*c/4π*e^2
k = 9.670554000 x 10^-29 erg*s * 2.997924580 x 10^10 cm/s / 4π * (4.803204712 x 10^-10 esu)^2
k = 1

e^2 = hbar*c/4π*k
e^2 = 9.670554000 x 10^-29 erg*s * 2.997924580 x 10^10 cm/s / 4π * 1
e^2 = (4.803204712 x 10^-10 esu)^2

hbar = 4π*k*e^2/c
hbar = 4π * 1 * (4.803204712 x 10^-10 esu)^2 / 2.997924580 x 10^10 cm/s
hbar = 9.670554000 x 10^-29 erg*s

alpha = 4π*e^2/2*h*c
alpha = 4π * (4.803204712 x 10^-10 esu)^2 / 2.000000000 x 10^0 rad/sr * 6.626070150 x 10−27 erg*s/rad * 2.997924580 x 10^10 cm/s
alpha = 7.297352566 x 10^-3 sr

hbar = 2*h*alpha
hbar = 2.000000000 x 10^0 rad/sr * 6.626070150 x 10^-27 erg*s/rad * 7.297352566 x 10^-3 sr
hbar = 9.670554000 x 10^-29 erg*s

alpha = hbar/2*h
alpha = 9.670554000 x 10^-29 erg*s / 2.000000000 x 10^0 rad/sr * 6.626070150 x 10^-27 erg*s/rad
alpha = 7.297352566 x 10^-3 sr

h = hbar/2*alpha
h = 9.670554000 x 10^-29 erg*s / 2.000000000 x 10^0 rad/sr * 7.297352566 x 10^-3 sr
h = 6.626070150 x 10^-27 erg*s/rad

"Denke (hbar) is action,
Planck (h) is angular."
 
Last edited:
FORMULAE IN MKS

k = hbar*c/4π*e^2
k = 9.670554000 x 10^-36 kg*m^2/s * 2.997924580 x 10^8 m/s / 4π * (1.602176634 x 10^-19 A*s)^2
k = 8.987551787 x 10^9 kg*m^3/4π*A^2*s^4

e^2 = hbar*c/4π*k
e^2 = 9.670554000 x 10^-36 kg*m^2/s * 2.997924580 x 10^8 m/s / 4π * 8.987551787 x 10^9 kg*m^3/4π*A^2*s^4
e^2 = (1.602176634 x 10^-19 A*s)^2

hbar = 4π*k*e^2/c
hbar = 4π * 8.987551787 x 10^9 kg*m^3/4π*A^2*s^4 * (1.602176634 x 10^-19 A*s)^2 / 2.997924580 x 10^8 m/s
hbar = 9.670554000 x 10^-36 kg*m^2/s

alpha = e^2/2*e0*h*c
alpha = (1.602176634 x 10^-19 A*s)^2 / 2.000000000 x 10^0 rad/sr * 8.854187817 x 10^-12 A^2*s^4/kg*m^3 * 6.626070150 x 10^-34 kg*m^2/s*rad * 2.997924580 x 10^8 m/s
alpha = 7.297352566 x 10^-3 sr

hbar = 2*h*alpha
hbar = 2.000000000 x 10^0 rad/sr * 6.626070150 x 10^-34 kg*m^2/s*rad * 7.297352566 x 10^-3 sr
hbar = 9.670554000 x 10^-36 kg*m^2/s

alpha = hbar/2*h
alpha = 9.670554000 x 10^-36 kg*m^2/s / 2.000000000 x 10^0 rad/sr * 6.626070150 x 10^-34 kg*m^2/s*rad
alpha = 7.297352566 x 10^-3 sr

h = hbar/2*alpha
h = 9.670554000 x 10^-36 kg*m^2/s / 2.000000000 x 10^0 rad/sr * 7.297352566 x 10^-3 sr
h = 6.626070150 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s-rad

"Denke (hbar) is action,
Planck (h) is angular."
 
Last edited:
Usually when one wants to illustrate that something is incorrect they use stuff like words and say "this is wrong because..." instead of putting down massive lists of data with no argumentation. That way someone has a clue on what the hell you are talking about.
 
nonconformist said:
The bmdfklnbdfbnd810 is equal to the sjtmb brghr *Planck*10^16.

No, it isn't.
 
IglooDude said:
No, it isn't.

Please refute that, and don't say that fwwgwrgbrwis equal to the square root of the 754fbndfjbnjf, because that is the exception to the lollypop rule.
 
A Theologian, a Physicist and a Mathematicial were on a train through the
Scottish highlands. They saw a sheep. The Theologian said, "Hey! Scottish
sheep must be black!". The Physicist replied, "No, all we can determine is
that that one sheep in Scotland is black," to which the Mathematician added,
"No, No, NO!!! ALL we can conclude is that ONE sheep in Scotland is black on
ONE side!!!"
 
nonconformist said:
Please refute that, and don't say that fwwgwrgbrwis equal to the square root of the 754fbndfjbnjf, because that is the exception to the lollypop rule.

:rolleyes: It isn't my fault that you've completely forgotten about Aristotelian astrophysics. Of course that is the exception to the lollipop rule, but the exception to the fwwgwrgbrwis = 754fbndfjbnjf^2 exception is the Betazedal maximum drift adjustment to Godwin's Law, you Nazi baby-killer.
 
Cheetah said:
A Theologian, a Physicist and a Mathematicial were on a train through the
Scottish highlands. They saw a sheep. The Theologian said, "Hey! Scottish
sheep must be black!". The Physicist replied, "No, all we can determine is
that that one sheep in Scotland is black," to which the Mathematician added,
"No, No, NO!!! ALL we can conclude is that ONE sheep in Scotland is black on
ONE side!!!"
Hey! If you're gonna copy and paste one of my posts, at least give me credit :p
 
IglooDude said:
:rolleyes: It isn't my fault that you've completely forgotten about Aristotelian astrophysics. Of course that is the exception to the lollipop rule, but the exception to the fwwgwrgbrwis = 754fbndfjbnjf^2 exception is the Betazedal maximum drift adjustment to Godwin's Law, you Nazi baby-killer.
I resent that, you communist euthaniser. Of course you should know that the Ivan E. Rection thesis of February 31st 1901 states that the lollipop rule is only applicable to Quirk's exception on the second part of the first party of Godwin's law, philistine.
 
nonconformist said:
I resent that, you communist euthaniser. Of course you should know that the Ivan E. Rection thesis of February 31st 1901 states that the lollipop rule is only applicable to Quirk's exception on the second part of the first party of Godwin's law, philistine.

Quirk's exception is a complete red herring and you know it. Besides, you're taking Dr Rection's thesis completely out of context - you know as well as I do that his seminal work only came in '04 and was only a drop in the bucket compared to Ignatius P. Daily's study proving that bmdfklnbdfbnd810 is equal to the sjtmb brghr *Planck*10^16 only when fwwgwrgbrwis is within the tangent, you father-raping son of a deceased parrot.



Funny, this argument actually makes more sense than Garry Denke's original one.
 
Guys, google Garry Denke, it's a riot ;)

http://boards.aetv.com/thread.jspa?threadID=500002622&messageID=500022378#500022378
It's like deja vu all over again!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2NPWJ0550TRCZ/104-9704723-5611954?_encoding=UTF8
A good review, but Garry Denke failed to mention he's full of crap.

http://www.open2.net/forum/thread.jspa?threadID=1928&messageID=7058#7058
(regarding Stone Henge) said:
For those of you not aware,

Mr Denke is the alias used by the online history worlds greatest spammer. Periodically he grafts together huge posts like this one and lodges them with every archaeology forum he has not been banned from. This has already been posted on five forums that I belong to.

The general theory is that the stones at stonehenge were set up either to look like babies teeth or sharks teeth.

Part of Mr Denke's spamming technique is to embed massive pictures into the text and if anyone askes a question simply to repost the text already posted.
 
Mise said:

Yes, he used to post Stonehedge threads in History all the time--we enjoyed abusing, I mean posting in them :D
 
pawpaw said:
Yes, he used to post Stonehedge threads in History all the time--we enjoyed abusing, I mean posting in them :D
Yeah I saw those too (god bless the search function :D), pretty much identical to what "he" (and I assume it's not just one bloke called Garry Denke posting this stuff!) posts on other forums.
 
IglooDude said:
Quirk's exception is a complete red herring and you know it. Besides, you're taking Dr Rection's thesis completely out of context - you know as well as I do that his seminal work only came in '04 and was only a drop in the bucket compared to Ignatius P. Daily's study proving that bmdfklnbdfbnd810 is equal to the sjtmb brghr *Planck*10^16 only when fwwgwrgbrwis is within the tangent, you father-raping son of a deceased parrot.

You fool. You poor, deluded, fool. The work of '04 was written under great duress, when Rection had Cabin Fever, and the Church of Willym Shattnor were breathing down his neck-his theory on the propagation of the dynastic reprocical is erroneous. As well as Daily being a member of the Thuggee cult that receently resurfaced in Molvania, he has also been proven to have links to the Kremlin in Ben Dover's book Spoonology: an art and therefore must be viewed with utter septicism, you perverted, necrophiliac-beastialist.
 
Cheetah said:
Sorry. :blush:

What makes this your joke btw? I will assume that you didn't originaly invent it. :mischief:
Hehe, no that's true, one of our lecturers told it (actually it was "engineer" instead of "theologian").

I just found it amusing that you copied the typo as well :)
 
Ah. Well, I first heard (read) the joke from you, so I think I'll keep it that way..

Nah, I'll change the characters professions as I see fit and depending on the audience. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom