If c were NOT constant, wouldn't that affect the 1 kg standard?

[Capiert]

The 1875 Paris, 1 kg standard (IPK, Pt Ir)

 seems to have lost about -50 µg

 in 100 years.

Now, assuming that (1 kg) standard

 is based on 1 m length

 derived from

 the (average, back & forth) light_speed c,

 is it possible light's speed

 is NOT constant?

E.g. if c varies semi_annually

(to affect volume standards

 of a density)

 how can exactly 1 kg be expected?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram

 

Otherwise, if

 the earth's speed v changed

 thru an ether;

 would that affect the Atomic weights enough

 to detect weight (not mass) differences

 between (different elements &) isotopes

 on balance scales.

(Obviously not; but subtly?)

It seems only the variable: called volume

 (instead of mass)

 seems to be left

 to deal with.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Capiert

[John Cuthber]

3 minutes ago, Capiert said:

The 1875 Paris, 1 kg standard (IPK, Pt Ir)

 seems to have lost about -50 µg

 in 100 years.

Now, assuming that (1 kg) standard

 is based on 1 m length

It isn't.

The Kg is, by definition, based on that lump of metal.
So, the answer to the  question in he thread title is "no"

Incidentally, it's not clear if it has lost 50µg or if the secondary standards have gained that much.

That's the essential reason why they want to replace it.

Edited December 13, 2017 by John Cuthber

[tuco]

No.

 

[Capiert]

Thanks: John; & Tuco, that guy is excellent.

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Incidentally, it's not clear if it has lost 50µg or if the secondary standards have gained that much.

Could you expain a bit (which secondaries)?

Btw, doesn't the metal Pt have the ability to absorb hydrogen &/or oxygen gas? (~20 times its volume?)

Constant environment (low humidity) might degas (it)?

 

Otherwise, I can only suspect Hubble's expanding universe

 & its matter (=material, atoms)

 expanding with it (=the universe)

 

 (due to the surrounding=outer_space vacuum.

E.g.

Osmosis: the high concentration

 tends to go to low concentration.

Thus high density migrates to the low(er) density;

 & the (previously) higher becomes less;

 while the (previously) lower becomes more;

 so both will (finally) become similar (=almost equal).

Cosmically that ((homeostasis) result

 from Hubbles (non_linear?) (volume) expansion_constant)

 might take billions of years;

 if not more?)

Edited December 13, 2017 by Capiert

[Sensei]

If you have 1 kg = 1000 g of Iron it means there is 1000 g / ~ 55.845  g/mol = ~ 17.9 mol

1 mol = ~ 6.022141*10^23 atoms, molecules, particles, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant

17.9 * 6.022141*10^23 = ~ 1.0784*10^25 Iron atoms.

If you have 1 kg = 1000 g of water it means there is 1000 g / ~ 18.016  g/mol = ~ 55.5 mol

55.5 mol = ~ 3.343*10^25 molecules.

 

[Capiert]

(Sensei, I have)

 no arguments (there),

 if the numbers

 (which you (use,

 &) do not doubt)

 are right.

Avagadros Nr (counted, to the last atom)

 is rather doubtful in accuracy;

 but worse: I suspect its magnitude

 based on electrical measurements.

E.g.

(Fiv)^2=Fi*Fv

 where Fv is a (D'Arsenval's, =spring_loaded, analog) voltmeter's (electrical) force

 & Fi is an (D'Arsenval's) Ampmeter's (electrical) force;

 then Fiv is the rooted (electrical) power's "force"

(P=I*V)^0.5

.

(E.g. Some sort of mean average for (electrical_mechanical) force.)

Any questions?

Edited December 13, 2017 by Capiert

[Sensei]

30 minutes ago, Capiert said:

(Sensei, I have)

 no arguments (there),

 if the numbers

 (which you (use,

 &) do not doubt)

 are right.

 

g/mol is chemistry unit, but if we will divide kilograms by Avogadro const, we will receive mass in mass atomic unit. a.m.u. or short u.

18.016 g/mol mass of 1 mole of water molecules (macroscopic amount of matter).

18.016 u average mass of single water molecule (quantum physics unit, extremely small).

(just replace g/mol by u)

1 u =   1.660539040(20)×10−27 kg =  1.660539040(20)×10−24 g = 1/Na

(if you just remember Avogadro const, you can any time calculate 1u in g, dividing 1/Avogadro const)

 

How mass of single atom, particle or molecule, can be measured? Using mass spectrometers..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry

Particle is ionized (electron ejected), ion is accelerated in external electric field, then passed through region where is strong (electro-)magnetic field, trajectories are slightly differently deflected, depending on mass-and-charge of particle or molecule. They're collected (separated) in different containers, and counted. One isotope can be separated from other isotope of the same atom. f.e. Uranium-235 from Uranium-238.

 

ps. Are you reading articles I am giving links to at all.. ?

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Sensei

[Capiert]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

g/mol is (a) chemistry unit, but if we [will] divide kilograms by Avogadro const, we will receive mass in mass atomic unit(s). (e.g. an) a.m.u. or (in) short u.

18.016 g/mol (is the) mass of 1 mole of water molecules ((a) macroscopic amount of matter).

18.016 u (is the) average mass of (a) single water molecule ((that is a) quantum physics unit, (which is) extremely small).

(just replace g/mol by u)

1 u =   1.660539040(20)×10−27 kg =  1.660539040(20)×10−24 g = 1/Na

(if you just remember Avogadro const(ant), (then) you can (at) any time calculate 1u in(to) g, (by) dividing (g by) 1/Avogadro const).

 

How (can the) mass of (a) single atom, (e.g. either a) particle or (a) molecule, [can] be measured? (By) Using mass spectrometers.[.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry

(A) Particle is ionized ((that means, an) electron (is) ejected), ((&) so the) ion is accelerated in external electric field, then passed through (a) region where (there) is (a) strong (electro-)magnetic field, (so) trajectories are slightly differently deflected, depending on (the) mass-and-charge of (a) particle or molecule. They're collected (e.g. separated) in(to) different containers, and counted. One isotope can be separated from other isotope(s) of the same atom('s element). f(or ).e(xample)[.](:) Uranium-235 from Uranium-238.

 

ps. (=P.S.) Are you reading articles I am giving links to(,) at all.[.] ?

Yes, some of them (at least, if not all).

 =If I know what you mean ((then, that_is=) it's clear;

 & I think I (can) understand you.

(But please do NOT force me to read Wiki,

 because they are  NOT (always) reliable, nor perfect,

 although they try hard.

=When do I know when they are right, or wrong?)

Your questions are very thought provoking

 because they are (also) so well thought out.

I'm sorry if you got angry with me

 because Swansont (or others, prematurely)

 stopped my threads

 so I could not continue

 (to present further info, or clear misunderstandings, &)

 to answer your (interesting) questions,

 e.g. concerning binding energy.

(But he only reacted

 due to his nature;

 & (my provoking, or) situation,

 so in the end it's my fault.)

It is very difficult if they get impatient (or frustrated)

 because they do not understand

 what I intend to say (in the future).

But the frustration is mutual,

 but it's my job

 to bridge the (gaps of) mis_communication (=misunderstanding, somehow).

We (all) see things

 from different perspectives;

 & have different standpoint(s with evidence)s

 for our viewpoints. (..But..)

We have to overcome our egos

 to bridge those gaps.

There are great resentments (=anger, & (naturally, unwanted (emotional)) provocations)

 because of the lack of being understood. (I don't deny that.)

That is only a natural outcome

 from the scattered=divergent chaos

 which is splitting our civilization

 (instead of unifying it).

The way I see it,

 if the people get nasty (or nice),

 then there is a reason why they react so.

That's the reason why they react so.

(Sorry for the moral preach.)

Edited December 14, 2017 by Capiert

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, Capiert said:

Your questions are very thought provoking because they are also so well thought out.

I am not asking questions, rather teaching you.. and providing reference materials so you can learn even more by your self..

If you don't even bother reading reference materials, I am just wasting my time.. (what a surprise on this planet!)

 

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Sensei

[Endy0816]

Even if the speed of light varied, the numerical value of c wouldn't actually change in the metric system.

But, yeah, for the time being the Kilogram's definition is still tied to a chunk of metal.

 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Capiert said:

 because Swansont (or others, prematurely)

 stopped my threads

 so I could not continue

 (to present further info, or clear misunderstandings, &)

 to answer your (interesting) questions,

!

Moderator Note

No, your threads are locked because you do not do these things, or shift the direction of the discussion.

Here, for example you bring up both an ether (which has no evidence to support it) and a possible effect from the expansion of the universe. But these are in the guise of asking a question, which has been answered. 

When someone show up with an agenda to bring up some speculation, but they try to sneak it into the conversation, the moderators don't like it*. If you have some hypothesis, present it. Defend it. Don't introduce it as a footnote to a question. That gets the thread locked.

*complaining about what mods have done in other threads doesn't score any points with us either