Lets say for the sake of example that a hydrogen weighs 1.289989434, and a carbon weighs 12.084858 When you are using them to compare the weights of other things, it is more accurate to use carbon as a comparison because the decimal is smaller.
Okay, so why does everyone keep saying Carbon-12 is exactly 12 and that no other isotope has a relative atomic mass (<--the term 'relative atomic mass' being used again') which is exactly a whole number because protons and neutrons do not have a relative atomic mass of exactly 1.
Okay, so why does everyone keep saying Carbon-12 is exactly 12 and that no other isotope has a relative atomic mass (<--the term 'relative atomic mass' being used again') which is exactly a whole number because protons and neutrons do not have a relative atomic mass of exactly 1.
Everyone like who? it isnt exact, it is just the one whose decimal causes the least trouble.
Edit: Hold on, the relative atomic mass will be exactly 12 because if you divide the exact number by 12 (to get the comparison) then see how many times it fits into the origonal, you will get 12. The actual mass isnt though.
Okay, so why does everyone keep saying Carbon-12 is exactly 12 and that no other isotope has a relative atomic mass (<--the term 'relative atomic mass' being used again') which is exactly a whole number because protons and neutrons do not have a relative atomic mass of exactly 1.
It is the reference. By definition it has to be a whole number integer (read my other post)
This conversation is very confusing as neither of you are using units for your numbers. Carbon-12 is exactly 12 what?!? Apples? Oranges? Lebanese dancing girls? You get the idea!
This conversation is very confusing as neither of you are using units for your numbers. Carbon-12 is exactly 12 what?!? Apples? Oranges? Lebanese dancing girls? You get the idea!
relative to 1/12th the weight of carbon twelve which is near enough 1. People can round slightly because the numbers we are talking about here are minuscule.
This conversation is very confusing as neither of you are using units for your numbers. Carbon-12 is exactly 12 what?!? Apples? Oranges? Lebanese dancing girls? You get the idea!
relative to 1/12th the weight of carbon twelve which is near enough 1. People can round slightly because the numbers we are talking about here are minuscule.
It's not "near enough 12" it's EXACTLY 12.0000000 (as many dp (not rude) as you wish to go !!!!)
It's the reference ....
IT IS ASSIGNED A VALUE OF EXACTLY 12.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
This conversation is very confusing as neither of you are using units for your numbers. Carbon-12 is exactly 12 what?!? Apples? Oranges? Lebanese dancing girls? You get the idea!
I assume you mean that Carbon-12 is 12g/mol.
Where the hell did "1.289989434" come from?
I was pointing out why carbon is used instead of hydrogen, and I said 'for the sake of example'.
It's not "near enough 12" it's EXACTLY 12.0000000 (as many dp (not rude) as you wish to go !!!!)
It's the reference ....
IT IS ASSIGNED A VALUE OF EXACTLY 12.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I thought it was but the OP suggested different lol, i'm not very good at chemistry. If it is exactly 12 (which makes sense) i don't see the problem/point of this thread.
I thought it was but the OP suggested different lol, i'm not very good at chemistry. If it is exactly 12 (which makes sense) i don't see the problem/point of this thread.
Don' worry. the OP just needs to get things a little clearer in his/her mind..
Everyone like who? it isnt exact, it is just the one whose decimal causes the least trouble.
Edit: Hold on, the relative atomic mass will be exactly 12 because if you divide the exact number by 12 (to get the comparison) then see how many times it fits into the origonal, you will get 12. The actual mass isnt though.
Carbon 12 is what's used to define it, so carbon is exact. A mole is literally defined as the number of atoms in 12g of carbon 12. All other relative atomic weights (which is what the relative atomic mass is - atomic mass is a different thing) are defined relative to carbon 12.
The exact (atomic) weight of carbon is 12 point something. when you take this 12 point something and divide it by 12 to get a comparison (relative) amount...that amount will fit into 12 point something exactly 12 times.
I dont know what you are neg repping. ^ This is right.
Carbon 12 is what's used to define it, so carbon is exact. A mole is literally defined as the number of atoms in 12g of carbon 12. All other relative atomic weights (which is what the relative atomic mass is - atomic mass is a different thing) are defined relative to carbon 12.
I think that is a little harsh. I must admit I am now unsure as to what the OP is asking. Initially I interpreted the question one way and gave an answer on that aspect. It would appear that other people have interpreted her question differently.