[BenKenobi]

*Sigh*

“You make some outrageous attack”

And you are being sweetness and light? Great, solid attitude here.

Relative atomic mass is not an intrinsic elemental property. It’s misleading. It assumes experimentally derived information which may or may not be the case with the actual sample.

It’s not universally applicable, and there are many applications for which it is not useful at all. This is why periodic tables should state the mass of the most common isotope which is true no matter what sample you use or how you go about doing things. Why? Because it’s related to the intrinsic characteristics of the element, the neutrons, protons and electrons. It’s not reliant upon ‘expected ratio in nature’, which isn’t always the case.

[SeeSac]

Relative atomic mass is not an intrinsic elemental property.

Relative atomic mass is a synonym for atomic weight and closely related to average atomic mass (but not a synonym for atomic mass), the weighted mean of the atomic masses of all the atoms of a chemical element found in a particular sample, weighted by isotopic abundance.[5] This is frequently used as a synonym for the standard atomic weight and it is correct to do so since the standard atomic weights are relative atomic masses, although it is less specific to do so.

[SeeSac]

Relative atomic mass is not an intrinsic elemental property. It’s misleading. It assumes experimentally derived information which may or may not be the case with the actual sample. It’s not universally applicable, and there are many applications for which it is not useful at all. This is why periodic tables should state the mass of the most common isotope which is true no matter what sample you use or how you go about doing things.

Atomic mass has been on the periodic tables since Mendeleev made the first one. But then he didn't know about isotopes. The periodic table was reorganize early on with the valence numbers but the atomic mass remains. It's convention.