“No revisionism. All they are doing is instead of stating a single number with uncertainties based on varying isotopic rations, they are specifying a range of values based on varying isotopic rations. SAME-SAME. Just in a different view.”
Not the same at all. Big, big difference. The old definition has the atomic mass of every element as a ratio of C-12. Now, this is no longer the case. Which is exactly the point I was trying to hammer home earlier.
The relative abundances of each element is irrelevant.
The old definition has the atomic mass of every element as a ratio of C-12. Now, this is no longer the case. Which is exactly the point I was trying to hammer home earlier.
PLEASE show me where in the article that is stated! Here is what the article says ... MORE ACCURATELY. It says nothing about a change in definition. NO IUPAC definitions are being changed. NONE, NADA, ZIP, NIL.
"The new table, outlined in a report released this month, will express atomic weights of 10 elements - hydrogen, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, chlorine and thallium - in a new manner that will reflect more accurately how these elements are found in nature."