It is correct as it is. But, it feels awkward because there is a "do" in the first part but no "do" in the second part. It's a "missing top step."
We live in an age when people do more writing than they have (missing do) at any other time in history.
People are do-ing in the first part of the comparison, but have-ing in the second part. It's awkward but ...
No. another same doesn't work.
The idiomatic expression here would be:
You have to wait the same length of time again.
"Again" here doesn't just mean "one more time": it is a more or less fixed expression the same time/length/amount/cost again, meaning "as last time": exactly what you wanted to convey by "another same amount" I think.
There's not really a common, clear, and concise way to say this in English. Some options are to simply give the time:
(you have to wait for) another five minutes.
or, somewhat ambiguously:
(you have to wait) as long as you've waited.
or, precisely but verbosely:
(you have to wait) as long as you've waited, again.
or giving the time and the ...
I would phrase it as "He may look rude, but he is very kind on the inside. Though from your choices internally would be the better one.
"From inside" is a direction from inside to outside. So for a sentence like "They heard a sound from inside the barrel" It's the sound that moves from inside the barrel to outside (where the listener is).
"Internally" is ...
Don't use internally, as it suggests something being physically inside the body, like our internal organs.
You can use inside (not from inside) metaphorically to refer to personal qualities which are not obvious unless you know the person well.
You can call a duck a goose.
You can call a duck Henry
You can call a duck by the name (of) Henry
You can call a duck by the name of a goose.
You can call a duck by its own name, or by your brother's name.
You can call a duck by a rude name.
So call ... by ... is used only when what follows the "by" is phrase that contains the word "name". (Probably ...
The first is correct. The second is not.
Ordinarily I would try and elaborate this answer with some attempt at creating a similar, but valid, sentence featuring "by", and explaining the difference in meaning from the first. However, in this case I can't envisage any similar sentence with "by", so I'm afraid I can think of nothing further to add.
"Aqueous" means, roughly, "watery." In chemistry, "aqueous" usually means "dissolved in water," so that, for example, "aqueous sodium chloride" means "sodium chloride dissolved in water."
I'm not sure what "aqueous and atmospheric gases" is supposed to mean here, but I have a few reasonable guesses.
My best guess is that "aqueous gas" is used to mean ...
Would not come = refused to come (speaking as though 'peace of mind' had a will of its own).
This is one of the various different uses of would. Here it is the past tense of will in the sense of am determined to.
'My cat will keep scratching.'
'Last year my cat would keep scratching.'
'Last year my cat would not stop scratching.'
"I know not" is a bit old-fashioned, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it archaic. Google Ngram viewer shows something of a decline, but it hasn't vanished.
I'd say it's mostly used in songs and poems