0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The point is that where is says". Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11was a number familiar to me. So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant bythis number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23. A number so close to thestandard accepted Boltzman’s constant that I believe it to be the correct one."it's clear that the author is just playing with the numbers to get the right answer.

OK, so you don't know what trial and error is.

Who is "they"?

Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/10/2020 22:55:00Who is "they"?CODATA bulletin and NIST

The research comes from Einstein's own equation where he found 'b' to be equal to 47.999

So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant bythis number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23.

Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/10/2020 12:12:31". Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11was a number familiar to me. So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant bythis number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23. A number so close to thestandard accepted Boltzman’s constant that I believe it to be the correct one."it's clear that the author is just playing with the numbers to get the right answer.The previous research was from Einstein's own equation where he derived 47.999... I simply rounded up.

". Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11was a number familiar to me. So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant bythis number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23. A number so close to thestandard accepted Boltzman’s constant that I believe it to be the correct one."it's clear that the author is just playing with the numbers to get the right answer.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/10/2020 12:12:31 Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/10/2020 12:12:31". Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11was a number familiar to me. So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant bythis number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23. A number so close to thestandard accepted Boltzman’s constant that I believe it to be the correct one."it's clear that the author is just playing with the numbers to get the right answer.The previous research was from Einstein's own equation where he derived 47.999... I simply rounded up.

The problem isn't where the number came from,.I's that you chose to do thisQuote from: Bored chemist on 11/10/2020 12:12:31So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant bythis number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23.Not because there's a theoretciacl justification for it, but simply because it gave you the number you were looking for.That's what makes it numerology.Playing with the numbers until you get the one you want.

...I would also just note that the paper had to pass peer review to be published. I would think qualified reviewers would have caught any numerology aspects.

And are the reviewers for those journals any better placed to review than participants of this web forum?

Can you show us the basis in physics for the decision to do that particular bit of arithmetic?If so, why didn't you mention it in the paper?

Yes, I have been published, yes I have been a peer reviewer.

I don't mind if someone explains that I'm wrong

I still would like to hear your reply about the other derivations and the fact that they only need the single decimal point.

Unless someone convinces me that the stuff which I read isn't numerology, I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of the stuff.

Good luck with trying to guilt me into answering it.

I think you just cannot demonstrate how 3 other values can be used to get the same results.

Very boring, indeed. Sad. I would say you should just bow out of this thread now and let someone else who is truely interested pick up your argument, if anyone wants to, as you obviously have no more to say.