[Bored chemist]

All this I minimally gave in reply #30.

You gave numerology.
Were you expecting to be taken seriously?

[larens (OP)]

You gave numerology.
Were you expecting to be taken seriously?

Yes, I was giving numerology. It is the only way one can derive fundamental constants from pure math. Numerology fell into disfavor after early 20th century physicists, particularly Eddington, failed to make it work.

I am used to not being taken seriously, because disfavor has become dogma. That is why I posted my next thread on the origin of life. It uses noncontroversial chemistry, rather than numerology. I still have to overcome the dogma that a wet planet promotes early life, rather than being a toxic environment for it.

[larens (OP)]

Quote from evan_au on 03/04/2020 22:22:42

"I suggest that a fruitful area of new mathematics has been fractals with their fractional dimensions, and chaos theory,  with strange attractors."

The Solar system is on the boundary of chaos. A simulation that included the planets and the asteroids Ceres and Vesta was only able to make significant projections 70 million years into the future, because it was chaotic. This is evidence for the mathematization of reality, where the origin of life lies on a neutral point in two dimensions. Firstly, it is the biotic/abiotic point on the scale of complexity running from particle physics to global history. Secondly, it is a periodic/chaotic point in the astronomical realm.

The peculiar interaction between Ceres and Vesta is not necessary for the origin of life. All that is necessary is that Vesta and its satellite are removed from near Earth orbit so that they do not collide with Earth and destroy the life that has been seeded there. This could be accomplished more easily by just colliding with another inner Solar system planet. To have a unique mathematization the periodic/chaotic transition needs to be in a privileged location. Combining it with the biotic/abiotic point logically satisfies this constraint.

[larens (OP)]

Quote from Kryptid on: 02/04/2020 21:07:14

I'd say the best evidence would be to make falsifiable predictions that were found out to be true. Case in point, the gravitational lensing predicted by relativity.

My most accurate proposed value is 137.0359990621 for the local low energy inverse fine structure constant. The CODATA empirical value is 137.035 999 084(21), so they are off by one standard deviation.

Researchers at UW-Seattle and UC-Berkeley have developed better atom interferometers that trap atoms in an optical lattice. This will allow a 16-fold more accurate measurement of the fine structure constant. Since they have already built the instruments, these should be the first tests to potentially falsify one of predictions. A slightly different result would not falsify my entire prediction, however, - just the least significant digits of it. It would show that this part of my theory is at least incomplete. My prediction here is connected to a couple of other results - the primordial value of the fine structure constant, and the value of the Dalton/electron mass ratio.