[Franklin Nolle Williams (OP)]

“Is it possible to derive all the universal constants from a single continuous equation? The fine structure constant, alpha, is an integral part of all constants involving mass and matter, if not in whole then in part or fractional exponents. The only constants lacking the fine structure constant in my new paper are the ‘elementary charge, e,’ and the ‘permeability of a vacuum, μo’, as the alpha factor is included in the pi factors in those equations. It is also apparent that according to the 2014 NIST values for all the universal constants if alpha changes over time then so will all the universal constants change proportionally. The changes range from one tenth to three one-thousandths, or smaller, of one percent of the values found in the 2014 CODATA Bulletin.
 
In my paper, that was just published in the new journal, the Journal of Modern Cosmology, I demonstrate a method for deriving the fundamental universal constants from three pure non-dimensional numbers. The fine structure constant, α, is shown to be a continuous equation using pi, π, and the square root of ten, √10. Using the fine structure constant, pi, and the square root of ten taken to different exponential values, most, if not all the accepted fundamental universal constants can be found.
 
I am new here so don’t want to post an outside link, but the new journal is open access and the paper’s Title is “A Mathematical Way to Derive Values for the Universal Constants relating them to the fine structure constant alpha, (α), as a Continuous Equation Involving pi, (π), and the Square Root of 10”, if anyone wants to discuss this.”

[Bored chemist]

If I look at that, am I going to think it is numerology, or is there actual science involved?

[alancalverd]

No need to read the entire paper. We know the value of α to 1 part in 10¹² and we can calculate π and √10 to any level of precision we want. So if you take your inputs to, say, 1 in 10¹⁶, what is your calculated value for  α?

Since α = e²/4πε₀ħc by definition, it is difficult to see what physics relates the ratio of independent, dimensioned, experimental quantities to any number of dimensionless mathematical constants.
   
Methods of "calculating α" have abounded because of its tempting proximity to a rational number, but the experimental discovery that, though dimensionless,  α ≠ 1/137, has pretty much put a stop to numerology in this area.

[captcass]

am I going to think it is numerology,

has pretty much put a stop to numerology in this area.

Numerology is any belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events. That is absent here, it is just math.

we can calculate π and √10 to any level of precision we want.

The problem here is that, though this is true, and any 3 values can be manipulated to provide a desired result, it takes a LOT of decimal places in the exponents to achieve that. For instance, to get c from just π and α, just two of his base values, we get:
π^{21.3493053143} (.007294848617482111096989377680633) = c.

What is notable in his paper is that he needs no more than one decimal point in his exponents to get the result. This seems to indicate that his 3 values are "prime" factors in determining the constants.   

[Bored chemist]

Funny how it works in base 10.
Either the universe has ten fingers or it's numerology.

[captcass]

Funny how it works in base 10

This is because the values of the constants are base 10. We don't use base 3, for example. Would you use a base 3 number and expect a base 10 result?

[Bored chemist]

If it's important, it should work in any base.
But lots of numbers don't.
1/3 can't meet this criterion

that he needs no more than one decimal point

So, the fact that his numbers "work" in base ten is suspicious.

[Kryptid]

From the Journal of Modern Cosmology website:

The journal will consider papers on new research and hyptheses that are scientifically grounded. The journal does not consider or accept papers on any aspect of the Big Bang, Lamda/Dark Energy Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) or Cold Dark Matter (CDM) models of Cosmology or the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The position of the Journal of Modern Cosmology is that these models are all incorrect as they try to describe the interactions of individual particle events in what is actually an evolving continuum.

It is also the Journal's position that the Universe is eternal, so papers containing physical "creation events" will also not be considered.

Hmm...

[alancalverd]

What is notable in his paper is that he needs no more than one decimal point in his exponents

Now that stinks a bit. There are a few laws like the Richardson-Dushman equation where an exponent is based on an experimental value but I can't think of any physical law that involves decimal exponents derived from first principles.
 
And from The Paper

It was only a simple matter of trial and error to work out the final equation.

puts the first nail in that coffin.

Numerology.

[captcass]

where an exponent is based on an experimental value

And what experimental value is α based on? We see it everywhere, but one of the most sought after answers is why α has the value it does. As far as anyone knows, it is just because that is what it HAS to be for everything else to work. That's why it is called the God number. That could also be true in Williams' equations.

As per α ≠ 1/137, you are correct. Only astrophysicists use that form, but the denominator has several decimal places so it "equals" the decimal form. It is also an indeterminate, fluctuating value. We know this because the fluctuation is clear at high energies. What Williams is demonstrating is that as α fluctuates, so do all the other constants, which means the universe does not have to be as "fine tuned" as we have thought, so that if any single constant varied, the universe could not exist.

puts the first nail in that coffin.

I would agree if he needed more than one decimal place.

[Bored chemist]

Playing with the numbers until you get the value you want is still numerology.
No matter how many places of decimals you get it to agree to.

[captcass]

No matter how many places of decimals you get it to agree to

It is not that he is "getting it to agree to". It is that so few decimal places in the exponents are required to get it to agree.

If he got that for just one or two of the constants, that would be "numerology", a term you are misusing. He would simply be using circular reasoning and have happened upon a couple of the constants where only one decimal place was required.

Try any 3 random values and see if you can do any of the constants without really large numbers of decimal places in the exponents. In the example I gave above for c, even if we go for his result instead of c, as I did, you need 7 decimal places,

It also shows an interrelationship between α and π. If π was a rational number, circles would be closed instead of spirals. If Williams' equation is correct, then α appears to represent the distance between the spirals, as it does in determining the distancing of electron shells. The √10 is also irrational and indeterminate. Fluctuations in α based on the energy level are allowed for by the irrational nature of π and the √10.

[Franklin Nolle Williams (OP)]

Gentlemen;
In the universal constants they use the least square method to determine the constant. They take their individual experimental results, square each one, add all of them together, divide by the number of results and then take the square root of the average. If that is not trial and error, I don't know what is. It is a little less science and more best guess scenario.

[Franklin Nolle Williams (OP)]

I Would like to add, numerology or not, math does not lie. The trial and error I was referring to was figuring out the equation to 31 digits, far beyond the simple 12 digits they promote.

[Bored chemist]

They take their individual experimental results, square each one, add all of them together, divide by the number of results and then take the square root of the average.

That's not the "least square" method.

math does not lie.

Nobody was saying maths lied.

If that is not trial and error, I don't know what is.

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

[Bored chemist]

far beyond the simple 12 digits they promote.

Who is "they"?

[pzkpfw]

(

... that would be "numerology", a term you are misusing. ...

This is an aside, but no, that term is not misused. Your definition of it is correct; but ignores the very common tendency of groups to develop specialised nuances of language. One such group is members of web forums. In these forums, especially in sections such as this, "numerology" has become a very common term - I've seen it in many forums, over decades. It's a nice shorthand for "fiddling with numbers and math (often without rhyme or reason) and getting excited about coincidences". That meaning was clear.)

[captcass]

"numerology" has become a very common term

I stand corrected! 

[Bored chemist]

It took me a while to actually find the paper.
It's here
https://journalofmoderncosmology.com/Williams.pdf
I might decide to delete that link later since I don't want to be seen by any robots as giving it credibility.

The point is that where  is says
". Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11
was a number familiar to me. So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant by
this number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23. A number so close to the
standard 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.

[Franklin Nolle Williams (OP)]

Who is "they"?

CODATA bulletin and NIST