[Franklin Nolle Williams (OP)]

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.

The research comes from Einstein's own equation where he found 'b' to be equal to 47.999.... I simply rounded up.

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

I apologize for belittling the least square method, but find the slope of the line and the Y intercept, (y=mx+b), is still finding the overall average of the points above and below the line whether it is straight or a curved line,

[Franklin Nolle Williams (OP)]

Who is "they"?

CODATA bulletin and NIST

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

I apologize for belittling the least square method, but finding the slope of the line and the Y intercept, (y=mx+b), is still finding the overall average of the points above and below the line whether straight or curved.

[Bored chemist]

Who is "they"?

CODATA bulletin and NIST

In what way do they "promote" 12 digits?
For example, some of the fundamental ones are only defined to  9 or 10 digits
9 192 631 770 Hz
299 792 458 m/s

Some don't even make 6 digits
 6.674 30 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

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

The problem isn't where the number came from,.
I's that you chose to do this

So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant by
this 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.

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 teh paper?

[Franklin Nolle Williams (OP)]

Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11

". 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.

The previous research was from Einstein's own equation where he derived 47.999... I simply rounded up.

[Bored chemist]

Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11

". 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.

The previous research was from Einstein's own equation where he derived 47.999... I simply rounded up.

Repeating it doesn't help.

The problem isn't where the number came from,.
I's that you chose to do this

Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/10/2020 12:12:31
So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant by
this 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.

[captcass]

It seems to me that Bored Chemist's posts are about the Avogrado’s number derivation, as that is where the 4.8*10^-11 is utilized, for reasons yet to be explained, but not about the derivations based on Williams' π, α, √10 relationships. 

I repeat that the fact that his exponents only require a single decimal place to get the desired results seems significant. Can anyone reading this identify any other 3 values that can be utilized to do this with only a single decimal place? I have tried and cannot.

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.

[pzkpfw]

...
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.

Are you truly independent when claiming that?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72342.msg613649#msg613649

https://journalofmoderncosmology.com/contactJoMC.htm

What is the standing of that journal? (Edit: and the reviewers?)

[captcass]

That journal is new and I own it. It was not originally reviewed for my journal, though. It was originally published in the Journal of Cosmology and was reviewed there. At the time, I was acting as webmaster, PIO and an assistant to the editors there, receiving and screening submissions.

It was removed from the Journal of Cosmology by the 84 year-old Executive Editor, who is having "end of life" issues, to be polite, brought to a head, it seems, by the COVID lockdown. If you look at their Vol. 27, which used to contain Williams' and other papers, you will see what I mean. The Editor-in-Chief there has suspended publishing new papers until their issues are resolved. As the Executive Editor owns the webhosting account, his options are limited. http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC27/indexVol27CONTENTS.htm

I know for a fact it was reviewed by 3 people and saw the comments. I was not one of the three. Williams also changed the paper, adding explanatory text the reviewers said it needed, before it was accepted. I don't know why Williams came to use Einstein's number for the Avogrado derivation, and hope he explains it further, but I know the reviewers looked closely at it (the paper) to be sure it was not "numerology".   

Another paper in my journal, by Ujvarosy, was also originally in Vol. 27 of the Journal of Cosmology. The version of my paper in my journal is an update of my paper that is in Vol. 26 of the JofC, which was published in July of '19, after which I became active in the journal.

I started my journal because I felt badly for the people who had their papers removed. The jofC wanted the papers back, but neither author wants their paper in the JofC due to the situation with the Executive Editor. I told the Editor-in-Chief they could have them back once their issues are resolved and they resume publishing. I also believe we need a journal for non BB/LCDM/Standard Model theories.

Neither author was charged any fees by me for the publication of their papers. They did pay the required fees at the Journal of Cosmology, which have not been refunded to date.

Thanks for the prod. I just put a lot of that on my "About" page. Helps clarify a lot about why and what...

[pzkpfw]

So to be realistic, does "Journal" here mean much more than "some guys with a website"?

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

(I'm just digging into your claim: "... had to pass peer review to be published", with the implication that those reviewers are more qualified than Bored Chemist.)

[captcass]

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

Those reviewers are all PHD's and published. Who knows who the people here are? I never hide my identity. I am proud of it. Who are you and what are your credentials? And Bored Chemist? Is Bored Chemist an Astrophysicist or Quantum Physicist? Is he published? My credentials are there for all to see.

[Bored chemist]

Yes, I have been published, yes I have been a peer reviewer.
It isn't important.

As Albert einstein said.“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]”.

I don't mind if someone explains that I'm wrong- for example by actually answering my question.

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?

But I also don't mind how many people read the paper before me and missed that issue with it.

I'm a chemist and therefore a quantum physicist, but that's not important.
It's not rare for people outside "the field" to ask the most challenging questions ".

[captcass]

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

Good. It is nice to know something about who is posting what.

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

I am with you on that. That is why I do not care if people know who I am. Like you, I am hoping Williams can clarify his Avogrado derivation.

I still would like to hear your reply about the other derivations and the fact that they only need the single decimal point. Can you think of any other 3 values that would allow for this?

Also, as you appear to have the credentials, would be be interested in reviewing future submissions to the journal? I am trying to build a base of reviewers so I don't need to search them out each time a paper is submitted.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[captcass]

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.

Well, I think that is ill considered. I, for one, would be interested in your opinion and the derivations are not based on what you found objectionable in the Avogrado part. You are just leaving everyone hanging by, yes, refusing to answer a question.

[Bored chemist]

As far as I can tell, it is not a science question.
So it shouldn't be being asked on a science web page.
Good luck with trying to guilt me into answering it.

[captcass]

Good luck with trying to guilt me into answering it.

I am not appealing to your sense of guilt. I think you just cannot demonstrate how 3 other values can be used to get the same results. I would think others are also thinking that. Poor form, old chum. Poor form....

In fact, it is a very boring reply. 

[Bored chemist]

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

Given that, as I said

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.

I didn't read it so, yes, you are quite correct I can't demonstrate anything about it.

[captcass]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

Unless the OP turns up and replies to the questions  people have asked there's not much point to this thread continuing anyway,

[captcass]

So, for anyone else, can anyone find 3 values, other than α, π and the √10 that Williams uses, that can be utilized to derive all the constants using exponents with no more than 1 decimal place?