[Franklin Nolle Williams (OP)]

Bored-chemist
Obviously you did not read my paper because I pointed out in the first paragraph that I could have used numerology to derive the all of the universal constants, if that is what you call it, but chose not too.

 "In the online publication of Nature Journal on 23 August 2010 there was an article entitled G-Whizzes Disagree over Gravity. In this article, it states that metrologists are having trouble agreeing over the constant of G in gravity and that a new value may be in the making. The significance of the following paper becomes obvious for setting a standard for all constants to compare with the measured values. For instance, if we accept the value for the fine structure constant as set forth in this paper as 7.294848617… x 10-3, which represents a .034% decrease of the standard accepted value, or by using fractions of π we will find the metrologists’ measured values for G; 6.67234 x 10^-11; 6.67349 x 10^-11; and 6.674215 x 10^-11; to exist between 1/α^.5xB^20.5xπ^1.999826 and 1/α^.5xB^20.5xπ^1.9995814 respectively, which represents a .0198% through a .0479% decrease from their to ours or also by using the fine structure constant, α, similarly 6.674215 x 10^-11 = 1/π^2xB^20.5xα^.5000973789. as compared to G in this paper at  1/α^.5xB^20.5xπ^2 which equals 6.671018003 x 10^-11."

Thank you for the quotes because I did not insist on 12 digits but your numbers can be written differently

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, which is 9.192631770 x 10^9 can be written as 9.192631770 x (√10)^18 which still is 9.192631770 x 10^9
and 2.99792458 x 10^8 can be written as easily as 2.99792458x(√10)^16 and gives the same results
299 792 458 m/s
Some don't even make 6 digits
 6.674 30 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

, and can be written as 6.67430 x (√10)^-22 which gives 6.674300008 x 10^-11

I didn't give the universe ten fingers, scientific notation did. I used the √10 because changes from Newtons to dynes or Joules to ergs had to give the proper results, which I pointed out in the paper if you had bother to read it.

In what way do they "promote" 12 digits?
Your prejudice let you focus on one thing and your narrow mind studied only on your one tree of numerology and didn't allow you to see the forest of the paper. It was not written to replace the universal constants but to show the nuances, patterns and interconnectivity that all the constants have.
for instance the permeability of space, 4π x 10^-7 can be written as 4π x (√10)^-14,
The ratio of the proton to electron is 6π^5 and the ratio of the neutron to electron is 2.5 + 6π^5
If you had bother t read the paper you would have seen the questions I posed at the end of it.

The only real numerology that took place was to make α on the left side of this equation, α = π^(.02/α) x B^-7, equal α the right side of the equation. All of the other constants fell into place using the CODATA and NIST bulletins when I used this version of α.
You were so prejudiced and focus on your own little tree of numerology you missed everything else.

Don't bother to comment because I already know what you are going to say because you have already said it.

[Bored chemist]

Are you really saying that
x^n = √x ^ 2n
 is new and important (rather than a statement of the mathematically  obvious)?

and can be written as 6.67430 x (√10)^-22 which gives 6.674300008 x 10^-11

changes from Newtons to dynes or Joules to ergs

If you just use one set of consistent units you don't need to do that.
Why did you do it the hard way?

[Franklin Nolle Williams (OP)]

Are you really saying that
x^n = √x ^ 2n
 is new and important (rather than a statement of the mathematically  obvious)?

Quote from: Franklin Nolle Williams on Today at 08:57:26
and can be written as 6.67430 x (√10)^-22 which gives 6.674300008 x 10^-11
Quote from: Franklin Nolle Williams on Today at 08:57:26
changes from Newtons to dynes or Joules to ergs
If you just use one set of consistent units you don't need to do that.
Why did you do it the hard way?

I'm not saying it's new or more important, but just like Einstein adding a factor of a -2k in his General Theory so his equations worked, it made my equations work out better and be more consistent with the CODATA bulletin.

[Bored chemist]

And you did it the hard way because...?

[Franklin Nolle Williams (OP)]

And you did it the hard way because...?

It allows you to change from Newtons to dynes or Joules to ergs or a larger to a smaller and vice versa by changing the B exponent without affecting the alpha or pi exponents.

[captcass]

by changing the B exponent

If I am not mistaken, one of the paper's reviewers called this sliding decimals, a method he uses.

[Slickscientist]

does this have anything to do with the E^8 shape? If you do not understand go to howstuffworks/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/theory-of-everything

[Franklin Nolle Williams (OP)]

does this have anything to do with the E^8 shape? If you do not understand go to howstuffworks/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/theory-of-everything

No this has nothing at all to do with the E^8 theory of everything.