Page **1** of **2**

### quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:16 pm UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitatio ... g_constanthttp://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F%283%28e^pi%29%21%28pi^e%29%21%29&x=0&y=0&js=off

I found this a while ago and it is a surprisingly accurate approximation given how simple the formula is. This led me to believe that maybe the factorial function and gravity are related. From looking at the standard model I don't really see factorials being used at all. I have also looked at a few theories of gravity and don't see it there either. In terms of group theory I think this would be defined as a permutation group but I don't know of any more of a direct connection between factorials and group theory besides that. The taylor series for some important constants such as e, cosh, and sinh use the factorial function but I still don't know a representation for pi involving factorials so it would be nice to see one.

### Re: Are there any theories of gravity based on factorials?

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:24 pm UTC**

by **Schrollini**

Everyone knows that

G = 1. Your "approximation" is terrible.

(And off to the coincidences thread we go!)

### Re: Are there any theories of gravity based on factorials?

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:21 pm UTC**

by **speising**

TIL the phpBB parser thinks an URL ends at a ^

### Re: Are there any theories of gravity based on factorials?

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:49 pm UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

Schrollini wrote:Everyone knows that

G = 1. Your "approximation" is terrible.

(And off to the coincidences thread we go!)

Except this isn't a coincidences topic. I am specifically asking if gravity has anything to do with factorials. This has nothing to do with approximations. If I didn't include that calculation I would have people asking me why I thought the 2 things had anything to do with each other. That G is newtons gravitational constant which is different from the gravitational coupling constant. I thought people here were supposed to be smart but I guess I was wrong.

### Given a photon what is the probability it has x frequency?

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:12 pm UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

I know photons come in all different frequencies but I don't know what the distribution of these frequencies is. I have heard that frequencies that are higher than that which can be produced in particle accelerators do happen but they are rare. What is the probability of finding them? I would think that low frequency photons would be the most common since they have less energy but I never see them mentioned much. Maybe its just because the earths atmosphere gets rid of a lot of them. There is also something called a resonant frequency (I used to think this was just a new age term until I saw it used in a physics book) so maybe certain photon frequencies are more likely than others.

### Re: Given a photon what is the probability it has x frequenc

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:40 pm UTC**

by **doogly**

It depends on the source. If photons are coming out of a blackbody, for example, you use Planck's law for the spectrum of the radiation, to get the probability of each different frequency occuring. If the photons are coming out of some jiggled atom, then instead of a distribution, you just get the frequency associated with the energy level that's getting excited. And there are more possibilities for the source as well, so very many.

### Re: Are there any theories of gravity based on factorials?

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:47 pm UTC**

by **doogly**

Newton's constant is the gravitational coupling constant, and because it is dimensionful, it can have any value you want if you choose your units appropriately. We tend to just set it equal to one.

Every group is a subgroup of some symmetric group. This is Cayley's theorem. This means that these things are often there, but not often relevant in any particular way.

### Re: Are there any theories of gravity based on factorials?

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:01 pm UTC**

by **gmalivuk**

This really looks like another coincidences topic, but if you insist I'll merge your science threads together as well instead of just putting them in the math one.

And you have been told on multiple previous occasions that the constants you're usually talking about have dimensions, and so can literally take any positive value you like without changing any predictions (apart from changing the units in the results to match the changes you made for the constants, of course).

### Re: Are there any theories of gravity based on factorials?

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:43 pm UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

gmalivuk wrote:This really looks like another coincidences topic, but if you insist I'll merge your science threads together as well instead of just putting them in the math one.

And you have been told on multiple previous occasions that the constants you're usually talking about have dimensions, and so can literally take any positive value you like without changing any predictions (apart from changing the units in the results to match the changes you made for the constants, of course).

No the gravitational coupling constant does not have dimensions. You are simply wrong about this. You are wrong about the other ones as well. I am really getting tired of you merging my topics together even though they do not break any rules. How does someone so ignorant get to be a mod.

### Re: Given a photon what is the probability it has x frequenc

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:49 pm UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

doogly wrote:It depends on the source. If photons are coming out of a blackbody, for example, you use Planck's law for the spectrum of the radiation, to get the probability of each different frequency occuring. If the photons are coming out of some jiggled atom, then instead of a distribution, you just get the frequency associated with the energy level that's getting excited. And there are more possibilities for the source as well, so very many.

But what if you don't know where they are coming from.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:56 pm UTC**

by **gmalivuk**

quarkcosh1 wrote:doogly wrote:It depends on the source. If photons are coming out of a blackbody, for example, you use Planck's law for the spectrum of the radiation, to get the probability of each different frequency occuring. If the photons are coming out of some jiggled atom, then instead of a distribution, you just get the frequency associated with the energy level that's getting excited. And there are more possibilities for the source as well, so very many.

But what if you don't know where they are coming from.

Then you don't know anything about them, including the probability of being different frequencies.

quarkcosh1 wrote:I am really getting tired of you merging my topics together even though they do not break any rules.

All quackery breaks the second rule of the math and science forums.

You start dozens of threads about things like the meaningless coincidences you've noticed between various constants and bases, and those threads go nowhere. I can either put them together in one place, or you can stop posting them.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:33 pm UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

gmalivuk wrote:quarkcosh1 wrote:doogly wrote:It depends on the source. If photons are coming out of a blackbody, for example, you use Planck's law for the spectrum of the radiation, to get the probability of each different frequency occuring. If the photons are coming out of some jiggled atom, then instead of a distribution, you just get the frequency associated with the energy level that's getting excited. And there are more possibilities for the source as well, so very many.

But what if you don't know where they are coming from.

Then you don't know anything about them, including the probability of being different frequencies.

quarkcosh1 wrote:I am really getting tired of you merging my topics together even though they do not break any rules.

All quackery breaks the second rule of the math and science forums.

You start dozens of threads about things like the meaningless coincidences you've noticed between various constants and bases, and those threads go nowhere. I can either put them together in one place, or you can stop posting them.

Except its not quackery. People here really seem to underestimate the amount of physics reading I have done and while I don't claim to understand it all there are parts of it I do understand enough to have an informed opinion on or to be creative with those parts. To confirm that I actually do understand the parts that I think I do I post about them here and see if anyone can come up with any good criticisms. Many of these threads that you say are about coincidences are actually really about something else but just because I happen to do a calculation that involves an approximation you automatically think it makes it a coincidence thread.

For the photon thing what about if you consider all possible sources.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:22 pm UTC**

by **eSOANEM**

You know that when physicists make approximations, they don't just use incorrect values which are the same to 2 significant figures (which is really an awful degree of accuracy), they use various numerical techniques like series solutions and then only making approximations which are genuinely exact in some limit. Your "approximations" are never correct in some limit, they are just wrong.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:23 pm UTC**

by **Schrollini**

quarkcosh1 wrote:Except its not quackery. People here really seem to underestimate the amount of physics reading I have done and while I don't claim to understand it all there are parts of it I do understand enough to have an informed opinion on or to be creative with those parts.

I don't know how to put this gently, so I'll say it baldly: Nothing you've posted here indicates to me that you have any true understanding of physics. For instance, you continue to confuse dimensionless and dimensionful numbers. This is the subject of day 1 of Physics 101. If you do not understand this, you have no hope of understanding physics.

quarkcosh1 wrote:To confirm that I actually do understand the parts that I think I do I post about them here and see if anyone can come up with any good criticisms.

But then when people who actually understand physics criticize your posts, you say they "are simply wrong" and are "so ignorant." This is hardly an honest attempt to asses your understanding.

quarkcosh1 wrote:...just because I happen to do a calculation that involves an approximation you automatically think it makes it a coincidence thread.

I have yet to see an actual calculation from you. A calculation starts with a set of equations, substitutes in a specific value or form, and then follows that to its logical conclusion. What you've done is throw a bunch of numbers and functions together randomly and notice that they're sorta close to a physical constant in some units. This is not a calculation. If you think it is, you do not understand physics.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:59 pm UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

eSOANEM wrote:You know that when physicists make approximations, they don't just use incorrect values which are the same to 2 significant figures (which is really an awful degree of accuracy), they use various numerical techniques like series solutions and then only making approximations which are genuinely exact in some limit. Your "approximations" are never correct in some limit, they are just wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_M ... redictionsOh this argument again. As you can see getting 2 significant figures compared to experiment is considered perfectly acceptable by the standard model. When math statements as short as cosh^2(1) manage to get that many digits it can't be just dismissed as a coincidence. If they are correct by 2 significant digits they are by definition correct to some limit.

Schrollini wrote:quarkcosh1 wrote:Except its not quackery. People here really seem to underestimate the amount of physics reading I have done and while I don't claim to understand it all there are parts of it I do understand enough to have an informed opinion on or to be creative with those parts.

I don't know how to put this gently, so I'll say it baldly: Nothing you've posted here indicates to me that you have any true understanding of physics. For instance, you continue to confuse dimensionless and dimensionful numbers. This is the subject of day 1 of Physics 101. If you do not understand this, you have no hope of understanding physics.

quarkcosh1 wrote:To confirm that I actually do understand the parts that I think I do I post about them here and see if anyone can come up with any good criticisms.

But then when people who actually understand physics criticize your posts, you say they "are simply wrong" and are "so ignorant." This is hardly an honest attempt to asses your understanding.

quarkcosh1 wrote:...just because I happen to do a calculation that involves an approximation you automatically think it makes it a coincidence thread.

I have yet to see an actual calculation from you. A calculation starts with a set of equations, substitutes in a specific value or form, and then follows that to its logical conclusion. What you've done is throw a bunch of numbers and functions together randomly and notice that they're sorta close to a physical constant in some units. This is not a calculation. If you think it is, you do not understand physics.

I don't see any evidence that you actually understand the difference between dimensionless and dimensionful numbers. Right here it says the dimensionless numbers are defined as ratios:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_quantityJust because the calculations I do involve non standard techniques doesn't mean that they are not calculations. Also this method of calculation has spread to the mathematical community as well (see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feigenbaum ... oximations). Once I saw that this mathematician used a formula that takes a similar form to many of mine I decided to read his paper and sure enough he doesn't mention deriving it directly from anything either. It also isn't technically true that it isn't derived from anything either. You could say that it is derived from all the functions with the most connections to the rest of math.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:03 am UTC**

by **gmalivuk**

All dimensionless constants may be ratios, but that doesn't mean that any old ratio you pick will be a dimensionless constant. The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is length/length and comes out dimensionless. The ratio of the distance light travels to the amount of time it takes to do so is length/time and can therefore be any value we like simply by redefining our units.

G has dimensions of length^3 mass^-1 time^-2, and so redefining any of the units of length, mass, or time gives you a different result for G.

(And you're talking about mathematical coincidences and "approximations" again, so should I just merge this with your math thread after all? That pretty much seems to be what all your posts eventually boil down to.)

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:10 am UTC**

by **speising**

why are people claiming the gravitational coupling constant αG is the same as G? i k ow nothing about the subject but what i read on wimipedia, but tere it is explained to be dimensionless.

edit: oh god, reading myself the next day, i can only apologize for the atrocious spelling...

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:22 am UTC**

by **gmalivuk**

Yeah fair enough, I didn't click on the links in the OP.

The thing about this being yet another discussion of extremely inaccurate approximations of physical constants by cobbled together mathematical functions still stands.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:33 am UTC**

by **cyanyoshi**

I'm guessing that people in this thread mistakenly assumed quarkcosh1 was talking about G, the "gravitational constant", rather than α

_{G}, the square of the mass of the electron (expressed in Planck units). Yes, the latter is a dimensionless quantity that doesn't depend on units, but I would be extremely surprised if it were expressible in closed form with known mathematical constants.

quarkcosh1 wrote:The taylor series for some important constants such as e, cosh, and sinh use the factorial function but I still don't know a representation for pi involving factorials so it would be nice to see one.

To fan the flames a bit, a famous relation that you might enjoy is that π

^{0.5} = (-0.5)!, and this is exact.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:42 am UTC**

by **Schrollini**

speising wrote:why are people claiming the gravitational coupling constant αG is the same as G? i k ow nothing about the subject but what i read on wimipedia, but tere it is explained to be dimensionless.

My mistake, sorry. But in my defense, the OP didn't contain the word "coupling" anywhere (the URL being ellipsized).

quarkcosh1: If you second post had been

Oops, the URL got cut off, so you probably didn't realize I'm taking about the gravitational coupling constant α_{G}, and not the usual gravitational constant G.

instead of

Y U B so stoopid?

you'd have saved us all some trouble.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:10 am UTC**

by **doogly**

speising wrote:why are people claiming the gravitational coupling constant αG is the same as G? i k ow nothing about the subject but what i read on wimipedia, but tere it is explained to be dimensionless.

I have never seen any physicist ever actually refer to this thing.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:53 am UTC**

by **Schrollini**

doogly wrote:speising wrote:why are people claiming the gravitational coupling constant αG is the same as G? i k ow nothing about the subject but what i read on wimipedia, but tere it is explained to be dimensionless.

I have never seen any physicist ever actually refer to this thing.

Nor have I. But I'm a ℏ = 0 kinda guy, so I assumed it was just a hole in my education.

Reading the Wikipedia page more carefully, I see that they point out that this coupling constant is defined for every pair of particles. So the value they quote is not

the gravitational coupling constant, it is

a coupling constant for two electrons. Two protons would have a different coupling constant, as would a neutrino and a Z(4430), or a charm quark and a Buick. Since mass is not quantized (as far as we know), none of these gravitational coupling constants are fundamental in the same way as the

electromagnetic coupling constant is. So,

quarkcosh1, you need to tell us

which gravitational coupling constant you are considering.

I'm sure this has been pointed out before, but there's a long history of attempts to

predict coupling constants through numerology. None of these has withstood the test of time.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:17 am UTC**

by **doogly**

Schrollini wrote:Nor have I. But I'm a ℏ = 0 kinda guy.

Cannot tell if this is a mistake or actual classical physics.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:32 am UTC**

by **Schrollini**

doogly wrote:Schrollini wrote:Nor have I. But I'm a ℏ = 0 kinda guy.

Cannot tell if this is a mistake or actual classical physics.

Well, I would claim to never make mistakes, but that probably won't fly in this thread. This isn't one, though; I'm a soft condensed matter person, happily living in the land of continuum mechanics.

Atoms? Bah humbug!

Incidentally, the gravitational coupling constant between a

charm quark and a

2014 Buick Lacrosse (with 3.6L FWD) is

8.79e-9 ≈

exp [(π-⅓)^{2}-(2+π)^{2}]. Note that this value is within the current experimental error bars, so it may be exact!

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:16 am UTC**

by **PM 2Ring**

speising wrote:TIL the phpBB parser thinks an URL ends at a ^

Yeah, it's allowed to do that. But this one works:

1/(3(e^pi)!(pi^e)!)FWIW,

α

_{G} ~= 1.7518 x 10

^{-45}but

1/(3(e^pi)!(pi^e)!) ~= 1.75238 x 10

^{-45}assuming you use x! to represent Γ(x+1). I guess it's nice that Wolfram Alpha accepts this

~~abomination~~ notation, but I don't think it's a Good Idea to encourage that sort of thing.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:33 am UTC**

by **jaap**

PM 2Ring wrote:speising wrote:TIL the phpBB parser thinks an URL ends at a ^

Yeah, it's allowed to do that. But this one works:

1/(3(e^pi)!(pi^e)!)FWIW,

α

_{G} ~= 1.7518 x 10

^{-45}but

1/(3(e^pi)!(pi^e)!) ~= 1.75238 x 10

^{-45}assuming you use x! to represent Γ(x+1). I guess it's nice that Wolfram Alpha accepts this

~~abomination~~ notation, but I don't think it's a Good Idea to encourage that sort of thing. :)

Using an expression containing six numbers as well as some unary functions to match a constant only up to 3 digits accuracy (4 if you allow rounding) is not very impressive, even if you factor in the 2-digit exponent. Even more so since there are hundreds of constants to choose from and this is quite an obscure one.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:57 pm UTC**

by **eSOANEM**

quarkcosh1 wrote:eSOANEM wrote:You know that when physicists make approximations, they don't just use incorrect values which are the same to 2 significant figures (which is really an awful degree of accuracy), they use various numerical techniques like series solutions and then only making approximations which are genuinely exact in some limit. Your "approximations" are never correct in some limit, they are just wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_M ... redictionsOh this argument again. As you can see getting 2 significant figures compared to experiment is considered perfectly acceptable by the standard model. When math statements as short as cosh^2(1) manage to get that many digits it can't be just dismissed as a coincidence. If they are correct by 2 significant digits they are by definition correct to some limit.

And you demonstrate that you don't know the meaning of "significant figures" or how to handle errors.

The values they give agree to four significant figures (two decimal places) and, more importantly, agree to well within errors. This means that the results are entirely consistent.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:33 am UTC**

by **curtis95112**

quarkcosh1 wrote:eSOANEM wrote:You know that when physicists make approximations, they don't just use incorrect values which are the same to 2 significant figures (which is really an awful degree of accuracy), they use various numerical techniques like series solutions and then only making approximations which are genuinely exact in some limit. Your "approximations" are never correct in some limit, they are just wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_M ... redictionsOh this argument again. As you can see getting 2 significant figures compared to experiment is considered perfectly acceptable by the standard model. When math statements as short as cosh^2(1) manage to get that many digits it can't be just dismissed as a coincidence. If they are correct by 2 significant digits they are by definition correct to some limit.

I'm just going to pile on here and say that you don't understand what a limit is.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:19 pm UTC**

by **yurell**

Sorry to go back a bit, but I have a question about this (emphasis mine):

cyanyoshi wrote:I'm guessing that people in this thread mistakenly assumed quarkcosh1 was talking about G, the "gravitational constant", rather than α_{G}, the square of the mass of the electron (expressed in Planck units). Yes, the latter is a dimensionless quantity that doesn't depend on units ...

How is the square of mass a dimensionless quantity, and how does it not depend on units if it's defined in Planck units? Or am I misunderstanding a grammar thing?

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:32 pm UTC**

by **speising**

yurell wrote:Sorry to go back a bit, but I have a question about this (emphasis mine):

cyanyoshi wrote:I'm guessing that people in this thread mistakenly assumed quarkcosh1 was talking about G, the "gravitational constant", rather than α_{G}, the square of the mass of the electron (expressed in Planck units). Yes, the latter is a dimensionless quantity that doesn't depend on units ...

How is the square of mass a dimensionless quantity, and how does it not depend on units if it's defined in Planck units? Or am I misunderstanding a grammar thing?

actually, it's the square of the mass divided by the planck mass, so, mass/mass cancels out.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:37 pm UTC**

by **yurell**

Oh! Thanks.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:38 pm UTC**

by **ahammel**

speising wrote:yurell wrote:Sorry to go back a bit, but I have a question about this (emphasis mine):

cyanyoshi wrote:I'm guessing that people in this thread mistakenly assumed quarkcosh1 was talking about G, the "gravitational constant", rather than α_{G}, the square of the mass of the electron (expressed in Planck units). Yes, the latter is a dimensionless quantity that doesn't depend on units ...

How is the square of mass a dimensionless quantity, and how does it not depend on units if it's defined in Planck units? Or am I misunderstanding a grammar thing?

actually, it's the square of the mass divided by the planck mass, so, mass/mass cancels out.

Doesn't that make it mass*mass/mass, so units of mass?

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:42 pm UTC**

by **speising**

ahammel wrote:speising wrote:yurell wrote:Sorry to go back a bit, but I have a question about this (emphasis mine):

cyanyoshi wrote:I'm guessing that people in this thread mistakenly assumed quarkcosh1 was talking about G, the "gravitational constant", rather than α_{G}, the square of the mass of the electron (expressed in Planck units). Yes, the latter is a dimensionless quantity that doesn't depend on units ...

How is the square of mass a dimensionless quantity, and how does it not depend on units if it's defined in Planck units? Or am I misunderstanding a grammar thing?

actually, it's the square of the mass divided by the planck mass, so, mass/mass cancels out.

Doesn't that make it mass*mass/mass, so units of mass?

square of (the mass divided by the planck mass)

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:52 pm UTC**

by **ahammel**

Ah, that makes sense.

### The fine structure constant and the quark mass ratios derived from the j invariant

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:52 am UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

First we will slightly modify the j invariant to create this

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1 ... 137.035999 . Now this is approximately equal to 2e as shown here

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2e . Next we will use a more accurate version of the j invariant to do this calculation

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7 ... 4(e%5E(2pi)) . Now taking the floor function and factoring gets this

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=105430483 . Now adding up the factors gets this

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=293%2B587%2B613 . Now the number 1493 is the 238th prime number as shown here

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Prime(n)+%3D+1493 . This is connected to the down quark/up quark mass ratio which is approximately 2.38. It should be interesting to see if any other physical constants can be generated from the j invariant. Also more about the j invariant can be found here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-invariant .

### Re: The fine structure constant and the quark mass ratios derived from the j invariant

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:39 am UTC**

by **speising**

the title is highly misleading. you're not deriving anything.

### Re: The fine structure constant and the quark mass ratios derived from the j invariant

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:55 am UTC**

by **Eebster the Great**

Doing a bunch of random, unmotivated calculations and attempting to spot similar numbers by eye is not a derivation. It's not even really numerology. It's not even not even wrong.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:05 pm UTC**

by **gmalivuk**

This is just another garbage spot-the-coincidences post from quarkcosh1, for which reason I've merged it with the rest of the science-related ones.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:42 pm UTC**

by **Xanthir**

Good god, that's the most garbage "derivation" they've performed yet. Every single step is spectacularly unmotivated by anything even remotely resembling a good reason.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:07 am UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

One of the unsolved problems in physics is to explain where the values of physical constants comes from so by relating them to important math constants/structures and using as few as possible you can get some insight into them. You could call them coincidences but thats just another name for correlations which are also used by neural networks. It is also kind of related to factoring an integer as well. Physical constants though seem more like real numbers than integers though and since you can't factor real numbers you need to find other ways to break them down into smaller parts