swansont

The redefinition based units on defined constants rather than physical artifacts. A change of 1 degree was and is a difference in energy, it’s just that it used to be based on the temperature of water.

It’s a factor of 60 if you express k in terms of minutes. h and m don’t enter into it, since the change would cancel (time doesn’t appear in the result where these appear) The redefinition didn’t change the values of any of the units. The bottom line is that if you have units, your answer depends on what units you use. There’s no fundamental insight in such cases.

Sure it would, as long as the proper units and values were used in conversion

Then do a consistent calculation using other units. Try imperial. Or just use minutes instead of seconds.

There are things called inkjet pens. Google it; this isn’t the only result https://www.amazon.com/EVEBOT-Printpen-Portable-Handheld-Package-2FP/dp/B0C5WVX5YG/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=evebot+printer+pen&qid=1695670567&sr=8-3 EVEBOT Printpen Inkjet Pen Portable Handheld Printer Then there isn’t enough information to answer your question.

It’s not a matter of consistency and conversion. The second was originally dependent on earth rotation. The duration, division into 24 hours and the subsequent division by 60, and 60 again, is arbitrary. Similarly for Kelvins, based on water properties and 100 degrees separation between freezing and boiling.

It would depend on the specific chemicals involved.

! Moderator Note Your post had nothing to do with the question posed by the OP in the other thread, thus it was a hijack; you tacitly admit to this by saying “I can't help thinking that the OP is asking the wrong question” Your observations and commentary were political in nature, not based on climate science, so it landed here. There was no assessment of whether those comments were left- or right-leaning.

But those units are arbitrary. If you chose imperial units there would be no match. If we chose a different value for the second, or the Kelvin, there would be no match. Atoms formed when the universe was much warmer than it is today. There’s no evidence they were any different than they are today, but if there was it would be up to you to provide it. No, you’re trying to assign meaning based on accidental similarities of number combinations.

IIRC the hard drive memory is used by the OS when swapping info in and out of RAM. The phones of 20 years ago were not the same as the smartphones that came after, like the iphone.

And measured in the present day. As I said, it’s not a constant. Unrelated to any property of the electron. Furthermore, any relationship between terms that have units depend on the units chosen. Boltzmann’s constant has a different value if you choose non-SI units. There’s no significance to this. It’s numerology.

The CMB temperature is not constant. Were electrons bigger in the past?

I see where the article mentions journalism and communications, but not science, and from the perspective of people publishing, but not anyone being fooled by articles published in these journals. I’d be interested to know what scientists are being fooled by such publications. I would hope that they’d be somewhat skeptical, but I get the impression that most of the science is theory rather than experiment (though that may be from only being familiar with the physics side of this) and you can see for yourself where the deviation from mainstream is occurring. I think the danger to the public is with pop-sci journalism being pulled in, because there seems to be a lot of articles floating about that are too credulous - they cite novel results as if they are mainstream, like the recent stories about the age of the universe supposedly being tripled, because of one speculative research paper. Such reporting completely ignores the importance of confirmation and replication in the process.

Such fine-tuning is ad hoc. The colloquial term is “fudge-factor”

It’s not. Well, then share the system, in the appropriate place (speculations). Just mentioning it is inappropriate; this area is for mainstream physics. Not pet theories, and not poetry.

! Moderator Note Proselytizing is a rules violation. Posting this in Evolution makes this a bad faith argument (advancing an agenda) Also, the outcomes of chemistry are not random, so the scientific argument is based on a misconception, which I’m sure you will correct. Thou shalt not bear false witness, right?

So it’s numerology. You’re tweaking numbers to come up with an answer.

Posting a link is not against the rules, but the rules require that the discussion can take place without clicking on the link. Can you explain what you mean by the radius being “fit to a toroidal geometry” “When all values are expressed in base units, half the outer toroidal surface area equals the Boltzmann constant” How do you get from square meters to J/K? (or, in base units, kg-m^2/sec^2 K)

Can you demonstrate that this premise is true?

We can revisit this when you have one, so there’s actual science to discuss

! Moderator Note Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. You’ve provided none. No model, no experimental confirmation. Nada. Zilch. That makes this thread a candidate for the trash can.

How does this have any bearing on the alleged design of an alleged creator? You do understand the da Vinci didn’t actually witness the last supper (painted just before 1500). How can the symbolism in it mean anything relevant? And Tennessee? Which only came into being a few hundred years after da Vinci?

Which is a preprint server (not peer-reviewed) and the paper was published in Physics Essays, which does not instill much confidence. If it can be anything, that’s not meaningful. But all models must be confirmed by experiment. What experiment would confirm this additional energy - which can’t be converted into other forms, if it always appears in the equations on both sides. Which means that anything that depends on the deBroglie wavelength is wrong. How do you reconcile this with experiments where the mainstream equation works? As I noted, I’ve done beta decay experiments where the parent is at rest.

If you are arguing for design, then everything needs to fit the pattern. Twenty isn’t even a drop in the bucket. But if you’ve already decided that this is the case, one is probably enough - but don’t be fooled into thinking that this is evidence. It’s credulity. The bar for science is much, much higher.

The plural of “anecdote” is not “evidence” What you’ve presented is confirmation bias - you notice the coincidences, and ignore whatever doesn’t fit the pattern.