Is there any reason why, say, the newtonian constant is equal

>>8599204
If it were equal to something else you would be equally mystified. That's just the way it is.

>>8599204
kek these type of questions are so fucked up
I mean we emprically know them, but we have no idea why it is that way (as far as I know)

Similar to that, we don't know why exponentials in formulas are almost always integers(1,2,3) or something easy to calculate with

For example why mv^2/2 is not something like m^(345/323)v^(698/278)/2

>>8599234
What are you talking about moron? Those exponents are integers because they come from integrating the definitions of certain unit measures.

>>8599234
>Similar to that, we don't know why exponentials in formulas are almost always integers(1,2,3) or something easy to calculate with
Please be bait

>>8599240
Fundamental units can't be inferred from one another
And the derived units are found emprically based on the relations

Tell me why force isn't m^(127/122)a

>>8599303
Because if that is what we empirically observed then our concept of mass would not be m but m^(127/122). Not to mention that Newton's law only implies that F = k ma and we define these units such that k=1.

>>8599317
In that case the rules of mathematics would be broken because m+m wouldn't equal to 2m
Or we would still be using units that are equal to m^122/127, and still calculating in m

But those cases are still certainly not the same

There is no inherent reason that it should be an integer, but nonetheless it is

>>8599204
The values of constants are based on units, so the specific number would be different if, say, inches were used rather than centimeters.

Other constants are merely ratio values (pi) that we use to associate and relate things. They show cause and effect.

Someone looked for correlation and so found one. None of the constants are exact or any more profound than the other, which is to say "not profound at all," except perhaps useful for a time and then never again will anyone care about G, c or pi.