>>16479121
Or maybe that meter long stick in France isn't fundamental. Have you tried reworking everything substituting the corect planck lengths for meters? I know it's something like 1.616x10^35 but you probably need all 35 significant digits to make it work. You should try that and report back.

>>16479121
All bases are base 10. Always has been.
Good luck on your project. Keep us updated.

>>16479121
>>16479167
I think the big discovery for OP will be that all universal constants are 1 in the base of that universal constant.

>not accurate to the way the universe works mathematically
The universe doesn't work mathematically. Math was created to explain the universe, not the other way around.

>>16479121
Try base pi or base e.

>>16479121
>the base 10
Fool. They are ugly because 1 meter does not refer to 1 Plank Length; 1 second, 1 Plank time; and so on
The Kelvin is okay. But the other units are the equivalent of using C° or F° and freaking out that you reach 0 or infinity

>>16479121
Oh boy, just wait til you find out about natural unit systems...
In them every constant is just 1, depending what constants, and what system you use.

>>16480606
How can a constant be 1 if it runs?

>>16479121
Ugliness is a meaningless concept to the unthinking universe.

>>16480154
Not possible, if you set 1 equal to pi or e, you can't possibly count to 10 in pi or e steps, try to count to 10 in base pi or e yourself and see, the number of steps has to be a rational integer, so a functional numerical base does too.

>>16481910
You have heard of fractions and irrational numbers, right?

>>16479121
what are the prime factors of the relative standard uncertainties =0 ?
I'd use the product of those

>>16481910
Retard lol
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3509547/irrational-base-number-system-any-benefits
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrowski_numeration

>>16482200
Yes I specifically mentioned them and pointed out you can't count from 1 to 10 in an irrational or fractional number of steps, if you think you can, feel free to try to count from 1 to 10 in a fractional or irrational number of intermediate steps.

>>16482230
They can't even count with that numerical base and that source doesn't claim they can.

>>16482236
Who the fuck gives a shit about counting?
Are you 5?

>>16479121
>Whaaaaat!? This physical constant measured in units of one forty-millionth of the circumference of a circle intersecting Paris, France and the position of magnetic North in 1791 per one eighty-sixth-thousand-four-hundredth of the time it takes the planet Earth to rotate about its axis isn't a nice round number!? This is obviously because it's in the wrong base!

Not all bases are equal and perhaps there is some base that could make these constants look "better".

Base 8 would have been useful for precision of measurement before machining:
>https://www.donaldsauter.com/base-8.htm

Some formulas require certain bases to work such as these that only work in base 16:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey%E2%80%93Borwein%E2%80%93Plouffe_formula

>>16482375
OP is trying have a number system with expanded utility, not come up with some retarded fake number system that doesn't even have enough usefulness to be used to perform a simple count that even 2 years olds with a few fingers can do with the decimal system.

>>16479121
Do what any actual physicist does and set them to 1.

>>16482454
The universe doesn't do us any favors because the Planck units are disgusting looking no matter how you formulate them. Think about expressing any observable speed in "Planck length per Planck time" and the numbers would still look bad.

>>16485977
>Planck units
>Implying they're the only natural units out there

There are only 10 kinds of people in the world:
Those who understand binary and those that don't.