I'd like to make some general remarks, though I'm not sure they really go anywhere.
Playing with fundamental units can be an error prone experience. For example mass and energy are equivalent so E = m ?? but also: E = mc^2 m = mc^2 1=c^2 c=1 3x10^8 m/s = 1 1 second = 3 x 10^8 meters ?? thus time and distance are also equivalent?? It seems to me that playing with units can not provide new physical knowlege. That is because, if it is done validly, the derived new system of physical laws, the new expression of physicality, must be fully isomorphic with the original system. It is a 1-1 mapping of the old system upon the new system preserving all operations. Physical variables are like any other numbers, except they carry their unit baggage with them. They are equally valid members of sets and subsets as any ordinary numbers. The new representation of the physical universe that results from unit mapping must, with certainty, be consistent with all existing experimental data to be valid, or at least as consistent as the original representation. It must necessarily, by the isomorphism, make exactly the same predictions as the old system. Thus new physical information is not provided. The gain to be obtained then must necessarily be in computational ease, in simplified symbology. That is not meant to dismiss such an effort. A new way of expressing things can be a powerful conceptual tool. Sometimes a new way of thinking can not be accomplished or accepted until the notion is expressed in a profoundly simple way. Einstein said after years of working on a unified field theory that he felt he lacked the proper language to deal with the problem. Regards, Horace Heffner
