As a dedicated researcher you now have to find the physical meaning of what the formula suggests as obviously some connections are missing. Having a good solution is always a nice starting point for further investigations. But in real physics there is no way to apply the proposed unit corrections...

True (units). Because the whole consept of "mass" is wrong since Newton and the invention of "Gravity".

Mass is not a real thing, it's a measurement result. That's why the Watt balance / Kibble balance never succeeded to have proper results. They varied between morning and afternoon.

Michelson-Morley experiment showed that speed of light is constant. If this (kind of) experiment is done for the mass, we will notice that mass is not constant and depends on our orientation on space. So my idea could even be proven on the lab. I haven't said this so loud before, because I could not find the math, and therefore it was also impossible to define any expectations. But now Mr. Preston Guynn has showed, that it's the center of the Galaxy which counts, and the math is also clearly available, so that now it would be reasonable to do such an experiments, as the interpretation of the results would not sunk in the debate of measurement problems like with "Watt balance".

So, for a real physics we need to start to define everything without using the unit "kg".

This is a problem for sure! I bet this will take another generation, because we can't even use the language we have learned.

- Force?

- Energy?

- Power?

If some one has interest about these units, I've take a (blind) shot on this direction here;

https://physics.stackexchange.…aximum-free-molecule-size

And this is my paper about it;

https://www.researchgate.net/p…ything_-THE_MATH_07102016

But at the moment, I need to admit that these are wrong, and these are just numerology, Though the area moment of inertia could have been possible massless-explanation. It's not.