See wiki: 1C = 2 x 10-7 mkg/s2 ... Mills: 1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)

This is a proposal for a measurement method, how to define an Ampere: Its not an equivalent relation between C and A. Its equivalent in the measurement...

Sorry about that.

Display More

Sorry about what? Why the smug condescension? Or are you apologizing for not being able to make an intelligible point?

Please try again, because I don't understand what you're trying to get across. I will assume the root of misunderstanding is on my end, so please be a dear and explain it so even us simple folk can understand.

Three points of confusion:

First, I assume when you write "Mills" here you mean Miles Mathis, not Randell Mills. Perhaps you should just call him Mathis to avoid confusion.

Second, I presume from you writing out two equations, one in green and one in red, you're trying to say that the one in green (from Wikipedia, you say) is correct and the one in red (from Mathis's dark2.pdf) is incorrect. Can you please give me a link to where you found the first equation or how you derived it? I cannot find it on Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter). It will help me to respond.

Third, I'm sorry but I just don't know what you mean when you write "This is a proposal for a measurement method, how to define an Ampere: It's not an equivalent relation between C and A. It's equivalent in the measurement..."

Do you mean that Miles's equation is proposing a measurement method rather than an equivalent relation? Or do you mean that the equation should be understood as a measurement equivalence rather than an 'equivalent relation'? Or something else? And what do you mean exactly by the distinction between 'equivalent measurement' vs. 'equivalent relation'?

I am hesitant to say more before getting some clarification on the point(s) you're trying to make, but I will say this: Miles is trying to make an equivalent relationship between mass and charge. It's not just a matter of equivalent measurements. He argues that charge can be understood as the force generated by a mass of the charge photons. In his words:

Here are some relevant papers that might help resolve the equation disparity and the theoretical issues at stake:

On the nature of electrical charge (see especially towards the end):

http://milesmathis.com/charge.html

"I have shown that charge must have a mass equivalent. Charge is the summed mass of sub-particles that are impacting the objects being repulsed or attracted. The electrical force cannot be imparted by an abstract field or a mechanically undefined charge; it must be imparted by something capable of imparting force, and the only thing that is mechanically capable of this is mass or mass equivalence."

On Coulomb's equation:

http://milesmathis.com/coul.html

"when you get down to the groundwork mechanics, you find that you need the velocity in order to sum the force. To get the force, you have to know how many particles are hitting your object over some time interval. The density at a given volume won’t tell you that. But if you have a velocity and a density, you can calculate the force, since you then have a field strength. You have both the area of impact and the time of impact"

And also relevant is this paper on where the fine structure constant comes from and why it has the value it does: http://milesmathis.com/fine.html

This quotation from that paper might answer your question about the equation (but I'm not sure in part because I'm not sure where you're getting that equation from):

"Now let's look at the dimensions. I have a force; the standard model Coulomb reduces to kg/s or Ns/m. But remember that the standard model is not too picky about its dimensions. The cgs system is still used, and in that system charge was kg or Ns2/m. Yes, before SI, charge used to reduce to mass, although they never promoted that fact. So the dimension changes with the system. It changes again with my system, so that charge is a force, not a mass. I can change the dimensions without changing the number, because s/m reduces to one in my mechanics. Charge is the mass of the photon field, but a mass cannot give us a strength of interaction or a force by itself. You need a mass and a velocity, as I have shown elsewhere. This will give you a field strength, which will give you a force. Well, velocity is m/s. If you multiply s/m by m/s, you get one, and the field dimension reduces to N."

Here are other relevant papers:

On Maxwell's displacement current:

http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf

http://milesmathis.com/disp2.pdf

How to unify the constants G, k and alpha:

http://milesmathis.com/k.pdf

As a critic of quantum mechanics, you might enjoy this skewering of an article about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle:

http://milesmathis.com/hup.pdf

Oh, and I forgot to link you to these other two earlier papers of his on dark matter/energy:

http://milesmathis.com/lostmass.html

"To say it in the simplest possible way, the masses we have been measuring up to now have been unified field masses, coming out of Newton's unified field. But because we did not know Newton's field was a unified field, we did not know our masses were unified field masses. Because the unified field contains the sub-field of E/M, and because the sub-field of E/M is in vector opposition to the total field (causing it to be subtracted from the total), our current masses are deceiving. They are too small, and they are too small in the amount of the E/M field. To make the correction—to find the real mass—we have to add the E/M field to every mass in the universe. In other words, to make a correction to the total mass of the universe, we have to add the universal mass or mass equivalence of the entire E/M field. "

And here: http://milesmathis.com/mond.html