Units must be vectors, I think is the problem

Having eliminated the units of physics, and replaced them with the single unit of Things Counted, then I must acknowledge the vector. Things counted along an axis of symmetry

This issue came to me as I was wondering how to write the equations of gyro for the proton. It seemed simple, the mass of free nulls in the center of the proton simply wants to manipulate the cosh and sinh functions of the quark/qluon bpairs, so as to maximize the distribution of large and smaller bubbles around it. Then it occurred to me, most of the parameters are defined relative to one of six two dimensional angles from center, and three amplitudes.  It is the axis of symmetry, a subject I left long ago while trying to understand the scalar units of physics.

Then, your cosh and sinh functions will have something called, the packed nulls of the quarks treated as a unit along this axis of symmetry, for example.  Time becomes the relative number of samples to complete one sequence of adjustments to the equations. And the mass of the proton becomes the relative RMS deviation of the center of the proton from any distance out from center.

Like those physicists struggling with the muon atom. Their problem is all the units, since forever, have been defined in term of the standard electron atom.  So a lot of units get carried across as common units, for convenience, and everything is correct, relative to the electron atom and instruments made thereof. It is not relativity, it is physicist being damn good and doing things the vacuum never really tries to do.

Like getting an independent measure of magnetic permeability. Where you gonna go? You make magnetism using the proton. You go into space, you have free protons.  You are stuck.

So far, the only trustworthy unit of physics I have found is the number of leftover prime numbers. Take the prime that showed up in the proton/electron mass ratio. 108*17 = 1836.  The proton found that prime, how? Does it have an axis of symmetry for every prime?  Second, the mass definition hung around for all these years because the proton used just that prime, and physicists hung on to it, it was a stable measure of entropy.
I think the wave always makes opposing sinh and cosh, and gets another mode.
How did the proton find that prime?

Process of elimination, any other wave mode up in that region caused interference and the exchange rate exceeded the sample rate of light, the group broke down.  Eventually, a power series made of that unique prime was unused, and stable, it stuck. If you trace that prime thru the important constants of physics, you  will find it showing up in measurements related to that particular wave mode. I always look in the constants related to apparent sample rate when converting things to Shannon form. Of the 91 = 7 * 13, I expect either 7 or 11 devoted to the quark/gluon; and the other devoted to W,K bosons.
When I get time, I would look for combinations that make up the 377, space impedance, and see if 17 shows up. I look to see if a constant has volume, area, linear; what was the axis of symmetry, then I factor out units of Pi, often, then compare with wave and null quant on my spectral chart. Is it a huge number? I convert to one of my quant ratios to an exponent.  Little tricks of counting things up.

Consider the gluons again.  What is the precision of the proton? How many twos digits. I know the whatever happens in the center of the proton has to meet that precision, I have two primes.  Limited choices. But are the primes cubed , squared, or linear?  I assume 7 is devoted to the center gyro motions, because 13 times and other of the axii of symmetry will break light.  So, 13 is likely for matching quark packed nulls.

But wait! Wasn't 13 for W and K bosons? Maybe, a uniqu channel, I dunno.  Where on my chart is the boundary for the proton that begin the orbitals? Dunno, I just found out about mass. and so on.

Then  root of 5? That should not show up anywhere, except when the physicist is doing a Taylor series expansion, then I look.  I find it in the  GR equations. I always look above the proton in my chart, sometimes we get left overs, things that don't happen, probably don't happen right on the best spot above the proton integer.

Here is another big trick I use. Planck finds whole numbers, Einstein finds fractions. That one has gotten me out of jams many times. Anything with Lorentz and dialtion, stay away, you end up cancelling time like eight times.

Avagadros number. Its  a Shannon match, 2^79. So I go look on my spectral chart, converting that to mass or wave. I find spots where there is a very close match, usually 4*108 and 4*91, how far away am I? OK, 2^4, I know I should be looking around 2^20 or so, I go look there. But, I get to use 4 digits of proton precision!, do not forget. I know that number will end up matching the average distance of the electron orbital, so I keep it in that back of my mind. Eventually it will come. Likely I am going to find the distance from the top of the proton to the edge of the electrons a Shannon match, likely (3/2)^36, but I haven't checked.

Another trick. Power series of power series come out as minimal spanning trees.  The digits, in total, should be log(N), N being the height. When at minimal spanning tree, then you can bet the quants do not interfere at the constant exchange rate. Every thing the vacuum does should be a hyperbolic function. The vacuum never subtracts.

Yet another trick. When you see a measured constant, say 123.12345...; then check the precision of that with the precision of the proton.

Last but not least.  My wave number, 91, at the top is correct, but it may have a factor of two in the, 2*91. So beware, you may have more room to play.

I mean, you have limited choices, its a process of elimination.

Until we have axis of symmetry, no units.